PDA

View Full Version : Sotomayor


urluckyday
07-14-2009, 12:56 AM
I'm sorry but with comments like this:

"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."

or

the sex and ethnicity of judges “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

along with many other out of line comments...

I don't think she is the right choice for the Supreme Court...
She brings too much controversy and she obviously fails to understand that in a politically correct world (which I don't like, but some of the things she says are just outrageous no matter what) she actually has to be politically correct to be accepted...

Thoughts?

Darth Avlectus
07-14-2009, 01:20 AM
I'm sorry but with comments like this:

"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."

or

the sex and ethnicity of judges “may and will make a difference in our judging.”


For the first one, while you could say that this is highly misinterpreted and that "all she is really saying is that she could make better judgements in some situations having been through something similar to that", frankly, I have to ask why she highly emphasized gender and ethnicity first. I thought such things should not matter as to how well one does his or her job?

For the second one...that basically contradicts any of her stances where she claimed she'd be objective. Because, surprise, gender and ethnicity should not and are not measurements as to how well one can do one's prospective job.



along with many other out of line comments...
Like when she basically was saying:
"I'm not supposed to say X&y HERE, but whatever it's just demonstration, so X&Y and blah blah blah." Playing off the small rule breaking/honor code violations like casual informal conversation? Yeah it makes me scratch my head, sometimes.

I don't think she is the right choice for the Supreme Court...
She brings too much controversy and she obviously fails to understand that in a politically correct world (which I don't like, but some of the things she says are just outrageous no matter what) she actually has to be politically correct to be accepted...

Thoughts?

When we start allowing people to call it like they want to call it and not require the most stringent objectivity in the decision making, I'd say that is when we've generally ousted rule of law.

I was glad at first that she was a well educated moderate, but looking at it now, I'm thinking she's gonna be a "shoot from the hip" whimmed judge. Not to mention one of her major decisions was recalled and reversed.

It's certainly not something to be taken lightly.

Totenkopf
07-14-2009, 01:35 AM
Well, it's a shame that ethnicity and gender might overshadow qualifications for such an important post. Likely b/c she's only replacing another progressive/liberal on the court. If one of the centrist or "right wing" judges had stepped down, she still might win b/c of the numbers in the Senate, but it would be a tougher fight. I get the impression the reps/conservatives are keeping their powder dry for that occasion. However, barring an accident or death, my guess is that Ginsberg will probably be next.

True_Avery
07-14-2009, 07:11 AM
I, personally, am not a fan of political correctness. I get why it is here, and I partake in it, but never been a fan.

Personally, I think her point is valid. It is not valid to point at a "white male" and assume they cannot have a tough life, as that is utterly wrong. But, I do think, to a degree, her ethnicity and gender do play roles in decision making and always will, and so far having varied people has not led the SC too far off course.

I do not like "better conclusion", however. She can bring something to the board that may be lacking in other members, but that diversity does not mean conclusions will be better just because of it.

As far as her arrogance and so on goes... take a look at any of the supreme court justices. It takes a certain type of person to get that high in the judicial branch, and that usually entails being an incredibly blunt person. You have to be when you are putting the livelihood of people before you.

So, in summary, screw political correctness. But, I don't really care if she is voted in or not. Her education, however, is pretty impressive though but that is sort of a prerequisite o...

EnderWiggin
07-14-2009, 07:32 AM
the sex and ethnicity of judges “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

I don't see a problem with her stating this - it's obviously true.

_EW_

Darth InSidious
07-14-2009, 07:41 AM
I don't see a problem with her stating this - it's obviously true.

_EW_

In what way?

Speaking of Ginsburg, the NYT has fumbled the story with their recent interview. Take a look at this charming gem of a comment:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
Emphasis mine. I don't particularly want to get into another abortion "debate", but seriously... wtf?

Link to the interview (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all). Sorry, doesn't clear up what the hell she means at all.

Totenkopf
07-14-2009, 12:58 PM
Speaking of Ginsburg, the NYT has fumbled the story with their recent interview. Take a look at this charming gem of a comment:
Emphasis mine. I don't particularly want to get into another abortion "debate", but seriously... wtf?
Link to the interview (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all). Sorry, doesn't clear up what the hell she means at all.

Considering that Margaret Sanger was a eugenecist and bigot, you could fairly come to the conclusion she (Sanger) meant non-whites (as well as the physically weak). It would be interesting to know to whom she ascribed that concern.

http://dianedew.com/sanger.htm

mur'phon
07-14-2009, 03:02 PM
The court is allready ethnically biased (white) and gender biased (male), and while they may not say so it of course afects the decisions they make. Even if she believes her judgement is better due to her gender and ethicity, it won't matter a damn in court as she'll still have exactly the same amount of power as the rest of them, no matter how right she thinks she is.

Totenkopf
07-14-2009, 03:06 PM
Well, one could hope (forlornly, perhaps) that people would rise above their biases regardless in addressing issues of the law. Just not too swift to go around publically saying that "I'm better than you are :xp: b/c of what I am".

Q
07-14-2009, 05:44 PM
I don't see a problem with her stating this - it's obviously true.

_EW_
What do you suppose the reaction would be if she was a conservative?
Emphasis mine. I don't particularly want to get into another abortion "debate", but seriously... wtf?
Which do you think is more scary: the fact that one of the main uses for abortion here in the States is to control the growth of the "unwanted" sections of the population, or the fact that she is so utterly dismissive about it?

What a ghoul.

urluckyday
07-14-2009, 06:53 PM
I think the point I was making by saying her second quote was inappropriate because the law is the law and it shouldn't be up to interpretation due to gender or race...it should be viewed objectively...as difficult as it may be, it can be done, but I don't think she can do it effectively if at all...

Darth Avlectus
07-14-2009, 07:06 PM
I think the point I was making by saying her second quote was inappropriate because the law is the law and it shouldn't be up to interpretation due to gender or race...it should be viewed objectively...as difficult as it may be, it can be done, but I don't think she can do it effectively if at all...

QFT and to add to that, constitutional basis as core criterium.

Sure we all have our experiences to go upon, that's what makes us human...part of it anyways. However, where she overrides it in deliberation, subjectively, with preference, that's where problems arise.

Goading certainly isn't becoming of a supreme court appointee, either.

El Sitherino
07-14-2009, 11:06 PM
The court is allready ethnically biased (white) and gender biased (male), and while they may not say so it of course afects the decisions they make. Even if she believes her judgement is better due to her gender and ethicity, it won't matter a damn in court as she'll still have exactly the same amount of power as the rest of them, no matter how right she thinks she is.

^
I'm for her nomination on the mere fact that she's an added counter-weight that would do well to humanize the mostly white male court. She won't be the sole decider, it's just another voice that will be heard before a final verdict is issued by the group. The more diversity the more interesting it should be.

urluckyday
07-14-2009, 11:41 PM
^What do you mean by "humanize" the court? That sounds like something that would come from sotomayor herself...

El Sitherino
07-15-2009, 12:31 AM
^What do you mean by "humanize" the court? That sounds like something that would come from sotomayor herself...
I suppose instead of a word like "popularize", I'm not interested solely in the interest of the majority, sometimes they're not the best group to side with.
I think there are more socially qualified people, but considering people that have and still are sitting on the U.S. Supreme court, there's far worse candidates that get far.

Web Rider
07-15-2009, 12:46 AM
The court is allready ethnically biased (white) and gender biased (male), and while they may not say so it of course afects the decisions they make.
Ya know, except for Clarence Thomas, who's black, and Ruth Ginsburg, who's female. But yes, like most political institutions, the people in charge are either white or male. Of course, tossing Italians in with English and Irish as a generic lot of "white" is likely to piss off all three groups, who, though they share a skin color, are hardly the same cultural background.


Even if she believes her judgement is better due to her gender and ethicity, it won't matter a damn in court as she'll still have exactly the same amount of power as the rest of them, no matter how right she thinks she is.
True, but lets say she's the swing vote on a case. 4 in favor, 4 against. Sotomayer as the decider. Perhaps the defendant is a white male, and she votes against. Perhaps the defendant is a hispanic female, and she finds in favor.

It has become a big part of feminine legal theory to view events as subjective, that you cannot reach an objective conclusion as law and science likes to try to do. While it's great for a jury to take into account the particular circumstances, the place of the judge is to view the crime in the eyes of the law, not their own. And while we want to feel bad for the abused woman who drove over her cheating husband 9 times with a car, we cannot condone such retaliatory acts because we "feel bad". We may judge less harshly in light of the circumstances, but there's a fine line between "self defense" and "assault".

I suppose instead of a word like "popularize", I'm not interested solely in the interest of the majority, sometimes they're not the best group to side with.
I think there are more socially qualified people, but considering people that have and still are sitting on the U.S. Supreme court, there's far worse candidates that get far.
Sounds like affirmative action. "we don't want them 'cause they're good, we want them 'cause they're black." And I don't care how bad it sounds, but I'd be fine and dandy with an all-white, all-older, upper-class, white-male court, as long as they make fair decisions. A person's color, sex, orientation or what have you, should never be a boon or a bane to their hiring to any position.

Darth Avlectus
07-15-2009, 01:07 AM
Even if she believes her judgement is better due to her gender and ethicity, it won't matter a damn in court as she'll still have exactly the same amount of power as the rest of them, no matter how right she thinks she is.

If such a thing is a motivator for the decisions she makes, then, yes it will matter a damn when you consider the outcome of the cases she rules on.


@ thread, I'm glad for a relative counterbalance. That said, wariness of her flaunting such things does at least stand to reason certain questions of her priorities. While nobody can be completely objective, I should think the constitution should come first and foremost, life experiences second. As a matter of quality control. So far as better, what specifically does she mean by *better*? Better grossing of $$$? Better statistically for certain demographics? Better for a certain class, category, background?

While I suppose we could have worse (a *lot* worse), I'm just begging the question of if we're really doing a good a job as we can, here in this election.

mur'phon
07-15-2009, 06:27 AM
Of course, tossing Italians in with English and Irish as a generic lot of "white" is likely to piss off all three groups, who, though they share a skin color, are hardly the same cultural background.

True, but the same aplies to hispanics.

True, but lets say she's the swing vote on a case. 4 in favor, 4 against. Sotomayer as the decider. Perhaps the defendant is a white male, and she votes against. Perhaps the defendant is a hispanic female, and she finds in favor.

And pherhaps some of the white guys who voted in favor of the white guy and against the hispanic female did so due to their gender/ethnic background. It seems rather unfair to expect judges to not be affected by their background, wether they admit it or not.

El Sitherino
07-15-2009, 09:12 AM
Sounds like affirmative action. "we don't want them 'cause they're good, we want them 'cause they're black." And I don't care how bad it sounds, but I'd be fine and dandy with an all-white, all-older, upper-class, white-male court, as long as they make fair decisions. A person's color, sex, orientation or what have you, should never be a boon or a bane to their hiring to any position.

Actually I'm not in favor of her because she's not a white male, I'm in favor because she does have the necessary requirements for the job and she's rather obvious with her opinions. She's still a figurehead and that does always leave one to question the sincerity of the character, but an honest ******* is an ******* you know what to expect from.

I still maintain there are more qualified people based on the social standard, obviously Sotomayor's strongsuit is not in choice of words. Her qualifications and education however speak for themselves.
http://blog.peta2.com/douche.jpg vs. http://blog.peta2.com/turd.jpg
PS: I like my latinas to be from Salvi descent, luscious curls and short boxy bottoms.

JediAthos
07-15-2009, 04:54 PM
It appears that Judge Sotomayor is having trouble coming up with answers to the Senate's questions. According to this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sotomayor_senate she's dodged questions on both Roe v. Wade/abortion rights and Second Amendment rights as well. I would like to think that a candidate for the highest court in the country could come up with intelligent answers to such questions but apparently not.

I wasn't sure how I thought about her to start with, but given her inability to do so much as answer questions I'm not sure I want her helping to decide Supreme Court cases.

If she continues to dodge questions and avoid stating her opinions I would think that the Senate will hesitate to confirm her.

urluckyday
07-15-2009, 07:21 PM
I suppose instead of a word like "popularize", I'm not interested solely in the interest of the majority, sometimes they're not the best group to side with.
I think there are more socially qualified people, but considering people that have and still are sitting on the U.S. Supreme court, there's far worse candidates that get far.

Besides Bush's proposed candidate a few years back...I can't think of an any more offensive or improper candidate than Sotomayor.

Totenkopf
07-15-2009, 10:03 PM
My guess is that he's at least referring to Thomas. I agree with you that she's a bad choice, but they won't get any better than her either. Who did you have in w/re Bush?

Can't say I'm crazy about justices like Ginsberg and Breyer who bray on about how we should look to foreign laws to adjudicate US cases and issues. That's what our own Constitution is for afterall.

El Sitherino
07-15-2009, 11:23 PM
Boo, I really wish the political world could make it possible to give us a new candidate.

Trench
07-15-2009, 11:29 PM
Boo, I really wish the political world could make it possible to give us a new candidate.

And I wish that the political world would just go away.

What has happened to this country?:(

urluckyday
07-15-2009, 11:30 PM
^Freedom and non-oppressive government happened back in the 1700's

Totenkopf
07-15-2009, 11:35 PM
@Sithy--pray tell, what would this "new candidate" look like? Hopefully not one of those eruo-socialist types.

Trench
07-15-2009, 11:35 PM
^Freedom and non-oppressive government happened back in the 1700's

Well what happened to that? I'd take that over this any day.

El Sitherino
07-15-2009, 11:50 PM
What has happened to this country?:(
Divisionist propoganda that says giving everyone rights means others have none.
Ensuring everyone has the same minimum level of freedom means that's where the bar starts.

True_Avery
07-16-2009, 01:51 AM
@Sithy--pray tell, what would this "new candidate" look like? Hopefully not one of those eruo-socialist types.
Opposed to the two party system we have now?

Totenkopf
07-16-2009, 10:49 AM
Frankly, wouldn't mind seeing a lot of dems and reps thrown out and see a party that was more faithful to the Constitution than "special interests". I do see the dem party in this country coming closest to "eurosocialism", with many liberal republicans not too far behind. A multi-party system (ie more than 4 parties) won't necessarily be a better one, though. You already have w/in the 2 party system divisions w/in the ranks. People need to pay more attention to who they put in power and more willing to throw them out when they go afoul of the system (vs making excuses as to why it's ok for their own side but not the other). A truly neutral press would be nice, too. Sotomayor is largely being given a pass b/c it's one lib replacing another on the court. Her comments about the role of judges and her temperment making her a poor choice for a SC justice.

JediAthos
07-16-2009, 10:56 AM
Neutral press...that's a good one :) I don't think the press has been truly neutral in the United States for my entire lifetime (thirty years) and I'm wagering even longer than that.

I would like to see the two major parties get some legitimate competition, but I just don't see it coming to be any time soon.

Sotomayor hasn't satisfied me with her responses to the questions the Senate has asked her, but like you Totenkopf I think she's getting a pass of sorts and will probably end up being confirmed.

Totenkopf
07-16-2009, 11:06 AM
Neutral press...that's a good one :) I don't think the press has been truly neutral in the United States for my entire lifetime (thirty years) and I'm wagering even longer than that.

I'd agree that's likely true. Maybe we could settle for one that's ambivalent toward all sides. I know it's probably a pipedream, especially now....:D

Web Rider
07-16-2009, 11:38 AM
A multi-party system (ie more than 4 parties) won't necessarily be a better one, though. You already have w/in the 2 party system divisions w/in the ranks. People need to pay more attention to who they put in power and more willing to throw them out when they go afoul of the system (vs making excuses as to why it's ok for their own side but not the other).

Besides, multi-party systems boil down to a 2-party system anyway. Since you still need that majority to form government, you get a majority coalition, and everyone who's not. And it's not like a multi-party system won't have special interests gnawing at the parties either. As I see it, it makes it worse because you vote for party X who you want in power, but to be in power they have to form a coalition with party V and K too, now the party you wanted in power has to take on the interests of V+K. Ones that you might not even be aware of, or even like.

The US really doesn't have a two-party system, much as Totenkopf points out, we have a largely personality-based system. While the party that your candidate belongs to gives you some base reasons to agree or disagree with them on, what we're voting for is NOT what multi-party systems are voting for. They vote for the platform laid out by the party, which all party officials keep to(more or less), while we vote for individuals based on their personal opinions on the issues we're interested in.

urluckyday
07-16-2009, 08:24 PM
Well what happened to that? I'd take that over this any day.

Yeah me too...it was so much better back then...people weren't allowed to be pessimistic back then so at least I wouldn't have to deal with negativity!