Obama Picks Soina Soytomayor for Supreme Court

Sand

It wasn't a statement to the effect that Latinas are better judges, or that women are more empathetic. It was a statement de-coupling decision and background.

Pardon? The entire lecture was disagreeing that it was possible or even best to decouple decision making and background. She cited and disagreed with judges who argued a judge should decouple decision making from their background, arguing that such impartiality was while admirable and to be aspired to not practically possible, and perhaps not even the best course of action.

And it was a statement that she would make better decisions because she was a latin female, than a white male judge would make. If she was to say she would make better decisions due to her experience as a judge, fine. The best disclaimer she inserted was that now and then, the odd white male judge made a decent decision or two as well. Stopped clocks right twice a day...

To further expand her comments:

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. 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.

What she is basically saying is that she does not believe that on average a white male judge would give her (a latina) as fair a hearing as latina judge. Logically, we must assume a white male in her courtroom will not get as fair a hearing as they would from a white male judge on average?

Its a ludicrously foolish thing to say when people expect to be equal before the law, and she is going to get a lot of stick about it. But she will get appointed either way.

And for the record, I took the quotes from the New York Times article. Small world.

Jim_Are_Great

I think this is being stretched to illogical conclusions. A lecture that was essentially a colour piece is being taken as her judicial statement of intent. I am unconvinced that she is going to go into SCOUTS, see a white male litigant and think "I am going to be artificially unfair to this person". Is that what you think, or have I misunderstood you?

Sand

A lecture that was essentially a colour piece is being taken as her judicial statement of intent.

No, not as a statement of intent. She repeats that she considers the impartiality expected of a judge to be admired and aspired to. It follows she intends to try to be impartial.

Her point is that realistically she is going to fail. As much as white male judges are (apparently) by and large disinterested in the needs of ethnic or social minorities (often through no overt intent of their own) surely ethnic or social minorities must be by and large disinterested in the needs of white males, again through no overt intent of their own?

Now - I can see how that could be argued to a view that: Yes, impartial judges are great and we should all try to be impartial. But we need to recognise that we are human, and we need to question our impartiality rather than assume it.

That I cant disagree with. Cynical perhaps, but not disagreeable.

What I can disagree with is she continues that she is going to make better decisions than white males would (on average) due to her experience as a latina. That makes no sense whatsoever. Assigning subjective traits on a racial or gender basis tends to be quite foolish. In a single parent setting, would it be fair to say a single mother more often than not would serve her children better than a single father due to her gender?

What I also disagree with is that instead of expecting impartial judges, that instead we accept some level of partiality is inevitable and then attempt to balance it by ensuring a wide, diverse spread of judges and just hope you get lucky that youre drawn before a judge of the same ethnic/social background because its a bit of a longshot that a judge of another ethnic/social background is going to give you a fair hearing.

I am unconvinced that she is going to go into SCOUTS, see a white male litigant and think "I am going to be artificially unfair to this person". Is that what you think, or have I misunderstood you?

Shes going to try not to be artificially unfair, but her thesis is that unfortunately she very well may be through no intent of her own.

Her views are controversial when you consider equality before the law in something people would be touchy about. Shes going to get stick about those comments. Shes going to get stick about her comments where she announced that the court of appeals was where judges made policy.

But she will get appointed. She'll probably reassure her critics on her impartiality and respect for the judges role and it will be fairly routine. The most controversial case she has been on is this firefighters one. Apparently her judgement on that is likely to be overturned which will be a small bit embarrassing but whatever. The world will keep turning and Im sure she will be a little more careful in her comments.

Jim_Are_Great

Wait now... I agreed with almost everything in the post above. Yet for some reason I felt like we were arguing about something. Odd.

Sand wrote: »

What I also disagree with is that instead of expecting impartial judges, that instead we accept some level of partiality is inevitable and then attempt to balance it by ensuring a wide, diverse spread of judges

But if you acknowledge that justices can't be impartial-o-bots, then what's so objectionable about that?

Sand wrote: »

...and just hope you get lucky that youre drawn before a judge of the same ethnic/social background

I could have sworn, though I may be wrong, that SCOTUS always sits with the full court, ie all nine justices.

