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

TheNextEra said:

So was Alito.

Click to expand...

When did Alito ever say he would allow heritage, skin color, etc to have an effect on his rulings?? When did he ever say it was important to elevate more men or more white men or more Italian men to the courts in order to exact measurable change? When did he ever insinuate he even could exact change or make policy?

Alito was asked about his personal experiences. Told explicitly that they wanted to know what was in his heart. Much like Sotomayor was asked to speak about diversity.

The difference is he never alluded to any notions that his job was anything other than what it actually is, applying the law. He made a point of going out of his way to say that even though a case about a child might make him think about his child he can not bend the law, favor an outcome, change the law, etc. As a judge he will apply the law.

He also never said having a penis or being Italian was gonna make him a better judge than some colored chick with a vag. Had he said that he wouldn't have gotten confirmed. All hell would've broke loose.

Wessexman said:

Surely all the experience she needs is of the fixed and original meanings of laws and the constitution and the ability to apply these in the correct, time-honoured contexts and those very, very close? She is not a legislator, exactly how useful to her job is being a hispanic, female? It is not as if she should be deciding much that is new herself.

Click to expand...

Then why do we need a multi-teired court system if every one seeing the law will rule the same way? Why is it that over half the cases ruled on by the supreme court are overturned by that court? Why are most supreme court cases not unanimous?

talloulou said:

When did Alito ever say he would allow heritage, skin color, etc to have an effect on his rulings?? When did he ever say it was important to elevate more men or more white men or more Italian men to the courts in order to exact measurable change? When did he ever insinuate he even could exact change or make policy?

Alito was asked about his personal experiences. Told explicitly that they wanted to know what was in his heart. Much like Sotomayor was asked to speak about diversity.

The difference is he never alluded to any notions that his job was anything other than what it actually is, applying the law. He made a point of going out of his way to say that even though a case about a child might make him think about his child he can not bend the law, favor an outcome, change the law, etc. As a judge he will apply the law.

He also never said having a penis or being Italian was gonna make him a better judge than some colored chick with a vag. Had he said that he wouldn't have gotten confirmed. All hell would've broke loose.

Click to expand...

I quoted you his saying and he meant what he said. He would take poverty and race into consideration. You choose to ignore it.

Be the bushbot, I don't care. Alito is as bad as her.

TheNextEra said:

I quoted you his saying and he meant what he said. He would take poverty and race into consideration. You choose to ignore it.

Be the bushbot, I don't care. Alito is as bad as her.

Click to expand...

He said he takes it into account that he thinks about these things. In other words he is aware that certain cases bring up personal feelings for him.

He never said anything that insinuated his heritage, gender, family, or personal feelings effects his rulings. He made a point -in fact - of saying explicitly that it did not. That his job was to apply the law, not change it, not bend it.

Quite different from Sotomayer saying they need to work to get even more Latino women on the bench so they can that get a better measurement of what changes they are capable of enacting.

talloulou said:

He said he takes it into account that he thinks about these things. In other words he is aware that certain cases bring up personal feelings for him.

He never said anything that insinuated his heritage, gender, family, or personal feelings effects his rulings. He made a point -in fact - of saying explicitly that it did not. That his job was to apply the law, not change it, not bend it.

Click to expand...

When he says he takes these things into account, that means his judgment. Why else would he take it into account?

TheNextEra said:

When he says he takes these things into account, that means his judgment. Why else would he take it into account?

Click to expand...

I already debunked this god damn trash. Quit flinging it all over again like a money with his feces. Alito was asked about him the person, not him the jurist. He even went out of the way to make it clear he was not allowing these personal feelings to have any impact on his decisions as a jurist.,

I added some fancy fonts in hopes to maintain your attention.

TheNextEra said:

When he says he takes these things into account, that means his judgment. Why else would he take it into account?

Click to expand...

I think he means he takes it into account that certain cases bring these things up. That he admittedly can't help his mind from going there. By taking it into account, he's aware of it. He certainly doesn't mean, like Sotomayor, that he thinks it's ok they effect his rulings. He specifically says quite clearly they can't. His job is to apply the law, not bend it. He can have no agenda. No favorable outcome.

It's quite different from this bit here where Sotomayer specifically quotes and addresses another judge who warns against allowing your personal feelings to impede on your judging:

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based...

Click to expand...

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.

Click to expand...

Then Sonia goes on to say she agrees but....

Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.

Click to expand...

She later again seems to underscore that Cedarbaum's warnings are pretty much going unheeded.....

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Click to expand...

