Page 15 of 41 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 409

Thread: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

  1. #141
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:44 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,348
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    No I'm upset about how she talks about it. And how she completely misses the point which should be that in the eyes of the law we are all equal and a female judge or a latino judge is as equally capable of handing down rulings. Justice is color blind. I expect her to tell those kids that she is proud of where she came from and how she got where she is now because it shows that skin color matters less, that having a vagina matters less.

    What she did instead was the opposite. She told those kids skin color is everything, being latino will be paramount to what she brings to the bench, etc.

    Rather than be a model of someone who has overcome racism and gender stereotypes she has chosen to be an anchor for keeping the two alive for as long as she lives and breathes. She gets no kudos.
    Let me quote from her lecture. In fact, let me quote the paragraph immediately following the one that is so controversial:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonia Sotomayer
    Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
    She is throwing out a lot of questions, and questioning the answers. She gives statistics that women and minorities do rule differently than white males, then questions the idea that white men cannot rule in favor of civil rights, and gives proof they can. I do not agree with everything she said, but after reading her speech, I am actually less worried about it. You might remember that on a couple occasions I have refused to defend her comment, because I was not comfortable with it. I still am not going to, but I find it less disturbing now.

  2. #142
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I also took the comment from the white house to be to tone down the rhetoric on racism, not that race could not be discussed. I admit to partisanship, and may be seeing what I want to...but I don't think that is the case this time.
    I do think its a bit of your partisanship, but I can understand it. Here's where I'm coming from on it.

    My view is that by trying to call out the racist rhetoric its setting it up that anything even mentioning racist somehow equals racism. Its meant to make people walk on egg shells, so much so that LEGITIMATE concerns that may involve race are intimidated to keep quiet for fear of being labeled a racist because the Obama administration...after many on the left made it a point to use her sex and race as a bonus for her...deemed it now a non-issue.

    Yes, definitely, if some dumbass slack jawed republican went "I don't want no freaking wet back on the supreme court" then by all means, smack him down for the ignorant bigot he is. However, if someone states "I worry that this woman's race affects her view of how the law should be handled so much that it leads me to believe she will be a judge that views cases not simply through the eyes of the law but through the eyes of her ethnic and sexual views" that to me is not racist, yet THAT is the kind of thing being said FAR MORE than the former, would you not agree? And if you do agree, then what's the point in the White House coming out and telling people to "Be careful" about saying stuff that everyone already knows to discount?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I think this is a misrepresentation. I don't think any one is saying she is a good choice because she is a latino female, but that being a latino female is a bonus to a qualified candidate in this case.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I dunno. If she is qualified, her gender/race is irrelevant. If she is not, her gender/race are irrelevant.

    if there are 10 qualified candidates all equal, and diversity is a goal, then promoting the one who best increases diversity is fine, but she is still qualified.
    On the same token though...

    If there are 10 qualified candidates, all equal, but you find that this womans views based on her race in regards to, for instance, punishment and the differences that they should be enforced perhaps on a rich white male over a poor latin female, then is that not as acceptable of a reason to deny her in exchange for one of those other 9 qualified candidates as it is to qualify her based on her race and gender in the name of diversity?

    You might think the notion that people are bothered by that is moot because its not an issue. However, that does not make it racism. It just makes it a point you disagree with, much like people may disagree with the notion that somehow we specifically need to search and picked judges with "diversity" in mind simply to have a fair and just rule of law.

  3. #143
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Do you even understand what impartial means? You need to leave your own past experiences, biases, prejudices, sympathies, apathies, etc at the door. You need to check them when you put that robe on and if you can not you're in the wrong field. If you think bringing them like a chip, or a weight, on your shoulder helps you be a more impartial judge you have zero understanding of how the judicial branch is supposed to work.
    That is a Utopian wish !! I have the understanding of life, history, experience, philosophy and logic so I know that some or maybe none of the justices in the past or those in the Supremes presently have ALWAYS left their "own past experiences, biases, prejudices, sympathies, apathies, etc at the door.".

    I know this because IF THAT was even a ghost of a chance true we would never have any split decisions. We would never have any minority opinions.
    I what you say was true we would not need 7 or 9 Judges on a bench but only one because he would render every opinion in the pure spirit of impartiality !!!
    “I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Let me quote from her lecture. In fact, let me quote the paragraph immediately following the one that is so controversial:



    She is throwing out a lot of questions, and questioning the answers. She gives statistics that women and minorities do rule differently than white males, then questions the idea that white men cannot rule in favor of civil rights, and gives proof they can. I do not agree with everything she said, but after reading her speech, I am actually less worried about it. You might remember that on a couple occasions I have refused to defend her comment, because I was not comfortable with it. I still am not going to, but I find it less disturbing now.
    What about this quote:

    Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
    I take real issue with that. Personal experiences are not supposed to affect the facts that judges choose to see. Where I call from we call that baggage and it doesn't wear well on a judge.

    She seems to say throughout the entire thing that absolutely being a woman and a latino will effect her judging. She has two reactions to this. The one is pride- it will make her better. Another is blase- who cares? Never does she stop to question whether it will make her worse, whether it will render her incapable of being impartial, or whether or not this is a dangerous thing. Not once. I find that horrifying for a woman who will inevitably sit on our Supreme Court.

