• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Sotomayor a Political choice...

Is Sotomayor a Political choice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 92.0%

  • No

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
Of course she's a "political" choice, but she's also pretty damn smart and will probably do fine on the court. I'm ambivalent, because I think Wood would have been a better Justice, but having a strong liberal bloc isn't really in my best interests.

Kandahar said:
Women are not a minority. They are a majority of Americans, and a majority of law degree holders. Latinos are 15% of Americans, yet 0 of the 110 people to serve on the Supreme Court have been Latino.

Let's look at all the previous Supreme Court nominees since 1980:

Samuel Alito (white male)
Harriet Miers (white female)
John Roberts (white male)
Stephen Breyer (white male)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (white female)
Clarence Thomas (black male)
David Souter (white male)
Anthony Kennedy (white male)
Douglas Ginsburg (white male)
Robert Bork (white male)
Antonin Scalia (white male)
William Rehnquist (white male)
Sandra Day O'Connor (white female)

Percentage of white nominees: 92%
Percentage of male nominees: 77%

The Supreme Court is not exactly a picture of diversity. People need to stop whining about a president appointing someone who isn't a white male. :roll:
Click to expand...

If you looked at the brightest law students of 40 years ago, I'd wager that around 92% of them were white and 77% were male.

It's obviously going to change over time, but it's not altogether astonishing that there's currently an imbalance among the best 60+ year old judges.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It would be nice if she ruled based on the Constitution, unlike the clod she might be replacing.
Click to expand...

Considering her statements, this isn't likely.
She might make Ginsburg look like a Strict Constructionist.

.
 
Why can't the people who make accusations of affirmative action ever come up with anything other then 'it's obvious'? I mean if it's so obvious. Bring on the massive amounts of proof. Bring up the documents that specifically say that these people made it to where they are because of their race, gender etc. If you can't then STFU.
 
I'm disappointed by this nomination. If there was ever a time to get another liberal judge on the bench, this would be it. Instead, Obama chose a very moderate, almost conservative nominee. I'd hazard a guess that he and his team are "testing the waters" with this nominee. She's already drawn some pretty negative criticism from the right, but on the whole, should have an easy confirmation. She's supremely qualified, impeccable credentials, with tons of experience. My preference would be a more liberal judicial temperament to balance out the pretty unbalanced court.

Who knows though, she might be like Souter and surprise us all.

This was a supremely well thought out political ploy. There is very little the R's can object to given the fact that 7 of them approved her the last go round, including then Republican Arlen Specter. If Franken is seated, then it's almost a slam dunk.

What's already happening is a further implosion of the right, to the point that it's becoming a bit ridiculous. This internal melee is fun to watch, but is only going to lead to the R's being further marginalized as they lose potential Hispanic votes in their catering to the extreme right of their party. That might be the point after all to Obama's nomination.
 
Kandahar said:
Well, ALL Supreme Court picks are political choices to some extent. If a candidate doesn't roughly match the president's political ideology, the president isn't going to pick him/her no matter how qualified he/she is.

With that said, I personally would have preferred Elena Kagan, Diane Wood, or Pamela Karlan. I'm sure Sotomayor will be fine, but I think that intellectualism is an important trait for a Supreme Court pick, because they can sway the opinions of other justices over time and actually have more influence than just their one vote. And I'm not sure that Sotomayor has that particular trait.
Click to expand...

I knew Pam Karlan fairly well in college. She has a crush on my roommate (A Rhodes Scholar and on the debate team with her) so she spent alot of time in our suite. Brilliant woman-way too left for me. Akhil Reed Amar is the smartest liberal legal scholar in the country but he's probably too intellectual honest for someone like Obama to pick.

QuotaMayor was the top academically of available leftwing Hispanic lady judges though
 
Kandahar said:
Women are not a minority. They are a majority of Americans, and a majority of law degree holders. Latinos are 15% of Americans, yet 0 of the 110 people to serve on the Supreme Court have been Latino.

