That’s true - she could have been lying.
Regards,
Shodan
I guess you’re incapable of even separating your premises from your conclusions, much less examining their truth. Good luck with that.
Who says it’s a good thing? My point is that it is entirely ridiculous to believe that white male judges do not allow their personal experiences to affect the judgments they make, and the facts they rely on to make those judgments. People with different backgrounds and different life experiences make different choices when faced with identical “facts”. If they didn’t, then SCOTUS decisions would all be unanimous, and always agree with lower court decisions.
No, I meant she could have been lying when she said this -
Maybe she doesn’t accept her limitations, or maybe she doesn’t choose not to see facts that conflict with her background.
That’s why I suggest asking her about it during her confirmation hearings.
“Judge Sotomayor, you mentioned that judges choose which facts to see based on their racial background, and that this affects their judgments. Could you give a few examples of facts that you ignored in some of your previous cases, and how it affected the outcome and your decisions?”
Regards,
Shodan
Wait a minute, we can make baseless assertions and then define them as not discussable?
Depending on your racial background, you may be allowed to ignore them.
Regards,
Shodan
Ok, let’s take that quote. But for shits, let’s take the whole quote in context:
From that quote, you conclude that Sotomayor will choose some facts to ignore based on her racial background. What’s more, you don’t even think you’re inferring anything. You seem to believe she’s basically stated as much in her language. That about it?
Let me see if I follow the logic correctly. When someone who is not white nominates someone who is not white, the nomination is clearly for reasons having nothing to do with the nominee’s qualifications. In fact, the nominee by definition does not have the necessary qualifications, only the “correct” race and gender.
So, when white males nominate white males, that’s the only time we can be assured that the nominees possess the correct qualifications. Any other time, we cannot trust the motivations of the nominators, and the qualifications of the nominee are suspect.
Did I get that tortured logic right?
Or your political one, apparently.
No, you forgot one part. Conservative white males can nominate black males, because they aren’t chosing based on race, they are chosing based on qualifications.
If there was a black person senior in the GOP to make such nominating decisions, his choices would also be above reproach. It’s conservatism that makes people smart enough to make the right choice. Dumb liberals can’t pick on anything other than external characteristics.
So if Sotomayor was to say something like:
You would find her unsuitable for the Supreme Court?
Ummmmm, OK, is that Glen Beck and the Tancredo who is “allabout” keeping those masty Messicans out of Amurrica?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Those two are the last people (and I use the term loosely) who should be lecturing anyone about racism, prejudice, or bigotry.
Won’t someone (anyone) just grow a backbone and tell them to STFU? Why do people have to cater to them and pretend they are some sort of great thinkers?
David Duke, everyone’s favorite Nazi?
Ooooohhhh this is getting better and better.
Do previous life experiences create a filter through which a judge perceives the facts in any particular case?
Yes, of course, and I’ve already provided the quote that shows how much Judge Alito concurs with that POV. As has Fear Itself.
Given that, is it better to have a judge be explicitly conscious that his or her judgment may be biased by their personal history and explicitly trying to evaluate the appropriateness of those biases, or better that a judge deny that such experiences influence them or have any potential to negatively affect their impartiality?
Is it better to have all the judges have one set of filter resultant of a common sort of background, or to have judges who perceive the same sets of facts through the filters of different sorts of life experiences?
I would agree with Judge Alito that life experiences effect how one interprets cases presented to a judge. I have greater respect for Judge Sotomayor’s recognition that one needs to be conscious of such potential influences and their effects:
Is she right that a wise experienced Latina will, because of her life experiences, bring a different perspective to a court than another white male? Yes. Better? No. That was indeed unfortunately phrased. Not better, not worse. But the court will be the better for having the different sets of eyes seeing things from another POV and sharing that in an open discussion of ideas.
Will she be asked about this in her confirmation hearings? Oh yeah. And she will be asked to give examples of how her filter has effected her past rulings. And she will be well prepared to answer the question.
Sorry - it wasn’t meant to be an implication that Duke had commented on the nomination. Just that providing reassurance to those who are concerned isn’t always a good thing, especially if the concerns are based on stupid, bigotted grounds.
I cast around my mind for an example of stereotypical racism, and good ol’ David came up. From reading this thread it appears I could have used a lot of different examples.
He should withdraw her nomination and nominate a Hispanic Lesbian Athiest Woman instead.
Of course there is no reason to withdraw the nomination and she will be confirmed no problem.
They’re being discussed in the other thread, okay?
You opened the door, counselor. We’re coming in.
It’s nice that our Vulcan friend Shodan makes decisions based on all the evidence unaffected by his environment and background. He has no limitations, obviously.I wonder if he thinks that he alone is immune from psychological reality, or if he thinks all white conservatives share his superior talent.
No. Not okay.
If you want to set up a hypothetical discussion of a nominee who actually is found to have made a racist comments and how a President would be affected by withdrawing the nominee, fine. But you cannot define discussion as accepting a spurious allegation as fact as a prerequisite for discussion. Such a request will not only not be accepted, it will be mocked.