• 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'

aps said:
Of course you do. He's feeding to your right-wing talking points. :rofl
Click to expand...

Actually I spent the time to read all up on this woman. Even spent time reading through the horrible dribble of some of her actual cases. I came to my decisions all on my own.

But I'm nowhere near as good with words as my new crush is.
 
talloulou said:
Actually I spent the time to read all up on this woman. Even spent time reading through the horrible dribble of some of her actual cases. I came to my decisions all on my own.

But I'm nowhere near as good with words as my new crush is.
Click to expand...

So did you feel the same way about Alito?
 
talloulou said:
Actually I spent the time to read all up on this woman. Even spent time reading through the horrible dribble of some of her actual cases. I came to my decisions all on my own.

But I'm nowhere near as good with words as my new crush is.
Click to expand...

I will vouch for talloulou on this. We spent a night a couple nights ago going over alot of details. She put a lot of effort into framing her (wrong) opinion.
 
Redress said:
Causation or correlation amounts to the same thing here.
Click to expand...
Causation and correlation never amount to the same thing.

You (and Sotomayor) are arguing the logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this").

The short version of the rule is causation is not correlation. More properly, correlation (or covariance) is a necessary predicate for causation, thus the more accurate form is "Correlation is not equal to causation; it is only a requirement for it."

Sotomayor, when she stated "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging," asserted more than correlation, she asserted causation (perversely, the assertion is demonstrably fatuous because she prefaced it by acknowledging total ignorance of the precise causal link).

To assert that female jurists will rule differently because they are female, to assert that Latino and Latina jurists will rule differently because they are Latino or Latina, to assert that male jurists will rule differently because they are male, is to assert a differentiation based on gender and/or ethnicity; it is to assert that there is distinction and differentiation based on gender and/or ethnicity. There is no way to make such an assertion and not assert such a differentiation.

If one argues a differentiation based on gender and ethnicity, if one argues a different jurisprudential model based on gender and ethnicity, then one cannot also argue for equal application of law, equal protection of the law, or even equality under the law. The two arguments are mutually exclusive.

If one argues a differentiation based on gender and/or ethnicity, one forsakes Dr. King's dream, wherein people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Personally, I prefer this nation continue to strive for Dr. King's dream. It's a good dream.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Is white a race? Did she not denigrate white men by saying that they are not capable of coming to decisions as good as someone else?

Then it's a race issue.
Click to expand...

Nope !! The term 'old white' when has been used as a euphamism for a long time now to describe the SUPREMES. Actually even the Senate was not too long ago euphamistically refered to as a club for old white men.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Nope !! The term 'old white' when has been used as a euphamism for a long time now to describe the SUPREMES. Actually even the Senate was not too long ago euphamistically refered to as a club for old white men.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that the same rationale Jesse Jackson used to explain calling New York "Hymietown"?
 
celticlord said:
Causation and correlation never amount to the same thing.

You (and Sotomayor) are arguing the logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this").

The short version of the rule is causation is not correlation. More properly, correlation (or covariance) is a necessary predicate for causation, thus the more accurate form is "Correlation is not equal to causation; it is only a requirement for it."

Sotomayor, when she stated "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging," is asserting more than correlation, she asserting causation (perversely, the assertion is demonstrably fatuous because she prefaces it by acknowledging total ignorance of the precise causal link).

To assert that female jurists will rule differently because they are female, to assert that Latino and Latina jurists will rule differently because they are Latino or Latina, to assert that male jurists will rule differently because they are male, is to assert a differentiation based on gender and/or ethnicity; it is to assert that there is distinction and differentiation based on gender and/or ethnicity. There is no way to make such an assertion and not assert such a differentiation.
Click to expand...

We both agree that women rule differently on womens issues than men. is this true? You at least claimed to have seen the studies that Sotomayer references. Now, if women rule differently than men, what possible reason other than gender, or a direct result of gender(ie the different upbringing between men or women) is there? You are using a lot of fancy wording to try and obscure a simple idea.

Further, what difference does it make why, if we know that it does exist? Simply knowing that it exists is enough to react to it.

celticlord said:
If one argues a differentiation based on gender and ethnicity, if one argues a different jurisprudential model based on gender and ethnicity, then one cannot also argue for equal application of law, equal protection of the law, or even equality under the law. The two arguments are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Bull! Difference does not mean that thing cannot be equal. We are not walking the realm of old "different but equal" that was eventually overruled. We are acknowledging that people have different upbringing, different views, different ways of looking at things. Different people can interpret the law differently, both with the best of intentions and logic and beliefs. This does not make things inherently unequal, only different. If we accept that judges are trying to dispense justice as best they can within the framework of the law, equality of race, and gender, and ethnicity follows, if not in every single case, then overall, and the system is designed to protect from those aberrations that occur from time to time.