Let's look at all the previous Supreme Court nominees since 1980:

Samuel Alito (white male)
Harriet Miers (white female)
John Roberts (white male)
Stephen Breyer (white male)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (white female)
Clarence Thomas (black male)
David Souter (white male)
Anthony Kennedy (white male)
Douglas Ginsburg (white male)
Robert Bork (white male)
Antonin Scalia (white male)
William Rehnquist (white male)
Sandra Day O'Connor (white female)

Percentage of white nominees: 92%
Percentage of male nominees: 77%

The Supreme Court is not exactly a picture of diversity. People need to stop whining about a president appointing someone who isn't a white male. :roll:
Click to expand...

lets break it down further

Ginsburg and Breyer are Jewish. That means more than 20% of the supreme court is Jewish yet Jews make up only 2% of the population. With Souter leaving the bench, Stevens is the only Protestant. We Protestants are GROSSLY underrepresented on the court.
 
Redress said:
Why are we talking about her sex and race, instead of whether she is qualified or likely to make a good Supreme Court Justice? I really get this impresion that our friends on the right want to talk about anything except her qualifications.
Click to expand...
There's nothing much there to talk about.

She's been on the bench a goodly length of time. Of five majority opinions she wrote on the appellate bench that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, three were overturned--and not by 5-4 margins (one was unanimous, which rather suggests she screwed that on up). Her legal reasoning is workmanlike but neither incisive nor insightful. She is, politics, feminazi attitudes, and a distinct "la raza" bias notwithstanding, a competent jurist--but no more than that.

There's not enough to warrant opposing her confirmation to the Supreme Court. The Constitution says the President gets to pick whom he wants, with input from the Senate; she should be confirmed because the Constitution says Dear Leader can pick her if he wants. But if this is the best legal mind the liberals have to offer, they're even more befuddled than they typicaly appear.

In some respects, she's the perfect replacement for Souter--a shallow, uninspired judge, with shallow, uninspired thinking, with shallow and uninspired liberal idiocies perverting her legal reasoning. Souter was a forgettable justice; Sotamayor, once all the salsa has lost its spice, will be the same.
 
celticlord said:
There's nothing much there to talk about.

She's been on the bench a goodly length of time. Of five majority opinions she wrote on the appellate bench that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, three were overturned--and not by 5-4 margins (one was unanimous, which rather suggests she screwed that on up). Her legal reasoning is workmanlike but neither incisive nor insightful. She is, politics, feminazi attitudes, and a distinct "la raza" bias notwithstanding, a competent jurist--but no more than that.

There's not enough to warrant opposing her confirmation to the Supreme Court. The Constitution says the President gets to pick whom he wants, with input from the Senate; she should be confirmed because the Constitution says Dear Leader can pick her if he wants. But if this is the best legal mind the liberals have to offer, they're even more befuddled than they typicaly appear.

In some respects, she's the perfect replacement for Souter--a shallow, uninspired judge, with shallow, uninspired thinking, with shallow and uninspired liberal idiocies perverting her legal reasoning. Souter was a forgettable justice; Sotamayor, once all the salsa has lost its spice, will be the same.
Click to expand...

You know, I may not like what you say alot, nor how you say it, but you get major credit for fairness and logic for this post.
 
celticlord said:
There's nothing much there to talk about.

She's been on the bench a goodly length of time. Of five majority opinions she wrote on the appellate bench that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, three were overturned--and not by 5-4 margins (one was unanimous, which rather suggests she screwed that on up). Her legal reasoning is workmanlike but neither incisive nor insightful. She is, politics, feminazi attitudes, and a distinct "la raza" bias notwithstanding, a competent jurist--but no more than that.

There's not enough to warrant opposing her confirmation to the Supreme Court. The Constitution says the President gets to pick whom he wants, with input from the Senate; she should be confirmed because the Constitution says Dear Leader can pick her if he wants. But if this is the best legal mind the liberals have to offer, they're even more befuddled than they typicaly appear.

In some respects, she's the perfect replacement for Souter--a shallow, uninspired judge, with shallow, uninspired thinking, with shallow and uninspired liberal idiocies perverting her legal reasoning. Souter was a forgettable justice; Sotamayor, once all the salsa has lost its spice, will be the same.
Click to expand...

excellent analysis of QuotaMayor.


