Linky?
What comments or rulings are we talking about, this is the first I have heard of them. The only controversy I have heard about is whether or not she’s the first “Hispanis” to be nominated.:rolleyes:
Here you go
Hispanis ensues.
The repubs got their underwear twisted because she does not represent the wealthy class and may actually have empathy with the poor. That can not be allowed. Roberts of course has voted against the small people 100 percent. His bias is for the powerful. That is OK. An understanding of the lower classes is just wrong.
Look, people, white men ALWAYS know best; they are the only people who are able to simultaneously recognize both that other people have their judgment clouded by their ovaries or their skin color and that at the same time only white men themselves are the ones who are able to reach a completely objective understanding of the law.
If a group of nine black people had decided Plessy v. Ferguson differently from how nine white men actually did, well, bully for them. They just don’t understand the complexities of equal protection the same way white people do.
"I’m sorry to return to the point, Judge Sotomayor, but that is not responsive.
You said that judges’ backgrounds cause them to choose which facts they see, and that this affects their judgment. Please cite some of the facts that you chose not to see in some of your previous cases, and how it affected your rulings."
Regards,
Shodan
To which the response is:
“The very nature of legal analysis involves a determination of the relevancy of facts, and the light in which such facts are viewed. A person who does not recognize that is a person who should not be a judge. What makesa good judge is one who recognizes this, and bears it in mind when making decisions. To ask for specific examples from past cases is to miss the point; the process is not a conscious one, but one instead determined by one’s experiences, as I have said before, and as you have studiously ignored. A good judge recognizes that his or her experiences impact his or her decisions, and does not hide from that behind an unrealistic veil of ignorance. If what you require, Senator, is for me to reanalyze every case I have decided, and tell you how the facts would have been viewed differently by a white male, born into wealth and privilege, I will tell you that it is not possible for me to view a case in that manner. If this answer leads you to think I am not worthy of sitting on the Supreme Court, then so be it. That such would be your answer certainly leaves me with the impression, not for the first time, that you are wholly unworthy of sitting as a representative of this great and culturally diverse nation in the senate.”
With all due respect Senator, you seem ignorant of the meaning of the words coming out of your own mouth. Could you please cite for me the facts that personal bias has caused you to overlook? In other words, your smarmy effort to reframe my point as if I was suggesting that I would intentionally set aside some facts such that I would be aware and cognizant of doing so is pathetic and weak, better suited for some right-wing crank on a message board somewhere than for a sitting Senator.
However, I will say this:*
“Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
*Actual Sotomayor quote in conclusion from the speech that Shodan is taking out of context.
"We are not here, Judge, to determine my qualifications for sitting on the Senate, but yours for sitting on the Supreme Court. The fact that you either cannot, or choose not to respond to questions about your qualifications leads me to believe that you lack the temperament, or perhaps the willingness, to be objective.
We live in a nation of laws, not men. For you first to suggest, and then fail to reasonably defend, that judges ought to disregard facts in cases they decide, seems to indicate that you appear to believe that the ‘advise and consent’ clause in our great Constitution is, or should be, only a formality in race-based cases. I find this as unfortunate as it is misguided."
Regards,
Shodan
“It may indeed be, Senator Shodan, that I have not seen some facts as a consequence of my background; I can be conscious of the fact that I may have missed some relevant facts and be on guard that such omissions may indeed occur, no doubt have occured, and will again occur - can believe and do believe that we judges must be constantly aware of the possibility of such omissions, but I cannot tell you that which I have missed. I can, on the hand sir, tell you some of the facts that I have chosen to see that others have missed, that I have seen because I am looking at the same set of facts from a different vantage point. The hope is that as a Court our shared perspective will grant us a greater ability to see a whole elephant. Those cases include [a fifteen minute dissertation of examples in which her perspective was different than the lower court judges perspective arguably influenced by her personal perspective follows]”
Senator Dumbass, I think we can all see your qualifications or lack thereof as a Senator. Apparently you weren’t listening, so I will in turn ask you to cite any place that I have ever claimed to have disregarded a fact. If you cannot, I invite you to … [15 minute dissertation on the acts that the ungood Senator might be suggested to partake of].
In seriousness, her own words from the same speech make clear to anyone without a blind partisan agenda what her point was, and it wasn’t to suggest that she has wilfully disregarded any facts. It was a clear acknowledgement that the humanity of judges, all judges, will cause them to see things differently from one another. I hope that Senator Dumbass pursues a stupid question like that, because it will only accord with the sickeningly stupid attack efforts the Republicans have mounted to this point.
Why don’t you first quit disregarding the fact that nobody has suggested that judges “ought to” disregard facts. The reality is that they do, they all do, black, white, hispanic, man and woman, they ALL judge the same facts a bit differently depending on their personal life experience. The idea that any two “wise” judges will always come to the same conclusion after hearing the same arguments is nonsense, you and I and everyone else knows that.
You know, I figuered that quote was out of context. It so often is in these cases, and likely why the OP didn’t want us to bother with the facts.
Indeed.
OTOH, I do expect a prolonged discussion that will flesh out her views on affirmative action and her perceptions of the advantages of diversity. Her statement is in fact very informative of her position and may lead to some interesting conversations on her road to confirmation.
That’s already been cited.
Apparently, Judge, you cannot bear anything but softball questions. Accordingly, I suspect, as mentioned, that you lack the emotional maturity to hold so responsible a position as Supreme Court Justice.
What evidence can you supply to show that you would not resort to this kind of shrewish screaming in open court?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, please let someone say that!
This is rather illuminating, but I’m really after education of the Obama side of this.
Huh?
What Obama side of this? It would politically insane for any President to withdraw the nomination at this point. Even if we agree to your premise (which I don’t think anyone here does with the possible exception of Shodan) it makes the President look incredibly weak and amateurish to withdraw the nomination. The only possible upside would be to seek favor from people who are already predisposed against him and unlikely to be swayed by this act.
So there’s almost no upside and lots of downside. That’s before you address the fact that the premise is incorrect.
Okay… to paraphrase Eddie Murphy doing an impersonation of Ralph Cramden, “Hey Quartz! Start educatin’.”