The GOP and Sotomayor...

[headscratcher4]

An observation. I work for a Washington trade association. Daily we host catered lunches and meetings serviced many by Hispanics. Our office also allows the building maintenance staff, mostly Hispanics, to use the break room for coffee and sodas, etc. We have a news channel playing on cable TV in that break room all day. Most employees ignore it going about their business. For the last three days, the catering and maintenance crews have -- when not working -- been gathered about the TV watching the hearings very closely. I could not help but notice the sour looks and even anger on their faces when GOP Senators go after Judge Sotomayer. They are clearly proud of her. They are also clearly disturbed by what they see on TV...especially her treatment by the GOP. This is one small sample. However, I can see it being repeated whereever televisions are on all across America. Why Kyle, Croynen and other Senators with growing hispanics populations in their state would want to appear so patronizing, dissmissive and even antagonistic toward this clearly capable, competent and intelligent woman is beyond my ability to understand.

 

[Praktik]

What is most telling about their attacks on Sotomayor - the chum in the GOP waters was her comment about her experience as a female minority and how that might "inform" her decisions. The GOP say that "sympathy" and "empathy" shouldn't factor in to any judicial decisions. Of course if they looked at her track record, they'd see her ruling against very sympathetic individuals with amazing consistency. The proof is in the pudding: whatever the quote says, her actions should tell us that the quote shouldn't worry us.

Beyond that, they're bringing in the firefighters from the Ricci case - why? Not for their legal knowledge, or (in)ability to comment impartially on her merits as a judge, but because of the sympathy and empathy the firefighters will generate in hopes of tarring Sotomayor as being insensitive to their plight.

But isn't that what they most fear Sotomayor doing in the first place??

Further, note the silence of the GOP on Alito's admission that his experience as an "italian american" informs his judgment.

 

[Patrick_R]

What is most telling about their attacks on Sotomayor - the chum in the GOP waters was her comment about her experience as a female minority and how that might "inform" her decisions. The GOP say that "sympathy" and "empathy" shouldn't factor in to any judicial decisions. Of course if they looked at her track record, they'd see her ruling against very sympathetic individuals with amazing consistency. The proof is in the pudding: whatever the quote says, her actions should tell us that the quote shouldn't worry us.

Beyond that, they're bringing in the firefighters from the Ricci case - why? Not for their legal knowledge, or (in)ability to comment impartially on her merits as a judge, but because of the sympathy and empathy the firefighters will generate in hopes of tarring Sotomayor as being insensitive to their plight.

But isn't that what they most fear Sotomayor doing in the first place??

Further, note the silence of the GOP on Alito's admission that his experience as an "italian american" informs his judgment.

Why should empathy factor into the law?

That would make the law useless and arbitrary.

 

[Praktik]

Why should empathy factor into the law?

That would make the law useless and arbitrary.

Im not saying it should - I'm saying that the accusations that Sotomayor is at risk of doing so are baseless due to her track record which more than adequately demonstrates she hasn't done so in the past, and that the GOP is actually using sympathy as a tool to discredit her with their trotting in of the firefighters. This should, in my opinion, render the GOP worries on this count completely bankrupt.

You do not engage in the very same behaviour you say is your greatest worry.

 

[headscratcher4]

I don't know if empathy should enter into the law. Double standards certainly shouldn't. They are decrying Sotomayor because Obama says she has empathy. They are decrying Sotomayor because she didn't have empathy for Ricci. They (the GOP) asked questions of Alito to make sure that America understood his background gave him empathy for the average man...

Second, the premise of the GOP is that abiding by the law, enforcing the law, judging the law is all measured against a standard set by jurists like Scalia. If law was so cut and dry, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court or there would be no 5/4 decisions.

Indeed, wheather you accept Sotomayor's reasoning or not, most legal scholars say she was, in Ricci, going by precsident and that the Supreme Court changed the law in this decision (though, because it was Scalia, I'm certain that no one in the GOP would suggest it was legislating from the Bench).

Anyway, the purpose of my post was not to argue the law...rather it was to describe something I observed...in the very narrow sample that are the Hispanics I viewed watching her on TV, they have been disturbed by the treatment of Sotomayor by many of the GOP Senators. They, I believe, have found it disrespectful of someone they believe deserves respect. And, given a growing Hispanic population in this country, especially in several states represented by such GOP Senators, I was merely wondering/contemplating wheather such displays of disdain and disrespect might lead to further/greater abandonment of the GOP by Hispanics.

 

[Ziggurat]

Beyond that, they're bringing in the firefighters from the Ricci case - why? Not for their legal knowledge, or (in)ability to comment impartially on her merits as a judge, but because of the sympathy and empathy the firefighters will generate in hopes of tarring Sotomayor as being insensitive to their plight.

Really? You think it's got nothing to do with the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the reasoning behind her ruling? Yes, unanimously: although the court split on the case, even the dissent rejected outright the reasons Sotomayor gave in her ruling.

But let's not even consider the merits. Let's pretend those issues don't even exist, even as we lambast Republicans for not addressing them. Instead, let's decry politicians (who have a fundamentally different role than judges) for possibly using empathy. And let's use empathy ourselves (those poor downtrodden Hispanic workers who are angry over Sotomayor's treatment) to help tar those dastardly republicans while we're at it.

 

[Praktik]

Really? You think it's got nothing to do with the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the reasoning behind her ruling? Yes, unanimously: although the court split on the case, even the dissent rejected outright the reasons Sotomayor gave in her ruling.

why not deal with those legal questions then?

Ask her about the facts of the case?

Trotting in the firefighters - who are unqualified to comment on the legal issues and are only there to tell their sob stories - is the GOP committing the same sin they accuse Sotomayor of being prone to.

They could tackle the Ricci case without engaging in a Sympathy Circus.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why should empathy factor into the law?

That would make the law useless and arbitrary.

I agree with what others have said--bias is bias, and we do our best to keep it out of how we apply the law. As with science, though, if we pretend that we aren't human and subject to bias, we're more apt to open ourselves up to more biased methodologies.

I think judges who can admit that their personal background does inform who they are, are more likely to deliver less biased opinions. (We really don't want robots for judges.)

At any rate, given the number of purely partisan decisions (including, notably Bush v. Gore), I think it's a charade to claim that they're just umpires calling balls and strikes.

 

[Patrick_R]

Im not saying it should - I'm saying that the accusations that Sotomayor is at risk of doing so are baseless due to her track record which more than adequately demonstrates she hasn't done so in the past, and that the GOP is actually using sympathy as a tool to discredit her with their trotting in of the firefighters. This should, in my opinion, render the GOP worries on this count completely bankrupt.

You do not engage in the very same behaviour you say is your greatest worry.

You, of course, must assume that sympathy, and not the law was the reason the court decided why it did in overturning Sotomayor's panel decision. I’m not sure that was the case. Maybe some people on the GOP are sympathetic to the firefighters, I don’t know, I’m not a mind reader.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You, of course, must assume that sympathy, and not the law was the reason the court decided why it did in overturning Sotomayor's panel decision. I’m not sure that was the case. Maybe some people on the GOP are sympathetic to the firefighters, I don’t know, I’m not a mind reader.

I think that was more about the role of an appeals court compared to the role of the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS has the discretion to change the standard. I suspect Sotomayor would have ruled with the majority in both cases (even though that would mean, as a member of the Supreme Court, she would reverse her own lower court decision).

 

[Praktik]

You, of course, must assume that sympathy, and not the law was the reason the court decided why it did in overturning Sotomayor's panel decision. I’m not sure that was the case. Maybe some people on the GOP are sympathetic to the firefighters, I don’t know, I’m not a mind reader.

Actually I'm not well-read enough on the case to make that claim.

But clearly, the presence the firefighters have garnered on the talk-radio and the conserva-bubble more generally speak to the sympathy conservatives hold for the latest iteration in the Honest White Man Done Wrong by Liberals anthology.

And its this sympathy - which I am not sure is completely unfounded - that the GOP is using in a cynical ploy to discredit Sotomayor. That's out one side of their mouth. Out the other side is all the pablum about Sotomayor's quote about being a "wise latina woman", and how that means she'll use "sympathy" when dealing with illegal immigrants or other undesirables.

Given that her track record demonstrates clearly that she has NOT done so in the past, the bankrupt nature of these claims becomes all the clearer.

There are clear legal principles at play in the Ricci case: that's what should be discussed, not the sympathetic nature of the firefighters.

 

[Ziggurat]

Trotting in the firefighters - who are unqualified to comment on the legal issues and are only there to tell their sob stories - is the GOP committing the same sin they accuse Sotomayor of being prone to.

Well, no, it isn't. They are politicians, not judges. They are engaged in a fundamentally different activity than judges engage in. Whatever the merits or demerits of their actions, it's absurd to claim that they must be evaluated on the same basis.

They could tackle the Ricci case without engaging in a Sympathy Circus.

I would prefer it if they did. But they are politicians, not judges. Their careers live and die by empathy.

 

[Praktik]

Well, no, it isn't. They are politicians, not judges. They are engaged in a fundamentally different activity than judges engage in. Whatever the merits or demerits of their actions, it's absurd to claim that they must be evaluated on the same basis.



I would prefer it if they did. But they are politicians, not judges. Their careers live and die by empathy.

I understand they are politicians. At the moment they are deciding whether a judge should be nominated to the supreme court. At times like these, I think they should stick to the legal principles at play and her judicial track record - which gives the lie to the worries about her "latina woman" comment.

I'm not saying politicians should act like judges or umpires, and I'm not expecting them to. In fact, I expect this kind of hypocrisy - and I also think its appropriate to point it out.

 

[Tricky]

why not deal with those legal questions then?

Ask her about the facts of the case?

Trotting in the firefighters - who are unqualified to comment on the legal issues and are only there to tell their sob stories - is the GOP committing the same sin they accuse Sotomayor of being prone to.

They could tackle the Ricci case without engaging in a Sympathy Circus.

That is going to backfire on them. Ricci is not a sympathy magnet. The guy is a serial whiner who has filed numerous suits because he can't seem to keep a job the normal way: By doing a good job.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand they are politicians. At the moment they are deciding whether a judge should be nominated to the supreme court. At times like these, I think they should stick to the legal principles at play and her judicial track record - which gives the lie to the worries about her "latina woman" comment.

This too is wrong. A judge's judicial track record is indeed quite useful (especially in regards to cases where they are unanimously overruled, as happened in Ricci). But when you are a lower court judge, you are constrained by the opinions of the supreme court. You may find yourself making rulings which follow the guidance of SC rulings which you don't agree with but are nonetheless bound by. But no such constraint acts upon the supreme court. So questions of judicial philosophy and temperament are also quite relevant, because the way one rules as an SC judge can be different than the way one rules as a lower-court judge. Comments which might reveal something about such issues are rather valid grounds for further investigation.

I'm not saying politicians should act like judges or umpires, and I'm not expecting them to. In fact, I expect this kind of hypocrisy

But that is exactly my point: it is not hypocrisy, because what they are doing is fundamentally different than what a judge does, and deserves to be evaluated by different standards. You may find that they still fall short of the standards you want to impose on them, but that is not the same thing as hypocrisy. You do not like their behavior, and that is fine: you are entitled to think ill of it. But you are grasping at the nearest excuse to criticize it, even though it's not actually a valid criticism. Surely you can do better than that. Surely if the behavior is truly unwarranted, you can criticize it without reference to hypocrisy.

 

[headscratcher4]

And let's use empathy ourselves (those poor downtrodden Hispanic workers who are angry over Sotomayor's treatment) to help tar those dastardly republicans while we're at it.

What I was suggesting has nothing to do with empathy. It is that people have political memories. Even if you don't think Sotomayor is a brilliant jurist, she is certainly as quailified for the court as anyone currently sitting there...and, her decisions and view are not particularilly out of the mainstream. All I was observing is that if Hispanics have a political memory, they may remember how they perceived her treatment and that could go against the GOP...they are, after all, the fastest growing segment of our population. It may mean nothing...I just thought it was interesting how closely the hearing was being watched by men and women who, in my office, are sometimes quite overlooked.

Further, I'm not suggesting the republicans are dastardly, just human...meaning that their as apt to overplay their hand, bluster, fluster and grow self-righteous as their democrat counterparts.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is going to backfire on them. Ricci is not a sympathy magnet. The guy is a serial whiner who has filed numerous suits because he can't seem to keep a job the normal way: By doing a good job.

And how, exactly, do you know that his lawsuits were without merit?

 

[Brainster]

That is going to backfire on them. Ricci is not a sympathy magnet. The guy is a serial whiner who has filed numerous suits because he can't seem to keep a job the normal way: By doing a good job.

Give me a break. Numerous suits? He filed one lawsuit before this. And what's the BS about how he can't seem to keep a job? Just making things up these days to smear a political opponent?

Sotomayor is going to get approved. Dragging a firefighter with a disability through the mud is not necessary. Or enlightened.

 

[Ziggurat]

All I was observing is that if Hispanics have a political memory, they may remember how they perceived her treatment and that could go against the GOP

And that means what... that the GOP should just roll over whenever the possibility of identity politics playing against them rears its head? That might save you in one election, but it's hard to make a political career out of backing down from any fight. If republicans were threatening a filibuster, I'd be more inclined to consider that they're overplaying their hand, but just giving her a bit of a grilling during the confirmation hearings? I have a hard time seeing how that's going to really plague them.

 

[headscratcher4]

Not backing down is one thing. Jeff Sessions lecturing anyone on race, etc. is just comedy.