Quote :

"President Barack Obama has chosen Judge Sonya Sotomayor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his nominee for the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. The formal announcement will be made by the president later this morning. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Obama would continue playing identity politics by nominating an Hispanic woman. Sotomayor, 54, is also of the most radical liberal activist judges he could have nominated In one of the biggest sources of the coming Sotomayor controversy, is her conduct in the New Haven, Connecticut firefighter case that’s now on appeal to the Supreme Court. In Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with the City of New Haven that was alleged to have used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. Sotomayor joined a per curiam opinion that went so far as to bury the white firefighters’ crucial claims of unfair treatment. Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her in writing for apparently missing the entire host of Constitutional issues that were before the court. According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” (To judge just how bad the Ricci opinion is, even liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, wrote of his dissatisfaction with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.” Ironically, Sotomayor’s dreadful decision in Ricci is under review at this time by the Supreme Court with an opinion expected by the end of June when David Souter, the justice Sotomayor is nominated to replace, has announced his retirement. In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” In the same speech, Sotomayor went on to say, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She restated her commitment to that unlawful judicial philosophy at a speech she gave in 2005 at Duke Law School when she reiterated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”"

A wise Latina woman... please show us the way!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32008

5/26/2009 10:38:48 AM

We can look forward to more legislating from the bench

5/26/2009 10:41:06 AM

^ Yep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo

5/26/2009 10:42:50 AM

Only liberal judges are activist judges, you know.

5/26/2009 10:44:33 AM

^ We're talking about Sotomayor. And I don't want any activism or legislating from the bench--I would simply like clear interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.

5/26/2009 10:49:49 AM

Supporting blatant reverse discrimmination, Ricci v. DeStefano shows that she can't judge honestly without her racial blinders.

5/26/2009 11:03:01 AM

I think I'm a bad democrat.

I don't like choosing these positions just to fulfill a diversity requirement.

again... this just leads me to...

FUCK YOU CHRISTIAN RIGHT... REPUBLICANS, GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER SO I CAN START CONTEMPLATING JOINING YOUR PARTY

5/26/2009 11:14:04 AM

^
Right On!

5/26/2009 11:16:22 AM

I seriously doubt they chose her only to fulfill a diversity requirement. She seems to have the resume, and they think she'll make a great justice. They picked her in the end because she was a good candidate AND a minority, not just because she was a minority.

5/26/2009 11:30:23 AM

Quote :

"I don't like choosing these positions just to fulfill a diversity requirement."

5/26/2009 11:31:16 AM

Quote :

"I seriously doubt they chose her only to fulfill a diversity requirement. She seems to have the resume, and they think she'll make a great justice. They picked her in the end because she was a good candidate AND a minority, not just because she was a minority."

are you high right now?

they chose first based on diversity requirements and then justified it with the impressive resume

they DID NOT choose her based on the impressive resume and then go "golly, isn't it neat that she's a latino woman as well..."

don't do mental gymnastics when the situation is fairly obvious

...

and the "good candidate AND a minority" is not good enough for me... for a supreme court spot, I want the BEST candidate, period

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : /]

5/26/2009 11:37:27 AM

OMFG, a member of an oppressed group who says race and gender matter! Whatever shall we do?

5/26/2009 11:38:07 AM

Quote :

"they chose first based on diversity requirements and then justified it with the impressive resume they DID NOT choose her based on the impressive resume and then go "golly, isn't it neat that she's a latino woman as well...""

How do you know?

It's kind of "presumptuous" (to put it mildly) to say that just because someone is a minority, they were chosen because they were a minority.

And if you acknowledge that her resume is up to snuff, then what does it matter that her being a minority was a consideration? Does it not help (you know... make a candidate better) to have diverse backgrounds/viewpoints in the supreme court?

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 11:43:21 AM

^^ Did you applaud Bush when he appointed Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic U.S. attorney general?

^ Did it help to have "diverse backgrounds/viewpoints" in the U.S. Justice Department?

