TWEET
Foul on ArchiveGuy for looking at Sotomayor’s actual judicial record.
You think the NAACP is an organization that represents white people? Lets break down the letters: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Whoosh!!!
As did my reference to Marino v. Ortiz. This was a trial sponsored by a Latino group versus a race neutral legal support group.
Hmmm. 1 case…100 cases…1 case…100 cases…1 case…100 cases…
You’re position is that it’s OK to represent a particular group (as a personal mission) and still be neutral as a SC judge.
Latino advocacy group, Latino advocacy group, Latino advocacy group… insert comment about Latino women on the SC versus white men here.
By your characterization, if a judge had been a past member of, say, the NAACP (“a racially motivated advocacy group”), that would preclude them from ever being eligible from SCOTUS service because of an inherent, intrinsic bias. As a notion, that is simply idiotic.
One can have a pet cause, devoted pasttime, or favorite charity and still impose a sense of neutrality on those issues when assuming ones responsibility on the bench. Plenty of judges do it, and you have yet to demonstrate (beyond marginal anecdotes, cherry-picked dissents, and out-of-context quotations) that Sotomayor is any different.
yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Having an an inherent, intrinsic bias is not a quality for a Supreme Court Judge.
Maybe we need to recruit justices from the Neutral Planet.
I had a scathing rebuttal all typed up…
Got me.
But being a part of an advocacy group doesn’t automatically equate an inherent, intrinsic bias–no more so than having a religious affiliation or being registered with a political party does. Your assumption that anyone with passions can’t also be objective when necessary is specious and untenable.
Then I assume you were opposed to the appointments of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, all past members of the Federalist Society (a conservative legal advocacy group).
Or is it only when skin color’s involved that “advocacy”-associations becomes a deal-breaker?
False. Martino v Ortiz was not undertaken while she was a jurist in any capacity. She was a lawyer at the time, not a judge.
He knows this–but the mere whiff of association with a Latino Advocacy Group (booga-booga-booga)* puts the permanent prejudicial stink on her, even while doing (gulp) her job! :eek: Isn’t it obvious?
*At least we now know who it is that the righties tell their kids are hiding under their beds at night.
I never said she was a jurist. I said she was a prosecuter who was on the board that pushed the lawsuit in the first place (post 238).
what you have is a Judge from a Latino advocacy group making statements that she thinks a Latino women would make better decisions then a white man. Combine that with a mindset that the court of appeals is where policy is made and that bias becomes law.
And yet you continue to ignore the fact that, in an 11-year career with dozens upon dozens of decisions with race-related components to them, no evidence of a recurring bias can be found.
But I guess you alleging it is enough, eh?
I don’t think you understand what a Federalist is. They believe in judicial restraint and not legislation from the bench:
The Society looks to Federalist Paper Number 78[3] for an articulation of the virtue of judicial restraint, as written by Alexander Hamilton: "It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature…
If she were a Federalist and stood up for the little guy I would be behind her. Her actions and statements, made in full view of the public, suggest otherwise.
I don’t know what makes you think this is appropriate but I don’t appreciate racial cheap shots.
Including her tenure as a district court judge, a bit shy of 17 years, actually.
So you oppose Roberts?