Could Sotomayor be a closet conservative?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

This is an example of how you can completely change the context and meaning through selective quoting. Here is a more complete quote:Something completely different.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

(Which is not to take a position on whether or not the presence of an African-American on the court would have influenced Taney’s opinion.)

Err…he was making his case by arguing that in the past African Americans were viewed as inferior thus they were not (then) able to claim any rights.

Can’t believe you are defending what is probably viewed as the worst decision ever handed down by the SCOTUS and is deemed a blight on this country to this day.

And the question remains, do you think Taney might have benefited from the presence of the likes of Thomas or Marshall?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Whack-a-Mole

Err…he was making his case by arguing that in the past African Americans were viewed as inferior thus they were not (then) able to claim any rights.

He said the framers of the constitution held these attitudes, hence the words and meaning of the constitution need to be understood in that light.

Can’t believe you are defending what is probably viewed as the worst decision ever handed down by the SCOTUS and is deemed a blight on this country to this day.

I’m absolutely not defending it. It might well be the single stupidest and worst decision ever written, for all I know (or care).

All I said, and continue to say, is that your selective quoting of the decision was highly misleading. However bad the decision was, the particular part that you quoted was a historical assertion about other people’s attitudes, not Taney’s opinion.

No doubt you have a strong case to make against this decision, but you should be able to make it without highly misleading and out of context quotes.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

All I said, and continue to say, is that your selective quoting of the decision was highly misleading. However bad the decision was, the particular part that you quoted was a historical assertion about other people’s attitudes, not Taney’s opinion.

It was an opinion Taney clearly agreed with. He was using it to support his conclusions in the case (notably ignoring compelling arguments to the contrary). As such the quote is not misleading.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Whack-a-Mole

It was an opinion Taney clearly agreed with.

Actually it’s an opinion that he clearly did not agree with. As he himself wrote “It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion …”.

IOW, “it’s hard to believe but people actually used to think …”

He was using it to support his conclusions in the case (notably ignoring compelling arguments to the contrary).

He seems to have been an “original intent” guy. As he himself wrote (in the decision):

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

[Captain_Carrot]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Having read the entire speech, ISTM in context that she is in fact claiming that women and minorities make better judges overall, and not just WRT specific issues.

It might be that she only thinks they’re better WRT these specific issues, but it doesn’t appear that she thinks these issues are counterbalanced by other issues on which white men might be better.

She was talking about discrimination, and concluding that she thinks non-white-males are better judges in general from that speech is absurd. She’s not talking about other issues about which white males might be better judges, because those aren’t the subject of her speech.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Captain_Carrot

She was talking about discrimination, and concluding that she thinks non-white-males are better judges in general from that speech is absurd. She’s not talking about other issues about which white males might be better judges, because those aren’t the subject of her speech.

There’s nothing in her speech to suggest that. In her own words:

The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench.

Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law.

Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases.

There’s nothing at all to suggest that her speech was narrowly addressed to discrimination issues specifically - it was about the general impact of Latinos and women (of which discrimination issues are an obvious - but not exclusive - example).

[DSYoungEsq]

The fact that her speech in general was not focused on discrimination does not mean that the quote you focused on originally (the bit about the wise old white male judge) was not focused on discrimination. It was.