  5. #145
    Advisor FlappyTheKinkajou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-09 @ 07:49 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    406

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    That is a Utopian wish !! I have the understanding of life, history, experience, philosophy and logic so I know that some or maybe none of the justices in the past or those in the Supremes presently have ALWAYS left their "own past experiences, biases, prejudices, sympathies, apathies, etc at the door.".

    I know this because IF THAT was even a ghost of a chance true we would never have any split decisions. We would never have any minority opinions.
    I what you say was true we would not need 7 or 9 Judges on a bench but only one because he would render every opinion in the pure spirit of impartiality !!!
    Utopian wishes should be fought for.
    Let's figure it out.

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    On the same token though...

    If there are 10 qualified candidates, all equal, but you find that this womans views based on her race in regards to, for instance, punishment and the differences that they should be enforced perhaps on a rich white male over a poor latin female, then is that not as acceptable of a reason to deny her in exchange for one of those other 9 qualified candidates as it is to qualify her based on her race and gender in the name of diversity?

    You might think the notion that people are bothered by that is moot because its not an issue. However, that does not make it racism. It just makes it a point you disagree with, much like people may disagree with the notion that somehow we specifically need to search and picked judges with "diversity" in mind simply to have a fair and just rule of law.
    Yeah like lets say there was a qualification test you had to pass before becoming a supreme court nominee. Let's say Obama really wanted some Latino female nominees but only pesky white dudes and one black man passed said test. According to Ms. Sonia it's perfectly acceptable to just toss those test results in the garbage, declare the test b.s., and try to come up with a new way of testing nominees until you get the desired skin color - I mean results.

  7. #147
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:44 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,348
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    What about this quote:



    I take real issue with that. Personal experiences are not supposed to affect the facts that judges choose to see. Where I call from we call that baggage and it doesn't wear well on a judge.

    She seems to say throughout the entire thing that absolutely being a woman and a latino will effect her judging. She has two reactions to this. The one is pride- it will make her better. Another is blase- who cares? Never does she stop to question whether it will make her worse, whether it will render her incapable of being impartial, or whether or not this is a dangerous thing. Not once. I find that horrifying for a woman who will inevitably sit on our Supreme Court.
    She actually points out that it is factual that women and minorities do rule differently than white men. Assuming that is the case, who is making the "right" ruling, and how do you determine it? We all are the result of our upbringing, and it does effect how we view things, such as the law, as the fact that women and minority judges do rule differently suggest. So she is saying that since women rule differently from men, whites different from latino from black, it is of value to society to have judges with different backgrounds.

  8. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    That is a Utopian wish !! I have the understanding of life, history, experience, philosophy and logic so I know that some or maybe none of the justices in the past or those in the Supremes presently have ALWAYS left their "own past experiences, biases, prejudices, sympathies, apathies, etc at the door.".

    I know this because IF THAT was even a ghost of a chance true we would never have any split decisions. We would never have any minority opinions.
    I what you say was true we would not need 7 or 9 Judges on a bench but only one because he would render every opinion in the pure spirit of impartiality !!!
    Impartiality is the goal. You're probably right that they don't ALWAYS leave their baggage and experience at the door. And that's why we need more than one. It's also why diversity is probably a good thing. So if a Latino woman has some baggage the others who are NOT Latino women will balance out her baggage/experience issues.

    But to walk into court and slap your baggage/experience down on the table and beam with pride because Obama picked you whilst looking for someone who was gonna rule from the heart is totally missing the point of our judicial branch. Your personal anecdotes do not make you a better judge. There are many judges on the Supreme Court to see that no single persons personal crap gets in the way of solid rulings. It is not a plus. It is a handicap.

  9. #149
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    She actually points out that it is factual that women and minorities do rule differently than white men. Assuming that is the case, who is making the "right" ruling, and how do you determine it? We all are the result of our upbringing, and it does effect how we view things, such as the law, as the fact that women and minority judges do rule differently suggest. So she is saying that since women rule differently from men, whites different from latino from black, it is of value to society to have judges with different backgrounds.
    If you are viewing the law from an objective point of view, it is very clear.

    If you are ruling based on emotion, heart or whatever nonsense then the law becomes muddled with crap.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #150
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    She actually points out that it is factual that women and minorities do rule differently than white men. Assuming that is the case, who is making the "right" ruling, and how do you determine it? We all are the result of our upbringing, and it does effect how we view things, such as the law, as the fact that women and minority judges do rule differently suggest. So she is saying that since women rule differently from men, whites different from latino from black, it is of value to society to have judges with different backgrounds.
    I think there is definitely a value in diversity. But I think that value stems from the diversity seeing to it that no one "personal experience type" dominates over
    the courts ruling.

    It seems like the same thing but the difference is there -for me. Her being Latino is good because she will break up "the old white guy" club a bit more. If old white guys have similar experiences it is possible that this is effecting their rulings. However the diversity is NOT a plus if she views it as an opportunity to bring a PRO LATINO, or PRO woman, or pro- poor attitude to the court. Does that make sense? That's where she misses the mark. I don't care that she's Latino. I'd rather she go on and on about how she will add diversity to a predominate white man's club vs hear how excited she is to bring a Latino perspective. While the supreme court and all courts should be diverse judges need to be impartial and not seem gungho to be an "in" for whatever special interest group they pride themselves on being included in.
    Last edited by talloulou; 05-27-09 at 11:49 PM.

Page 15 of 41 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •