Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[linusrichard]

GreyICE, what are you doing?

Her exact words:

"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."

This, she actually said. She said these words. These are the exact words she said, and the "exact words" maddog stretched to make a point. One source.

ETA: For completeness, this is maddog's "stretching" of the words:

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.

/EDIT

Hypothetical:

"as a Latina woman, 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."

That's what maddog would have preferred she would have said.

Where is the "lie"? What are you doing?

 

[maddog]

No, you lied. Period, the end. I'm tired of people trying to sugar coat their lies.

We were clearly being told that Sotomayor said this. She did not. You are a liar.

You are wrong.
You are full of BS.
You have one more chance to get a grip on exactly what she said:

"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]

The other things are pretty clearly my rewordings or hypotheticals - as everybody else here seems to have no difficulty figuring out.

 

[Cicero]

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

Neither is it the reason I find Ginsburg spooky.

 

[GreyICE]

GreyICE, what are you doing?

Her exact words:

"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."

This, she actually said. She said these words. These are the exact words she said, and the "exact words" maddog stretched to make a point. One source.

Hypothetical:

"as a Latina woman, 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."

That's what maddog would have preferred she would have said.

Where is the "lie"? What are you doing?

The lie is that it's about her. The lie is that she said those things regarding herself. The lie is that a quote shows her to be racist and sexist. These are not vapid accusations. This is not me interpreting his statements. He made a goddamn bullet-pointed list.

Now it's all hypotheticals. Now it's all smoke and mirrors. Before it was bullet points and accusations and 'her exact words' and all that jazz.

Doesn't it occur to you that when one person is busy obfuscating that way that they're lying to you? Doesn't it set your skepti-sense tingling when people start talking about hypotheticals when less than a page ago they were talking about bullet points and hard facts?

Aren't you tired of the Republican spin doctors spreading these lies? I am. I am goddamn tired of it. I swore back when Kerry was running, and failed because of lies, that the next time I saw a goddamn liar spinning goddamn lies about someone, liberal or conservative, with the usual load of misquotes, misattributed nonsense, out of context jazz, and other garbage, that I was not going to explain their lies, and show how they were lying. I have tried politeness, and that was 2004. It doesn't work, because these liars don't stop. They merrily skip away, content in the little bubble of lies, sure they are interpreting things correctly.

I was going to call a spade a spade, a liar a liar. Is that a worse insult than racism? Than sexism? Certainly I think calling someone a Klansman is worse, but that's effectively what he did (different color for the Klan, 'tis true).

Liar? It's not even an insult. It's just a fact.

 

[Cleon]

I will just say that when it's time for Congress to debate her appointment, I hope they'll do more than fight over the word-parsing of a single eight-year-old sentence.

Regrettably, I find that unlikely.

 

[Cicero]

No, you lied. Period, the end. I'm tired of people trying to sugar coat their lies.

We were clearly being told that Sotomayor said this. She did not. You are a liar.

Does JREF pay you to be the official arbiter for determining what are "lies" and "trolls?" I'm sure you have had sufficient training in both areas.

 

[DDWW]

What I require is a Supreme Court Judge who will act like a Professional Football referee.

Try to call the game as fairly as possible using the existing approved rules. If you don’t like the rule petition the owners to change it. Do not change, bend, reinterpret, etc. the rules in the middle of a game to make it “fair”. (Such as allowing the Detroit Lions 14 players on the field.)

It should be the most boring job in the worlds. When asked, “Can we do this?” The Supreme Court should just open up the rule book and say; “Yes, you can. No, you can’t, or That subject is not covered so should be considered a states rights issue.”

Other than that I do not care what party they come from.

Is this too much to ask?

DDWW

 

[Cicero]

I will just say that when it's time for Congress to debate her appointment, I hope they'll do more than fight over the word-parsing of a single eight-year-old sentence.

Regrettably, I find that unlikely.

Right. I wonder why Senator Obama voted no on both Alito and Roberts? Obama joined a filibuster against Alito. Were they not both qualified for the position? Or was it their conservative views that demanded Obama to reject them?

 

[maddog]

Full text: Link

The relevant quote is on page 5. My reading of the context is that she was speaking specifically to discrimination cases. I don't find anything especially troubling about her remarks (in that context).

Thanks for the link -- it is considerably different in that context than out of it. It shows that Dr. Adequate was quite correct in what he said.

Unfortunately, it also shows the damage that can be done when a single comment is taken out of context, as "the media" has consistently done here. By extension, I have done it too, since "the media" was the source of the quote in this discussion.

 

[Cleon]

Right. I wonder why Senator Obama voted no on both Alito and Roberts? Obama joined a filibuster against Alito. Were they not both qualified for the position? Or was it their conservative views that demanded Obama to reject them?

Why don't you start a thread on that subject, if it interests you?

 

[maddog]

GreyICE: Congratulations! In the five plus years I have been on JREF, you are the FIRST person on my "ignore" list! Have a nice life.

 

[Cicero]

Why don't you start a thread on that subject, if it interests you?

How Senator Obama debated the appointments of Roberts and Alito is relevant to how Congress will debate Sonia. Since, as you say, it is "unlikely" that there is any reason to expect bi-partisan compliance over this nominee, just as it was "unlikely" to expect bi-partisan compliance over Alito and Roberts.

 

[Cleon]

How Senator Obama debated the appointments of Roberts and Alito is relevant to how Congress will debate Sonia. Since, as you say, it is "unlikely" that there is any reason to expect bi-partisan compliance over this nominee, just as it was "unlikely" to expect bi-partisan compliance over Alito and Roberts.

No, not particularly relevant to this thread or what I posted. As I said, if you want to start a thread on Alito & Roberts, you're free to do so. This thread is about Sotomayor, not Alito, Roberts, or Obama.

IOW...No, I will not take your bait, but good try, chief.

 

[Ziggurat]

The lie is that it's about her. The lie is that she said those things regarding herself.

He never made that claim. He made a statement about what he would have preferred her to say, which did include making statements about herself. But the whole point about such a statement is that it is different from what she actually said. Everyone knows this. Now, you may argue that changes he would have liked are unnecessary, counterproductive, or confusing, or that his reason for not liking the original statement are unfounded, but there's no lie involved. Really, GreyICE, you've made this unnecessarily personal.

 

[linusrichard]

The lie is that it's about her. The lie is that she said those things regarding herself.

Seriously? That's the lie? Seriously? I think that's kind of an insult to everyone else in this thread, assuming we're not just going to scroll up and notice that, you know, there's a hole in the ground where the goalposts used to be, and where they are now, the grass is all pulled up and you're kind of leaning on them and sweating a little.
E.g.:

No, he lied. He attributed, to a woman, a quote she never said. That is a liar. He lied about the origins of his quote. Alternatively, he lied about what she said.

If he had sourced this, we merely could say that he was credulous, but unsourced, he leaves us with no option.

Sez, this is not a point of view. This is not a perspective. No one refers to themselves in the third person naturally. Not. Ever. When you attribute to someone a quote that that person never said, you have lied. He gave us a quote. He says, directly, that Sotomayor said it. Sotomayor did NOT say it, unless she follows rules of English that are so alien to be nearly impossible (try to construct a sentence about yourself using that grammar, then say it out loud).

Would you prefer a different term? Falsehood? Untruth? Deliberate deception? Attempt to mislead?

You know what is to far? It is too far to try and create a dialogue based on a statement that someone supposedly made, when they never made that statement. It is too far to attack a woman and call her racist for something she never said. It is too far to boldly and doggedly hold to your lie.

That is too far. Me calling a liar a liar isn't too far, it's the TRUTH. It's sad and pathetic the TRUTH is less palatable to you than a liar.

Care to defend the lie? Why did you choose to pretend Sotomayor said that?

The full context would be that Sotomayor never said it.

So when you say she said it, that would kind of make context irrelevant, as there's no context where she makes a statement she didn't make.

No, you lied. Period, the end. I'm tired of people trying to sugar coat their lies.

We were clearly being told that Sotomayor said this. She did not. You are a liar.

And then we have this last angry post, conveniently edited:

Yes, clearly a hypothetical. Clearly you never meant anyone to think she said that. About herself.

Now, only you know whether the underlined bit was what you added in the edit. But man, does that look suspicious.

The lie is that a quote shows her to be racist and sexist.

That's not a lie; that's an opinion. An opinion that, when challenged, maddog himself graciously conceded the point that he was probably taking the quote too far. Jesus Christ, what are you doing?

These are not vapid accusations. This is not me interpreting his statements. He made a goddamn bullet-pointed list.

Which he basically retracted, if you were paying attention.

Now it's all hypotheticals. Now it's all smoke and mirrors. Before it was bullet points and accusations and 'her exact words' and all that jazz.

What are you doing? It's pretty clear you owe maddog an apology, if not the entire g.d. thread.

Doesn't it occur to you that when one person is busy obfuscating that way that they're lying to you? Doesn't it set your skepti-sense tingling when people start talking about hypotheticals when less than a page ago they were talking about bullet points and hard facts?

Aren't you tired of the Republican spin doctors spreading these lies? I am. I am goddamn tired of it. I swore back when Kerry was running, and failed because of lies, that the next time I saw a goddamn liar spinning goddamn lies about someone, liberal or conservative, with the usual load of misquotes, misattributed nonsense, out of context jazz, and other garbage, that I was not going to explain their lies, and show how they were lying. I have tried politeness, and that was 2004. It doesn't work, because these liars don't stop. They merrily skip away, content in the little bubble of lies, sure they are interpreting things correctly.

I was going to call a spade a spade, a liar a liar. Is that a worse insult than racism? Than sexism? Certainly I think calling someone a Klansman is worse,

Here, there's nothing for me to disagree with. Except that it has nothing to do with maddog's posts in this thread.

but that's effectively what he did (different color for the Klan, 'tis true).

I don't agree, but whatever.

Liar? It's not even an insult. It's just a fact.

It is hard to apologize. It is probably even harder to admit you were wrong. But seriously, that's the only thing to do here. Come on. What are you doing?

 

[SezMe]

What I require is a Supreme Court Judge who will act like a Professional Football referee.

Try to call the game as fairly as possible using the existing approved rules. If you don’t like the rule petition the owners to change it. Do not change, bend, reinterpret, etc. the rules in the middle of a game to make it “fair”. (Such as allowing the Detroit Lions 14 players on the field.)

It should be the most boring job in the worlds. When asked, “Can we do this?” The Supreme Court should just open up the rule book and say; “Yes, you can. No, you can’t, or That subject is not covered so should be considered a states rights issue.”

Other than that I do not care what party they come from.

Is this too much to ask?

DDWW

Yes, it is. In fact, it is a dumb question posed with a stupid analogy.

The law is a human construct with all the frailties, power, ambiguities and depth inherent in the human condition. Moreover, it must be administered by fallible humans under every real-world circumstance you can imagine.

In that light, to think that the law could be interpreted and applied by a robot looking in a rule book is utter inanity. At best.

 

[DDWW]

I didn't insult you. Please don't do it to me.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Did you read the piece I linked to? It wasn't just that judges draw on their life experiences and beliefs, but that the role of a judge is more than the mechanical application of settled law. As the essay pointed, the very reason these cases reach the Supreme Court (and even the decision of the S.C. to hear them) is that they often hinge on law that isn't very settled or clear, or that is overdue for change.

We're not interested in having machines take the place of the Supreme Court.

Of course who a person is matters wrt making law. If you care to test this idea, ask if a Congress composed of black people would have allowed slavery to continue for the first nearly 100 years of the existence of our country.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's a problem with your argument about what she meant, not with her statement itself.

Why? Explain.

I've seen nothing about the quote suggesting it deals with discrimination cases in particular. Evidence that she is talking about discrimination cases?

But this seems self-evident. Where is the evidence that she means something else?

No, it doesn't contradict the first point at all. You're missing something about what I said if you think it does.

What am I missing? So far as I can see, your first and third points do contradict one another completely, but if you wish to clarify your points, I'm listening.

As for the evidence, well, it's the quote itself. She's talking about the differences in judgments made by people of different genders and races, and saying that she thinks that they will make different judgments. Because those are the only qualities of this hypothetical person she refers to, we can reasonably conclude that they are the reason for why she hopes that the latina will make a better judgment than the white man, and that only makes sense if the race and gender have essential qualities to them. If she did not mean to imply this, then she should not have said what she said, but it follows rather directly from her words.

But at no point did she say that this was intrinsic to her race and sex.

It is, really, likely, given the world we live in, that a Hispanic woman will know more about discrimination, from the sharp end, than a white man. We may wish that it was not so, but so it is.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What I require is a Supreme Court Judge who will act like a Professional Football referee.

Try to call the game as fairly as possible using the existing approved rules. If you don’t like the rule petition the owners to change it. Do not change, bend, reinterpret, etc. the rules in the middle of a game to make it “fair”. (Such as allowing the Detroit Lions 14 players on the field.)

It should be the most boring job in the worlds. When asked, “Can we do this?” The Supreme Court should just open up the rule book and say; “Yes, you can. No, you can’t, or That subject is not covered so should be considered a states rights issue.”

Luckily, the way you wish the Supreme Court were established isn't the way it is.

You can read up on American history and see that the SCOTUS has almost never been as you describe it.

In fact, if that's the way it was, there wouldn't even be a need for a Supreme Court by and large. If the "rule book" were so clear, then these cases wouldn't work their way up through appellate courts and still be contested. The fact is, at any moment, some points of law are not settled, and it's up to this institution to make the call.