“Obama Selects Sotomayor for Court” [Updates]
By SusanUnPC on May 26, 2009 at 9:38 AM in Current Affairs
UPDATE: “Judge Sonia Sotomayor says she is “humbled” to be President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court.”
UPDATE: A portion of President Obama’s remarks:
MORE UPDATES & REMARKS: WaPo coverage of Obama’s and Sotomayor’s remarks.
A small, but amusing highlight for me: Did you notice, during the live coverage, that V.P. Joe Biden was constantly whispering in Sonia Sotomayor’s ear? The look of disgust on Obama’s face was priceless. He was furious. Can Biden ever shut up? Rhetorical question.
Latest photo from the New York Times.
(1 minute ago): “President Obama has chosen Judge Sonia Sotomayor of a Federal Court of Appeals based in New York as his nominee for the Supreme Court, officials said on Tuesday.” NYT
President Obama has decided to nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice, officials said Tuesday.
Judge Sotomayor will be the nation’s first Hispanic judge.
Here’s her bio from the NYT — and a discussion of the talking points against her that Fox News is relentlessly covering:
Judge Sotomayor’s father died when she was 9 years old and she was raised by her mother, who worked six-day weeks to earn enough money to send her and a brother to Catholic school. She got into Princeton University, where she once said she felt like “a visitor landing in an alien country,” but graduated summa cum laude.
After Yale Law School, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal, she worked for Robert M. Morgenthau in the district attorney’s office in New York and later was in private practice. The first President Bush nominated her in 1991 to the federal district court on the recommendation of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, and she was confirmed a year later. President Bill Clinton decided to elevate her to the appeals court in 1997 and she was confirmed a year later.
Judge Sotomayor has said her ethnicity and gender are important factors in serving on the bench, a point that could generate debate. “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 said in a 2002 lecture.
She also once said at a conference that a “court of appeals is where policy is made,” a statement that has drawn criticism from conservatives who saw it as a sign of judicial activism. Judge Sotomayor seemed to understand at the time that she was making a controversial statement, adding that “I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law.”
Conservatives quickly pointed to such statements after word of her selection on Tuesday.
“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, an activist group. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”
White House officials concluded that such statements, while perhaps providing fodder for opponents, would not be problematic enough to hinder her confirmation. Some officials have said in recent days that they relish the prospect of Republicans standing up against a Hispanic woman with her life story because it would only damage the G.O.P. in a key voting bloc.
Indeed, in nominating the first Hispanic justice, Mr. Obama may appeal to a large and growing constituency whose party loyalty is still very much in play. Hispanic groups have expressed excitement about the idea of one of their own serving on the high court. (Some scholars argue whether Benjamin Cardozo was really the first Hispanic justice, but with his Portuguese-Jewish background, he never identified himself as a Hispanic.)On the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor has not been involved in many hotly disputed decisions, but one that she participated in is before the Supreme Court right now. As part of a panel, she voted to uphold New Haven’s decision to throw out a set of fire department promotion tests because no minority candidates made the top of the list. White firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion are appealing that ruling.
As a district judge, she briefly earned fame in 1995 by ending a Major League Baseball strike, ruling in favor of players and against the owners, who she said were trying to subvert the labor system..
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Sotomayor would NOT be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. Benjamin Cardozo, from a Portugese family, served on the court in the ’30’s. The first Hipanic, then, was appointed by Herbert Hoover, a Republican.
Link:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/12/has-the-supreme-court-already-had-a-hispanic-justice/
Yes…Joao as in Portuguese Joao. I am Portuguese…not of hispanic descent. Just like a typical American…lump everyone into one category.
Americans often think people from Spain and Portugal are “latinos” or “people of color”.
To understand why you must understand that “color” is a word without meaning these days. It pretty much means “non european” or “will receive government hiring preference based on race”.
People from Spain and Portugal are Spanish and Portugese. They are Europeans, or European-American if they have immigrated to the USA and you like hyphens.
Counting people by race really bothers me, but its a national obsession in America these days.
Although “hispanic” isn’t a race, it’s an ethnicity - there are black hispanics. Most hispanics are caucasian, but that’s sort of a dirty little secret. They want to be known by their ethnicity, hispanic. If you mention they’re caucasian, you’ll get a dirty look, at least here in SoCal.
I think “Sephardic Jew from the Iberian Peninsula” more accurately describes Cardozo’s heritage.
I’ve never thought of the Portuguese people as “Hispanics”. I considered their culture and people as, well, Portuguese.
So, why are Spanish people considered more special than Portuguese people? They live on the same peninsula.
Maybe this will help explain what Hispanic means.
Up until the 20th century, irregardless of one’s DNA composition of of one
s ancestry, Caucasians who hailed from a certain country that spoke a certain language, were often named for the language, i.e., English (who spoke English), French, (who spoke French), even if they were not 100% pure English, or French, they probably were pretty much pure Caucasian, with perhaps only a few exceptions.
Most European people from a Spanish-speaking country(i.e.Spain)who generally have Spanish last names are considered to be “white” or “caucasian”, although one could make the argument that a lot of North Africans have intermarried into the Spanish population, and so the Spanish people may not have 100% pure Caucasian ancestry…but that would be true of any European country, by now. One should also consider that many Jews and Gypsies may hail from Spain and have Spanish last names, but may in fact be of mixed ancestry (Jewish/Mediterranean/Indian). These folks certainly qualify as being Hispanic and/or Spanish, but they certainly are not purely Caucasian.
Still, most Spanish people (from Spain) are by and large Caucasian. So, originally, when we referred to Hispanics, we did mean “Caucasians” pretty much.
HOWEVER by the early to mid-20th Century, as racial matters became increasingly more politicized, the meaning of the word “Hispanic” underwent a change.
People from Latin America (South and Central America, and including Mexico, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, etc.)generally speak Spanish as their native language and they are typically a mixture of Caucasian (European), American Indian (the indigenous population at the time of Columbus, early Spanish settlements) from various tribes.
Be aware also that Black/African descendents from slaves — i.e., the USA’s own African-Americans — are not 100% pure African ancestry — many (perhaps most) are mixed with Caucasian and/or Native American blood.
(NOTE: Only recent immigrants to the US from African countries may have somewhat pure African DNA.)
So, as you can see, in the late 20th century, we Americans have somewhat taken the word “Hispanic” and changed its meaning from “one who is a native of a Spanish-language speaking country” to “one who is a native citizen of a Spanish-language speaking country but who is not of pure European/Caucasian ancestry, and who is probably part African and/or Native American Indian.”
This explains the “push” for “Hispanics” — as they are now considered to be minorities in the same manner as Blacks are considered to be minorities. In other words, the current judicial appointment push is essentially a preference for selecting non-Caucasians, i.e, non-Whites.
Note that “Latino” is a quasi-political term, that is often used these days interchangeably with Hispanic, but which refers to the Western Hemisphere Hispanics, only.
One additional note:
Today’s “Hispanics” are not only some mixture of Caucasian (European) and Native American, but many (especially from Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico) are just as likely to be part African-American (i.e., descendants of Black African Slaves), as well.
In fact, some of today’s Hispanics may have little if any European blood, while other Hispanics may tend to have more European blood.
Would you consider Vincente Fox to be…Hispanic? Well his grandfather was German-American, I believe while his other grandparents were more “mexican” which could mean that that they were as much as 100% Caucasian although, more likely they were partly Native American (from Mexican tribes). His last name may not be “spanish” but he does qualify as being Hispanic, although he does look more European than most other Mexicans.
But when we Americans (especially our politicians of both major political parties) want to give preference to a “Hispanic” judicial nominee, that generally means that the nominating parties wish to favor the non-pure-Caucasian variety Hispanic … perhaps someone who is mainly of mostly African or Native American ancestry - and not so much from European/Caucasian ancestry.
The history of race in US (from univ. class on race, class, gender) is very interesting and full of surprises. “White” basically became established to mean English speaking Anglo-Saxon Protestant. During the mass immigration waves from Europe, some groups were classified none white: Irish and Italian; while other groups merely remained a question, Germans.
What really was at the center of the classification was whether the immigrant group was large enough to constitute a threat to the dominant ruling group (WASP) and their language, their religion, etc. The Irish, Italian and most German were Catholic, for example, yet the number of Irish and Italian entrants into the US far outnumbered the Germans, and was massive, allowing for whole communities to exist independently of the dominant culture.
