Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[SezMe]

She's got type 1 diabetes so her life span may be less than one might otherwise expect. One site says

On average, the current life expectancy of a child with type 1 diabetes is shortened by 7-10 years,...

while others say that medical improvements have reduced that to possibly zero.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Is she hot?

Well, she's hotter than Souter.

 

[Donal]

She went to my high school, so of course she is brilliant. That's how we roll in the Bronx.

I don't like the decision in the Hartford Fire Department case, but as was mentioned, that was a three judge panel and it was unsigned, so we don't know what she actually favored or why. I can't really fault her on that until more facts are clear.

I like the fact that, on the surface, she doesn't seem to be towing the party line. The Dems that Rosen "interviewed" seem to have that as their main gripe against her.

Not at all happy with her comments at Duke in '05.

I'll have to learn more before I make a final decision, but right now, I am cautiously pleased.

 

[maddog]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

In other words,
1. Personal point of view matters more than the law.
2. It is okay to discriminate Latinas against whites.
3. It is okay to discriminate women against men.

Or in other, other words, she already admits to being
1. A liberal activist judge (drink!)
2. an anti-white racist
3. an anti-male sexist

As a white male, I hope my interests are never in front of her. I'd rather have a judge who reaches decisions and conclusions based on the law, instead of her racist, sexist, "richness of her experience".

 

[corplinx]

In other words,
1. Personal point of view matters more than the law.
2. It is okay to discriminate Latinas against whites.
3. It is okay to discriminate women against men.

I think you are reading way too much into that quote.

 

[Brainster]

I think you are reading way too much into that quote.

I read it as the kind of casual sexism that women indulged themselves in back in the 1970s with those coffee mugs that read: "In order for a women to be thought half as good as a man she must do twice as much in half the time. Fortunately this is not difficult." But without any sign of wit or humor.

 

[Dr Adequate]

In other words ...

I've noticed that anything following the phrase "In other words ..." is invariably inaccurate.

Also: "So, in effect, what she's saying is ..."

If that was really what she was saying, you wouldn't need to offer up your own paraphrase. It would be self-evident.

 

[linusrichard]

It's not a great quote, and I doubt if you'll find much in the way of a full defense of it. At the same time, I think too much is being read into it. I would break it down like this:

People who have a richer life experience are going to have a better understanding of the various issues going on in a given case.
Latina/os, on average, have a richer life experience than whites.
Women, on average, have a richer life experience than men.

Now - I don't expect anyone to like those three statements, and I don't much like them either. But they're a far cry from

1. Personal point of view matters more than the law.
2. It is okay to discriminate Latinas against whites.
3. It is okay to discriminate women against men.

ETA: Oh, and the Duke '05 comment would only be objectionable to someone who would prefer judges be entirely divorced from reality. This becomes more clear when you look at the statement in context (see youtube video upthread), but even out of context, the statement is just a matter of plain fact.

 

[Cicero]

It's going to be brought up, but I certainly agree that the off-the-record nature of the complaints weakens Rosen's case. Like I said, I don't think the intellect question is entirely fair; if she can graduate at or near the top of her class at Princeton and Yale, then she's certainly smart enough.

Not according to Jonathan Turley, a frequent quest on Olbermann and Maddow.

"I think for academics there is a sense of disappointment. The President walked by a couple of truly brilliant choices, Diane Wood of the 7th circuit and Harold Koh. Both of which would have been intellectual powerhouses on the supreme court. What we were hoping for was a historical intellectual choice. She has had a lot of opinions to write, but none of her opinions are profound. She has a good political resume. On the intellectual side, I don't believe she will be an intellectual powerhouse. "

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/05/26.php#25941

 

[aerosolben]

Not according to Jonathan Turley, a frequent quest on Olbermann and Maddow.

"I think for academics there is a sense of disappointment. The President walked by a couple of truly brilliant choices, Diane Wood of the 7th circuit and Harold Koh. Both of which would have been intellectual powerhouses on the supreme court. What we were hoping for was a historical intellectual choice. She has had a lot of opinions to write, but none of her opinions are profound. She has a good political resume. On the intellectual side, I don't believe she will be an intellectual powerhouse. "

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/05/26.php#25941

I think the assertion here is not that she lacks sufficient intellect to serve capably, it's just that she doesn't demonstrate brilliance of a historic magnitude. I'm not sure how many of the justices currently on the bench (Scalia, Stevens, Breyer?) really meet that bar.