She had a great college record and while hispanic women were major beneficiaries of affirmative action, its hard to argue she did not deserve entrance into Yale Law where (like everyone else who gets on the YLJ) she wrote her way on to the main law review (Yale doesn't have grades for first year therefore there are no "grade associates" on that Journal). However, after that, she hardly had say the stellar careers of people such as Akhil Amar, Pam Karlan (rated one of the top brief writers in the Nation) Peter Keisler, Steven Calabresi, John Roberts, or Paul Clements-all of whom were Yale Law Journal editors or on the Harvard Law Review

She is hardly one of the leading lights on the appellate courts but she probably was the academically best qualified hispanic liberal female available.
 
Kandahar said:
The Supreme Court is not exactly a picture of diversity. People need to stop whining about a president appointing someone who isn't a white male. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's not supposed to be.

It's supposed to be a panel of the most profound jurists the nation can produce to interpret the laws in terms of the Constitution as the people who wrote that Constitution intended for it to be applied.

"Diversity" isn't a job requirement.
 
Redress said:
Why are we talking about her sex and race, instead of whether she is qualified or likely to make a good Supreme Court Justice? I really get this impresion that our friends on the right want to talk about anything except her qualifications.
Click to expand...

She's being appointed by Obama. That means she's not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, rather instead, she's a sock puppet taken from a marathon loser with severe athlete's foot.

Her sex and ethnicity (hispanic ain't a race) became an issue because she babbled about them.
 
zimmer said:
Considering her statements, this isn't likely.
She might make Ginsburg look like a Strict Constructionist.

.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. She's replacing Souter, so it's not like she's going to change the make up of the court. Besides, looking at her, it doesn't look like she's familiar with eye liner or any of that other goop women hide their faces with.
 
Hatuey said:
Why can't the people who make accusations of affirmative action ever come up with anything other then 'it's obvious'? I mean if it's so obvious. Bring on the massive amounts of proof. Bring up the documents that specifically say that these people made it to where they are because of their race, gender etc. If you can't then STFU.
Click to expand...

Of course it's obvious. What were the predictions about Obama's pick? Female, probably hispanic, maybe black.

Who'd he pick?

A latina.
 
NDNdancer said:
I'm disappointed by this nomination. If there was ever a time to get another liberal judge on the bench, this would be it. Instead, Obama chose a very moderate, almost conservative nominee. I'd hazard a guess that he and his team are "testing the waters" with this nominee. She's already drawn some pretty negative criticism from the right, but on the whole, should have an easy confirmation. She's supremely qualified, impeccable credentials, with tons of experience. My preference would be a more liberal judicial temperament to balance out the pretty unbalanced court.

Who knows though, she might be like Souter and surprise us all.

This was a supremely well thought out political ploy. There is very little the R's can object to given the fact that 7 of them approved her the last go round, including then Republican Arlen Specter. If Franken is seated, then it's almost a slam dunk.

What's already happening is a further implosion of the right, to the point that it's becoming a bit ridiculous. This internal melee is fun to watch, but is only going to lead to the R's being further marginalized as they lose potential Hispanic votes in their catering to the extreme right of their party. That might be the point after all to Obama's nomination.
Click to expand...


Obama picked her.

That means she's as liberal as they get. That means she won't use the Constitution more than five days a month.

What more can you people want?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It's not supposed to be.

It's supposed to be a panel of the most profound jurists the nation can produce to interpret the laws in terms of the Constitution as the people who wrote that Constitution intended for it to be applied.

"Diversity" isn't a job requirement.
Click to expand...

The best and the very brightest legal minds ought to be on the supreme court. That probably means more Jews than blacks for example based on who is graduating at the very top of Yale and Harvard Law


The best engineering schools aren't all that diverse either. Some of them have more Chinese than the US Table Tennis team!!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Of course it's obvious. What were the predictions about Obama's pick? Female, probably hispanic, maybe black.

Who'd he pick?

A latina.
Click to expand...