And as for “whites” in the US, it is difficult not to surmise that a large portion of the US population is really mixed race - there has been over 200 years of intermarrying between Native Am., whites, and blacks. There were statistics done on how many “whites” were really mixed race in the US…but I forgot the percentages.
The Romans called the peninsula Hispania. However, the term Hispanics was coined in the USA to refer to people from Spanish speaking countries. Many of them don’t like the term “Hispanic” and prefer the traditional “Latinos” to refer to the people from Spain and Latin America. The Portugese call themselves “lusitanians”. Although they live on the same peninsula, they certainly do NOT think of themselves as Hispanics.
adagio — I wasn’t implying one was better than the other, but distinctly separate cultures and people. I toured both countries long ago with a Eurail pass.
Portugese is not hispanic. This time I think Obama nailed it. It’s a true example of the American dream, unlike his own fabricated story.
Which leads me to believe this pick was a HILLARY PICK
Not bambi’s
I bet she made him a deal not to STINK up the PRIMARIES for him if he gave her SOS and first SC pick!
Sounds like a dealeo to me.
And this pick SURE doesn’t SMELL like a BO fish.
(she’s also from NY right?)
yep me smells a Hill FISH!
W00T!!
I don’t personally think that a white-skinned Portuguese Jew, who’s family had lived in the united states since the late 1700’s counts as “Hispanic,” but even if you do believe that, this is still, certainly, an important choice for Americans of Spanish origin.
Since when are Portugese and Hispanics the same?
Haven’t posted here in awhile. I needed space from my disappointment with last year’s election.
Anyway, I’m happy with this choice. It’s about the only thing 0bama has done that remotely pleases me.
I’m a New Yorker and a Bronx girl so naturally I’m happy. I’m also happy for the Latino community who didn’t get squat from 0bama throughout his whole campaign, election and Cabinet choices. Sorry, but he owes them something. This will go a long way toward helping him in the long run with that constituency.
Were there better choices? Perhaps. But 0bama’s going to get another shot at a Supreme Court pick sooner than most people think, so everybody should relax.
On a personal level, I now have close friends who will be on Cloud 9 for awhile.
Let’s hear it for the women! And what a life story! Her confirmation should be a hoot with those old gasbags asking her questions.
Mimi, it is SO wonderful to see you here. And I totally understand about the need for space. It was a brutal blow on so many levels, including for women.
Men and the MSM got away with sexist treatment of women because men and the MSM are used to getting away with sexist treatment. Every small victory is huge for us.
I would wait and see if people are going to dig up dirt on her or not. These days anything can happen. I hope for her sake that they did a better wetting processes then with many of the other people they appointed.
So true…First thing I thought was Great job a woman and an Hispanic to boot.
Then I thought oh no, what lays beneath this woman’s exterior….Does she owe back taxes like the rest, does she have some crazy political ghosts in her closet —
Only time will tell…
Hopefully Obama has learned and vetted her prior to putting up for nomination.
I will say that I think many are now getting quite restless and apprehensive with Obama. If there is anything weird in her background I dont think she will get rubber stamped like the rest of Obama’s nominations.
In any event, it’s highly unlikely that she sexually harassed office mates or put pubic hairs in their soft drinks.
“men and the MSM are used to getting away with sexist treatment”
Not ALL men are “used” to it and many deplore it. Its unhelpful to be so sloppy.
Point taken. I’ll ignore the insult.
So now it is an insult to point out an all inclusive statement is being sloppy? Almost might be better to be part of the all inclusive men!
LOL Hopefully she paid her taxes…. Obama has a bad history of picking tax dodgers for positions!
I’m a conservative leaning Democrat … I’m not looking at her gender nor her heritage. What I am concerned about is her stances that don’t seem to want to follow our Constitution! Activist Judges are not what we need on the High Court…
I would oppose her nomination based on her record… I love how this country has gotten all gaa gaa over people based on skin color / gender etc….as if that is some sort of qualification to hold such a high position!
Yeah!
This is the attitude needed!! ^^^
I don’t see why Republicans or Democrats would have a problem with her. Both President Clinton and President Bush have appointed her to courts.
From Fox:
Link:
http://tinyurl.com/oylerd
Thank you, ScottVA! I’m sick of color/gender-based support and celebration–based on that only or primarily. That’s what gave us this POTUS. Record-that’s what counts. Just my observation–it seems like dems do this more than repubs.
lets give bo.a cheer for picking a woman..
OT, sorry
hey mimi! glad to see you back. sure miss the old sp. come & visit sometime at Anthony’s blog
This may be the FIRST CONSTRUCTIVE/POSITIVE thing
OblablahPrez O has done (jmo) thus far.(I’m shocked)
There’s also the “broken clock” reality.
I still can’t watch him act all COCKY while he READS the teleprompter!! ack (as he goes on and on)
Are you the one that occasionally comments at Sugar’s site. If so have a nice day.
Yesssssss I do venture over there! Love Sugar although I think she is less fond of BO than I am.
Well that’s an understatement but she is intense and committed–I like her too.
That and kissing her. Is there anyone else who finds it inappropriate and sexist to kiss a Supreme Court nominee? Would he do that to a male?
Maybe I’m just a old feminist.
Of course it’s inappropriate. He and Bush, two different peas in the same pod. Angela Merkle better watch out for the Obama massage.
It is illegal to touch another person without their assent.
“It is illegal to touch another person without their assent.”
What the F are you talking about? Where?
Hope I don’t have to get on a crowded bus in your town.
Good Lord. Get help.
You do realize that most States define an ‘assault’ as a ‘harmful touching.’ Not merely a touching.
Believe it or not, under many circumstances you can actually touch other human beings without requesting explicit permission beforehand. It’s true!
Sotomayor’s eminently more qualified than Harriet Meiers but significantly less than John Roberts. I’d be more concerned with her views on Kelo than Roe. The Confirmation hearing will be a heck of a lot less entertaining without the faux eloquence of Gaffe-O-Matic Biden.
How exactly is she “less qualified” than Roberts?
Roberts served 2 years on a District Court bench.
Sotomayor served 7 years on a district bench, then another 11 on a Appellate Circuit.
Roberts graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College.
Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton.
Roberts edited the Harvard law review, Sotomayor Yale law review.
How is she “significantly less qualified than Roberts”, unless your idea of ‘qualified’ means:
1)having a penis
or
2)not being your ideological cup of tea
Dana,
I believe that a majority of men, such as Doc, never check to see what a woman’s qualifications are and base their opinions of a woman being “significantly less qualified than a man” solely on the basis of their not having a “penis”.
If only men were as discriminating with other men being appointed and/or elected into positions of power as compared to their female counterpart, I have no doubt that there would be more equity between men and women in power. Unfortunately, that has not been the case and is precisely why obama got away with not having to answer for his total lack of experience necessary for him to even “qualify” to be President of the U.S.
No woman with obama’s lack of experience would be considered qualified to be a community organizer, much less president!
I think you’re right to the nth degree.
Frankly, there are some things that worry ME from an ideological standpoint on Judge Sotomayor.
But knee-jerk questions about her qualifications?
That ticks me off.
Just like with Hillary, there’s always this ‘extra hurdle’ where, rather than you know… checking one’s qualifications, it’s a knee-jerk response to wonder if she’s ‘qualified’.
Drives me nuts. Take away her uterus and I guarantee that we wouldn’t have heard a PEEP about qualifications. People would have seen 18 years on the federal bench, educational resume and the ‘qualifications’ question would have been satisfied before she was even officially announced.
I’m perfectly FINE with someone saying s/he doesn’t like Sotomayor’s ideology or has a problem with opinion X… We can have those discussions.
But why this extra hurdle on ‘qualifications’?
Dana,
“Why the extra hurdle on “qualifications”? My guess would be fear of women destroying the myth that men are superior to women in everything. Who needs to be superior to anyone anyway!?
I often wonder what the world would have been like (instead of the constant turmoil we see now, with wars and rumors of wars, financial disruptions, genocide, starvation, child sex trade and the list goes on and on with human suffering) had men not viewed women as second class citizens, but instead, accepted them as equals.
Hillary said something to the effect that to see how well off a society is, look at how it’s women are treated.
It seems that far too many men are still of the mindset that they would rather destroy a village, rather than have a woman in charge of it.
Sad commentary on how far “mankind” has evolved.
Dana, I agree with you that more is always expected from a woman to pass the test of being considered qualified. Hillary, however, was always able to reach any heights regardless of how high the bar was raised. Not everyone can do that NOR should they be expected to.