 

[maddog]

It's not a great quote, and I doubt if you'll find much in the way of a full defense of it. At the same time, I think too much is being read into it. I would break it down like this:

People who have a richer life experience are going to have a better understanding of the various issues going on in a given case.
Latina/os, on average, have a richer life experience than whites.
Women, on average, have a richer life experience than men.

(understanding that this is a paraphrase of her words, and not your words) I have to ask -- define: richer? And regardless, I still call BS! Basing these judgments on race & gender is still racism & sexism.

 

[Cicero]

I think the assertion here is not that she lacks sufficient intellect to serve capably, it's just that she doesn't demonstrate brilliance of a historic magnitude. I'm not sure how many of the justices currently on the bench (Scalia, Stevens, Breyer?) really meet that bar.

According to Turley, Scalia pole vaults over that bar. Advanced age has a way of dulling the intellect. That is why SCOTUS lifetime appointments are spooky.

 

[linusrichard]

(understanding that this is a paraphrase of her words, and not your words) I have to ask -- define: richer? And regardless, I still call BS! Basing these judgments on race & gender is still racism & sexism.

Yep, I pretty much agree. As I said, it's not really a defense of her words - my only claim is that it's not as bad as your interpretation, and I'll stand by that.

 

[maddog]

Fair enough - I obviously (though perhaps not as obviously as I thought) stretched her exact words to make a point.

Hmmm... Let me clarify that some more... I mean, in order to make it clear that it is biased, not trying to put specific words in her mouth. i.e. not that she said "it's okay to discriminate", but to show that the idea is kind of implied in what she did say.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In other words,
1. Personal point of view matters more than the law.
2. It is okay to discriminate Latinas against whites.
3. It is okay to discriminate women against men.

Or in other, other words, she already admits to being
1. A liberal activist judge (drink!)
2. an anti-white racist
3. an anti-male sexist

As a white male, I hope my interests are never in front of her. I'd rather have a judge who reaches decisions and conclusions based on the law, instead of her racist, sexist, "richness of her experience".

I think her statement was a realistic recognition of what judges do.

Time has a pretty good article debunking 4 common myths about the Supreme Court. I especially like the Myth #3 piece.

 

[Snide]

I think her statement was a realistic recognition of what judges do.

Time has a pretty good article debunking 4 common myths about the Supreme Court. I especially like the Myth #3 piece.

As I can't presently make time to research, does anyone know if the statement was part of a written speech, an answer to a question, or something else? It would really help to know the context surrounding the isolated quote before even beginning to form an opinion on it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

According to Turley, Scalia pole vaults over that bar. Advanced age has a way of dulling the intellect. That is why SCOTUS lifetime appointments are spooky.

I don't think age has anything to do with why I find Scalia spooky.

 

[maddog]

I think her statement was a realistic recognition of what judges do.

Time has a pretty good article debunking 4 common myths about the Supreme Court. I especially like the Myth #3 piece.

Of course a person's life experience and beliefs will inform and impact their decisions, BUT the decisions should start with the law. How a person views the impacts of the law will make a difference, but the law itself should be central to the judges.

More importantly, it would have been fine if she had said something like "as a Latina woman [and the fact that she said "Latina" AND "woman" is a bit redundant, isn't it?], I will bring a different perspective to the court, since I have a different background than the white men, the black man and the white woman do". But to say that she thinks that a Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a white male is racist and sexist.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Fair enough - I obviously (though perhaps not as obviously as I thought) stretched her exact words to make a point.

Hmmm... Let me clarify that some more... I mean, in order to make it clear that it is biased, not trying to put specific words in her mouth. i.e. not that she said "it's okay to discriminate", but to show that the idea is kind of implied in what she did say.

But perhaps what she was trying to "imply" is not that she thinks that it's OK to discriminate, but that a Hispanic woman might tend to have a better grasp on why it is not OK to discriminate.

And maybe she'd be right, at that.

 

[GreyICE]

Of course a person's life experience and beliefs will inform and impact their decisions, BUT the decisions should start with the law. How a person views the impacts of the law will make a difference, but the law itself should be central to the judges.

More importantly, it would have been fine if she had said something like "as a Latina woman [and the fact that she said "Latina" AND "woman" is a bit redundant, isn't it?], I will bring a different perspective to the court, since I have a different background than the white men, the black man and the white woman do". But to say that she thinks that a Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a white male is racist and sexist.

I think you are a liar. Let me show you why:

More importantly, it would have been fine if she had said something like "as a Latina woman

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

Does everyone see your lie yet?

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience

her experience

her

she had said

GreyICE does not normally refer to himself in the third person.