SC Nominee - Toobin: Sotomayor will be voice for moderate liberalism

SC Nominee - Toobin: Sotomayor will be voice for moderate liberalism

amfix.blogs.cnn.com

Well, if the president was going to pick a judge, it seemed very likely that Sotomayor was going to be the one. She is a very eminent judge. She would be the first Hispanic judge. She brings a certain bipartisan aura because she was originally appointed to the federal district court by the first President Bush.

I can’t imagine any problems with confirmation. She has been a very distinguished judge for now pushing 20 years. Certainly there may be decisions that people disagree with, but there have been no ethical controversies involving her, no scandals.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is what Obama has been doing that I continue to like. Obama continues to show that he is a moderate, and that is what we need.

So is she a moderate? In a lecture at UC Berkley in 2001 she made this comment, which is what conservatives are concentrating on.

abcnews.go.com...

"a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Personally, I am leery of reverse discrimination as it is often called, so what does she mean by this comment? It would be hard to call her a moderate if she thinks being a Latin woman makes her a better judge than a white male.

Her explanation for her remark at the lecture.

"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," Sotomayor said in 2001. "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."

What it sounds like she is getting at, is a Latin woman who grew up in the projects would have a very different perspective, and therefore have a different view than a white male would have. Even the first quote sounds like this is what she is trying to say, but she doesn't say it in a very effective manner, and it sounds racist.

Here is another situation that doesn't sound very acceptable.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

In Ricci v. DeStafano, for example, Sotomayor decided that the city government of New Haven, Connecticut, can discriminate in the promotion of firefighters on the basis of race in order to achieve a politically correct result.

Having been discriminated against as a white male, many times, I don't think these types of policies should be allowed. I have seen companies here in the U.S. where they would hire anyone but a white male born in the U.S., and nobody does a thing about this type of discrimination, and it should be stopped.

So is she a moderate.


amfix.blogs.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Ron Paul on Sotomayor



So just good PR is good for the country?

I don't believe she is the worse for the job
But at the same time...... The person and the role are two seperate things to look at.. aren't they?

Is that all they are going to concentrate on, her being hispanic and not her actual role/.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ModernAcademia]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I think her being a Hispanic woman is a good thing, and helps to bring balance to the SC, but not if she holds racist attitudes towards white males. There is a huge difference between these two points.

I think this is something that needs to be addressed in the Senate confirmation. Reverse racism is racism, and it is should not be tolerated, and it should not be acceptable in a SC nominee.

reply to post by poet1b

In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano Sotomayor voted to uphold a law that was already in place. She went on precedent. Not a very radical decision at all.

Of course it's true that women and people who have had different backgrounds and experiences from the average white male may bring a different perspective on many issues. That's all she was saying.

Too many white men won't be happy unless all women and minorities think and act like white men in all circumstances. IMO they are paranoid that the kind of discrimination they have practiced against others will be practiced against them.

If Sotomayor were a white man nobody would assume she was a racist (or reverse racist) unless there was concrete proof, and a lot of it. She should be accorded the same benefit of the doubt.

reply to post by Sestias


I don't care if she was so poor she had to live in the sewers of New York City.

The law is the law. Personel expireance plays no role in how a judge should rule their court. If she is a great judge then she should get the job. If she is not a great judge then she doesn't get the job. That should be all that determines her qualification.

I don't think she should be granted the seat at the US Supreme Court simply because the only reason she was nominated was because she is a woman and Latino.

Its a political strategy, her name will come up again by the Democrats in the 2012 elections.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Sestias

 

I don't care if she was so poor she had to live in the sewers of New York City.

The law is the law. Personel expireance plays no role in how a judge should rule their court. If she is a great judge then she should get the job. If she is not a great judge then she doesn't get the job. That should be all that determines her qualification.

I don't think she should be granted the seat at the US Supreme Court simply because the only reason she was nominated was because she is a woman and Latino.

Its a political strategy, her name will come up again by the Democrats in the 2012 elections.

She should not be the voice for moderate liberalism. As a judge she should be the voice of the constitution.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


Thats what I pretty much said. Just not in those words.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


Ah, but the job of a SCJ is to interpret the constitution, and set precedence for the law. It is a very powerful position, and therefore it is only right that she should be given considerable vetting. Considering how long a SCJ sits on the bench, I think an appointment of a SCJ deserves every bit as much attention as the election of a U.S. president. Why should this time be any different.

The republicans have brought their arguments forth, they should be addressed. This is only natural. She has also been accused of judicial activism, and it seems that clearly she has strong opinions. IMO she should have strong opinions, well developed ideas about the U.S. Constitution, and what it means. As much as it would be nice to think that SCJ's don't bring their political beliefs to the table, they of course do in their interpretation of the constitution, which is why this is such a big deal.

reply to post by Sestias

Too many white men won't be happy unless all women and minorities think and act like white men in all circumstances.

Well, I wouldn't go that far in claiming white males want all people to agree with them in all circumstances, but like everyone else, all other demographics, they like to think they are the voice of reason in this world.

IMO they are paranoid that the kind of discrimination they have practiced against others will be practiced against them.

Not all white men practice discrimination, and as a group, they have done plenty to fight against discrimination. Most white men don't suffer from some white man guilt about how badly they have treated the rest of the world, because white men have done a lot of good things in this world that they have a right to be proud about, and there is no reason for them to feel that way. All groups, all demographics practice, and have practiced, their fair share of discrimination and oppression. These types of behavior cross all races and demographics.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


The private sector controls the money supply, and the private sector created this problem on their own, coming to the government begging to be bailed out. The government has a very legitimate reason to regulate the investment industry to prevent fraud. Ron Paul seems to want to pretend things have just gotten scary, ignoring the major problems created in the markets by foolish and often fraudulent business practices in the public sector.

