It is reported that Obama selcted Sotomayor to replace Souter. Do you think her confirmation will encunter any insurmountable hurdles? What will who cry about the loudest?
Personally, I was really hopin got get Diane Wood off of the 7th Circuit…
Interesting that he picked a Latina. I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion in most cases than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.
I suspect that she will get questioned about that remark. Still, I think there’s room in that speech for her to say that she was talking in the context of discrimination law or some such. Certainy, I can’t imagine any serious obstacles to confirmation.
What remark? I don’t see anything in your link that looks at all controversial. I don’t see anything remotely akin to what furt is implying.
She’ll sail. It’s not going to be possible for Obama to appoint any kind of ethnic minority that the right wing echo chamber won’t accuse of hating Whitey. Let them snivel. They don’t have the numbers to do anything about it.
Of course, as always, the only thing anyone is REALLY going to care about is her perceived position on Roe.
This is essentially the beginning and end of the answer. The Democrats have the votes. Nothing else matters when the vote rolls around.
Here, in full context, I have bolded the quote referred to. The text is excerpted from the speech in question. If you click the “more” option in the volokh.com link, you can see it published there.
I believe the second paragraph puts the comment in its proper context.
Here’s the offensive line:
So much for racial or sexual equality. The law is supposed to be blind as to sex or colour or any other discriminating factor. All are supposed to be equal before the law. Do you really want a bigot on your Supreme Court?
I suspect she’ll sail through. Her education is top notch, her background is clean, and she’s considered a moderate. This’ll make something like six or seven Catholics on the SC.
The first hispanic on the Supreme Court will be a New York Puerto Rican, hardly representative of the average Hispanic-American.
P.S. The right-wing talkers have chosen their buzzword already - empathy. Expect to see and hear that a lot. We’re already seing it hinted at here.
Judging people of the present by the people of the past isn’t on. Perhaps she should be judged by her Hispanic forebears?
OK, I read the transcript of the whole speech, and the passage in question is being taken out of context and distorted. She wasn’t saying that any Latina woman would render a better decision than any white male. She was saying – hypothetically – that a white male who had not had certain experiences, would not necessarily have the same “wisdom” as a Latina woman who had. She wasn’t speaking in absolutes, and she wasn’t speaking in terms of race or gender per se, but in terms of life experience. It was all in reference to a statement attributed to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that “wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” Sotomayor was saying that wasn’t necessarily true if the life experiences were different.
Of course context and true intent will not matter a whit. The right now has all the ammunition they need to paint her as a raving, Whitey hating racist. I can’t wait to hear all the indignant, sanctimonious sermons on tolerance we’re about to get from Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.
I fail to see anything offensive or bigoted in that line. It says nothing about equality.
She’s too qualified and the Congress is too democratic for her not to be confirmed, barring a committee filibuster from rejected-for-being-racist Sessions. But I really hope the Republicans spend political capital fighting that losing battle.
6 Catholics, 2 Jews, and one token Protestant. Once again, my WASP brethren are left in the cold…
She will get questioned about her comment during confirmation hearings - and I am sure that she will have a well rehearsed, nuanced answer prepared. Unless something really bad pops up, I don’t see this being too much trouble. The Dems have the votes, and Obama would have had to put up someone really out there for a couple of Southern Democrats to vote against it.
Who is she judging in the present?
Read this part again:
“I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.”
That pretty much undermines everything you’re trying to allege about her attitude.
It points to a problem with this “empathy” standard though - sometimes a particularly nasty individual or corporation in a case deserves to win based on the facts at hand and the law in question, even over an appealing individual. Applying empathy here would be misguided, wouldn’t it? And yet we have seen time and time again where justice was perverted because an empathy standard was applied over a legal one.
I hope this is hammered out in hearings - it needs to be.
Funny how there’s no more hateful and poisonous word or concept in Christian political right culture than “empathy.”
You misunderstand the concept. When Obama refers to empathy, he’s talking about a couple of different things but ruling based on a personal sense of justice without regard to the law, as you suggest, is not one of them. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the litigants shoes because you have the requisite life experience to do so. It is often a necessary mental exercise in order to know how to apply the law to a given set of facts.
No it doesn’t. “Empathy” was Obama’s word, not hers. She doesn’t have to answer for it. It’s a stupid thing to seize on anyway.
This is disingenuous at best, blatant intentional distortion of what she was saying at its worst. She is saying that it doesn’t matter what your race or sex, you have the capability of reaching good determinations. In the first excerpted paragraph, she disputes Justice O’Connor’s purported quote by noting two things: “wise” doesn’t necessarily mean able to reach good decisions, and that even among truly “wise” people, someone who has experienced the subject under discussion before the court will have a better perspective than someone who has not had that experience. In the second paragraph she goes on to clarify that this doesn’t mean that old, “white” men can’t reach good decisions; indeed, on many occasions they have done so.
In other words, having a Supreme Court of old white men doesn’t mean you are getting good decisions, nor does it mean you are getting bad decisions. It depends upon who the people are. But certainly, someone who has lived a life where they are discriminated against because of race or gender is more likely to comprehend the ramifications of a possible decision on an issue of discrimination. Etc.