Celticlord said:
If one argues a differentiation based on gender and/or ethnicity, one forsakes Dr. King's dream, wherein people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Personally, I prefer this nation continue to strive for Dr. King's dream. It's a good dream.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing that. What Sotomeyar is arguing is that a breadth of experience leads to a greater chance of equality. She is not suggesting, not in any way, that the court should not strive for equality, only that a court of one race, one gender, one ethnicity is less likely to achieve equality than one that is a melting pot of gender and ethnicity.
 
TheNextEra said:
So did you feel the same way about Alito?
Click to expand...

Why would I feel the same way about Alito?

My issue with Sotomayer is that she seems to think a bias based on her heritage or her femaleness is ok. She also seems to think this is acceptable and is unapologetic about it.

Let's look at the difference between some statements:

“A judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case. The judge's only obligation — and it's a solemn obligation — is to the rule of law.” -Alito

or

“The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand. But a judge can't think that way. A judge can't have any agenda, a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case and a judge certainly doesn't have a client.” - Alito

Samuel Alito quotes

vs.

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. I know. " - Sotomayer

or

"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. " - Sotomayer

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. " - Sotomayer

Sonia Sotomayor Quotes

Do you see the difference? To me, it's striking. I'm shocked actually that a judge would use the language she uses.

From Alito's hearing:

"But, although the judiciary has a very important role to play, it's a limited role. It is not -- it should always be asking itself whether it is straying over the bounds, whether it's invading the authority of the legislature, for example, whether it is making policy judgments rather than interpreting the law."

More from the confirmation hearing:

"Judges have to be careful not to inject their own views into the interpretation of the Constitution and, for that matter, into the interpretation of statutes. That's not the job that we are given. That's not authority that we are given."

"Results-oriented jurisprudence is never justified because it is not our job to try to produce particular results. We are not policy-makers and we shouldn't be implementing any sort of policy agenda or policy preferences that we have"

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court - washingtonpost.com

So why would I feel the same way about these two?
 
Redress said:
We both agree that women rule differently on womens issues than men. is this true? You at least claimed to have seen the studies that Sotomayer references. Now, if women rule differently than men, what possible reason other than gender, or a direct result of gender(ie the different upbringing between men or women) is there? You are using a lot of fancy wording to try and obscure a simple idea.
Click to expand...
There is a correlation. I do not state, nor do I believe, that a female jurist rules on issues a certain way merely because she is female.

Redress said:
Further, what difference does it make why, if we know that it does exist? Simply knowing that it exists is enough to react to it.
Click to expand...
It is enough to react wrongly. If you do not establish causation, you have no assurance your reaction will produce a desired result. Without a definitive causative link, any reaction is by definition irrational, illogical, and most likely ill-considered and ill-omened.

Redress said:
Bull! Difference does not mean that thing cannot be equal. We are not walking the realm of old "different but equal" that was eventually overruled. We are acknowledging that people have different upbringing, different views, different ways of looking at things. Different people can interpret the law differently, both with the best of intentions and logic and beliefs. This does not make things inherently unequal, only different. If we accept that judges are trying to dispense justice as best they can within the framework of the law, equality of race, and gender, and ethnicity follows, if not in every single case, then overall, and the system is designed to protect from those aberrations that occur from time to time.
Click to expand...
The bull is your desperate pretense that Sotomayor asserted (or that you assert) anything but "separate (different) but equal." And the rebuttal is a simple adaptation of Thurgood Marshall: Different but equal is inherently unequal.

Redress said:
No one is arguing that. What Sotomeyar is arguing is that a breadth of experience leads to a greater chance of equality. She is not suggesting, not in any way, that the court should not strive for equality, only that a court of one race, one gender, one ethnicity is less likely to achieve equality than one that is a melting pot of gender and ethnicity.
Click to expand...
Except she was not arguing experience, and, as your closing demonstrates, neither are you; she argued and you argue gender and ethnicity. Equating those to "experience" is beyond ludicrous.
 
Laila said:
That is for the President and Senate to decide no?
Click to expand...

No. The rule of law, not having a constitution of mere guidelines and a separation of powers demands it.

This is why your ideas about having American institutions in Britain worries me Laila, the American court system has not worked out well imho, we do not want a court system so independent(obviously a necessary degree of independence is required and we have always had it in Britain for centuries) as to be literally the arbiter of the constitution and whole set up of gov't. Ultimately I must say the anti-federalist, specifically Brutus, and Jefferson were correct, we should avoid such a system.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Except she was not arguing experience, and, as your closing demonstrates, neither are you; she argued and you argue gender and ethnicity. Equating those to "experience" is beyond ludicrous.
Click to expand...

We are going to go round and round on this, to no point. I think we can agree on that. There seems to be a disconnect between us that is not going to be overcome here. So just a quick comment on the above quoted.

