Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Sh*t like what? Sh*t like the potential newest U.S. Supreme Court Justice very candidly and publicly believing that being Latina puts her in a better position to be a competant judge at the highest level.
John Adams Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 Sh*t like the potential newest U.S. Supreme Court Justice very candidly and publicly believing that being Latina puts her in a better position to be a competant judge at the highest level. Here are the immediate remarks following the quote that you find so dire. Her point, and it seems valid, is that on issues of race or sex, she would have a different POV that could lend itself to seeing the better result. 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.However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
K-9 Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 [/quote]QUOTE 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.However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.[quote] She gets it. It is impossible to seperate yourself from your biases. The best we can do is be aware of them and how they might affect our decisions. And as she candidly admits, she doesn't yet know what differences her viewpoints, shaped by her experiences, will have in her judging. How can you not appreciate that type of honest self-assessment? Her thinking IS going to be different than Souter's. Her opinions WILL be different than Scalia's. Her judgements ARE created by differrent views than Thomas's. Can anyone on this planet claim otherwise that they're opinions on things AREN'T shaped by how they view the world and that viewpoint is directly related to how past experiences shaped it?
Kelly the Dog Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 [/quote]QUOTE 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.However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.[quote] She gets it. It is impossible to seperate yourself from your biases. The best we can do is be aware of them and how they might affect our decisions. And as she candidly admits, she doesn't yet know what differences her viewpoints, shaped by her experiences, will have in her judging. How can you not appreciate that type of honest self-assessment? Her thinking IS going to be different than Souter's. Her opinions WILL be different than Scalia's. Her judgements ARE created by differrent views than Thomas's. Can anyone on this planet claim otherwise that they're opinions on things AREN'T shaped by how they view the world and that viewpoint is directly related to how past experiences shaped it? Nonsense. Judges at that level have no biases and ideologies and there is no difference in gender or race or background or experience, they only interpret the constitution and law as it is, fairly. And the only way you ever possibly predict which way they will eventually judge is the fact that it will always, ultimately be the right and just decision, the one most conservative.
SDS Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 The idea that they would arbitrarily just assign a numeric number to their percentage of being human is downright laughable. laughable or brilliant? Slavery was already the order of the day and those slaves weren't going to have a free vote regardless of what percentage they were counted. The real effect at the time was to diminish the voting power of slave owners who were going to cast the ballots for their slaves anyway. So, what would have been better - being counted as a full person and give a larger share of the political power to your captors or being counted as less and have the political powers of your owners greatly diminished (and thus, one could argue, hasten the end of slavery)?
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Nonsense. Judges at that level have no biases and ideologies and there is no difference in gender or race or background or experience, they only interpret the constitution and law as it is, fairly. And the only way you ever possibly predict which way they will eventually judge is the fact that it will always, ultimately be the right and just decision, the one most conservative. Actually, surprisingly few have biases on the bench. As a judge, you're supposed to rule impartially on the merits of the law itself, not the case in front of you. And while personal bias does play a role in interpretation of the law, it's a really stupid judge that thinks their bias in interpretation supercedes decades and centuries of case law preceeding them. A few do (Justice Kennedy springs most immediately to mind, with his "I'm going to overturn four hundred years of precedent and redefine habeas corpus because it makes me feel good" nonsense). Sotomayor does not appear to be one of them, based on the opinions I've seen from her.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Actually, surprisingly few have biases on the bench. As a judge, you're supposed to rule impartially on the merits of the law itself, not the case in front of you. And while personal bias does play a role in interpretation of the law, it's a really stupid judge that thinks their bias in interpretation supercedes decades and centuries of case law preceeding them. A few do (Justice Kennedy springs most immediately to mind, with his "I'm going to overturn four hundred years of precedent and redefine habeas corpus because it makes me feel good" nonsense). Sotomayor does not appear to be one of them, based on the opinions I've seen from her. I believe all of the good ones attempt to do not let any of that influence that, from all different backgrounds and genders and experiences and ideologies. And I also believe there are a majority of cases that it's relatively easy to divorce yourself from it. But the thought process, as well as the opinion, and eventual ruling will be influenced by your background on a number of cases where it isn't so cut and dry. It's impossible not to. I don't think any of them actually believe it supercedes, even in the Kennedy case above.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 She's not left wacko? What do you call the belief that judges should make policy? Who helped her career? She was nominated to federal bench by George H W Bush in 1991. So I guess Bush Senior was a Liberal lover. Too bad the son turned out so different.
blzrul Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 She's not left wacko? What do you call the belief that judges should make policy? This query belongs on the knuckle-dragger thread, can't you read?
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 This query belongs on the knuckle-dragger thread, can't you read? OT, but in all seriousness, why the hell are you so angry all the time?
Taro T Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 End of discussion. I fear the right will bust their nuts to mess with this, if for no other reason than to pay back the left for their past idiocies, but I remain at least slightly hopeful that they collectively understand they have little to say on this matter. Make a few statements against the pick, let some nutjob scream real loud, but let everyone else focus at the larger issues at hand. This is a fight that, if the right gets stupid, can take a lot of effort with little or no chance of winning. Kinda like challenging a ref's call with three minutes left in a game you're already losing by 40. I expect that she will get confirmed w/ a margin of something on the order of 80/20. I'm sure the hearing will get contentious, but no where near the level of Thomas' hearing. Though I doubt I will agree w/ her decisions very often when the court is split, I agree w/ you that Obama won and he should get his nominee confirmed provided she isn't a true wacko. From the bits I have read of her, she isn't a wacko.
John Adams Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 Yeah, she will get the joy of public scrutiny for the next few months but barring a real skeleton (of which so far there are none), she will make it through.
AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Yeah, she will get the joy of public scrutiny for the next few months but barring a real skeleton (of which so far there are none), she will make it through. You should close this thread. I broke the Sotomayor nomination 35 minutes before you did and it's clear that the board prefers my thread over yours.
Magox Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I expect that she will get confirmed w/ a margin of something on the order of 80/20. I'm sure the hearing will get contentious, but no where near the level of Thomas' hearing. Though I doubt I will agree w/ her decisions very often when the court is split, I agree w/ you that Obama won and he should get his nominee confirmed provided she isn't a true wacko. From the bits I have read of her, she isn't a wacko. She's not a whacko thats for sure, but i doubt that she will get 80 votes. Obama is a master politician, and this vote to me was all about scoring political points. She's a Latino woman, how can you chastize this pick without getting torched? The conservatives are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Since Latino's are moving aggressively to the left it would be pretty unpopular for the conservatives to attack her. Of course if they just let it slide by, then the core conservative base will be turned off. My guess is that they will question her rulings, and hope that it gains some traction, just enough to appease the base and successfully raise money through contributions with the full intention of her getting confirmed.
John Adams Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 You should close this thread. I broke the Sotomayor nomination 35 minutes before you did and it's clear that the board prefers my thread over yours. I love you long time.
Max Fischer Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001 http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/...090523_2724.php Can you please explain the context of the speech? I wouldn't think you like to simply give the impression that Sotomayor was suggesting that Latina women are right and white males are wrong but that this statement, like most plucked out of a long speech, is a bit more nuanced.
DC Tom Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Obama is a master politician, and this vote to me was all about scoring political points. She's a Latino woman, how can you chastize this pick without getting torched? The conservatives are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Since Latino's are moving aggressively to the left it would be pretty unpopular for the conservatives to attack her. Of course if they just let it slide by, then the core conservative base will be turned off. That's one of the things that truly bugs me about the news coverage: she's prety obviously a qualified candidate...but everyone seems to be boiling her nomination down to "She's the first Hispanic woman to be nominated!" SO WHAT???? Nobody cared this much when Colin Powell was the first black Secretary of State, or John Ashcroft the first mentally ill person to be Attorney General...
John Adams Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 That's one of the things that truly bugs me about the news coverage: she's prety obviously a qualified candidate...but everyone seems to be boiling her nomination down to "She's the first Hispanic woman to be nominated!" SO WHAT???? Nobody cared this much when Colin Powell was the first black Secretary of State, or John Ashcroft the first mentally ill person to be Attorney General... Who'd you do: Ashcroft or Reno?
Recommended Posts