SCOTUS appointment thread

[TerraPrime]

if someone on the other side can deal with the underlined portions

I find your demand for critical reading skill to be entirely unreasonable and derierre garde. I'm going to mark you down on the end-of-term course evaluation for deviating from your course syllabus.

[LCOTNW]

Thanks Ran. For those who have not yet read this speech, the paragraph preceding the now-famous words begins thusly:

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice.

Therefore, it's clear to me that Judge Sotomayor is speaking in terms of a judge's understanding of the experiences of female minorities. In that respect, almost certainly Sotomayor has a better background than, say David Souter. That's a far cry from the allegation that Sotomayor thinkgs that female Hispanic judges are superior in all respects at all times to white male judges.

Now, I realize that amongst conservatives taking note of context = weakness and flip-floppery, but I hope the rest of us can arrive at a more mature view of Sotomayor's words.

Yeah, I wonder if people have generally understood this point. All this right-wing blitz with misinformation about how she supposedly thinks that Latina women are better than white men is disgraceful even for them. More fear-mongering from the experts. I am hoping that she comes out of the gate and stomps on the morons taking this quotation out of context. She is clearly talking about women on the bench bringing a different understanding of women's issues (Imagine!!). The prior section of the speech leading up to the quote is talking about the debate of whether judges are truly automotons who can leave their personal history at the door (in which case wtf is the point of having diversity on the court in the first place?), or whether judges, like all people, bring their personal history to the table (just like Alito suggested would be the case for him on certain issues).

In particular she said, "Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. 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. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging." Then as you read up to the "controversial" sentence, it is clear that she is speaking in the context of a woman being in a better position than a white male to judge issues that particularly address women, such as equal rights in the workplace. Totally illogical!

[Commodore]

it is clear that she is speaking in the context of a woman being in a better position than a white male to judge issues that particularly address women, such as equal rights in the workplace. Totally illogical!

It is illogical. One's ability to reason is not determined by race or gender. To believe that is to believe that we are in some way defined by the dipsosition we are born into. Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg have said that "A wise old woman and a wise old man, at the end of the day, can reach the same conclusion." That's not what Sotomayor believes. She believes that people of a particular race and gender are in a better position to judge cases affecting someone of that particular race or gender. It's sad that such thinking is agreeable to some, much less tolerated.

She says her experiences make it impossible for her to be objective, that objectivity is an aspiration that can't be achieved. Anyone who says they cannot be impartial should be disqualified to serve on any court (or should recuse themselves if they cannot be, as in cases of personal conflicts of interest).

She is not justifying or advocating latino superiority (that's a straw man being used in this thread), she is justifying favoritism toward groups she belongs to, and states explicity that she cannot be impartial in cases involving those groups (because of her experiences). If she cannot be impartial (and she says she cannot), she must recuse herself from any case involving a woman or hispanic.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

It is illogical. One's ability to reason is not affected by race or gender. To believe that is to believe that we are in some way defined by the dipsosition we are born into. Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg have said that "A wise old woman and a wise old man, at the end of the day, can reach the same conclusion." That's not what Sotomayor believes. She believes that people of a particular race and gender are in a better position to judge cases affecting someone of that particular race or gender. It's sad that such thinking is agreeable to some, much less tolerated.

She says her experiences make it impossible for her to be objective, that objectivity is an aspiration that can't be achieved. Anyone who says they cannot be impartial should be disqualified to serve on any court.

She is not justifying or advocating latino superiority (that's a straw man being used in this thread), she is justifying favoritism toward groups she belongs to, and states explicity that she cannot be impartial in cases involving those groups (because of her experiences). If she cannot be impartial (and she says she cannot), she must recuse herself from any case involving a woman or hispanic.

Alito basically said that being a son of immigrant family affects his position when he was nominated. It´s exactly the same as what Sotomayor said. Wasn´t a problem then, shouldn´t be a problem now.

