- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Every body ok with her?
I think she will be a swing voter according to her own conscience.
I think she will be a swing voter according to her own conscience.
Sotomayor
- Thread starter Joesitz (RIP)
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
I have no rel problem with her statements, either about Latina woman being wiser than a white man or about the courts making policy.
I do, though, have a problem with her decision regarding New Haven firefighters and the New London decision regarding property rights. I disagreed strongly with both of those decisions at the time they were first made, so it has nothing to do with the Republican campaign against her now.
I do, though, have a problem with her decision regarding New Haven firefighters and the New London decision regarding property rights. I disagreed strongly with both of those decisions at the time they were first made, so it has nothing to do with the Republican campaign against her now.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
As has been said already -- if a white man had made the statement she made, he would have been run out on a rail. She didn't just make one statement either, she clearly discriminates against white men (firefighter incident.) She didn't even hear their case, she just dismissed it out of hand. She also joked about the legal system, paraphrased here: "I'm on camera so I better say that judges don't make law, we just interpret it! (sic)."
So in summary: she's an activist judge who doesn't respect the separation of powers in our 3 branches of government, she is biased in terms of race and gender, and many of the decisions she has been responsible for have been overturned by higher courts. But she'll get nominated because she is a liberal latina woman and the liberal media loves her. When a similar judge with a similar life history of hardship etc. was up for nomination recently, the media didn't support him at all because he leaned conservative.
I've given up on this country.
So in summary: she's an activist judge who doesn't respect the separation of powers in our 3 branches of government, she is biased in terms of race and gender, and many of the decisions she has been responsible for have been overturned by higher courts. But she'll get nominated because she is a liberal latina woman and the liberal media loves her. When a similar judge with a similar life history of hardship etc. was up for nomination recently, the media didn't support him at all because he leaned conservative.
I've given up on this country.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
She's against Abortion and she is against Gays. How liberal is that?
to me, she is not unlike Sandra Day who also voted her own conscience.
to me, she is not unlike Sandra Day who also voted her own conscience.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
I can't say I'm crazy about the fact that of the 9 judges, 6 will be of one religion, Catholic.
OTOH, I'll be glad to see another woman on the court.
OTOH, I'll be glad to see another woman on the court.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
Why Sotomayor rejected the firefighters' claim:
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/
Also, Sotomayor didn't say that Latina women were wiser than white men: if you read her entire 2002 speech in context she's just making the (very true) point that different judges with different life experiences will make different decisions in judging. For instance, in that speech, she also said that "the aspiration to impartiality is just that—it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others." I don't think her point is particularly controversial--it's not inconcievable that a Latina woman would make different decisions than a white male. And as for her original comment, she said: "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." She's speaking about herself, not Latina women in general.
That being said, Sotomayor isn't exactly my dream candidate for the US Supreme Court but I think we should be fair and evaluate Sotomayor on what's she actually done, not hyperbolic accusations.
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/
Also, Sotomayor didn't say that Latina women were wiser than white men: if you read her entire 2002 speech in context she's just making the (very true) point that different judges with different life experiences will make different decisions in judging. For instance, in that speech, she also said that "the aspiration to impartiality is just that—it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others." I don't think her point is particularly controversial--it's not inconcievable that a Latina woman would make different decisions than a white male. And as for her original comment, she said: "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." She's speaking about herself, not Latina women in general.
That being said, Sotomayor isn't exactly my dream candidate for the US Supreme Court but I think we should be fair and evaluate Sotomayor on what's she actually done, not hyperbolic accusations.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Evangeline, I saw that article before. I just seriously disagree with the logic (BTW, I do agree that New Haven was essentially screwed - it would have been sued either way). We have a similar situation in Massachusetts now - there is a movement to abolish/ change the teaching certification exam because so many African Americans fail it. I disagree. I do, though, agree with you regarding judging her actions, not her words - which is why I'm having a problem only with her rulings, not with she's said.
Joe, I don't think she's "anti-abortion". AFAIK, her only "anti-abortion" ruling was the one where she upheld the executive branch's right to refuse funds to organizations that facilitate abortions. So this was more about separation of powers. I also wasn't aware of any major rulings of hers regarding gay rights.
Joe, I don't think she's "anti-abortion". AFAIK, her only "anti-abortion" ruling was the one where she upheld the executive branch's right to refuse funds to organizations that facilitate abortions. So this was more about separation of powers. I also wasn't aware of any major rulings of hers regarding gay rights.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I do read a lot of politics and watch Rachel Maddow often. I am also getting on in years where I retain the gist of a statement but do not remember where it came from.
As Doris pointed out, she is Catholic and those two 'anti' statements are in line with that Church's teachings. Just speculating.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
Because it risked hurting affirmative action laws. Guess what, judges are supposed to rule fairly and objectively on any given case, not worry about a correct decision hurting other parts of law, especially when it's because of their own political beliefs. She also didn't even provide reasoning, she just dismissed it offhand without even filling in the proper places on the form.
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.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Joe, here are some articles on Sotomayor and gay rights
http://michiganmessenger.com/19920/sotomayor-letter-on-anti-gay-attack-surfaces - straight forward, sure, but not bad for 1976(!)
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2009/05/the-gay-verdict-on-sotomayor.html - there is nothing in her judicial record regarding GLBT issues.
Regarding abortion rights - her only ruling relating to abortions besides the one I've already mentioned (which concerned funding for family planning organizations overseas only), is also one that is technically pro-life, but that I doubt any liberal in their right mind can possibly have a problem with - she dissented on the majority opinion that husbands of Chinese women seeking asylum on the grounds of forced abortions in their homeland were not eligible for asylum along with them; sucky ruling, IMHO, and I agree with Sotomayor'd dissent. There was actually one other case, but I'd reserve my judgment on it until I know more details - she ruled that police used excessive force on anti-abortion demonstrators. In general, I think anti-abortion demonstrators use very obnoxious tactics, but in a case such as that it's really about the details. My guess is that on abortions she'll closely mirror Kennedy - uphold Roe v Wade but also allow limitations on it. BTW, while I am staunchly pro-choice, I do agree that Roe v Wade was a decision that had absolutely nothing to do with the constitution, so it's hard for me to feel too much negativity against the judges that are ambiguous about it (not so the legislators - their whole job is to make policy).
http://michiganmessenger.com/19920/sotomayor-letter-on-anti-gay-attack-surfaces - straight forward, sure, but not bad for 1976(!)
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2009/05/the-gay-verdict-on-sotomayor.html - there is nothing in her judicial record regarding GLBT issues.
Regarding abortion rights - her only ruling relating to abortions besides the one I've already mentioned (which concerned funding for family planning organizations overseas only), is also one that is technically pro-life, but that I doubt any liberal in their right mind can possibly have a problem with - she dissented on the majority opinion that husbands of Chinese women seeking asylum on the grounds of forced abortions in their homeland were not eligible for asylum along with them; sucky ruling, IMHO, and I agree with Sotomayor'd dissent. There was actually one other case, but I'd reserve my judgment on it until I know more details - she ruled that police used excessive force on anti-abortion demonstrators. In general, I think anti-abortion demonstrators use very obnoxious tactics, but in a case such as that it's really about the details. My guess is that on abortions she'll closely mirror Kennedy - uphold Roe v Wade but also allow limitations on it. BTW, while I am staunchly pro-choice, I do agree that Roe v Wade was a decision that had absolutely nothing to do with the constitution, so it's hard for me to feel too much negativity against the judges that are ambiguous about it (not so the legislators - their whole job is to make policy).
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
^^^
So much anti feelings in this country stem from church teachings. I think Roe v. Wade is a constitutional decision on Separation of Church and State. But then, I'm a male and believe the whole issue should be left to women. It's their body.
So much anti feelings in this country stem from church teachings. I think Roe v. Wade is a constitutional decision on Separation of Church and State. But then, I'm a male and believe the whole issue should be left to women. It's their body.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Joe, I agree with the second part of your statements - abortions should be legal. However, I don't see this as a church/ state separation issue. Religious morality has fueled many things in American history, including abolitionism and opposition to death penalty. Just because a moral issue has its roots in a religion, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
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.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
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!
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
as I said, if you can read. It is a women's issue. When they get together on it (and hopefully not for religious reasons), then that should be the Law of the Land.
The way the Religious killed the Gay marriage deal could be used again with bringing it to the people directly by endless phone banking and lies.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
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/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
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...
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
The Confirmation Hearings
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
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.
Similar threads