When I read this I think Cedarbaum is warning of the dangers of just accepting that your gender or your skin color or even your experience will effect your ruling. I also read Sotomayor saying essentially she is far less concerned and apologetic about admitting quite freely that yes these things will affect her rulings and so what???

I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

Click to expand...

It's a difference in attitude and I would be weary of a judge who spoke like this no matter which side of the aisle they were on.

talloulou said:

I think he means he takes it into account that certain cases bring these things up. That he admittedly can't help his mind from going there. By taking it into account, he's aware of it. He certainly doesn't mean, like Sotomayor, that he thinks it's ok they effect his rulings. He specifically says quite clearly they can't. His job is to apply the law, not bend it. He can have no agenda. No favorable outcome.

Click to expand...

When you take something into account, you add it up with what you are thinking.

This isn't just a casual I think about it, but let it go, he said he takes it into account, that means his decisions.

If he didn't take it into account (as he says) he would just say I think about it, but don't let it interfere. He says take it into account which means to add it up in his decisions.

Words have meaning and "taken into account" means added up in his decisions.

Again, he was a bad choice, but conservatives and Bush loyalists let it go.

That was wrong.

Redress said:

Then why do we need a multi-teired court system if every one seeing the law will rule the same way? Why is it that over half the cases ruled on by the supreme court are overturned by that court? Why are most supreme court cases not unanimous?

Click to expand...

Well obviously there are minor variations as I said. Other than that it is multi-tiered because the above courts are meant to act as a check on the lower ones as one court may be tempted to abuse its power. Judicial activism also has a part to play in many of the things you talk about. Unfortunately some people have some silly ideas about making constitutions and laws mere guidelines and giving judges quite a bit of arbitrary power such as the abomination known as "the living constitution".

Wessexman said:

Well obviously there are minor variations as I said. Other than that it is multi-tiered because the above courts are meant to act as a check on the lower ones as one court may be tempted to abuse its power. Judicial activism also has a part to play in many of the things you talk about. Unfortunately some people have some silly ideas about making constitutions mere guidelines and giving judges quite a bit of arbitrary power such as the abomination known as "the living constitution".

Click to expand...

To suggest that this is what Sotomayer is saying would be to stretch her meaning all out of shape. She is saying experience effects decisions, which is an undeniable truth.

TheNextEra said:

When you take something into account, you add it up with what you are thinking.

This isn't just a casual I think about it, but let it go, he said he takes it into account, that means his decisions.

If he didn't take it into account (as he says) he would just say I think about it, but don't let it interfere. He says take it into account which means to add it up in his decisions.

Words have meaning and "taken into account" means added up in his decisions.

Again, he was a bad choice, but conservatives and Bush loyalists let it go.

That was wrong.

Click to expand...

Again to get from A to Z with what you are asserting you have to insinuate stuff, put words in his mouth that weren't there, and ignore the fact that he explicitly states his job is to apply the law, not bend it to a favorable outcome.

Meanwhile with Sotomayer I can just life bad quote after bad quote after bad quote directly from the page. I don't insinuate she thinks she makes policy. She said it. I don't insinuate she might let her prejudices effect her rulings, she said it. I don't insinuate she said something that might be interpreted as she might make a better judge for being a latino woman vs a white man. She straight up said it.

With Alito you found 1 thing that you have to stretch to make it say what you want it to say. You have to read between the lines and ignore what he says DIRECTLY after it.

With Sonia there is a wealth of quotes where each one backs up the assertion of the one before it. There can be no mistake about her underlying points, they are repeated. If she misspoke one time I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. But she repeatedly asserts these wrongs. She is unabashed and unashamed because ultimately she thinks she's right which makes her a judge who A)doesn't understand her job and B) doesn't give a hoot about throwing impartiality out the window as in her words it's an unattainable goal.
So if you think these are in anyway comparable I think you're just being dishonest for whatever reason and have little interest in continuing down this road with you.

talloulou said:

Again to get from A to Z with what you are asserting you have to insinuate stuff, put words in his mouth that weren't there, and ignore the fact that he explicitly states his job is to apply the law, not bend it to a favorable outcome.

Click to expand...

I put his own words to "account" as he says.

He was a lousy choice, and conservatives and Bushbots accepted him. Racists.

TheNextEra said:

I put his own words to "account" as he says.

He was a lousy choice, and conservatives and Bushbots accepted him. Racists.

Click to expand...

Yes and I took that into account and stand by my previous post. :2wave:

talloulou said:

Yes and I took that into account and stand by my previous post. :2wave:

Click to expand...

