Mr. Obama and his aides responded by denouncing her critics while saying she had used a poor choice of words. “I’m sure she would have restated it,” Mr. Obama said on Friday. “But if you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through — that will make her a good judge.”

The White House and its liberal supporters also dug up quotes from Republican-appointed justices, including Samuel A. Alito Jr., who said at his confirmation hearing that his immigrant roots played into his consideration of cases.

“When a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases,” he said at the hearing, “I can’t help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.”



Its silly to think a person's past experiences wont
in someway affect judgement. The Supreme Court
takes on the very toughest cases. If the cases were
easy, they would all be 9-0.

This pontification about the Supreme Court having
to view the Constitution in a perfectly sterile way is
absurd, yet this is basically what we are fed.

If everything is so darn clear why do we have all these
5-4 decisions with dissents and opinions dressed up
by very good writers in order to appear to lack any political
or personal bias...

If you follow the Supreme Court you can usually pick which
judge voted where as long as the legal question is made clear.
Occasionally there are some surprises.

I can think of a case that makes it seem like her comments play out in her judicial philosophy. How about the case involving the firefighters?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354041637563491.html

unless they dig up a corpse under her porch, it's going to be an easy downhill coast to confirmation.

most elected republicans are relieved someone more ideological wasn't nominated. many liberals may wish they had gotten the ideological choice but aren't going to oppose her.

supreme court nominations are fund raising opportunities for advocacy groups of all ideological stripes. the nominee doesn't matter in terms of whether there's going to be some "controversy" manufactured.

looking at a judicial record that shows no evidence of bias in favor of minorities and generally narrow rulings that apply only to a specific case, only the seriously uninformed could think this is a troubled nomination.

I would agree with you that she is a very heavy favorite to be confirmed.

i think you get 5/4 decisions because some think the constitution is a 'living, breathing' document, while others do not.
you have rulings such as roe v wade, where the justices who voted to allow abortion thought that said right was contained in the right to privacy-certainly abortion rights are not specifically named in the constitution.

Of course I would find those comments offensive if a white, Republican male made them. Actually, perhaps offensive isn't the right word, but delusional would be better.

Only white, male, Republicans think that white, male, Republicans have some unique set of life experiences. Minorities of all kinds, folks without the sorts of built in privilege, DO have a unique view on things. I fully believe that, and it has nothing to do with quotas, affirmative action, or anything. White, male, heterosexual, Republicans would easily be the most privileged class of folks in the entire country, so of COURSE it would be different, because it would make absolutely no sense and it would rightly be seen as nothing but a racialist comment.

I firmly believe, and people can disagree all they want, that being a minority and having qualities about you that have no privilege does make one privy to a unique set of circumstances....and white, male, heterosexual, Republicans are about as privileged as you can get.

If the concept of privilege is lost on you, then I could type 80,000 words on it and you'll never get it.

EDIT: Let me add that I don't think that this unique set of experiences I'm talking about should influence her judicial philosophy, and she was being honest in that speech while acknowledging that it exists, how her striving to remain impartial is key. She knows that this potential bias is there, but she admits it's there and talks about how she avoids letting it influence her. The fact that she's a Latina isn't why I think she should be a judge, and she essentially admits as much in her speech. I take this whole dustup as nothing more than people interpreting something she said in a way she didn't mean it whatsoever, because to me, all she's done is acknowledge that minorities realize that their experience is unique in white America.

neither is the right to privacy.

it did mention that slaves should be counted as 3/5 of a white man when doing a census to apportion representation in congress.

so we had that spelled out for us.

roe v wade was 7-2, btw.

i'd just concede she misspoke.

if there was only one "wise" decision, then a wise white male should reach the same decision as a wise latina female.

in this sort of discourse you have to ignore that there isn't a single "wise" course and that all decisions have both bad and good consequences. you have to ignore context. you have to ignore nuance.

this part of the nomination process isn't about the nominee. it's political, not judicial.

she can't speak for herself in public until the judiciary committee hearings. in the meantime, all the "judicial watch" pac's have to justify their existence. this is when they get all their contribution's.

relax. every nominee goes through this process. no one will remember the "controversy" a year from now.

That's what I'm doing -- it has nothing to do with being "wise" at all. It has to do with acknowledging a unique set of circumstances and being cognizant of their existence. And it has nothing to do with her judicial philosophy, which is why I characterize it as a scare quote...because it's being pulled out of this speech to prove one point, when the point she was making is a world away.

I'm not saying she's a better judge because of them...and she doesn't seem to think so either in the context of the entire speech she gave.

Clarence Thomas.
He wishes he was 3/5 of a man getting
beatn by guys with white wigs.

Events have arisen that the constitution could never have
imagined. So when problems arise as mentioned, one pigeon
holes the question to fit their particular moral comfort zone.

Living breathing document might not be the proper metaphor
but that is the way we get it fed to us. How about its very
old and there are certain issues that dont fit nicely
under anything that is written so we pretend like the constitution
does or does not say something on the issue..


Law and lawyers love word games. Intentions, beyond a reasonable
doubt, on and on... my little hang up.

Is she not American? Was she not born in this counrty and afforded all the rights that every other person born in America is?
It would be like me saying ( because of where my families came from) that as wise Germanic woman I would be wiser at making decsions than an American Indian when it pertains to someone of Germanic heritage. Its her belief that she would be better at coming to a judical conclussion when it pertains to someone of ethnenticity than someone who's direct heritage is not ethnic.
To me and it is only my opinion that should rule from the bench with no bias whatsoever.

she was born in the bronx and was raised by a single mother. that's the same demographic that usually results in a career path as a stripper.

instead she graduated from princeton and then yale law school.

her legal opinions are narrow and show no bias.

a dropout from southeast missouri state university with a drug problem tells you she's a reverse racist and unqualified for the supreme court. you take that as gospel?

Hey man its just my opinon , everyday folks grow up and live thru hard lives and are succesful , my parents divorced when I was 14 years old and I somehow managed to grow up to be a productive member of society.
My cousin who works for the Secret Service grew up with an alcoholic abusive father somehow managed to get educated and be a part of President Clintons team of protection.
My friend the Harvard graduated podiatrist somehow managed to become successfull despite the fact that his father died when he was 3.
I have no idea who the drop out is that you are talking about , I do my own reading and I havent come to a final conclusion about her but just the little that I have researched leads me to believe that she perhaps might rule with more empathy than I would prefer.

She didn't say a Conservative White Male, or a Republican White Male. She didn't say a rich white male, or a white male from a well to do family. She singled out a group based solely on sex and race. You(on the other hand) have used Republican White Males as a group that is privileged. At least you've used something besides sex n' race. You've at least used someone's political outlook. She simply used sex n' race. I think it's too big of a brush for someone to be using if they are going to be considered for a spot on the Supreme Court. I considerate quite odd to want to ignore a comment she made that singled out a group of judges based solely on their sex n' race. I don't know why anybody would want her after reading she said that. Minorities have got to someday get beyond the blame whitey man attitude that she represented quite well in that statement(I consider it to be nothing less than her showing you her subtle racist/sexist view of the world.) I think he should find someone better than that. Plenty of people have lost jobs for these types of public statements. Trying to prop her up shows you're not out for equality or fairness (as you correctly do in the gay marriage issue) in judges, because your willing to overlook the same type of sexist-racist remarks that I'm sure you would find inappropriate for many others to express. It's a double standard. I do not see the immigrant statement made by Judge Sam to be like this. Having some bias towards immigrants is not the same as having a bias against someone of a specific sex and/or race. If you objectively look at this, she shows signs of having bias against white males, and that really should make her unacceptable. I'm sure he can find a Liberal Judge that is much less biased against a specific sex and/or race. No matter the huge effort you put into to denying it, that is a sexist/ racist statement she made. I don't have to overlook it just because she's a Liberal Judge that I would probably agree with on most issues. I see no reason to. Why should I?