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 11:44:02 AM

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM. Reason : wrong person ;-)]

5/26/2009 11:44:44 AM

^^^
Keep dreaming. This is obvious affirmative action.

Affirmative action is inescapably and completely wrong, that is, in the public sector.
In the private sector, I condone it, and personally would go for "pro-female, pro-native-american, pro-atheist, pro-polytheist"

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 11:44:48 AM

^

Quote :

"Does it not help (you know... make a candidate better) to have diverse backgrounds/viewpoints in the supreme court?"

5/26/2009 11:46:47 AM

Quote :

"OMFG, a member of an oppressed group who says race and gender matter! Whatever shall we do? "

The bill of rights says differently, race and gender shouldnt matter

5/26/2009 11:49:27 AM

it does?

5/26/2009 11:50:24 AM

Quote :

"Keep dreaming. This is obvious affirmative action."

at what point do you distinguish between "affirmative action" and "representativeness"?

It seems to me that unless a white male justice is replaced with another white male justice, people will be screaming affirmative action. But is it not obvious, also, that given their lifetime appointments, who were all made by white male Presidents up to now, that there is an over representation of white males on the Court? You're really going to cry "affirmative action" when a court currently made up of 89% male, 89% white justices for a country that is <50% male and 60-something% white gets slightly mixed up?

5/26/2009 11:51:51 AM

^
True, some will scream no matter what.... and as closed to the public the decision-making process is, it can never be certain whether or not affirmation action played a role. It could even play a role subconsciously on the minds of those making the decision.....

Quote :

"Does it not help (you know... make a candidate better) to have diverse backgrounds/viewpoints in the supreme court?"

Certainly it does. But using affirmative action to promote a minority gender and/or race doesn't necessarily do that. In fact, suggesting that it does is prejudiced. Just because someone is a particular gender or race doesn't mean that their background or viewpoints are a particular way. An individual's background and viewpoints aren't necessarily determined by their gender or race. You could say that that notion is simply being realistic, but I contend that that is being prejudiced.

I realize that it would be difficult, and some would say impossible, but I don't think any public appointments, nominations, assignments, or admissions should be made unless they're done completely blind to race, gender, religion, etc.

Public sector affirmative action stinks.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 11:59:18 AM

Quote :

"But using affirmative action to promote a minority gender and/or race doesn't necessarily do that. In fact, suggesting that it does may be considered sexist or racist. Just because someone is a particular gender or race doesn't mean that their background or viewpoints are a particular way. An individual's background and viewpoints aren't determined by your gender or race. I realize that it would be difficult, and some would say impossible, but I don't think any public appointments, nominations, assignments, or admissions should be made unless they're done completely blind to race, gender, religion, etc."

I somehow doubt they took their list of candidates and just immediately eliminated all the non-latino candidates.

But, it's IMPOSSIBLE for things like race and gender to NOT be considered because those things are implicit to our daily experiences. They aren't manifested the same way, but they are there. If you're hiring for a job that requires work on Sunday, you're automatically eliminating religious people even if that's your intent.

It doesn't make sense, nor is it possible, to say a process shouldn't consider race/gender/whatever, because the things people do are affected by these things. This is in fact what affirmative action is intended (or should be intended) to correct for... not the blatant KKK-nigger-hating racists, but the things that might unfairly reject certain groups that aren't completely obvious.

For the generation the pool of judges we'd be choosing from , it would have been MUCH more difficult for a minority female to get through law school and succeed, for example. She'd have to be truly exceptional. So by the nature of the beast, there'd be an underrepresented sampling of minorities, if you restricted people by your allegedly blind method of just looking are certain resume items.

5/26/2009 12:13:11 PM

Quote :

"So by the nature of the beast, there'd be an underrepresented sampling of minorities, if you restricted people by your allegedly blind method of just looking are certain resume items. "

It's not the public sector's responsibility to correct this. As I said, private sector affirmative action is acceptable, but even if it were acceptable in the public sector, the political conflicts of interest are just too great for it. Again, I realize that such a blind method would be difficult-to-impossible to implement, but still... the public sector should make all the efforts it can to avoid discrimination of any kind, including "positive discrimination".

