Supreme Court Nominee

[SubGod22]

Battle Over Sotomayor Heats Up


And apparently reverse racism is OK in a Supreme Court Justice...... :roll:

[SubGod22]

Gingrich: Sotomayor 'Racist,' Should Withdraw

[wu_shizzle]

Gingrich: Sotomayor 'Racist,' Should Withdraw

At least Newt as a backbone...

[1979Shocker]

Gingrich: Sotomayor 'Racist,' Should Withdraw

Gingrich is only taking part of her comments and using that to call it racism. Here is her complete comment from 2001 from the California, Berkeley, School of Law.

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.

I don't see anything racist about that. If I was of whatever race, I think I could state that I might be able to come to a better conclusion than someone of another race who hadn't gone through the same experiences I had.

[SubGod22]

Are you saying a white judge could get away with saying based off of his life he could come to a better conclusion than a minority? He would be crucified and forced to withdraw his name from consideration to the Supreme Court.


Life experiences have nothing to do with ruling on law. The law is law and if it's to be changed it's to be done in the legislature. Until then, judges do what they're supposed to do and rule based off of the law and the constitution.

[Maggie]

I don’t think what Gingrich is doing is a smart move. Furthermore, I don’t think his accusation/opinion/observation gets to the heart of what should be the issue – Sotomayor’s personal view of what the role an Appellate Judge or Justice has or should have in our system of government. Whatever you might believe about that particular statement, which does shed some light on this issue, she also said this in that same speech:

I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

What is your take on this part of her speech 1979Shocker? This passage, in my judgment, raises a lot of questions.

[1979Shocker]

Are you saying a white judge could get away with saying based off of his life he could come to a better conclusion than a minority? He would be crucified and forced to withdraw his name from consideration to the Supreme Court.

No, I'm only saying that some races go through things that other races don't. If a white judge had gone through some experience that another race had not gone through, then I would hope that experience would allow him to make a better decision related to that experience.

For instance, a white person probably doesn't know what it's like to be pull over for no other reason than being of a different color.

Or a white person probably doesn't know what it's like to be threaten by law enforcement, or have someone call you anonymously threatening to hang you from a tree.

[1979Shocker]

I don’t think what Gingrich is doing is a smart move. Furthermore, I don’t think his accusation/opinion/observation gets to the heart of what should be the issue – Sotomayor’s personal view of what the role an Appellate Judge or Justice has or should have in our system of government. Whatever you might believe about that particular statement, which does shed some light on this issue, she also said this in that same speech:

I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

What is your take on this part of her speech 1979Shocker?

It's kind of hard to tell what's she's trying to get across or is thinking in that first paragraph, but when she says, "...when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate", if she's saying that for a particular race, than I don't think that would be right.

In the second paragraph above when she says, "...creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench...", it's okay as long as the women and people of color also go through the same process as everyone else. I don't know if she means that because some races don't always have the same opportunities for educational advances as others to become lawyers and judges or if she's saying those women or people of color that are already lawyers or judges need to have opportunities to be on the bench. The only thing I can say on that would be if they're qualified, it should take care of itself.

I hope that sort of answered what you wanted.

[Maggie]

Look I sympathize with you trying to figure out exactly what Sotomayor is getting at in this speech. I found it to be a bit muddled —it’s certainly not something that those struggling to portray Sotomayor as brilliant legal mind would want to highlight. I didn't really pay much attention to the latter part of the last paragraph because it is not important in this context but the rest is interesting, so to speak. I would want to ask, at least with regard to the passage I highlighted, the following questions (maybe you should think about them too because you seem naturally inclined to focus in the right direction):

What exactly does she believe are those occasions when her "sympathies and prejudices are appropriate" in reaching a decision?

And when did the Supreme Court "suggest" that there would be such occasions in the exercise of the judicial function?

Why does she think that judging is a "series of choices" that she "must make" rather than a series of discernments of those choices that the law has already made?

What has she learned in her study or practice of law and judging that makes her believe that judging is an exercise in "morality"?

Is there a role for moral discretion for the judge interpreting the Constitution or a statute—the principal business of federal appellate judging? If so, what would that role be?

And while I found it refreshing that she seemed recognize the "danger embedded in relative morality," she does appear to embrace it nonetheless as inevitable for a judge; so what does she mean by "relative morality"?

It sounds to me like "relativism," or the notion that morality is inherently subjective, to be guided by the passions rather than reason. It's a dubious business to assign to judges the role of moralizers or moral philosophers in the first place; isn't it infinitely worse to suppose they are to be, not moral reasoners, but moral emotionalists?

EDIT:
I didn’t get chance to finish this post; however, I think that despite her likely confirmation the Republicans need to focus their attention on Judge Sotomayor’s legal philosophy not identity politics. Her personal narrative, so highly touted by the Administration, is not important – and American’s shouldn’t care. What I am basically trying to get at is the following:

Does Judge Sotomayor embrace a view of judging that is constrained by the text, history, and principles of the Constitution and our laws? Or does she favor an interpretive enterprise in which a judge’s personal feelings, views, background, and politics drive the outcome of cases?

Conservatives and Republicans should make these type of questions the basis their inquiry and opposition, if appropriate.

[Maggie]

The Sotomayor Rules by Kimberley A. Strassel

I think she has written a solid article, I especially agree with this:

Republicans…[should]..lay down their own rules, the first being that they will not partake in the tactics of personal destruction that were waged by the left on nominees such as Mr. Thomas or Mr. Alito or Mr. Estrada. But the party could also make a rule to not be scared away from using Judge Sotomayor's nomination, or future Obama picks, as platforms for big, civil, thorough debates about the role of the courts and the risk of activist judges to American freedoms and beliefs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/potomac_watch.html#printMode

[SubGod22]

GLENN BECK: It’s the Constitution, Stupid

[Maggie]

More on Judge Sotomayor and the Ricci case, in this case the audio from oral argument in the Second Circuit. I was going to post it earlier but I was a little busy on Friday. Also, I didn’t have time to listen to the audio over the weekend.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/29/sotomayor-tape-reveals-views-on-ricci-v-destefano-discrimination-case/

[Maggie]

Well, I suppose this was an honest response from Senator Reid when he was asked about Judge Sotomayor:

"I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them,” the majority leader told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday.

:blink:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0609/Reids_not_reading.html

[RoyalShock]

Is he the same guy who basically said it's his job to vote on the bills, not read them?

[SubGod22]

Is he the same guy who basically said it's his job to vote on the bills, not read them?

I'm pretty sure he is. How does a man that open about his own incompetence get elected?