Sotomayor

[vlaurend]

If a white man had said it, no one would care about the context or intended meaning. He'd have been destroyed instantly. That's called a double standard. It's disgusting how liberals preach equality yet enforce double standards on a daily basis. I am violently opposed to double standards, so I believe Sotomayor should be treated exactly the same as a white man would have been treated making the same statement - she should be publicly shamed and summarily dismissed just like the affirmative action case she ruled on. I reference the case of "goose and gander" as precedent.

I don't think you fully understand what is meant by "context". "Context," in this case, would mean a white male making the equivalent type of comment to a group of white males who have historically been an underprivileged minority in a particular walk of society. A good example might be a white single custodial father addressing a group of non-custodial fathers who want to have custody or joint custody of their children. In this scenario, the white male speaker says something to the effect that the experience of growing up as a male could help make a single father a better parent to a son in some ways than a single mother could be. In this scenario, I don't think he would have been "destroyed instantly" . People know that mothers tend to be favored in custodial cases and that good fathers who are fighting for custody probably need all the encouragement they can get. Just like Latina women need encouragement from successful Latina professionals (like judges) to believe that they can--and deserve to--succeed in a traditionally white male profession.
By the way, if you read the whole speech, you'll see that her overall message was that, yes, every person is influenced by his or her culture and upbringing, but that judges must always strive for neutrality and put their personal experiences and biases aside.
Here is the full speech. You have biases, like everyone does, but try to read it with an open mind and reserve judgment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...pagewanted=all

[Ptichka]

Would you dismiss a non-believer's view of moral issues which may well agree with the believers.

I don't know if you know of the Manifest Destiny which was interpreted in such a way that God said you have a right to go to the Pacific and do whatever is necessary to get there (including the slaughter of Native Americans families.
That was religious driven. Moral? guess!

I believe that religious-driven "morals" are neither better nor worse than those promoted by non-believers. Certainly, religion has been used to justify everything - Christianity was an excuse for both slavery and abolitionism. In fact, the vast majority of the "religious" values are in reality the values of the society, just explained through the religious texts.

The issues of abortions is tricky because it really depends on when "life starts". As I've said before, I do believe abortions should be legal for pragmatic reasons if nothing else, but it is, indeed, hard to pinpoint when that moment occurs when a fetus becomes a "human being". By contrast, some primitive cultures do not consider a child "human" until it is weaned, and killing such a child is not considered murder. The law right now says it's 20 weeks - the point when a child could theoretically survive if it were born. On the one hand, I'm fine with it because there is really no reason for a woman to wait that long to get rid of the pregnancy - I mean come on, that's 5 months since last period! OTOH, though, I do believe that abortions should be available until very late into pregnancy if a problem is found with the baby's health. That, however, gets us into the whole disabled peoples rights debate, which is a whole other ball of wax...

Actually it's another body inside their body, and a third body was required to help create it. But it's good to know you freely abdicate all of your pre-natal parental rights, just another way you and I disagree.

Remind me please how the father suffers through morning sickness, round ligament pain, excessive heartburn, uncontrollable urination, shortness of breath, fatigue, and, of course, the actual delivery, either vaginal or Cesarean, which is just a walk in the park for most! Well - actually it is a walk in the park - for most fathers that is.

[Joesitz]

Is anyone listening?

Does anyone go along with another Woman, and a Puerto Rican ancestry one at that to be on the Supreme Court? She will add a bit of change outside the white man's world. But isn't it better than having another Roberts and Thomas?

I just hope her Catholicism doesn't get in the way like it does with Scalia.

[Ptichka]

The hearings are a joke. She's really got the nomination in the bag, so all she has to do is stay away from any blunders. Along the way, she's been giving the most boring and uninspired of answers - not too dissimilar from the responses by the Bush nominees. Good thing this doesn't reflect anything about her character!

I wouldn't put Roberts and Thomas quite in the same category (not to mention Scalia). While I disagree with much in Roberts' philosophy, I understand where his opinions come from and do respect them. Thomas' judicial philosophy, OTOH, often seems a bit off to me.

As to variety - whatever. "Variety" on the Supreme Court used to mean having judges from different states; today it means ethnic and gender variations. Don't believe it makes much of a difference other than in a symbolic sense.

[janetfan]

Is anyone listening?

Does anyone go along with another Woman, and a Puerto Rican ancestry one at that to be on the Supreme Court? She will add a bit of change outside the white man's world. But isn't it better than having another Roberts and Thomas?

I just hope her Catholicism doesn't get in the way like it does with Scalia.

I was watching off and on. Today, Lindsay Graham asked a few snarly questions but with a polite tone, otherwise it was not a particularly exciting day.

As to Roberts and Alito, the two GW Bush appointees, this "woman" already has more judicial experience than either of them.

Thomas is a good reason why life-time appointments are NOT always a good idea for Surpeme Court Justices. He is little more than Scalia's toadie.

[heyang]

I don't pretend to delve into all the details. However, based upon what I've read of the fireman's suit, she and her fellow judges voted to dismiss their suit. The press is making it seem as though she made the decision alone. Also, the Supreme Court narrowly negated their decision and mostly, it seems, because they did not prove that the minority firefighter's would have pressed suit - otherwise, the supreme court may have upheld their decision, as well.

As for the Latina woman comment, I do think that it was taken too literally and out of context. Let's be real, everyone brings their own personality, personal baggage and reality into everything they do - that's why we're different. As she puts it, she can only aspire to rise above her personal beliefs and uphold the law objectively. The rest of us have the luxury to not have to do it, but judge anyway.

I've also read stories of her upholding the law when it did not correlate to her personal preferences, which is all we can ask of a judge on all levels of our judicial system.

[Tinymavy15]

I really don't have that much of a beef with her. Is her resume impressive? yeah. Could Obama have picked somebody better? I think so. Will she mess up our country? No, I highly doubt it. Look, everybody knows she will "pass" this "examination" they are putting her through, and then she will put on her black robe and nobody will ever think about her again. The justice she is replacing was liberal, so the balance of power will remain pretty much the same.

[Particle Man]

The justice she is replacing was liberal, so the balance of power will remain pretty much the same.

That about says it all.

Imagine if the human race could actually use their minds, instead of being liberals or conservatives. Oh well. Earth = fail.