Quote :

"It doesn't make sense, nor is it possible, to say a process shouldn't consider race/gender/whatever, because the things people do are affected by these things."

It may not be possible, but it certainly makes sense to avoid intentional racial or sexual discrimination in the public sector. The public sector is for everyone -- everyone equally. We used to be a white male society that basically owned women and other races. It sucks that the ripple effect of this is still very much a reality. It has, and continues to slowly change for the better. I wish it would move faster. But giving benefit to someone because they aren't a white male, to, in part, make up for this historical inequality, is inescapably the same as giving a detriment to white males -- who shouldn't be disadvantaged because of something their great-great-great-great-grandfather did. Period. Public sector racial and gender discrimination is wrong. Period.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 12:46:53 PM

Quote :

"The bill of rights says differently, race and gender shouldnt matter"

Shouldn't, but they do. Under the current conditions of white supremacy, it's necessary to see race.

5/26/2009 12:49:45 PM

She's a woman and she's Latino, whatever.

What EarthDogg posted about her as a liberal activist judge is what concerns me. Anyone care to post something that should make me feel better about this nomination?

5/26/2009 12:53:28 PM

Quote :

" Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Sotomayor blends "an excellent mind coupled with real world empathy but also passes Justice Potter Stewart's famous test of someone who is neither liberal nor conservative but simply a great judge." "

I think Sen. Kerry is high.

Quote :

" In the same speech, Sotomayor went on to say, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She restated her commitment to that unlawful judicial philosophy at a speech she gave in 2005 at Duke Law School when she reiterated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”""

Pretty fucked up opinion. Diversity of experience and opinion is good. Saying that your opinions and ideas are superior to another person based on gender and race is fucking scary and if the opposite were said this person wouldn't have a job.

5/26/2009 12:58:36 PM

i figured he'd pick this chick....

5/26/2009 1:00:52 PM

Quote :

"It may not be possible, but it certainly makes sense to avoid intentional racial or sexual discrimination in the public sector. The public sector is for everyone -- everyone equally. We used to be a white male society that basically owned women and other races. It sucks that the ripple effect of this is still very much a reality. It has, and continues to slowly change for the better. I wish it would move faster. But giving benefit to someone because they aren't a white male, to, in part, make up for this historical inequality, is inescapably the same as giving a detriment to white males -- who shouldn't be disadvantaged because of something their great-great-great-great-grandfather did. Period. Public sector racial and gender discrimination is wrong. Period."

That bolded statement is at odds with the rest of your paragraph. If ignoring race/gender naturally over-selects white males, then your system would inherently NOT be for "everyone equally." The only way to make a system that is for everyone equally would be to design the system to specifically correct for this.

What you are saying in general makes sense, but why wait for generations for the effects of past bad policies to filter out, with lots of turmoil in the meanwhile, when we can recognize and correct for them NOW? I personally would rather live in a world when peace and harmony come sooner rather than later. Why just go with the flow, when we can manipulate the flow?

5/26/2009 1:02:39 PM

Quote :

"Under the current conditions of white supremacy"

Oh really? "supremacy"?
I just said that it sucks that the ripple effect of our historical white male society is still very much a reality, but come one... "white supremacy"?? Do you think statements like that help your cause?

Quote :

"She's a woman and she's Latino, whatever. What EarthDogg posted about her as a liberal activist judge is what concerns me."

Me too. Her opinion in the Ricci v. DeStefano case pretty much clearly shows that she supports the unconstitutional travesty that is affirmation action.

Quote :

"Sotomayor went on to say, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

This is really fucked up. Smoking gun right here, people.

Quote :

"That bolded statement is at odds with the rest of your paragraph"

Ha, ha. Before I posted that, I knew someone would try to turn it around. Some of you have a really diseased view of what "equality" is....

Quote :

"If ignoring race/gender naturally over-selects white males, then your system would inherently NOT be for "everyone equally.""