I also agree about Sotomayor’s ideology. I will reserve judgement until I am convinced she will be an advocate for all women and not just ethnic or minority women. I agree as well with the men and women here who have said it should be gender and race-free. I do long for the day when justice and fairness for all is a given.
Epic smackdown. Awesome work, Dana
If either Roberts or Sotomayor ever actually wrote a law review article while serving as editor I’d say they are more qualified to hold the office than Obama is to make the selection.
Oh the irony!
I’m pleased that it is not G.W. Bush making this court choice. That’s not to say that I’m happy it is Obama; I’m just glad it is not G.W.Bush.
That said, I’m glad that Obama has chosen a female justice; I’m happy that he has chosen a Latina. I like diversity on the court.
At this point, that’s about all I can say about Sotomayor. I can’t say whether or not I will like her as a justice; have to wait to see…
OT, but sort of relevant to why I’m so happy that it is AOB [anyone but Bush] choosing a justice:
Gog and Magog: Bush is a fucking nutcase, just as bad as Osama Bin Laden!
Bush’s Shocking Biblical Prophecy Emerges: God Wants to “Erase” Mid-East Enemies “Before a New Age Begins”
By Clive Anderson, CounterPunch
Posted on May 25, 2009, Printed on May 26, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/
Yeah, I’m glad he chose a qualified woman, etc., but that won’t erase what he did to HRC and Palin. Also, because he cheated his way to the top I will never vote for him in 2012.
He could pick Mother Theresa (if she were still alive) or Jesus or Buddha and I couldn’t care less, frankly. He’s a crook and a liar whose end justifiess the means philosophy bought him the job he wanted, not the one he was qualified or eligible for. I don’t care what he does that could be considered “correct” how he got where he is will never sit right with me. Just like Dubya. And then there’s the demand from him that we all sacrifice, possibly so he and his family can continue the lifestyle to which they feel entitled. Bah! He’s a shyster, Chicago style.
trixta & Senneth - my sentiments completely! To feel compelled or expected to praise this POTUS even when he has appointed a woman is repugnant to me. I will not ever trust anything he does since we will never know what is genuine with him or whether it is the politically expedient thing for him to do. It is ALWAYS about him!
I will support Sotomayor if I can once all the cards (hopefully) are on the table. If I cannot, my criticism will not denigrate her as a woman as Hillary and Sarah Palin were so savagely denigrated. It will be about ideology.
here are some pics of the crazy memos for any who’ve not seen them:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/18/2009-05-18_rummys_memos_suggest_a_crusade_after_all_used_scripture_to_prod_w_in_iraq_war.html
Ok, she’s a hispanic woman, that’s great. Is she the best pick or is this just about diversity and feeling owed something? Just wondering.
Top flight student - 2nd in her class undergrad at Princeton, editor of the law review at Yale.
Youngest pick ever for a District court seat. 18 years total on the bench (7 district, 11 appellate).
All this from growing up in the projects, raised by a single mom, dodging drug dealers when most kids are learning to drive or writing to their favorite stars.
If anyone wants to argue that they don’t like her ideology, that’s one thing — but I am not having ANY of this “she’s not qualified” or “she was a demographic pick”.
It’s a bunch of BS. She’s got more judicial experience and more baseline qualifications than ANYONE currently on the court…. you can look it up.
Dana,
Great smackdown of a stupid comment.
LOL….there Larry goes again, calling people stupid because he doesn’t agree w them.
No, stupid because you make a claim that is factually wrong and driven by nothing more than blind ideology. That is stupid, moronic, and idiotic. Deal with facts.
LOL, just can’t stand someone disagreeing w you LJ can you? All I did was ask a FRIGGIN QUESTION. I never said she wasn’t qualified. So you deal w facts Larry.
In all honestly, I think that was inferred by the question. The truth is Obama can “tube feed” us anybody he wants right now. I am almost wondering if this is not who he really wants, and if she is a sacrificial lamb to get to the real choice. Also, fighting over her two videos and not qualifications is a great distraction, if not a great p.r. tool to whip right wingers with.
I heard that hypothesis last week - they were saying that he’d probably nominate a minority who might not get confirmed, in order to look good, and then nominate a more conservative person. Apparently the rules say that one republican has to vote for her, so that could potentially be the sticking point.
I don’t know, though - he’ll probably be picking 3 justices, so if his aim is plesaing people, he has lots of chances.
In all honesty most of us are wondering the reasoning behind Obama’s pick. I have a feeling that most of us if we were honest feel its because of poll numbers with Hispanics and women.
it,s not often you get to kill two birds with one stone..
“Stupid is as stupid does ….”
I feel Tom Cat wodie asked a good question. Is Obama just trying to get his poll numbers up with the women and Hispanics or is this a truly great/good pick.
Hey Obama doesnt have that great of a record, and his alterior motives usually end in disaster for us Americans.
Wow…so just because I asked if she was the most qualified, you get all radical and Larry calls me stupid. I wouldn’t call that a smackdown, I’d call that very narrow thinking when you cannot even stand to hear an opposing view or someone question something you don’t agree with.
Actually I did look her up. She said in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.” Is that what a Supreme court judge should be basing their decisions on? Don’t think so.
Just because someone went to Princeton doesn’t make them the best pick. Just because they grew up in the projects doesn’t make them qualified. I did not say she was not qualified or a demographic pick-just asked a question. I think that’s great what she has achieved especially based on her background.
You can get mad and Larry can call me stupid because he doesn’t like my point of view, but I am not supporting someone just because they are a minority.
I was hoping for Judge Judy.
I like Judge Judy too, no nonsense.
LOL! I was hoping for the judge who presided over the Anna Nicole case — Judge Shandlin (?)
Well - that’s an ideological point of opposition.
As I said, it’s one thing to question her opinions or ideology.
But her resume is every single bit the equal - if not better - than anyone currently on the court.
She’s got a very impressive resume.
Why question her qualifications?
I don’t think anyone can ignore their background and life experiences in making decisions. That’s why it is so important to not have them all come from the same pool.
However, in order to avoid favoritism and unfair decision making a candidate for SCOTUS must be able to set aside background, race, and gender to, in essence, become blind to influences that would cause a biased decision.
Did Sotomayor function as the blind judicial viewer on the matter of the New Haven firefighters?
That’s going to be up to the Supreme Court.
The standard is different for SCOTUS. I’m not convinced, at this point, that Sotomayor could be that impartial.
There isn’t a single justice sitting on the Supreme Court who does not take their life experiences and values into consideration in their judicial decision making. It’s called being human. We actually expect jurists and juries to do just that. Even instructions to the juries from the bench admonish the jurors that they are not expected to divorce their values and experiences from their deliberations in an effort to arrive at the truth. Judge Sotomayor is entitled to her humanity, as is Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts. Otherwise, we could replace the Supreme Court with computers.
Frankly can of hard for me to understand how she was able to overcome the obstacles in her way to achieve such a great honor (and yes, I do think it is a great honor for anyone to be selected as a nominee to be a justice of the SC — whether I will agree with her decisions or feel she is legislating from the bench may well be another matter) with America being as bad as the Usurper has been making us out to be on his various PR trips around the world!
Yes for those concerned, I do have a penis, I did support HC’s campaign (almost maxed out on contribs), I did vote for McCain/Palin, I will not ever be voting for 0Zero, and frankly starting to feel that NQ is taking on shades of HuffPost in that there appears to be an awful lot of name calling going on here recently (used to go to HuffPost until Feb’08 when I was told I was a racist because I felt 0Zero was a fraud). Appears that even at NQ one just about is walking on egg shells in asking a question anymore!
Dana, thanks very much for posting this. I do not know much about Judge Sotomayor and look forward to learning more about her. Yes, her CV indicates she is more than qualified. It is also very inspiring to see someone of her accomplishments who truly had to work her way up.
“All this from growing up in the projects, raised by a single mom, dodging drug dealers when most kids are learning to drive or writing to their favorite stars.”
Oh, PLEEEZZZEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!! What kind of qualification is that?
Not a qualification per se, but her struggles and how she handled them shows strong character.
No necessarily true. Having lived and taught in such areas and encountered thousands of exceptional students who have risen above their environment I’d say she’s just a ‘token’ pic, a calculated way for BO to appeal to hispanics and women.
Maybe if i didn’t KNOW about some of her statements and rulings, INCLUDING the one where she considers herself, a ‘wise Latina woman’ superior to ‘white men’ and the New Haven ruling AGINST white fireman being promoted to jobs they’d taken a racially diverse test for coz no AA’s passed it, I might feel differently.