And I stand by mine that he took into "account" what he said and that added to his decision, thus, not making him right. Yet Conservatives and Bush supporters gave Alito a "free" pass for that. :2wave:

I don't support Obama's pick either, but that doesn't stop the fact most conservatives allowed a racist into the supreme court like Alito.

Redress said:

To suggest that this is what Sotomayer is saying would be to stretch her meaning all out of shape. She is saying experience effects decisions, which is an undeniable truth.

Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting she believed that, although her supposed, and they may have been taken out of context, remarks on judiciary making policy were troubling. I was simply saying that her experience as Latino women was only of a very minor relevancy to how a SC judge should act.

TheNextEra said:

And I stand by mine that he took into "account" what he said and that added to his decision, thus, not making him right. Yet Conservatives and Bush supporters gave Alito a "free" pass for that. :2wave:

I don't support Obama's pick either, but that doesn't stop the fact most conservatives allowed a racist into the supreme court like Alito.

Click to expand...

He's not racist and you know it. He qualified what he said by immediately saying he can't bend the law, he applies it but whatever. FWIW I never called Sotomayor a racist myself. I think she's wrongheaded when it comes to what it means to be judge. I think she's agenda driven and dangerous for a Supreme Court judge. I also think she's relatively bad with words and communicating. I don't think she thinks enough before she speaks which is also not great for a judge.

I'm hoping that during her confirmation hearings she will adjust herself and give the right answers when it comes to some of this stuff. But I have a small fear that she will be defiant and adamant that it's perfectly ok for her to both be a Supreme Court judge while thinking and talking like she does.

Wessexman said:

I wasn't suggesting she believed that, although her supposed, and they may have been taken out of context, remarks on judiciary making policy were troubling. I was simply saying that her experience as Latino women was only of a very minor relevancy to how a SC judge should act.

Click to expand...

Couple things. She was not even a consideration for the SC when she made the comment, she was in the appeals court system. Her comments as I understood them where in reference to civil rights cases, where she feels her experiences due to gender and ethnicity give her more insight on the issue.

I'm finding it very ironic and amusing that the right wing is talking about racism.....:doh

talloulou said:

He's not racist and you know it.

Click to expand...

When he said he took it into account that meant he added it to his decisions, there is no spinning around that.

You take it differently because he was a Bush appointee and you are conservative. that is your fault, not mine.

All you cared about it if they are conservative.

Redress said:

Couple things. She was not even a consideration for the SC when she made the comment, she was in the appeals court system. Her comments as I understood them where in reference to civil rights cases, where she feels her experiences due to gender and ethnicity give her more insight on the issue.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but it is much more relevant if she were running for Congress.

When these cases come up, all she has to do is see if they fit the established and original meanings of the laws and constitutions. I'm not sure where her latino, female experience will be greatly relevant to that? Only if they are a tiny bit out of whack with these but very close can she make a small interpretation so as to close the gap and even in such a rare situation I cannot see how it is of the greatest relevance that she has had this experience.

TheNextEra said:

When he said he took it into account that meant he added it to his decisions, there is no spinning around that.

You take it differently because he was a Bush appointee and you are conservative. that is your fault, not mine.

All you cared about it if they are conservative.

Click to expand...

Since you say it, it must be true. In fact I think the more you say it the more true it becomes.

This debate clearly shows the difference between the philosophy of the left and the right.

The left values diversity and believes that our nation is enriched by varying viewpoints and life experiences.

The right believes that old white men make the best decisions.

Obama was brilliant in this pick because the right-wing is gonna make the GOP more and more of a regional irrelevant party.:lol:

disneydude said:

This debate clearly shows the difference between the philosophy of the left and the right.

The left values diversity and believes that our nation is enriched by varying viewpoints and life experiences.

The right believes that old white men make the best decisions.

Obama was brilliant in this pick because the right-wing is gonna make the GOP more and more of a regional irrelevant party.:lol:

Click to expand...

Yes that was exactly my argument.

disneydude said:

This debate clearly shows the difference between the philosophy of the left and the right.

The left values diversity and believes that our nation is enriched by varying viewpoints and life experiences.

The right believes that old white men make the best decisions.

Obama was brilliant in this pick because the right-wing is gonna make the GOP more and more of a regional irrelevant party.:lol:

Click to expand...

Personally it is the left I would have marked out as more likely to be universalist and for uniformity rather than for diversity, the supporting of "oppressed" minorities to get privileges and special treatment not withstanding.