The free market does not exist, and Ron Paul's faith in this imaginary market existence is way off base. Markets require an evenly enforced fair set of rules, and the SC has a very important role in interpreting the constitutions role in determining how these very important rules should be interpreted.

Originally posted by jd140


I don't care if she was so poor she had to live in the sewers of New York City.

The law is the law. Personel expireance plays no role in how a judge should rule their court. If she is a great judge then she should get the job. If she is not a great judge then she doesn't get the job. That should be all that determines her qualification.

I actually agree with this (and we've had our differences in the past).

Something about that quote.. it just scares the hell out of me. I think that this woman may be irrational, and while she is certainly a moderate by judicial standards, she also comes off as sexist and racist.

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.

I'm sorry, Mrs. Sotomayor. I know you will probably make some sound decisions as a supreme court justice, but you really need to leave your personal life out of it. Uphold the constitution, don't uphold your 'interpretation of it based on your sex and race'. Her decision to enforce 'politically correct' promotions in the fire department was awful, and goes against what Obama said his views were of affirmative action over the course of the elections. I certainly fear for the future of our country when people like this are put in positions with so much power.

reply to post by drwizardphd


Yeah, but was Sotomayor interpreting law in Ricci v. DeStefano, or was she simply following the law in place? If she was following the law in place, then she was doing her job.

From my understanding, this case is going to go before the SC, and they will decide whether or not this is constitutional, and considering the 14th amendment, I seriously doubt that it is. This is what the SC is supposed to do.

The legal questions are, does Sotomayor believe that hiring quotas based on race and sex are justifiable, when the 14th amendment says that they are not? Does the 14th amendment apply in these circumstances? What are the reasons for these opinions?

Maybe the deeper question is, does Sotomayor believe that white males deserve equal treatment under the law? Or does Sotomayor think that because of supposed privileges of the past, all white males should have to give up a level of equal treatment that essentially gives all others an advantage in opportunity to succeed?

Maybe she's saying she tries to hold herself to a higher standard and be better than her counterparts which are predominately white males? As a minority I'm sure she's had to be the best and the brightest amongst her peers in order to raise to such levels of prominence and importance within our system and this comment reflects that mindset. As a white male I hope I'm better than my latin, black, indian counterparts because I want to be the best. Does race have anything to do with it? No. But I'm a white male so race is completely unimportant to me because it's not a hinderence or something that makes me stick out in this country.. While to Ms. Sotomayor it is because she worked her way up in a system where she was one of the few if only Hispanic women. Besides you don't know the audience she was talking too. Perhaps there were many Hispanic people in the audience, maybe she wants to inspire her own people to rise up in the system. What's wrong with that? Intelligence, quality and leadership knows no race.

Just a thought. Of course she could be a racist terrorist out to subvert American ideals and white America and she only got the job because through affirmative action and she's an illegal who's going to help all of mexico come up here and take our jobs while personally bitch slapping every American family and wiping her ass with the flag.

Someone who makes an openly racist anti-white statement at a public venue, and then rules against whites in a discrimination case is hardly my top pick for the Supreme Court.

Imagine a white candidate who said/did the following:

"I think that white males are better placed to make certain key decisions than Latino women".

This same person then rules against a group of Latino women who are bringing suit against their employer for racial discrimination.

Maybe it's me, but I think we need people with integrity on the Supreme Court, and that doesn't include racists.

I would be very interested to see Sotormayor's sentencing record for convicted Latino defendants.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Retseh]

Moderate? Banning guns altogether and being a member on the board of a racist group like La Raza?

Is this guy insane?

There is no telling how she will vote. Remember Souter was supposed to be a solid conservative.

I love the way the right throws around the term racist...

Most of these clowns have no idea.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Sestias

 

I don't care if she was so poor she had to live in the sewers of New York City.

The law is the law. Personel expireance plays no role in how a judge should rule their court.

Everything we do is filtered through the lens of personal experience period.

To say that someone can do anything without that lens... is impossible.

You have no idea what they are talking about.

It is what makes us who we are, gives meaning to our lives and directs our decisions... even judges.

Objectivity is a delusion.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by grover]

I heard on the television news (sorry no link to tv) that in 2004 she ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to own a fire arm. They said the case is currently up for review from the Supreme Court. How ironic.

By the way: "75% Believe Constitution Guarantees Right To Own a Gun" Rasmussen. Yes that is moderate alright.

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic


Anyone who works their way up from the bottom has to beat the odds, even white males.

Considering Sotomayor's success came during an era of affirmative action, you have to wonder if she speculates about how much of her success is due to affirmative action, and how frustrating those thoughts must be. The truth is that she had to be the best and brightest among minorities. White males without connections are the ones who had to be the best and the brightest to even be given a chance in a world that had decided to stack the odds against them. In a quota system, the white males with connections were going to be given priority when only so many positions are open, minorities will be given their opportunity based on merit, and lastly, white males without connections, but with considerable merit might be given a shot.

Even with affirmative action, racial quotas and preferences and such, Sotomayor must be a very driven and intelligent person to reach the level that she has reached. Still, she has also had to learn how to play the game of politics.