Judge Sonia Sotomayor

[name change request]

what do you think of Obama's choice xian?

that way i can assume that the opposite choice is the more moral choice... the choice that is better for this country.

[vinnie97]

Wow, is that how you picked Obama?

[tragicallyunhip]

I'm a little skeptical, to tell you the truth. I'm still withholding judgment until all the facts come out, but I do have to admit the quotes the GOP is screaming about are a little disturbing. I'm not sure how confident I am that she would be fair and impartial.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tragicallyunhip

I'm a little skeptical, to tell you the truth. I'm still withholding judgment until all the facts come out, but I do have to admit the quotes the GOP is screaming about are a little disturbing. I'm not sure how confident I am that she would be fair and impartial.

Yeah... bull's eye. If she's going to rule as a, "wise Latina woman" rather than as a thoughtful and impartial judge it certainly gives one pause.

ok - reciting from memory from my conlaw prof here but .. here goes.. I think it might be important to point out that most cases that come before SCOTUS result with lopsided rulings... meaning broad agreement. Most of them are technical issues however and resolve splits of authority amongst different circuits. Its on the small number of cases that the disagreements matter. And when they do... they do. For example, Kelo v City of New London. It was a 5-4 decision. It radically changed the law with regard to the takings clause (gov't can take land for public "purpose" now rather than public "use" meaning gov't can seize and give to private party to develop shopping mall to increase tax base.) One vote... either side swings the result. Now, Sotomayor will be confirmed because the Dems have the votes. They won the right to put their choices forward. Like I said in the other thread she will be a new player but she won't meaningfully alter the character of the court. Doesn't make me any happier but whadaya gonna do

[BradH]

Because we all know white people are supreme, and ultimately, impartial.

[tragicallyunhip]

Are there any quotes from any of the white judges talking about how they feel they'll make superior decisions because of their experiences as a white person? Also, have any of them admitted to considering a court of law a place to make policy?

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by tragicallyunhip

Are there any quotes from any of the white judges talking about how they feel they'll make superior decisions because of their experiences as a white person? Also, have any of them admitted to considering a court of law a place to make policy?

Not to play Alvin here, but up until Thurgood Marshall, how many other minorities served in the role? It's kind of assumed/implied that that was the common/public belief thought for a long time.

Originally Posted by BradH

Because we all know white people are supreme, and ultimately, impartial.

LOL.

You need to start watching "The Boondocks". Uncle Ruckus will make you fall out of your chair laughing.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Not to play Alvin here, but up until Thurgood Marshall, how many other minorities served in the role?

Why does it matter?

Do minorities have a different perspective on math? Is there a wise latina woman style of algebra? Why should murder mean something different to a woman than a man? Why should it be different to an asian than a european? Impartiality would seem to require leaving those personal issues in the cloakroom rather than using them as a filter.

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Why does it matter?

It shouldn't. That is what I was getting at.

Now as to everyone having different experiences/perspectives. That is a no-brainer. You should know that, X. It's going to color thoughts on ruling regardless of race, creed, or color (even if not admitted readily).

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Impartiality would seem to require leaving those personal issues in the cloakroom rather than using them as a filter.

Agreed, but again see above. There will always be a smidgeon of personal experience that will color one's thoughts on a matter/subject. How much you let those control your decision is where the issue would then lie.

I'll admit that I don't know much outside of what I have glanced over from MSN about the woman the past few days. I can't say that I am for or against her yet.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Now as to everyone having different experiences/perspectives. That is a no-brainer. You should know that, X. It's going to color thoughts on ruling regardless of race, creed, or color (even if not admitted readily).

What's her wise latina lady perspective on this question.... what's two plus two?

An impartial judge is not supposed to import their personal biases into their rulings. Making an overt declaration that she would do so is a declaration of partiality.

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

What's her wise latina lady perspective on this question.... what's two plus two?

An impartial judge is not supposed to import their personal biases into their rulings. Making an overt declaration that she would do so is a declaration of partiality.

Burn the witch!

Like I said, I haven't done enough research on her to know whether to laud or loathe her.

Politicians always say dumb stuff. Supreme Court nominees aren't that far off.

[J. Fees]

Originally Posted by tragicallyunhip

Are there any quotes from any of the white judges talking about how they feel they'll make superior decisions because of their experiences as a white person? Also, have any of them admitted to considering a court of law a place to make policy?

if you are going to quote and listen to right wing opinions, you should listen to the opposite opinions as well. just because some people interpret snippits of what people say a certain way doesnt mean they are interpreting them correctly.


you've played directly into the fear factor that they are looking for. "Is this mexican lady crazy, she says her race is better, and you should be scared of that'. when the reality is that pundits will twist wordings until they gett the desired effect. i thought you were smarter than this.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

if you are going to quote and listen to right wing opinions, you should listen to the opposite opinions as well. just because some people interpret snippits of what people say a certain way doesnt mean they are interpreting them correctly.


you've played directly into the fear factor that they are looking for. "Is this mexican lady crazy, she says her race is better, and you should be scared of that'. when the reality is that pundits will twist wordings until they gett the desired effect. i thought you were smarter than this.

Um... reread the quote. She's the one who made specific note that her gender and ethnicity were part and parcel to her decision making. That's not a scare tactic it's pointing out the scarey.

[J. Fees]

i like to read quotes in context.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

i like to read quotes in context.

sure.... here's a link to the entire speech where she said it

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...otomayor.shtml

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

If Chief Justice Roberts had said, "I think I bring the perspective of a wise white man to the bench and will reach a better conclusion than a black woman would" how do you think people would have reacted?