I am objectively looking at it, and I don't see it as any kind of bias whatsoever. I believe that people's unique set of perspectives should be acknowledged....and judge Sotomayor apparently seems to as well.

I'm far more concerned with her case history, and her upholding the NH firefighter case is hardly some smoking gun of a "blame whitey" mentality that you want to make this out to be. There's nothing objectionable in her case history, and that's the point I keep trying to make.

If this quote ACTUALLY means what you keep saying it means....how come she's done a 100% great job of hiding it through countless decisions...throughout her entire life, for that matter?

She must be really stupid then, to be hiding it all this time and then in a moment of weakness in a prepared speech, just freely admit it. Please. The point here is that it you can say all day long that she's some secret whitey-hating racist sexist manhater, but the fact remains that it's clear she's not and her case history proves that a billion times over. And that's what a judge is supposed to be, right....a judge? So until there's a real problem with her history of being a judge, this is all way blown out of proportion.

And like HIG said earlier...this is all politics. Since there's nothing in her case history to complain about, this is the outrage du jour. It'll be forgotten in short order and she'll be a fine justice on the Supreme Court. Good will win out over selective outrage every day of the week....sometimes it just takes awhile for people to calm down and regain their bearings. I'm confident that this will all turn out the way it should, and that's why it's all so entertaining to me for the time being.

what's funny here is President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to the supreme court - i believe he was the 1st hispanic nominated for the highest judical office in the land

dems absoultley de-railed him and treated him with a total lack of respect , all because he was there worst nightmare - a hispanic who actually had conservative views , the media is a total joke - remember the ny times has to pay loan shark fees to stay in business folks

stand corrected folks he was nominated for the dc court of appeals , not the supreme court (but basically the 2nd highest court in the land)

But there was a little more of a solid paper trail that could be attacked than one quote that has been analyzed to death..

Let's talk about Clarence Thomas....forget about pubic hairs and sexual innuendos..hey..it's just the "office"..this man NEVER did sh*t in his life other than be a conservative black man who, ironically, got where he was because of Democratic policies. He by far is the dumbest judge...even traffic court..that I have ever seen. At least Scalia can justify his personal beliefs and judgements by citing the constitution like Oral Roberts does the Bible. That's what makes him brilliant...otherwise he's just Ann Coulter with a beer belly.

Oddly enough it is fairly evident that Scalia
really does not respect Thomas, even though
these two have probably voted the same way
more times than any two judges currently on the
court.

wish I knew how to look that up.
Stevens and Ginsberg are probably close also.

I'm not gunna give you the quote again. If you look at that quote objectively, she's talking about her sex, her race, the male sex, and the white race. She said someone of her sex n' race would be better at something than a male member of a specific race. Yes, we normally do tolerate a sexist-racist statement like this from some members of our society. You choose to continue to do that, and I think people who want an important public service position (like this one) should not be given the pass(unless you want all members of society to get the same pass.) Oh, and yes, I do think she was stupid to say it. Like I said before, I think the statement shows enough subtle sexism, and racism to make her inappropriate for this(mainy because we don't have to settle.) If she is allowed to get on that court, a message will be sent to people of her community (and other ones) that it's o.k. to make a sexist-racist statement if you're a member of a minority group. It's 2009, and it's time to stop giving out that message. Unlike the majority of Liberals, I am not being a hypocrite about this.

I dare you to reproduce then.

And she obviously misspoke....which while we're going in circles here, is incredibly important. And that's where the entire CONTEXT of the speech comes in. It was still a bonehead statement, but it's not like that was her point.

If you're unwilling to take the entire speech in context, just say that. Say that all you care about is the quote you've provided, and you care nothing about its context. Then I can stop arguing it, because if you're being willfully ignorant about what she actually means, then I can't carry on. Trust me, you don't want people to start cherry picking things of yours out and taking them out of context. It'd be awfully easy.

And if she was such a terrible racist, why would she be the dissenting (I repeat, DISSENTING...as in, in the minority) opinion in a case in which doing so meant she had to defend a white man who was dismissed from his job for being a racist.

So if you want to argue about that exact quote as in only the words in it, then we're done discussing it because you refuse to look at the big picture...which is why I call it a scare quote, regardless of who falls for it.

The big picture is that she's not a racist, and she's not a sexist, and this quote has zero to do with her judicial philosophy, and repeating this quote over and over won't change that a bit. It'll rile some people up, but it won't prove a single thing and it still won't matter one iota when she's confirmed, as she rightfully should be.

Her confirmation won't do any of the things you're saying it will, and won't create a groundswell of secret racists who think they can get away with saying anything because Sonia Sotomayor apparently got sneaky and put one over on the country. Please.

If this is all they've got on her, and it is, and it's all anyone falls for in grabbing for straws for a reason to oppose her...then she's a pretty impeccable nominee.

I feel no need to contribute to the population , I never have , I have a happy life with a wonderfull partner . What does reproduction have to do with this thread if I may ask?
Also have you ever looked up the cost of sperm and getting inseminated? I mean it truly is highway robbery to charge what they charge for something that is shot into a sock , spit on the floor and thrown in the trash everyday.

In my opinion, the argument that starts with the question, "what if a white guy said the same thing," is completely flawed from the start....because a "white" guy actually couldn't say the exact same thing. If a "white" male made a similar statement to the one that she did, but switched around the racial and gender identifiers, it would be a statement with a completely different meaning. Why? Because race and gender are socially constructed categories that can't be easily distinguished from the power dynamics that created them in the first place. Hundreds of years of racial and gender discrimination cannot simply be wiped away when examining the motivations or the realities of these statements.

I understand that many people who are interested in "fairness" simply wish that all people would stop making statements such as she did. That is a noble sentiment. But while claiming that there would be an uproar over a white man making a similar sounding statement is true, it is also utterly irrelevant. People spend too much time attempting to determine if certain people or phrases should, or should not, be labeled as racist or sexist, as if they are absolute categories in which a person or statement must 100% belong or not. That isn't how it works. What she said, and how she said it, may be unfortunate, but it remains a fundamentally different statement than if a "white" guy had made a similar sounding statement.

Ive read a few more articles on other rulings of Sotomayor , there is one where she appoligized to a non-citizen drug dealer for having to give him the mandatory minimum sentence because she felt he was a product of his enviroment and she basically said that she felt bad that he wouldnt be able to rejoin his family sooner.
There is also another interesting ruling concerning a man who was convicted of child molestation years before and the suspicion that he was down loading child pornography onto his computer , the law wanted to confiscate his computer but the judge decided that just because he molested a child before didnt mean that he was downloading child porn .
Her conclusion therefore is that if the collection of pornography come first followed by child molestation, then the two bear a rational relationship to each other, but if they occur in the reverse order there is no logical connection between them

This is an easy two parter, based mostly on "some articles I've read," which seem to be where everyone is getting their information on her. No wonder everyone's all worked up over nothing....it's like asking Michelle Malkin for advice on bi-partisan reconciliation and using it as your ammo to make a point later.

The first -- so she doesn't think that the war on drugs is effective and that she thinks it's possible for drug dealers to have ended up there based on the economic realities of society. She is far from alone in this country. Agree or not, she upheld the law and handed down a sentence while making commentary on it that had nothing to do with her ruling. In certain circles, this is called doing your job.

The second -- the child pornography one. She said that she didn't think the FBI's affidavit established probable cause for the search just based on his prior offense, but concluded that either way, the agents were justified in searching the home and that the constitutional violation didn't cancel the evidence and that the resulting evidence was therefore legitimate. The guy in question is in prison. This is another example of the kind of thing that may have contributed to her getting a reputation for actually doing her job.

This, of course, is just from some articles I've read.

Its good to know that some of us are doing our research and drawing our conclussions from it , it never hurts to have an informed opinon.

I will just say this , doing her job is what she what she was put in the position for , appologizing to a guy who helps ruin peoples lives who isnt even supposed to be in this country is just silly , in my opinon.

By the way in her ruling she deemed that the judge who ordered the search warrant didnt have probable cause to issue it because the case against the man years before was for child molestation and not porn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GBBob But there was a little more of a solid paper trail that could be attacked than one quote that has been analyzed to death..

so tell me why he shouldn't have gotten the position on the DC court Bob?

give me some hard facts .whyshouldn't i beleive that Miguel was turned down because a republican president was appointing a conservative hispanic

here we have someone that is a minority , and then senate democratc invoke cloture to not even allow and up and down vote on this historic nomination of a hispanic immigrant from Hondorus ---- if it was the other way around we all know what the story would have been in the papers

but the fact is cloture was used only 1 time ever in the history of this country to stop a nominee from getting an up and down vote

Dick Durbin had his hands all over this one

Reproduction... productive member...
a hyaaah...(sneeze, excuse please)

A sorry attempt at humor my good lady.

BTW, one has to be very nice to sperm cells.
They need to be chilled, sung to sleep,
and then gently reawakened.

Other than having the appropriate sex and/or race to make you happy, why would you want to settle for someone who misspeaks, and makes bonehead statements? Can't he find someone who is better than this, and still satisfies his desire to put a minority and/or a woman on the court? I'm gunna watch a Dodger game soon. There's a guy who does whatever he's asked to do during Dodger telecasts (both at home, and on the road.) He(at one time) had a national gig on Fox, but he misspoke. Funny how she gets a pass(and a better job) even though she's gunna be making important decisions, but male whites(like the guy I referred to) get demoted. Like I said, I see this stuff from Liberals as simple hypocrisy. I have no problem with any minority (male,female, trans whatever) going on the Supreme Court. I just don't want one who said what she said. We can find someone better than this. I think either we ignore all this "misspeaking," or none of it. One, or the other(not easier rules because of someone's sex or race.)

scuds - help me out , what happened with Miguel Estrada , was that not a national dis-grace?

One thing that hurt was not giving up Estrada's memos
when he was with the Solicitor Generals
office. The office had given up info for other
nominees but for some reason not under Bush.

Estrada was not the only one torpedoed by the Democrats
in that round of bipartisan fighting. That was very nasty.

imo the Democrats could come back and use the nuclear
option that the Republicans threatened back then (if the
liberals were to have carried out yet another filibuster).

Or filibustering could give Obama a chance to find an ultra-liberal
nominee to come back with. And then come back with
P.Soto later when Ginsberg retires.

oops... that was for scuds.
sorry.

What took place during Hurricane Katrina was a national disgrace. I don't have a problem with the Senate Democrats using a filibuster to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote on the full Senate floor. Get the votes you need. This is an important part of our system. I think it should be used this time to force OBA to get someone better.

Yes, I can see the Republicans letting a latent racist on the court, because if they filibuster, Oba could nominate a more Liberal person than her. I don't see them filibustering 2 in a row. In fairness to others who have lost jobs due to "misspeaking," I think they should filibuster her. She wouldn't be losing her job. She would be kept from getting one that really she is inappropriate for. Get someone like her, but without the latent racism. Amazing how we have come forward enough to have a minority President, but we still don't want to demand that minorities treat whites etc. with respect. We aren't there yet.

She said the same sexist stuff in a '94 speech. She left out the "Latina"/"White" adjectives. Same thought, but without race.
It's not just 2001, and it's not explained away by the "misspeaking" excuse.

With all the hype, and the "magic" this administration has brought to the Capital, the lady will probably be confirmed. But she is(was) a member of
"La Raza" which is a couple of steps down the ladder from the KKK, of which the oldest member of the Democratic leadership proudly served once upon a time! Somebody...nudge Mr. Byrd and have him stand for a round of applause!
FYI......La Raza is a major supporter of Mecha...their motto is "For the Race everything; for the Outside nothing"