It doesn't naturally over-select white males. Any over-selection is the result of all of the private sector bigotry that still exists. And it's not the responsibility of the public sector to fix this. Like I've said, private-sector affirmative action is fine, but in government and other parts of the public sector, everyone is entitled to equality, and therefore no indirect yet intention detriment to white males is acceptable. Period.

Quote :

"The only way to make a system that is for everyone equally would be to design the system to specifically correct for this."

No. That's not a system that is for everyone equally. That's an intentionally unequal public-sector system designed to fix a problem that is not the public-sector's responsibility to fix. You're confusing the equality of the ends with the equality of the means. Government is a creature of the present -- of means. The equality of the means are paramount -- more important than the equality of the ends, which are still important.

Quote :

"What you are saying in general makes sense, but why wait for generations for the effects of past bad policies to filter out, with lots of turmoil in the meanwhile, when we can recognize and correct for them NOW?"

Of course it makes sense. I don't understand why so many people can't see the difference between public and private sector affirmative action -- and why they can't clearly see that public sector affirmative action is wrong... that it's an intentionally unequal, and therefore unfair, means to an end.

Besides, I already said that I wish things would move faster, but the ends don't justify the means. It is not acceptable to trample over [presumably]-innocent white males in order to speed things up. I also realize that were it not for the generations of bullshit public sector affirmative action that have already happened, that we'd be in a much worse place now. But the effort should be done in the private sector.

Quote :

"I personally would rather live in a world when peace and harmony come sooner rather than later. Why just go with the flow, when we can manipulate the flow?"

I would also rather live in that world. But "manipulating the flow" is unjust and immoral. Period.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 1:03:10 PM

Just to make sure I understand your argument, are you saying that it's okay for the government to require some type of affirmative action of the private sector, but that it public sector appointments/employment shouldn't consider this?

5/26/2009 1:52:22 PM

^
No, the government shouldn't require it. Condone it? Sure. Endorse it? No.

If society cares about "leveling the playing field", and I'm certain that it does more than it doesn't, then each private individual can do "the dirty work" themselves.

When I choose where to spend my money, or who to hire for my business, or who to target with my charitable organization, I may decide to "over-select" women, native-americans, atheists, and polytheists. I don't think this is wrong, and it shouldn't be illegal -- it's my money and my business. Others may decide to over-select a different group. All of us in the private sector working together can make a difference -- but allowing politicians, judges, bureaucracies, and government in general to get into the game of deciding which minority group "deserves" what, is simply unfair, inappropriate, and wrong.

5/26/2009 2:23:44 PM

i am ready to rail against any pick made by Barack Hussein Obama

5/26/2009 2:59:06 PM

How can he pick anyone? He's not a real citizen!

5/26/2009 2:59:47 PM

JEAZUS FOR PRESIDENT, IMMEDIATELY.

5/26/2009 3:02:57 PM

RON PAUL RELOVEUTION 2009

either that or transport someone here from 1792 so we can have TRUE ORIGINALISTS

5/26/2009 3:05:24 PM

I'd comment, but I don't see the point since everyone has had a more rich experience than myself and can therefore come to a better conclusion.

5/26/2009 3:20:47 PM

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/helms_voted_for_sotomayor_in_98

Quote :

"President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, has already received at least one "yes" vote from a North Carolina Republican — and that was from none other than former Sen. Jesse Helms. Helms supported Sotomayor's nomination to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, a step below the highest court, back in 1998, according to Senate roll call records, Barb Barrett reports."

5/26/2009 3:23:33 PM

^
So? That was a over a decade ago -- Her ruling that conservatives take issue with was eariler this year.

^^

Quote :

"I'd comment, but I don't see the point since everyone has had a more rich experience than myself and can therefore come to a better conclusion."

Good point. I shouldn't have commented.
I mean, as a white male, I haven't lived the life of a latino woman, so I missed out on the richness of that experience. Had I, I would certainly reach a better conclusion on this issue.


"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." -Sotomayor

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 3:31:10 PM

sully linked to this today and it's a pretty good analysis of the situtaion:


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dynamic-of-the-nomination-of-sonia-sotomayor/

here's part of it:

Quote :

" I discuss below the four most probable lines of attack that committed ideologues are likely to advance, but to my mind basic political considerations make it very unlikely that mainstream Republican politicians will vocally join the criticism. The view of some that the nomination of Sotomayor will require the President to invest additional political capital seems completely wrong to me. Absent of course some ethical problem, the President simply has the votes. Even more important, Republicans cannot afford to find themselves in the position of implicitly opposing Judge Sotomayor. To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark. It really is impossible to overstate its significance. The achievement of a lifetime appointment at the absolute highest levels of the government is a profound event for that community, which in turn is a vital electoral group now and in the future. Equally significant for not only Hispanics but all Americans, Sotomayor has an extraordinarily compelling personal narrative. She grew up in a housing project, losing her father as an adolescent, raised (with her brother) by her mother, who worked as a nurse. She got herself to Princeton, graduating as one of the top two people in her class, then went to Yale Law. Almost all of her career has been in public service–as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name. For Republican Senators to come after Judge Sotomayor is not only hopeless when it comes to confirmation (something that did not deter Democrats in their attacks on Roberts and Alito) but a strategy that risks exacting a very significant political cost among Hispanics and independent voters generally, assuming that the attacks aren’t backed up with considerable substance. Objectively, her qualifications are overwhelming from the perspective of ordinary Americans. She has been a prosecutor, private litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge. No one currently on the Court has that complete package of experience. The most likely dynamic by far is the one that played out for Democrats with respect to Chief Justice Roberts. Democratic senators, recognizing the inevitable confirmation of a qualified and popular nominee, decided to hold their fire and instead direct their attacks to President Bush’s second nominee. Justice Alito was the collateral damage to that strategy. Here, with Justice Stevens’s retirement inevitable in the next few years, Republican senators are very likely to hold off conservative interest groups with promises to sharply examine President Obama’s second (potentially white male) nominee. "

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:55:07 PM

Hmmm, she has health issues already....

5/26/2009 4:12:14 PM

Quote :

"Good point. I shouldn't have commented. I mean, as a white male, I haven't lived the life of a latino woman, so I missed out on the richness of that experience. Had I, I would certainly reach a better conclusion on this issue. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." -Sotomayor"

What's funny is that if you were actually a latina, you'd be able to actually understand what she meant there, rather than mocking it out of context.

But maybe youre just joking, it's hard to tell over the Internet.

5/26/2009 4:34:56 PM

Quote :

"What's funny is that if you were actually a latina, you'd be able to actually understand what she meant there, rather than mocking it out of context."

Enlighten us all please, then, because within the current context, it makes me want to gag a little.

5/26/2009 5:13:57 PM

apparently its ok for non-whites to make blatantly racist remarks

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life"

i changed the words, and its still racist

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 5:18:09 PM

I'm sorry you feel offended that someone pointed out that white males are not in fact perfect.

As a person of perfection, I can only imagine how not being perfect might actually feel.

5/26/2009 5:19:07 PM

sounds to me like she pointed out that latina women are superior to white males

5/26/2009 5:20:36 PM

I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that.

5/26/2009 5:20:59 PM

we're still waiting for your explanation of how the quote is mocked out of context and not pure racism

and i'm not trolling, i'm quite curious to see your rationale

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 5:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 5:21:29 PM

^^
How do you do it?
How do you do the mental gymnastics necessary to view her statement as one of white males not being perfect??... and not a blatantly racist and sexist statement?

Look at what she said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

That is inescapably racist and sexist! How is it possible that you can't see that?




[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 5:23:38 PM

^^,^ how is it racist?

It doesn't say or imply in any way that one race is racially inferior to any other.

What definition of racism are you using?

5/26/2009 5:27:19 PM

set em up

5/26/2009 5:27:35 PM