Frankly, she sounds like another arrogant narcissistic egomaniac. Anyone who refers to themselves as a ‘wise Latina women’ has an awfully high, unjustified opinion of themselves.
And, btw, I’m female.
I agree, as a wise latino woman!!!!
And so perhaps some of those reported comments by Sotomayor’s co-workers aren’t so far off the mark.
Actually, I refer to myself as a wise-ass Latina woman ….
She’s had the childhood Obama never had. He’s impressed. LOL!
She’s supposedly very liberal and has expressed the opinion that the court of appeals is a policy maker. Have to wait and see how it plays out, but seems OB got his very liberal SCJ. Won’t be much of a push against her confirmation. That’s one and there’s one more, at least, to go when Ginsberg leaves. I hope the seriousness and tradition of the SC weighs in on her to be a fair and balanced interpreter of the law and NOT a policymaker. She has a great background story anyway. Good for her and a great honor to be nominated.
It’s about Dems garnering the Hispanic vote.
“My general sense is that she is very liberal, and thus likely to take what I consider to be mistaken positions on many major constitutional law issues. I am also not favorably impressed with her notorious statement 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.’ Not only is it objectionable in and of itself, it also suggests that Sotomayor is a committed believer in the identity politics school of left-wing thought. Worse, it implies that she believes that it is legitimate for judges to base decisions in part based on their ethnic or racial origins. . . . On the plus side, Sotomayor does meet the minimal professional qualifications for nomination to the Supreme Court. Her ten years of service on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ensures that. At the same time, her record is far less impressive than that of most other recent nominees, such as Roberts, Alito, Breyer, and Ginsburg. Each of these was a far more prominent and better-respected jurist than Sotomayor, and Breyer and Ginsburg were leaders in the development of their respective fields of law. Sotomayor also seems far less impressive than Diane Wood and Elena Kagan, reputedly her top rivals for this nomination.”
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243346531
I’m still more interested in Justice Sotomayor’s opinion on Kelo than Roe.
USSC nomination TODAY is about Obama’s pattern of initiating “new” news to distract from negative news - like North Korea.
What rockets??!?
lol
Perhaps Obama wants to boost that +1 approval vs disapproval rating from today’s Rasmussen Presidential poll.
It’s his worst since taking office.
55% tacit approval isn’t exactly reflecting confidence in dear leader!!
But, agreed, it’s taking away from the ineffectiveness of the US regarding N Korea’s bad behavior today.
jeebus they sure need to overturn Kelo, but they never will: it’s how they’re going to privatize all our water.
Water is the next oil. If we can tax carbon units, then anything is possible in this new hopey changey paradise.
Too True. Water in Utah is already public domain. Since it’s the second driest state water is like oil.
Next thing you know there’ll be a Flatulence Tax — better take out the Beano.
I have heard at least two reports today that 0 has no intentions of fighting for imigration reform, so this will be IT - win or lose - for the Hispanic/Latina people. If that in fact is the case, 0 is simply trying to lock up their votes for his re-election. Very sad indeed!
I think we are all wondering if it was best pick or just a way for Obama to up his ratings with women and hispanics.
My sentiments exactly… as I said in an earlier post… this country has gotten all gaa gaa over gender and skin color… when does that qualify someone for a position? Just look at the joke we ended up with in the White House because of this thinking…
My concern is that a judge on the High Court be a constitutional judge and I don’t think she fits this bill…
I suppose we’ll know we’ve finally rounded the corner when that question doesn’t pop into our heads anytime a minority person comes under consideration.
hmm. From New York. Woman. This has Hillary Written all over it. But of course, Obama will take the credit.
Hahaha, what? You think the Secretary of State made this selection? Really?
Really?
I beg to disagree. His big ego would make certain that she has nothing to do with this. Not even close.
i heard mo.did the pick over the weekend at…. Camp David..
I just have this feeling… Why now? No doubt there will be a feathers ruffled by this. Question is… What is the hand under the table doing while everybody is looking at the hand over the table? I think the real story may be hidden from plain sight by the attention this will get.
North Korea just set off a nuclear bomb. Hello.
Maybe, but I think the real story there is in the way we relate to China ultimately and not North Korea itself. I am not so sure that this isn’t the motive behind the testing. Certainly North Korea knows they could literally be incinerated if they ever tried to use one of those tactically. But to use the testing to drive a wedge between China and the U.S… that is something else entirely. I sense something larger under the table with this supreme court timing. That’s just me though.
Let just be clearer, “feather ruffling” due to the videos we know exist regarding the court of appeals and policy. Not touching her qualifications judicially. The fight won’t be about that, but about the two video clips soon to be on Fox 24/7. People tend to miss the forest for the trees.
Docelder — the hand under table will be doing an obscene gesture, while the one in view will be flipping someone off.
I have to wonder how the black community will take this news. I think they were hoping for a black candidate for his first choice.
I don’t know much about Sonia Sotomayor, but I’m sure I’ll be hearing a lot in the next few days. I wonder if she’ll be the voice of justice or the voice of Obama…should be interesting.
Obama does’t have much love for the black community at large, and there will be many dissapointments within that community during his presidency.
So well said and such a shame…Hey it was the blacks who blinding followed him. I think it was around 90% of blacks voted Obama.
If B0 has little love for the black community, there is no evidence of that so far. There are many who think the AA community has been and will continue to be his main focus, after himself. He has SC Rep. James Clyburn (House majority whip) sitting at his elbow in cabinet meetings who would string him up if he thought for one minute 0 would not be continually showing his gratitude for what AA’s have done for him. Whether 0 likes it or not, he WILL fulfill the hopes and dreams of that group to the best of his ability.
I look forward to hearing more about her as well. I did read the following this morning:
Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”
Also read that on Obama’s ’short list’ was Janet Napolitano!!! Are you f-ing kidding me??? This can’t be serious.
Oh. Interesting notes. She was appointed first by Bush. Although, I think it was a deal made to appoint another more conservative judge.
Women who are hoping she is pro-choice, may be dissapointed. I had a hard time finding her real life info, but it seems she has never had a baby. I wonder if she is barren. Also, She has struck down court rulings allowing religous displays in public places.
I have a feeling that this woman is very religous. Good news for pro-life people.
Edit–meaning she struck down a rulling to NOT allow the display of a religous statue or something in a park. Meaning she is for public funding of religous things.
I wonder if she is barren.
My goodness why would that even enter your mind??
Maybe she has chosen not to have children, some women can actually decide that for themselves…
I really would like to hear your point on wondering about something that really is none of your business…..
Just judge her on her accomplishments and keep your thoughts on her bodily functions to yourself!
Agreed, It may also be her husband or sperm donor if not married.
Barren? BARREN?
Goodness - its 2009, not 1809.
My thoughts exactly.
Maybe she’s like Obama - hard to categorize. I’ve already heard on TV that she’s a liberal AND that she’s a moderate. She’s pro-life and in the instance cited above at least, isn’t real big on the separation of church and state. Then again, she’s made remarks about judges making policy. So maybe he likes that about her - if she has beliefs on both sides of the aisle, each side will appreciate something about her. Sort of like how Obama was always throwing crumbs in each direction on the campaign trail….?
CA supreme court just upheld the ban on gay marriage.
They just added that the marriages already performed will stand.
-I had a hard time finding her real life info-
what do you mean by “real life info”?
I said from the start BHO would nominate a woman who is not pro-abortion rights or in any way shape or form a feminist.
“Abortion (Mexico City policy): Sotomayor ruled against an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called “Mexico City Policy,” which states that nations that receive U.S. funds may neither perform nor promote abortions. The abortion rights advocates alleged that the policy violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the case, saying that the group’s First Amendment rights had not been violated and that it had not been denied due process. On the equal protection claim, Sotomayor wrote, “The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.” Sotomayor did not address the underlying abortion issue. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2002)
Another unwelcome position:
Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers’ work on electronic databases and archives such as “Lexis/Nexis” without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor’s decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor’s original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor’s position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular
The bamboozler strikes again. He is doing a fabulous job of fooling people. Seems the religous right conspiracy is true. They put up a democrat this time. They have won.
There’s not a liberal judge out there who wouldn’t have ruled just as Sotomayor did in that case. It was a spurious lawsuit, period. You can’t sue the federal government for not funding your group. There’s no First Amendment right to government dollars. This is not a controversial position.
It’s no doubt easier for you to lob grenades when you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, but try not to embarrass yourself.
One generally jerks off in private, @sswipe, but no, you have to do it for all the world to see.
Can you not read?
“The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.”
That anyone, in any case, would suggest that it is acceptable to use public money to enforce a position contrary to general US law, which currently remains pro-choice, is not good.
I notice you do not mention the other case, either.
Again, you betray how little you understand.
There’s no “general US law” that says the government has to pay for abortions. The government cannot outlaw abortion — that’s Roe.
The Mexico City policy, which thankfully is no longer operative, meant that the government didn’t pay for abortions, but it did not mean that abortions were in any way illegal. Since, as I mentioned, there’s no constitutional right for nonprofits to get government money (regardless of the kind of work they do), there was just nothing to that suit.
That doesn’t mean the Mexico City policy was good — IMO it quite obviously wasn’t. But it wasn’t unconstitutional, and Judge Sotomayor was dealing with a constitutional question, not a policy one.
oh, bullshit. The freaking global gag order stated that any country taking US bucks for aid to their health care system not use any of it for abortions. It is an entirely arbitrary law, and a disgustingly hypocritical and paternal one at that.
The government is equally free to favor a pro-choice position as it does here in our own country, moron; it isn’t really a matter of Constitutionality at all, contrary to the court’s and your pretense.
Abortions are legal here, so what the fuck is the problem allowing other countries to apportion their aid as they see fit, in a way that is not inconsistent with our own laws?
It would be one thing if we attempted to deny the use of the money with procedures that are illegal here. But this is not a case of that.
Not to mention we’re the world’s leading purveyor of arms.
And the law does infringe on their equal protection rights. If you don’t think being forced to have babies due to lack of birth control and abortion options is a matter of protection, I’d like to introduce you to my grandmothers, only I can’t because they’re dead.
Forgot to add, being denied the ability to inform a woman about abortion as an option most certainly is an infringement on one’s First Amendment rights.
Amazing how the First Amendment can be used to enable men access to pornography depicting mutilating and killing women but is mysteriously not applied to women being allowed to speak freely.
You are a fucking moron.
Then you won`t mind when taxpayer dollars are withdrawn from ACORN.
It would have made more sense to pick someone with a more positive viewpoint on reproductive choice…rather than someone whose only ruling was the one stated above.
She could very well be the vote that Overturns Roe V Wade.
Good luck with your rah-rah’s Democrats.
Everybody keys on Roe. The sleeper issues right now are those that deal with government authority as it relates to the constitution.
I’m with you, Docelder. Now overturning Kelo would be a step in the right direction.
Good point–it’s called misdirection.
I agree, but women’s reproductive rights happen to be quite important to me as well, thx very much.
I spent 8 years trying to get a tubal ligation, a procedure legal in all 50 f#cking states, so I could avoid having abortions.
Yet doctors decided that as a woman I was too godd@mned stupid to make up my own freaking mind whether or not I wanted the procedure and denied it to me, legally, for 8 stinking years.
Birth control does not always work even when used accurately and responsibly, but a tubal does.
Funny, you’d think doctors would be all for it.
It is not just abortion that is being undermined state by state in this country, but also birth control. I for one don’t really care for the idea of living in a medieval country. Unless one does, maybe this topic should be given equal importance with property & water rights etc.
I think that is more a result of defensive medicine. Reversing the ligation is costly and not 100% effective. Doctors are afraid of being sued in the future for not knowing you may change your mind later on. Tort reform is the missing part of health care reform.
I’m sure they were worried about being sued: because they assume all women want a bunch of howling puking sh#tting stinking offspring over which to spend their lives slaving. I couldn’t possibly be an exception to their rules for women since all women are exactly alike other than appearance, so men can have some freaking variety. It’s the f#cking spice of life after all.
They worry I’ll sue because I couldn’t possibly know what I want, and what I want doesn’t matter anyhow because eventually I’ll get married like a good little
servant with benefitscreature and perform as mybuyerhusband intends: producing offspring for the glorious paternal immortality.I’d like to see tort reform, but imo it won’t much help in this arena because no amount of signing away rights to sue would ever satisfy these clowns: they are far more interested in maintaining their bogus worldview than in doing their jobs.
The truth is childbirth and abortions have a whole lot more complications and potential for lawsuits than a wimpy laprascopic procedure like a tubal and they wouldn’t have had any problem at all performing procedures for either of those.
Abortion rights is what keeps many women voting for Democrats. If a Democrat were the deciding vote on overturning Roe-v-Wade, the wedge issue would disappear, and security moms would flock to the Republicans.
Just watch and see.
It is JUST as big an issue as executive power…and I think she’ll owe the lord and master his rulings on executive power, so she’ll go along with him anyway.
So it will be the double-whamy.
Two things concern me:
We have five Catholics on the Supreme Court - already an all-time high - and this would be another Pro-Lifer.
Her Copyright ruling just mentioned that was overturned. As an artist and writer I am constantly trying to keep people from misappropriating my work. I find her ruling against the free-lancers troubling.
Other than those ideological concerns, I would be happy to have this well-qualified woman.
I would venture to say that one needs to look beyond religion, and ask, is there a new social paradigm that breaks with the traditional liberal/conservative continuum:
A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
Here’s the irony: Many conservatives–who claim to object to an intrusive government meddling into their private lives–would happily empower that same government to force women to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, and that might have been forced upon them to begin with.
Anyone arguing that Sotomayor isn’t qualified or doesn’t possess the intellect to be on the court had better explain themselves because the evidence is overwhelming that such an argument is complete BS.
I have no problem with anyone arguing against her because they don’t like her ideology, but if anyone is going to claim that she’s ‘unqualified’ — like I said above, her qualifications on paper are better than everyone currently ON the SCOTUS at the time of his or her confirmation.
She’s ENTIRELY qualified.
To argue otherwise is a bunch of malarkey. I don’t like to toss out charges of sexism blithely - but I think it’s an entirely fair charge against anyone arguing against her on the merits of her resume.
No one would dare argue ‘qualifications’ against a man with 18 years on the federal bench, near top of the class undergrad, and law review editor at a prestigious law school.
…and like it or not - I think everyone, at least deep down, KNOWS that is true.
She’s qualified granted she follow the Constitution in her rulings AS SHE IS SUPPOSED TO DO… OH and she paid her taxes too! I will die laughing if this is another Obama pick that hasn’t paid her taxes LOL
Maybe YOU wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that.
That said, consider your perceptions as being challenged as opinion only.
dana, most of us don’t question this lady’s ability or background qualifying her to sit on the supreme court. personally i would have preferred someone not prone to make some of the comments she has made. i also don’t care for the token this or that of any group to have to be selected. i opposed roberts and othes for a variety of many reasons.
I’m glad he picked a woman. We are seriously under-represented on the Court-and will continue to be so even with the addition of Sotomayor.
She has excellent qualifications, and experience.
My only areas of disappointment are that she is from the East coast, and from an East Coast law school. The Western part of the country is barely evident on the Court. There are excellent law schools, and universities out here-Stanford and UC Berkeley are the two that come immediately to mind. UCLA and USC are also excellent.
While the importance of gender equity on the Court cannot be over-emphasized, it is naive to believe that a group of judges whose training in the law came from the same two universities will have very divergent views on anything.
Excellent observation. The West has an entirely different personality from the East. This may be more important than we realize. I don’t think I have ever seen this brought up to the level it probably deserves. For one example, water and water rights is a growing issue that being from the West would impart some perspective to.
The issue of imminent domain is an important one for me.
When I lived in Ohio an old and lovely neighborhood near mine was targeted by the city as a “blighted” neighborhood because the mayor wanted that location for a new mall. The issue became a heated legal battle and was covered on 60 Minutes. Mike Wallace interviewed our mayor and got her to admit that ~90% of the homes in our city would fall under her definition of “blighted” - including her own. It was defeated in my city, but I’ve heard of other areas where the courts ruled against homeowners. (Connecticut?)
If it’s really such a big concern of yours, you might bother to learn the proper term.
It’s EMINENT domain (not “imminent”).
jeebus, go get a life.
Portia Elizabeth, that is true here in NC as well. I worry one day it will be used to bulldoze my home and yard so rich people from out of state can have my land for f#cking condos.
Nom — The irony of the whole New London fiasco is that the guy brokering the deal evidently lost backing, so the area sits vacant and the city never got a dime in profit on a case that somebody speculated cost tens of millions. The good to come out of it was a bunch of states passing legislation to prevent this from happening again. I hope NC was one of them. One of my dearest friends in the world is from NC. She’s the best storyteller I ever met.