The appellate guru in my office is a liberal Harvard Law Magna cum laude-a former appellate clerk etc. When SDO decided to step down, I asked him who should Bush pick?

Right away he said John Roberts-he said Roberts was the very best legal scholar available who was a republican


When I asked him about replacing Souter, it always came down to "well since he wants a woman and probably a hispanic">>>>>>>>>>>>


No one believes QuotaMayor was the best available liberal jurist. She was the best available Latina though
 
Which is worse?

Seeking a specific race/gender for a supreme court pick (something there is no evidence of in Obama's pick).

or

Automatically condemning a pick because the pick happens to be female and Hispanic.


The second is worse, and since conservatives are calling it reverse racism or whatever other racism happens to be in their back pocket at the time, the second statement is more racist actually.

It suggests that someone who is both a female and Hispanic cannot be approved for The Court because of her race and gender.

It is far worse to automatically condemn a supreme court pick because of race and gender, as many conservatives were predetermined to do.
 
No evidence in Obama's pick? Surely you must be joking. The entire list of finalists were all female. NONE OF THEM are close to being the best available choices. The Former governor of Arizona or the governor of Michigan? Good God.
 
TurtleDude said:
No evidence in Obama's pick? Surely you must be joking. The entire list of finalists were all female. NONE OF THEM are close to being the best available choices. The Former governor of Arizona or the governor of Michigan? Good God.
Click to expand...

Hey, Carlos Moreno was TOTALLY a legitimate finalist. It's CRAZY to claim that he was only on the finalist list as the token guy. :lol:
 
RightinNYC said:
Hey, Carlos Moreno was TOTALLY a legitimate finalist. It's CRAZY to claim that he was only on the finalist list as the token guy. :lol:
Click to expand...

LOL-there were lots of lists-one even supposedly had former Bush Deputy AG Jim Comey on it. But the final list apparently had QuotaMayor, Kagan (SG), and the two politicians (the michigan canadian harvard grad and Janet DHS Napolitano)
 
TurtleDude said:
No evidence in Obama's pick? Surely you must be joking. The entire list of finalists were all female. NONE OF THEM are close to being the best available choices. The Former governor of Arizona or the governor of Michigan? Good God.
Click to expand...

Where's the evidence that says the President picked Sotomayor because of race and gender?

Just because you think she was not the best doesn't disqualify the idea. Hell there's always a better candidate for President in many people's eyes, but we get what we get, and people are not killing themselves over it.
 
Cilogy said:
Where's the evidence that says the President picked Sotomayor because of race and gender?
Click to expand...
Hmm....Lessee, she was picked by the babbling baboon who manages to drag race into every speech he gives (they really need to reprogram that teleprompter to come up with a different opening line besides "Hi, I'm the first black President of the United States, and I just wanted to say I'm black, but also...."). How could anyone possibly think that Dear Leader wouldn't put a pre-eminence on ethnicity?:roll:
 
celticlord said:
Hmm....Lessee, she was picked by the babbling baboon who manages to drag race into every speech he gives (they really need to reprogram that teleprompter to come up with a different opening line besides "Hi, I'm the first black President of the United States, and I just wanted to say I'm black, but also....").
Click to expand...

There is also no evidence that Obama says "hi, I'm the first black President of the United States, and I just wanted to say I'm black, but also...."

I asked you what evidence is there that shows he picked her based on race or gender, and in essence, you answered by saying "because he picked her."

:( Can't come up with a compelling argument? I'm not saying I am, in fact I'm not even making an argument, I'm asking a question you have yet to answer.

All you've done is back up a lack of evidence with more lack of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Cilogy said:
All you've done is back up a lack of evidence with more lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

Dear Leader's own words:
But as impressive and meaningful as Judge Sotomayor's sterling credentials in the law is her own extraordinary journey.
Click to expand...
What Sonia will bring to the court, then, is not only the knowledge and experience acquired over a course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life's journey.
Click to expand...
Short version: she's a latina and race/gender matter more than knowing the law.

Because her "life's journey" wouldn't make a damn bit of difference any other way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom