• 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!

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

Of course they do - they have since the beginning of the supreme court -they are not robotic. Sotomayor is just being honest - which I think is quite refreshing!
Good luck to her.

I think it's a dangerous attitude and changes the face of what it means to be a judge. Willingly accepting that your prejudices are going to effect your ruling is accepting that you're not going to be impartial and being damn near smug about it.

Eventually our judges will just be select representatives seated to serve special interests or select groups and everyone will have forgotten that justice is supposed to be blind.
 
Sotomayer's quote about Latina women and white men was taken out of context. Here is the context:
It is easy to take issue with a quote that you misrepresent. Tell me now what issue you have with Sotomayer's actual statement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5

Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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 didn't say the white male was wise. If he was, he could have empathy for any group, and it's possible the Latina woman wouldn't have it for someone who came from a background different from her own. That's actually a dumb statement, and somebody who makes these kinds of statements probably is a bigot.

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.

This contradicts the first paragraph. She's saying anybody can understand the values and needs of people from a different group, but in the first paragraph she's saying a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would come to a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. I smell a bigot.

She'll be confirmed because everybody is wanting the Hispanic votes, but still they need to give her a hard time like they did Alito and Roberts.
 
I think it's a dangerous attitude and changes the face of what it means to be a judge. Willingly accepting that your prejudices are going to effect your ruling is accepting that you're not going to be impartial and being damn near smug about it.

Eventually our judges will just be select representatives seated to serve special interests or select groups and everyone will have forgotten that justice is supposed to be blind.

That's not what she's saying at all - her past rulings have been taken in account, and show her to give impartial rulings as well. She probably shouldn't have said it -because obviously,:roll:, she is going to going to keep getting grief about it, however, all of them let their life experiences affect them to some extent, that's why there are liberal and conservative judges.
 
I didn't say it never happens. I said it may occasionally happen. But it is not the desired goal. You don't go into judging happily accepting that your going to bring you're prejudices with you.

There is a difference between acknowledging something might happen to effect levels of impartiality with different judges vs embracing that, bragging about it, and not giving a piss about flat out stating you don't mind not being impartial at all.

If it does happen, then diversity should be desirable, and she is right that in that case, her gender/ethnicity is of value. Just saying "well, it shouldn't" does not help anything. Our whole court system is based around the idea that judges cannot agree on anything, and with that being the case, and since judges of different sex and ethnic groups do rule differently, diversity is important.

I do not see her as "bragging about it", she was giving a speech on that topic, at an annual event, on that topic. Obviously, she is going to talk about it, and talk about it in a positive light when her whole point at being there is to do so.
 
This contradicts the first paragraph. She's saying anybody can understand the values and needs of people from a different group, but in the first paragraph she's saying a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would come to a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. I smell a bigot.

I did not come away from her speech with that impression. She contradicted herself a few times, often enough I felt it was intentional. She is questioning alot of conventional wisdom on both sides, those who think that race/gender is irrelevant, and those who think it is highly relevant. She is saying as I read it that race/gender play a part in how judges rule, but that does not mean that race/gender is a requirement to rule wisely.
 
Estrada was nominated by George Bush for the DC Court of Appeals despite the fact he had never served as a judge on the local, state or federal level. His race had nothing to do with it, except that Bush probably figured being a Latino would grease the nomination despite a total lack of experience.

Really? Democrats didnt go after him based on race alone? His race was 1 of the reasons the DNC special interests gave to stonewall his appointment. As DNC memos prove.

See below:

Featured Article - WSJ.com

'He Is Latino'
Why Dems borked Estrada, in their own words.

Now that the Senate has concluded its 30-hour talkathon on judicial filibusters, we thought readers might like to peer inside the filibustering Democratic mind, such as it is.

This plunge into the murky deep comes from staff strategy memos we've obtained from the days when Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001-02. Or, rather, appeared to run the committee. Their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over--and which Bush judges to confirm or not. Here are some excerpts:



November 6, 2001/To: Senator Dick Durbin
"You are scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with the judicial nomination process. The leaders will likely include: Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), and Judy Lichtman (National Partnership). . . .

". . . The primary focus will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent."



November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."



February 28, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]
"Ralph Neas called to let us know that he had lunch with Andy Stern of SEIU. Andy wants to be helpful as we move forward on judges, and he has great contacts with Latino media outlets . . ."



April 17, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]
"Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund tried to call you today. . . . Elaine would like the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit. . . . The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."



June 12, 2002/To: SENATOR (Kennedy)
"...Ultimately, if [Chairman Pat] Leahy insists on having an August hearing, it appears that the groups are willing to let [Timothy] Tymkovich [10th Circuit] go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups)."

Mr. Tymkovich apparently got the gay OK.

Pretty easy to see, that they went off of race alone as 1 of the qualifiers here on Estrada.

Now, we have Sotomayor who has basically said she would be better then any white guy simply b/c she is Latino.
 
If it does happen, then diversity should be desirable, and she is right that in that case, her gender/ethnicity is of value. Just saying "well, it shouldn't" does not help anything. Our whole court system is based around the idea that judges cannot agree on anything, and with that being the case, and since judges of different sex and ethnic groups do rule differently, diversity is important.

I do not see her as "bragging about it", she was giving a speech on that topic, at an annual event, on that topic. Obviously, she is going to talk about it, and talk about it in a positive light when her whole point at being there is to do so.

Sotomayor gives an annual speech on her latina vagina's superior decision making abilities over that of old white penises?
 
If it does happen, then diversity should be desirable, and she is right that in that case, her gender/ethnicity is of value. Just saying "well, it shouldn't" does not help anything. Our whole court system is based around the idea that judges cannot agree on anything, and with that being the case, and since judges of different sex and ethnic groups do rule differently, diversity is important.

I do not see her as "bragging about it", she was giving a speech on that topic, at an annual event, on that topic. Obviously, she is going to talk about it, and talk about it in a positive light when her whole point at being there is to do so.

Gender and ethnicity have no greater value then the other gender or ethnic group in the eyes of the law, unless, UNLESS, Congress passes legislation making it so, like AA or giving illegal aliens in state tuition. The eyes of justice should be blind to all genders and ethnic groups, neither of those should be in play when deciding the outcome.

Its that simple.
 
Really? Democrats didnt go after him based on race alone? His race was 1 of the reasons the DNC special interests gave to stonewall his appointment. As DNC memos prove.

See below:

Featured Article - WSJ.com



Pretty easy to see, that they went off of race alone as 1 of the qualifiers here on Estrada.

Now, we have Sotomayor who has basically said she would be better then any white guy simply b/c she is Latino.

for all the reprints of the WSJ story, I have yet to see who wrote "he is Latino". It seems to have been a nameless lobbyist, and as such, can safely be ignored.
 
Gender and ethnicity have no greater value then the other gender or ethnic group in the eyes of the law, unless, UNLESS, Congress passes legislation making it so, like AA or giving illegal aliens in state tuition. The eyes of justice should be blind to all genders and ethnic groups, neither of those should be in play when deciding the outcome.

Its that simple.

Except that judges do rule differently based on gender and ethnicity. As long as that is the case, then diversity is something of value.
 
Except that judges do rule differently based on gender and ethnicity. As long as that is the case, then diversity is something of value.

cacophony has no value.

do the females rule according to the law of the Constitution?

Not really. They have "empathy" according to The Messiah. If their rulings were consistent with the Constitution, they wouldn't need "empathy".

Also, an all male court ruled, incorrectly, that abortion was a right of women found in the Constitution that no one had ever seen before and that no one has yet been able to find. Would having a "diverse" court caused the court to rule correctly on that issue instead?

An all white court ruled that the Separate But Equal policy (approved by an earlier court) was unconstitutional. Would a "diverse" court have come to a different decision?

What I'm pointing out, in case you missed it, is that "diversity" as a goal is purest bull****. What's needed in an Appellate judge or a Supreme Court judge is the ability to interpret the law in a manner consistent with the Constitution, and a latina vagina does not endow it's wearer with any special abilities in that regard.
 
Last edited:
I did not come away from her speech with that impression. She contradicted herself a few times, often enough I felt it was intentional. She is questioning alot of conventional wisdom on both sides, those who think that race/gender is irrelevant, and those who think it is highly relevant. She is saying as I read it that race/gender play a part in how judges rule, but that does not mean that race/gender is a requirement to rule wisely.

MHO is race shouldn't even be mentioned, it's just gotten so old already. I'd say she brought it up cause she wants everybody to know she's Latino. I honestly thought she was Asian at first.
 
MHO is race shouldn't even be mentioned, it's just gotten so old already. I'd say she brought it up cause she wants everybody to know she's Latino. I honestly thought she was Asian at first.

She was speaking at an annual lecture on diversity on the bench. How would you expert her to not bring up her gender or ethnicity?
 
And I say she is wrong .Heritage??? Please. She is absolutely supposed to deny heritage, skin color, etc. She is not supposed to look at a man and have sympathies, prejudices, etc based on heritage, skin color, etc. IT IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE ALWAYS. The fact that she willingly accepts that she will do this, -offer sympathies based on heritage,- is horrifyingly unacceptable.
It is disturbingly ironic that those who presumably celebrate the efforts of such notables as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to eliminate racism and prejudice, should so blithely disregard the standard elucidated by Dr. King--of judging not by the color of skin but by the content of character--and raise the color of their skin as an especial qualification for judging the character of others.
 
She was speaking at an annual lecture on diversity on the bench. How would you expert her to not bring up her gender or ethnicity?
In such a circumstance, she should. She should have said this:

"I am a Latina--a woman of Puerto Rican origin. It has no bearing on how I interpret the law or how I decide cases."

Anything beyond that is a deviation from sound jurisprudence.
 
In such a circumstance, she should. She should have said this:

"I am a Latina--a woman of Puerto Rican origin. It has no bearing on how I interpret the law or how I decide cases."

Anything beyond that is a deviation from sound jurisprudence.

Then let me go back a step for you, since you jumped in late here. Are you denying her claim that it is documented that judges do rule differently based on race and sex? Do you think it does, or does not happen?
 
Then let me go back a step for you, since you jumped in late here. Are you denying her claim that it is documented that judges do rule differently based on race and sex? Do you think it does, or does not happen?
I have no idea, personally. If it does, where it does, it is in contravention of justice and of the rule of law.

Saying that it does and saying that it is good that it does are two different propositions. Sotomayor takes the latter stance, to her shame and disrepute.
 
I have no idea, personally. If it does, where it does, it is in contravention of justice and of the rule of law.

Saying that it does and saying that it is good that it does are two different propositions. Sotomayor takes the latter stance, to her shame and disrepute.

That is a misrepresentation of her position. Have you read the whole speech? It's kinda interesting. Her argument as I read it is that, if you look at rulings, there is a difference based on race and gender, that therefore it is of value to have diversity and people of nonwhite male backgrounds in the courts.

She also says quite clearly, and in fact in the paragraph right after the controversial comment from the speech, that white men are capable of making very wise decisions.
 
I did not come away from her speech with that impression. She contradicted herself a few times, often enough I felt it was intentional. She is questioning alot of conventional wisdom on both sides, those who think that race/gender is irrelevant, and those who think it is highly relevant. She is saying as I read it that race/gender play a part in how judges rule, but that does not mean that race/gender is a requirement to rule wisely.

Yes, I see that now.
 
Re: What is objective ??

Interesting that you don't actually use things IN the constitution, just what if's. And a silly finale at that.

If have either have dificulting applying an example or just plain don't want that's ok. You have every right to interpret by closing to the example any way you wish tha is your right but you also have a right to be wrong and you do that very well. At least that is how I interpret your remarks.
 
Re: What is objective ??

You do realize the applicable Constitution is that of the United States of America and not the People's Republic of China, I hope?

WTFAYTA or you either do get humor or do not like it or both!!
 
for all the reprints of the WSJ story, I have yet to see who wrote "he is Latino". It seems to have been a nameless lobbyist, and as such, can safely be ignored.

Do what? The special interest groups of the DNC wrote it, and the DNC followed it, b/c the DNC never allowed Estrada an up and down vote.

Safely be ignored? Your kidding.
 
Sotomayor gives an annual speech on her latina vagina's superior decision making abilities over that of old white penises?

I see this thread has now decended intot he the levels of juniior high or juniot low school after this post by S .A.
 
Do what? The special interest groups of the DNC wrote it, and the DNC followed it, b/c the DNC never allowed Estrada an up and down vote.

Safely be ignored? Your kidding.

The special interest groups of the DNC?? Why don't you just say the Illuminati wrote it? This is the big hot button issue of the day, emailed to all rightwing lackeys across the country, and you CAN'T EVEN CITE WHO WROTE IT? I think that is hilarious.
 
Back
Top Bottom