I live in NH now and got a laugh when I learned that Souter and Breyer, 2 of the SC judges who voted with the majority, have homes here in NH. After their decision, groups formed with the sole purpose to use the eminent domain decision to try to take their 2 homes for parks.
I also laughed at JozefAL because it was totally a Freudian slip on my part. I like imminent better though because it’s a synonym for threatening and that’s exactly how I view “eminent domain”. Thanks for setting him straight.
Yes, New London, CT.
I don’t get why Sotomayor upheld the rejection of the firefighter’s case. If my exam was thrown out due to race-politics, I would be pissed.
“Judge Sotomayor’s most high-profile case, Ricci v. DeStefano, concerns white firefighters in New Haven who were denied promotions after an examination yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement. Joining an unsigned opinion of a three-”judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor upheld the rejection of a lawsuit by white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, claiming race discrimination and, as part of the full appeals court, she declined to rehear the case. The Supreme Court is currently considering the case, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is the likely swing vote. Among the questions in the case is whether the law should treat diversity in the work force differently from diversity in the classroom. Judge Sotomayor dissented in part in an earlier case, Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, finding that race discrimination had occurred when a school demoted a black child from first grade to kindergarten.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html
Those rulings are problematic.
Very problematic. I believe No Quarter highlighted that case recently.
Yes, this opinion of hers disturbs me. I believe we should help people from disadvantaged backgrounds, but the help should come early. The help shouldn’t be giving them something they can’t qualify for. These were all experienced firefighters - if they couldn’t score high scores (regardless of color), I’d say it’s a personal thing.
In this case, they denied promotions to the people who scored the highest, because they were all white - so no one got promotions.
It’s important to give people equal shots at training and education, but once they get that, if they can’t score above the cut-off, they should try harder next time, not be given something, or take it away from everyone. That approach can “dumb down” standards.
Ok is it just me or what…
Why is that if a White man truly succeeds today its because he did it on the backs of others not on his own. Why is it that if a White man does the best on tests and etc, its still not good enough because he is white..
Im a white woman but feel that white men are getting the shaft alot lately.
You know WhiteWoman… the problem is everyone is too hell bent on what someones skin color or gender is anymore. They don’t care about anything else… I agree with you but in this day and age it’s become a taboo… LOL
What I find ironic is how many women are in here beating everyone over the head about how the most important part of this whole deal is that she’s a woman. I wonder how many of you voted for Hillary in your Primaries??!! I’m a man who voted for her… I think if she would have had a bit more of this “woman power” I see in here then maybe we wouldn’t have been stuck with the PUTZ we have now…
Okay, ScottVA, I totally agree with you and I’m a woman!!!!
Just because she’s a woman or because the perception is that some group is due, DOES NOT make Sotomayor the best candidate!!!!
ARRRGGHHH!
Look what happened when the democratic party decided to abandon the best candidate!!! You are right, we got the PUoTusZ of the century!
scott i voted for hillary and don’t think obama should pick a woman because she is a “woman”. further divison and picking minorities for slots should not be part of the american experience. sure groups need a helping hand in the beginning and a right to the same amentiies offered others in our society. i would never vote for hillary because she is a woman or for obama due to his ethic background. i wouldn’t want anyone to vote for me for any of those reasons either. this lady’s views trouble me. i want someone to reprsent all americans and not speak for a special group.
It already has dumbed down many things. As a person who was on hiring committees for school districts, we often were instructed to hire in favor of filling the Affirmative Action quota. This in turn meant that often the most qualified person was NOT hired because of a gender or ethnicity quota needing to be satisfied for a particular position. Not enough women in managerial/administrative positions? Hire the woman over the more qualified man. Need more people on staff of ethnic diversity? Hire the black or the hispanic over the more qualified white. Or better yet, bend the rules so that even though they lacked the educational credentials, give them the unfair advantage of getting those credentials WHILE they also did the job! This was an advantage rarely afforded a white. What state was this in? Well, let’s just say a very liberal democratic leaning state.
That, in and of itself, created inequality - paralleling the case of the New
Haven firefighters.
When I read that part about the firefighters, I had the same reaction.
Was the promotions test biased in some way?
If not did it’s administration some how affect the outcome?
Did federal and state equal employment opportunity law supercede the test results?
All of the liberal, socialist wolves who ripped Palin apart will recoil in horror if anyone says anything the slightest bit critical of Sotomayor.
NOW you will see N.O.W. and other so called feminist organizations speak up for a woman.
Yep–Don’t guess we’ll be seeing any of the C*** T-Shirts that were created in Sarah’s honor.
I wish Sonia Sotomayor all the best, but you are correct, HARP, in noting a double-standard.
oowawa: I hope this doesn’t turn into another HRC/Palin thing. Neither of them deserved the sort of treatment they got. I do hope that perhaps cooler, more analytical heads will prevail when Sotomayor goes before the Senate Committee.
As for the double standards, I would imagine all three women would love to see those go by the wayside.
oh, I’ve already been called “stupid, moronic and idiotic” by Larry Johnson, see above.
I read what you wrote; I didn’t see anything wrong with it. BTW, I’m hispanic.
thank you….
you asked a legimate question Tom
Tom Cat wodie j Jefferson Esq.
Mr. Johnson said your comment was, not you.
Surely, I have made some of those… Jefferson loved a challenge.
Just curious Tom, what is ‘most qualified for the Supreme Court’ to you?
I get Judge Sotomayor is not qualified to you, what is your standard?
I NEVER FUCKING SAID SHE WASN’T QUALIFIED, OK?? People made comments saying she deserved it because she is a woman and hispanics were owed. Does that make her qualified-HELL NO. Does saying a judge should base their decisons on skin color and gender make them qualified? NO. That is what she said at a Berkeley speech in 2002.
She didn’t say that a judge should base their decisions on skin color and gender. Ever. She did say it’s a factor in the decision-making process and it is.
A female judge has life experiences that no male judge can have. These experiences and the knowledge that goes with them can give greater understanding of cases brought before the court. Greater understanding leads to more informed decisions. That is a good thing. We’ve had Supreme Court decisions for centuries that have been largely based on the life experiences of white men, or didn’t you realise that white men also have life experiences which can lead them to various conclusions?
Sure, everyone sees situations through their own life experiences. That being said, it would be nice to know that a judge is at least trying to make an effort to be impartial when it comes to race and gender.
I have a problem with the firefighter case. In my opinion, that was a blatantly unfair decision by Sotomayor. It’s my understanding that the exam given to the firefighters was a fair exam and based on knowledge of the job. The exam shouldn’t have been thrown out because qualifications it didn’t meet a racial quota.
I also have a problem with the firefighter case because of an episode in my life.
Our daughter went to a Private School in L.A. that had been bought by Japanese that owned private schools in Japan.
One day she came home excited. The student with the top marks would get a trip to Japan to meet the Japanese students.
My daughter got the top marks. Her girlfriend, a Korean who spoke Japanese came in second.
But wait a minute - they didn’t qualify because the schools in Japan were BOY’S SCHOOLS and the winner had to be a BOY. They took the third in line because he had the required penis.
The teachers were outraged. My daughter was Valedictorian but the school closed the following year.
Hidden test requirements. You won? Oh we didn’t mean YOU to win. It doesn’t fit what we wanted to happen.
Go Firefighter winners.
Unbelievable. It sounds like the school made promises that they couldn’t keep. The Boy’s school in Japan probably wanted it that way…regardless, your daughter’s school screwed up big time and didn’t think this reward out well; they should have accommodated the real winner with a similar reward rather than rewarding the proper gender “winner” that was actually third in line.
NOte that it’s merely your “understanding” that the test was fair.
Did YOU take the test in question? Do YOU have a copy of the test in question?
If you answer “no” to either, then you don’t actually KNOW–beyond a reasonable doubt–that the test was “fair”.
Hell, I’ve taken many civil service related tests and scored fairly high on them, yet I’ve still placed fairly low on the resulting placement roster. The reasons? First, I’m white (so no “bonus points” for ethicity under affirmative action). Second, I’m a male (so no “bonus points” for gender under affirmative action). Third, and probably what upsets me the most, I’m not a veteran (so no “bonus points” for military service). Why should military service get you any “special privileges” for jobs that really need no military background? I’m speaking of jobs like city utility meter reader or a city office clerk. I’m not referring to jobs like the police or fire fighters where more than just a simple test is necessary, and where some military experience can be beneficial.
But I don’t see too many people raising a fuss over “veterans’ privileges”. (If I scored a 92 on a test than a guy who scored a 91 and spent 2 years in the military, but he gets 10 points JUST for that military service, how is that any fairer or less reprehensible than any other affirmative action program? None of those tests have awarded “bonus points” for NON-military government service.)
-NOte that it’s merely your “understanding” that the test was fair.
Did YOU take the test in question? -
Either you aren’t seriously asking that question or you haven’t been following the case.
“One of the white firefighters, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated.”
“But that doesn’t mean the firefighter had a viable discrimination claim. The bottom line, according to Sotomayor and the rest of the three-judge panel: The city of New Haven was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under federal law when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact.”
wodiej — you have my sympathy. I read your question. Maybe you do have doubts, but with BO’s track record so far, it seems natural to be cautious, even skeptical, about ANY choice he makes.
I think some people have become too eager to read implications into comments that were not intended. Because there are no ways of truly knowing what’s behind written comments, it seems more and more that people are trying to “read” more meaning than is actually there. I had a similar experience a few days ago. Even though I prefaced my opinion with the remark that I love Bill Clinton enough to vote him a 3rd term and was glad when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush, I was reamed by a few fanatics who accused me of saying Bill didn’t try to catch OBL. A ridiculous and untrue statement. I only pointed out that, if BC couldn’t catch him in seven years, why would Bush, whom everyone thinks is a dimwit, be able to catch him in 8 months.
It’s sad really when intelligent people begin with a flawed assumption and then expound on it, run with it and come to all sorts of inaccurate conclusions. My advice FWIW is that, if we don’t know a writer’s intent, we should simply ask that person what they mean. I think it would save alot of arguments and hard feelings.(Of course that’s just my opinion and only mine.)
I hope Judge Sotomayor passes through Congress without a filibuster and is confirmed.
Why are you so willing to let Sotomayor pass without scrutiny? Curious.
Just wanted to take a moment and let you all know how much I enjoyed being a regular voice on this site.
I have now been exiled do to my conservative world view on subjects.
i guess believing Cheney over obama and understanding the existential threats was too much for a blog with an agenda to prosecute those from the previous administration.
Democracy doesn’t matter here as only yes men and women need post.
You all take care!
I hope you change your mind. Your posts from the Tea Party were priceless. I was looking forward to your further reports after the July 4th parties.
Ya know, even our founding fathers had heated debates amongst themselves. It only proves they were passionate in their beliefs.
Larry banned me for the same reason’s he banned Andrew191 and OIAF(I’m fed Up).
Portia Doc and all of you including the trolls have been most enjoyable for me.
Larry wants this site to go back to national security and his partisan war he has going with the right.
Business decision i know…
All good i guess if that’s what you have to do to get a job in the Obamantion
Unbelievable, just unbelievable. Who’s next?
Is there a conservative haven you guys hang at? I am going to miss seattle as a fellow American.
Thank you Doc….I would have missed you too if I was gone for good.
and thanks Viking for your kind words.
This and all successful venues need balance to prosper.
We are all patriots and many of us have re-examined what is important and is at stake for this country.
Hell yea!
Yes is there some place all these bumped folk go?
Most of them show up on my e-mail list…
Andrew..Oiaf…Zeke
Well your email bounces back @ me LOL
I must be a reject LOL
Justme…
The e-mail listed when I did my thread is incorrect.
Anybody can get hold of me…
seattlemoss@comcast.net
my first name is Clint
i sent you one seattle!
I still read this site but I have noticed a change within the last couple of months. I’m very respectful toward people with a different point of view than mine but I will not go along to get along. This always seems to be the case with most blogs… I’ve left many when stifled for my different point of view. Actually, I left a blog and came here. Maybe that’s why many blogs don’t succeed; blogs chase away their traffic.
We had a good thing going for awhile here.
Now traffic is down 30%
NQ really had the opportunity to become big.
What a disappointment!
For once, wouldn’t it be nice if there was a website where people could exchange political ideas-opinions rather than websites pushing political parties-agendas?
well when the far left show up peddling their agenda and i feel they will, then the rest of us may well depart. that is what happened to talk left and others. i have begun pulling away more and more but wish this site well. i have enjoyed some interesting discussions here.
What? Are you leaving now?
Dammit.
portia, it is a day to day thing for me. i do think that as obama screws up more, the moral outrage and the type posters who follow along behind that will wither.
Oh, I definitely want her to be fully scrutinized and vetted. That is imperative.
I just hope she can pass the test.
tom cat, i agree with you. many of us have questions about this nominee. face it when obama makes a decison we always have to look above and below to see what the real deal is. if she is hispanic and a woman, i have no problem. i do have a problem with some of her stated views and would also if this were a “white” man with the same views. i am an equal opportunity questioner.
We need more equal opportunity questioners in this country! More power to you, stodgie!
It will be a bright and beautiful day when “best qualified” is the standard rather than gender or race or who appeases the most agendas.
We’re still a long, long way from that apparently…
that’s ok, I’ve already been called “stupid, idiotic and moronic” by Larry Johnson, just for asking a question. See above.
Here we go again. OMG a women. OMG a “Latino”. OMG a child of the Projects. OMG an “activist” judge.
I hope the senate confirmation hearings shine a light on what misogynist pricks in the Senate look like.
I wish this AMERICAN citizen well, in her appointment to SCOTUS. She is qualified. Period.
Do I like the comments cited above? It does not matter. At the end of the day a strict constuctionist is one who upholds the Constitution.
The questions will be many. She is no Robert Bork.
“Woman” - no problem. “Latina” - no problem. “Child of the Projects” - no problem. “Activist” - problem. The new Justice needs to uphold the Constitution, not create “policy”.
Jake Tapper is already on this one with Gibbs. ^^^
What if since 1789, when the Supreme Court was formed, 110 Justices have sat on the bench. Of these, 106 were White Women, two Women of Color; and only two were Men? And today the third Man was nominated.
Well, that is exactly as it is, only in reverse.
This nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor shows us how much harder it is for a Woman to achieve where few have walked before. She must be “so superior” to the potential male candidate. Never “Quaified” enough. I hope Pres. Obama nominates three more Women during his term and let’s get the balance more even on the Supreme Court of our Land.
Help raise awareness: Go to http://www.campaignforgenderequality.org and join them and assist educating the public about the need for Gender Equality.
Excellent comment, Johnny B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JohnnyB,
Heck, far too many men believe affirmative action is not fair!
If men were the majority, they would never, never, never accept the disparity in society that women are expected to accept.
Only 17% of women in the Senate. I would bet our Founders would have called this “taxation, without representation”. And we all know what they did to change that!
I wonder how much of the SCOTUS selection process was based on the candidate’s golf game or hunting prowess.
Agreed.
Agreed to Teakwoodkite.
Justice Sotomayor in her own words -
…from a 2005 symposium at Duke University. The Court of Appeals, said Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, “is where policy is made.” She went on to note that she shouldn’t say that publicly — after all, cameras were rolling…
clip Here
From Roger Kimball:
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/05/26/why-you-should-oppose-sonia-sotomayors-nomination-to-the-supreme-court/
>>>On June 25, 1997, she was nominated by former President Bill Clinton to the seat she now holds, which was vacated by J. Daniel Mahoney. Her nomination was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but became “embroiled in the sometimes tortured judicial politics of the Senate,” as some Republicans said they did not want to consider the nomination because elevating Sotomayor to the Appeals Court would enhance her prospects of being appointed to the Supreme Court.[21][22] An anonymous senator put a secret hold on her nomination, blocking it for over a year. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy called the length of the hold “disturbing,” “petty,” and “shameful,” also noting that at that time, “[o]f the 10 judicial nominees whose nominations have been pending the longest before the Senate, eight are women and racial or ethnic minority candidates.”[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
I have to take on if am happy with this choice or not, I just hope he picked the most qualified person for the job, and not just a Latina for political mileage with the hopes of votes in 2012.
I am so sick and tired of things being done just to hold on to the trappings of office, now it seems common place, its had to believe anything being done by Obama is for the best interest of this country and not for the interest of his self.
Well said SJ
So my sane half is out and I get to watch “Fox news” .
And just to buttress my point, a quote from one Jeffery Rosen from the New Re-Republic.
.
Does this sound vaguely familiar? OMG Domineering!!
OMG no “penetration”!!!
So if you can not attack ones creds, then you you attack their intellect or character? WTF?
On a side note of humor…Sotoro Sotomayer…mmmm…
that quote was taken from some of her colleagues who worked w her.
Jeffery Rosen worked with her? Or her colleagues all said the same thing?
How is that different during oral arguements from the SCOTUS bench?
Some supremes sit and listen, others are the “in your face kind”. So?
Lets agree to give the person a fair hearing.
She is a vocal person apparently. So the questions regarding her jurisprudence should not hard to feret out.
Did I say Rosen worked w her? No. Did I say all of her colleagues said the same thing? Nope, didn’t say that. Did I say she wasn’t qualified in any of my posts? Nope. Did I say she shouldn’t be given a fair hearing? Nope, didn’t say that either. Just asked a simple question, people came unglued.
And character and intellect sure better be part of vetting someone’s qualifications for a supreme court judge.
I question someone’s ability to be objective when she said that a someone’s skin color and gender should be part of a judges decision. She said that in a 2002 speech at Berkely
I respect that she came from a disadvantaged background, poor neighborhood and being a double minority. I highly respect her resolve and ambition. But that alone does not make her qualified.
This is America and I reserve the right to disagree. Too bad others can’t respect that.
I have to agree with you there Tom. Decisions by the Supreme Court should not be influenced by anything but what their duty is. That is to interpret law and uphold the Constitution.
If Sotomayor were simply presented as Candidate A without the background, ethnicity, or gender markers, would Candidate A’s resume stand up as qualified for SCOTUS?
The Blind Lady of Justice I believe would like Blind appointments.
Buzz that was a good question. I wish I had all the information that I could answer that question right now.
very good question betsy.
Just think who would have been the democratic nominee for POTUS if that standard would have been used!
Its been pointed out several times already on this thread but it bears repeating.
If you take away her enthnicity & gender and simply look at her resume and compare it to the resume of all 9 current SC justices, she would be the most qualified for the job.
Full stop. Think about that.
Is she the most qualified person in the United States? That is a highly subjective analysis and not something that is capable of conclusively being determined. They can’t even figure that out for college football, let alone the supreme court.
Based on her resume, she is clearly qualified.
A bit of an overstatement given the four rulings of Sotomayer’s that have been overturned. The fact that her position on the New Haven, CT firefighters reverse discrimination suit that is now before the SCOTUS is being questioned is a red flag.
well betsy if that test was applied without knowing who she was, then she probably would not be on the short list. of course she’d be under consideration, as her credentials are good from what i hear. i would have preferred someone with more a scholarly background and wider acceptance on both sides of the aisle. as i recall obama was going to bring all together was he not?
Tom Cat, I very much respect your opinion and happen to agree that the color or gender of a person should not be a determinant factor in a pursuit of justice.
That said, as practical matter, how then do I square the SCOTUS decisions that deal with racial and gender equality that directly related to a Constitutional question?
As far as intellect and character goes, I agree that they are worthy of consideration, most definitely. (see BO).
I took the quote I posted from the Box news corp as an example of preemptive assassination, in contrast BO needs no help in that department. Precisely who said the quote then if you say “her colleagues” are the origin of the quote?
Direct attribution has become a pet peeve of mine of late, nothing personal.
I’m going to jump in on the side of Tom Cat (to a certain degree). We all know (if we are being honest) that the most important qualification for this appointment was being a woman. When someone is selected on this basis it casts a shadow, often unfairly, over whether they are qualified. So, I think Tom Cat’s question was a fair one.
But, looking at her record I don’t know how you could conclude that she is anything other than highly qualified. (Had Obama picked Granholm or Napalitano I would not be so kind).
And, I am of the school that believes that diversity of background is a positive on the Supreme Court (or anywhere else). I do not agree with Judge Sotomayor that being an hispanic woman makes it more likely that SHE would make better decisions than a white man. What I do believe is that her presence on the Court will make it more likely that all of the justices make better decisions.
…within the confines of the Constitution and the laws set forth…
Justice is supposedly blind.
teak, i don’t mind someone with a mind of her own, however in my view she does open mouth and insert foot. not a good beginning!
Think Joe the Mouth will step down “for health reasons” or “decide” not to seek re-election in 2012?
Rush said on his show that FOUR of her opinions were overturned by the Supreme court due to erring in interpreting the law. Oh boy.
I am so disappointed. Was rooting for Judge Judy. Judy, who has given the nation so many years of service, has been passed over. Again. On with the show.
ya don’t mess with JUDGE JUDY.!!!!!!!!!!!
Judge Judy would probably demand to see Obama’s birth certificate and college credentials along with his medical records.
Therefore, Judy is out of the running!!!
LOL!
I saw a quote that Judge Sotomayor is “the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants”.
Since when is Puerto Rico a country? I thought it was a US territory.
Does every story have to be vanilla BO to make a person qualified?
This going Coyote Ugly real quick.
Coyote Ugly?! Just look at the latest thread! LOL! Ouch!
Old Russian saying…You can tell same lie 1000 time(Ms. Pelosi) but not change truth!
Difference between USSR Communist media and USA “mainstream media”
In Russia government make media say what they want - even if lie.
In USA “mainstream media” try make government what they want - even if lie..
…..eventually they become same thing?!
I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at http://www.igormaro.org
Fact that she is a Latino, a woman,it’s fin with me. Although, the most important think for me is, TO BE A FAIR JUDGE, not Affirmative Action Judge. I’m disappointed of her ” easy” dismissal of the Connecticut Fairfighters, legitimate suite.Everybody should be judged not by his/here colour of skin. They should be judged by professional qualification, experience, character. In other words, the right person for the right(deserved) job. Consider, unfair, for anybody, working hard, study for a better job to be pushed aside, because ” not any minority” apply for promotion. This is a gross unjustice done to anybody, white/black/hispanic or any color or nationality.
After watching the videos I have 2 words for Obama:
Teleprompter Jesus.
Man am so sick of all this, she is a Latina, she came from a poor family, she lived in the Bronx oh my how has she excelled.
For god sakes people first ask if this dam woman is the right person for the job, forget all the trimmings. Is she going to be fair in her decision or are we heading for another set of problems?Is she the best or is Obama trying to make political mileage?
When are we Americans going to stop all this Hollywood antics, and get down to the meat of the problems. We all seem to be so caught up in showing the world all this drama that we end up putting the wrong people in positions then we the public pay for it.
Lets get some constructive debate going is she the right person for this position or not?
But who is defining “right”? For example, are we basing the definition on percentage of rulings upheld on appeal? Assuming the comments are accurate and, the SCOTUS overturned her decisions 4 (four) times. Is this higher than average given her length on the bench, and number of cases decided? Were these cases of first impression? Was the law sound when she ruled but changed by the time the case reached SCOTUS? Maybe “right” means, able to view cases through the prism of gender and ethnicity. After all, a large percentage of the population is female and Latin; surely you are not alleging that the white men heretofore on the court did not view the thousands of cases on their docket, through the particular prism of their singular experiences.
blah,blah,blah,blah! therefore i think blah, blah, blah! that is what i expect to hear from both sides with the greater verbalizing coming from the democrats.prisms? please! use common sense!
[...] http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/26/obama-selects-sotomayor-for-court/Michael Pfleger, Rev. Otis Moss, Richard Daley, Richard Holbrooke, Robert Gates, Rod Blagojevich, Ronald Reagan, Rules and Bylaws Committee, Russia, Samantha Power, Sara in Italy, Sarah Palin, Saturday Night Live, Saudi Arabia … [...]
This women has proven in her own words and deeds . That she is More Racist than even Obama. They have disgraced America , Degraced the Supreme Court. And is she is Seated , We will Never have any respect for there Rulings Ever Again.
Sad to say this, but I want to see the Drill her and Family like they Did Roberts and other. And brought these Family’s member to Tears.
Just another Step towards Socialism and the the Distruction of American Justice .
The issue is not race. The issue is abortion. Obama chose a minority so that if any conservatives complained about her liberal views the liberal media could attack them as being racists.
Obama, we see right through this stuff. It’s just too bad all your liberal supporters are as brainwashed as you are. When it comes to voting I follow a basic rule - never vote for a baby killer. If they’ll support that, they’ll do pretty much anything. I just hope our country survives your presidency. Certainly you will have many lives to account for on the day of judgment. By the way, the “pro life” person you referred to in your Notre Dame speech wasn’t actually prolife because prolifers would not vote for pro-abortion presidents.