LostinKildare

Some historical perspective.

This 1992 tribute to the retired Justice Thurgood Marshall by Reagan's appointee Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggests that the sentiments Sotomayor is getting attacked for — that her race-based experiences shape and sometimes enrich her judgments — aren’t new or outrageous:

Like most of my counterparts who grew up in the Southwest in the 1930s and 1940s, I had not been personally exposed to racial tensions before Brown; Arizona did not have a large African American population then, and unlike southern States, it never adopted a de jure system of segregation. Although I had spend a year as an eighth grader in a predominately Latino public school in New Mexico, I had no personal sense, as the plaintiff children of Topeka School District did, of being a minority in a society that cared primarily for the majority.

But as I listened that day to Justice Marshall talk eloquently to the media about the social stigmas and lost opportunities suffered by African American children in state-imposed segregated school, my awareness of race-based disparities deepened. I did not, could not, know it then, but the man who would, as a lawyer and jurist, captivate the nation would also, as colleague and friend, profoundly influence me.

Although all of us come to the Court with our own personal histories and experiences, Justice Marshall brought a special perspective. His was the eye of a lawyer who saw the deepest wounds in the social fabric and used law to help heal them. His was the ear of a counselor who understood the vulnerabilities of the accused and established safeguards for their protection. His was the mouth of a man who knew the anguish of the silenced and gave them a voice.

At oral arguments and conference meetings, in opinions and dissents, Justice Marshall imparted not only his legal acumen but also his life experiences, constantly pushing and prodding us to respond not only to the persuasiveness of legal argument but also to the power of moral truth.

Manic Moran

Sotomayor is getting attacked for — that her race-based experiences shape and sometimes enrich her judgments — aren’t new or outrageous

There's a mite difference between saying 'experiences shape and enrich' to 'certain experiences will result in making a better legal decision than someone with different experiences'

NTM

jonny72

If this was a Republican choice of judge the arguments would be switched the other way round, come on, its clutching at straws, whichever, hopefully she'll be better than the last crooked Bush appointee.

Jim_Are_Great

Alito? How's he crooked?

Running Bing

People like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh were always going to come up with something to attack her with but what she said was wrong, simple as that. If George Bush had said:

I would hope that a wise [Texas man] with the richness of [his] experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a [black female] who hasn't lived that life

Would that be acceptable? No that would be an outrageous thing to say. Trying to defend what she said is pure partisan folly imo.

Now the question is how relevant is a statement she made 8 years ago, that may have been simply badly worded, to her current appointment? Personally I dont know but I do know that there appears to be a distinct double standard in the states between what qualifies as outrageous racism or a slip of the tongue.

LostinKildare

I would hope that a wise [Texas man] with the richness of [his] experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a [black female] who hasn't lived that life

Haha. Interesting opposition of "Texas man" (presumably a white man and not the Other) and "black female" (presumably a female person, not a female animal, and, really, who cares where she lives? -- no need to humanize a black female as you would a man)

Ya know, there are some people out there who would parse those phrases and, knowing nothing more about you, label you both a racist and a sexist for your (presumably unintentional) poor choice of words.

I wouldn't, though.

Running Bing

Latina woman=Texas man
white male=black female

There the substitutions I made.


Latina-a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States


Texan-normally refers to someone who originated from, or who lives in, the state of Texas in the United States of America

Woman-Antonym=man
White-Antonym=black
male-Antonym=female

Tbh from your post, knowing nothing more about you, Id be more inclined to label you a racist and a sexist.

I wouldnt though.;)

LostinKildare

Um, I think you missed my point -- that pouncing on what is simply an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of racism/sexism, as Sotomayor's attackers have done, is foolish.

Running Bing wrote: »

Tbh from your post, knowing nothing more about you, Id be more inclined to label you a racist and a sexist.

Why is that?

Running Bing

LostinKildare wrote: »

Why is that?

look we're getting off topic here, I dont think your a racist (and I would hope you dont really believe I am).

The point is the statement is an abhorrent one and under slightly different circumstances it would be treated as such by those trying to defend it (imo).

Now as I said in my post, its not a good thing to say but does that lead us to believe that Sonia Sotomayor is a racist (Im not necessarily sure it does)? That is the real question here imo, not wheter what she said was ok (because it clearly was'nt).

Running Bing

LostinKildare wrote: »

Um, I think you missed my point -- that pouncing on what is simply an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of racism/sexism, as Sotomayor's attackers have done, is foolish.

Actually I think we are in agreement here (see my post above).

I dont think you can just automatically say she is racist because of the statement (even if I believe it is a racist statement).

LostinKildare

No, I don't think you're a racist!

Sand

pouncing on what is simply an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of racism/sexism, as Sotomayor's attackers have done, is foolish.

Pouncing on an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of <insert negative characteristic here> constitutes 99% of modern political discourse. Its not for nothing that Bush became famous for his stumbles in speeches.

Wait now... I agreed with almost everything in the post above. Yet for some reason I felt like we were arguing about something. Odd.

We arent so much arguing - its just I believe youve got an (understable) stake in US domestic politics and I dont. I think Soytomayors comments were dumb and I dont have any real reason to defend them.

Either you dont think theyre dumb, or you feel they were poorly chosen but youve got to take one for the team in trying to defend the choice which means defending every stupid thing she said and trying to pretend it was actually misunderstood words of wisdom.

Jim_Are_Great

It's actually not the case. I just like to take the other side, principally to see if I can argue it out. Devil's advocate. Half the time I don't care/know anything about what I'm saying.:)

Sand

High fives all round then!

LostinKildare

Sand wrote: »

Pouncing on an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of <insert negative characteristic here> constitutes 99% of modern political discourse. Its not for nothing that Bush became famous for his stumbles in speeches.

Indeed.

Seen the cover of the new National Review? WTF?!? Latins, Asians, whatever --- they all look the same, huh?

This whole thing is a comedy.

lyda

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're basically describing social engineering.

Only having white males on the bench for ~180 years was also social engineering.

Your point?

Manic Moran

Seen the cover of the new National Review? WTF?!? Latins, Asians, whatever --- they all look the same, huh?

What, you can't have a hispanic Guru?

I liked this cartoon, myself.

Only having white males on the bench for ~180 years was also social engineering

Was more the way it happened to work out. If no hispanic females had been admitted to the bar for whatever reason, it would be unrealistic to expect any to be on the Supreme Court Bench. You can't go about abandoning the principles you claim to uphold simply for the sake of overcompensating for the past, it won't do any good and simply creates more resentment.

NTM

Manic Moran

Not that anyone is paying attention, but a couple of weeks ago the Supreme Court issued its opinion on Ricci. Overturned.

In her favour, at least it was a 5-4 split.

She'll be confirmed before the 2nd Ammendment case makes its way up though. As one Republican put it in the confirmation hearings, "Unless you have a complete meltdown, you'll be confirmed"

NTM

Overheal

im not keeping up anymore: 2nd ammendment case?

Manic Moran

She was part of a panel on the 2nd Circuit which issued something akin to a three-page per curiam opinion in Maloney v Cuomo, denying that the 2nd applied to the States (A very big deal). It's due to be heard by SCOTUS next month, if memory serves.

It's another split in the circuits. 2nd and 7th (NRA v Chicago) refused to consider the issue, pretty much saying that only SCOTUS had the authority to do so. 9th (Nordyke v Alameda County) disagreed, actually did consider it, and ended up ruling that the Amendment was incorporated and thus the States were subject to it.

NTM

SteveS

Besides the 2nd Amendment case, she has a lousy record on some other issues. In regards to property rights, she supported a municipality being able to condemn property when the landowner refused to pay money to a politically influentional private developer (Didden v. Village of Port Chester). In regards to the rights of the accused, she has sided with the government in 92% of Criminal cases that reached the Court of Appeals. Compared to others, this is high, which is why she has been endorsed by police groups. There has been some speculation that the Supreme Court is moving towards eliminating most parts of the exclusionary rule (which allows courts to throw out evidence that was obtained illegally or unConstitutionally) and that Sotomayor's record shows she would go along with this.