[sologdin]

Anyone who says they cannot be impartial should be disqualified to serve on any court (or should recuse themselves if they cannot be, as in cases of personal conflicts of interest).

commodore--

isn't she saying that she aspires to impartiality like any honest judge, but that this aspiration is impossible for all judges? such a statement doesn't strike me as a matter for recusal, but rather displays quite a bit of intellectual honesty and personal fortitude.

and i still don't see an answer from the naysayers and doubting thomases to my hypothetical in post #187, supra.

[Joanna vander Poele]

If you must know, Commodore, La Raza technically translates into "The People" and is a bit less loaded in meaning than you suggest.

[The_BlauerDragon]

If you must know, Commodore, La Raza technically translates into "The People" and is a bit less loaded in meaning than you suggest.

Actually, it means both "The Race" (which is a straight translation) and "The People" alternately. It is most often used to refer specifically to the indigenous peoples of the North and South American Continents. It is a term that is used with particular frequency among the followers of the various "Aztlan" movements. Just because a hate group has a seemingly innocent sounding name and/or an official arm with charity non-profit status, that doesn't make it anything less than a hate group.

[LCOTNW]

Actually, it means both "The Race" (which is a straight translation) and "The People" alternately. It is most often used to refer specifically to the indigenous peoples of the North and South American Continents. It is a term that is used with particular frequency among the followers of the various "Aztlan" movements. Just because a hate group has a seemingly innocent sounding name and/or an official arm with charity non-profit status, that doesn't make it anything less than a hate group.

Except it is not a hate group.

[Brude]

Well, I actually looked up the word "raza" on a translation tool I found online and it seems to mostly mean "race," but does have other related connotations such as family, lineage, etc. It also has a number of other meanings, including "ray of light," which honestly would be a very appropriate meaning for the word in the context of the group, as it does (at least according to their website) seek to offer guidance to Hispanic Americans.

At any rate, looking over their website, it seems to me to be much more like an NAACP or JADL (Jewish Anti-Defemation League), as opposed to something along the lines of the Black Panthers or the JDL (the Jewish Defense League).

Here's an open letter where La Raza makes their case on this issue.

[The_BlauerDragon]

Except it is not a hate group.

I grew up (and still live) surrounded by the followers of "La Raza". If it's not a hate group, then neither is the KKK!

[Ormond]

I grew up (and still live) surrounded by the followers of "La Raza". If it's not a hate group, then neither is the KKK!

How many members of other ethnic groups in your vicinity has La Raza tarred and feathered or lynched?

How often do members of La Raza state that members of other ethnic groups are inherently less intelligent or more animalistic?

How often do members of La Raza state that members of other ethnic groups should have fewer political rights?

How often do members of La Raza state that members of their own ethnic group who marry outside of it are "traitors to their race?"

Personally I find your comparison of La Raza with the KKK to be silly, unless you can provide evidence for them having general beliefs or policies that support ideas like the above.

[LCOTNW]

I grew up (and still live) surrounded by the followers of "La Raza". If it's not a hate group, then neither is the KKK!

Is it possible that there is much more massive organization trying to promote social justice and civil rights? My experience with members of "La Raza" in college was that they were a pretty peaceful social justice organization. Every organization has militant/extremist supporters I suppose. I think you may be making an unfair generalization about the larger group based on your personal experience. Perhaps I am also, but my experiences have all been neutral or good.

[The_BlauerDragon]

Is it possible that there is much more massive organization trying to promote social justice and civil rights? My experience with members of "La Raza" in college was that they were a pretty peaceful social justice organization. Every organization has militant/extremist supporters I suppose. I think you may be making an unfair generalization about the larger group based on your personal experience. Perhaps I am also, but my experiences have all been neutral or good.

I guess that's fair enough.

So that you can understand a little of what has colored my perspective on this, I will provide some links (if you care to go through them). These are some of the types that I grew up around (though admittedly the ones I grew up with were a bit more radical, a lot more militant, and a lot more violent in nature).

link 1

Link 2

Link 4

[Guest Raidne]

I've given you the wrong impression

raidne--

unlikely that you gave it; i probably crafted it out of whole cloth.

that said, i'm still not sure how "some of its own restraints and rules" compels the conclusion that apolitical adjudication is possible.

Well, it is and it isn't. An example? I think No-Fault auto insurance is ridiculous. I was assigned a case where the plaintiff was mowed over while standing in a parking lot by a student driver. He suffered injuries, and did not have health insurance.

However, his injuries were not severe enough to meet the No Fault insurance bar - you can only sue a driver if you are seriously injured or disfigured, and requiring physical therapy and having a lacerated spleen do not meet the standard.

I would have loved to draft an opinion in his favor, but I couldn't because he clearly didn't meet the demands of the law.

In that case, my adjudication was apolitical. And I couldn't make it otherwise without doing damage to the law - the people voted for no fault auto insurance. I can't decide they can't have it. And my judge would have been overturned, and probably in some way that would do even more damage to the law than the opinion I drafted.

Some cases are more on the line - the "hard" cases. In those cases, I think it's impossible to be apolitical. And constitutional cases are nearly all hard cases. So I have no problem whatsoever with Sotomeyer's statements (and, in fact, her statements are backed up by research).

But I also think that some judges are willing to go farther than others in getting the desired result. Just because they are all motivated by their political opinions does not mean that some are more than others. It's this precise unwillingness to draw any distinction as a matter of degree that has left me feeling disillusioned with the application of post-modern theory to the practice of law. It has the essential flaw of not ringing true with the experiences of anyone who's worked for a judge or been a judge.

[Guest Raidne]

I guess that's fair enough.

So that you can understand a little of what has colored my perspective on this, I will provide some links (if you care to go through them). These are some of the types that I grew up around (though admittedly the ones I grew up with were a bit more radical, a lot more militant, and a lot more violent in nature).

link 1

Link 2

Link 4

I'm sorry, you think La Raza is a radical militant organization because another organization is a radical militant organization? What's the connection here? They both have Latina members?

Jesus, I'm sorry for having to put it this way, but what a stupid, racist thing to say. I suppose MLK is a radical too because of the existence of the Black Panthers?

[The_BlauerDragon]

I'm sorry, you think La Raza is a radical militant organization because another organization is a radical militant organization? What's the connection here?

I've known many members of both groups. To date, I have not had the benefit of meeting a member of one group who was not also a member of the other. It's hard for me to see any line of separation between the two.

[Ormond]

I've known many members of both groups. To date, I have not had the benefit of meeting a member of one group who was not also a member of the other. It's hard for me to see any line of separation between the two.

Then you should get out more.

I am not impressed with your links. The third one, especially, seems to me to be an obvious hatchet job where a few very militant statements are juxtaposed with more moderate statements by someone who is trying to tar moderate Latinos with an extremist brush. It is equivalent, as Raidne says, to equating the NAACP with the Black Panthers by putting together similar quotes taken out of context from members of the two groups. The first three sites you link to are much more like KKK sites than anything I have seen on sites put up by either La Raza or MECHA; they seem to have been created by far right militant organizations, not objective observers.

Unfortunately, the fact that you cannot see any separation between the most radical organizations (and Mecha itself is not necessarily a racist organization, see link below) and more moderate ones makes me question your powers of observation and your ability to differentiate between two groups with which you both disagree.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1978322/posts

[Guest Raidne]

I've known many members of both groups. To date, I have not had the benefit of meeting a member of one group who was not also a member of the other. It's hard for me to see any line of separation between the two.

Yes, and all lobsters live in water, so everything that lives in water is a lobster.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raidne,

I heard on NPR this morning that she was on a 2nd Circuit panel that, shortly after Heller, ruled the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated by the 14th Amendent to apply to the States. I find that very interesting as it applies to Gun Rights issues and Federalism issues. I'm looking forward to seeing her on the bench.

[TrackerNeil]

That's not what Sotomayor believes. She believes that people of a particular race and gender are in a better position to judge cases affecting someone of that particular race or gender. It's sad that such thinking is agreeable to some, much less tolerated.

Well, Commodore, you actually don't know what Sotomayor believes; you know a tiny portion of a speech she once gave. But you speak of impartiality; perhaps you should attempt to retain yours until the Senate hearings have been completed? Or have you already made your decision based on a single allegation? If so, then perhaps you are not impartial and should recuse yourself from commentary on this topic.