Gender and ethnicity are part of experience. Men and women have different upbringing, leading to a different set of experiences. You have never had a gynecological exam, or a yeast infection, just to name a couple quick things off the top of my head(due to a stupid joke my brother told me earlier). A hispanic has a different set of experiences from a black person from a white person.
 
talloulou said:
So why would I feel the same way about these two?
Click to expand...


Oh I don't know maybe because of this statement by Alitos:

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Click to expand...

Alito: My family’s immigrant experience shaped judicial outlook - Daily Kos TV (beta)
 
Redress said:
Gender and ethnicity are part of experience. Men and women have different upbringing, leading to a different set of experiences. You have never had a gynecological exam, or a yeast infection, just to name a couple quick things off the top of my head(due to a stupid joke my brother told me earlier). A hispanic has a different set of experiences from a black person from a white person.
Click to expand...
And two hispanics have different experiences from each other. As do two women, two men, two blacks, two celts, two anglo-saxons, two inuits, et cetera.

So why focus on gender and ethnicity to the exclusion of the vast spectrum of other experiential components?

Why limit your thinking and your appraisal of your fellow man to just those two qualities?

Sotomayor is from the South Bronx, as I recall. She is (horrors!) a Yankees fan. What role do those experiential components play in her jurisprudence? Why derogate those components in favor of gender and ethnicity? By what logic and ethic do you or she assert the primacy of gender and ethnicity?
 
celticlord said:
And two hispanics have different experiences from each other. As do two women, two men, two blacks, two celts, two anglo-saxons, two inuits, et cetera.

So why focus on gender and ethnicity to the exclusion of the vast spectrum of other experiential components?

Why limit your thinking and your appraisal of your fellow man to just those two qualities?

Sotomayor is from the South Bronx, as I recall. She is (horrors!) a Yankees fan. What role do those experiential components play in her jurisprudence? Why derogate those components in favor of gender and ethnicity? By what logic and ethic do you or she assert the primacy of gender and ethnicity?
Click to expand...

Because that was the topic of the annual event she was speaking at. Everything else you say here is true(though I will deny ever having said that).
 
TheNextEra said:
Oh I don't know maybe because of this statement by Alitos:



Alito: My family’s immigrant experience shaped judicial outlook - Daily Kos TV (beta)
Click to expand...

Immediately there after he says,
"It's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or bend the law to achieve any result."
Click to expand...

He acknowledges that he can't help thinking about his personal experiences or those of his family however he has a fundamental understanding about what his job is vs what it is not. Very different from Sotomayer who has been quoted about making policy. Nowhere does Alito say anything that even comes close to insinuating that he will think about his family and rule accordingly. Nowhere does he say that thinking about his grandparents being immigrants will effect his rulings on any case. His job is to apply the law and he understands that on a fundamental principled level.

Nobody thinks judges can morph into robots. However there is a distinct difference between cases bringing up personal thoughts for you and you understanding that you still must simply apply the law vs. you allowing those thoughts to effect your ruling or you accepting that it will effect your ruling.

Sotomayor is unapologetic and smug about openly allowing her experiences, her heritage, & her gender to affect how she rules.

That is the difference between Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
Immediately there after he says,

He acknowledges that he can't help thinking about his personal experiences or those of his family however he has a fundamental understanding about what his job is vs what it is not. Very different from Sotomayer who has been quoted about making policy. Nowhere does Alito say anything that even comes close to insinuating that he will think about his family and rule accordingly. Nowhere does he say that thinking about his grandparents being immigrants will effect his rulings on any case. His job is to apply the law and he understands that on a fundamental principled level.

Nobody thinks judges can morph into robots. However there is a distinct difference between cases bringing up personal thoughts for you and you understanding that you still must simply apply the law vs. you allowing those thoughts to effect your ruling or you accepting that it will effect your ruling.

Sotomayor is unapologetic and smug about openly allowing her experiences, her heritage, & her gender to affect how she rules.

That is the difference between Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.
Click to expand...

When he says he "TAKES THAT INTO ACCOUNT" he is very well saying what I said.

You are being apologetic to Altio because he was a Bush nominee.

I was against Altio and I am against Obama's choice.
 
TheNextEra said:
When he says he "TAKES THAT INTO ACCOUNT" he is very well saying what I said.

You are being apologetic to Altio because he was a Bush nominee.

I was against Altio and I am against Obama's choice.
Click to expand...

I don't think I am. Sonia Sotomayor said matter of factly that she has no issue with allowing her heritage and her gender to effect her ruling.

Alito said no such thing and even when explaining that yes he does think about these things in a variety of cases he has an inherent understanding that it is his job to apply the law; not change it, not bend it.
 
It always amazes me how long and drawn out these conversations can be. Let's just cut the crap. The woman is a racist and Obama picked her because the left is OBSESSED with race and gender.
 
Ethereal said:
It always amazes me how long and drawn out these conversations can be. Let's just cut the crap. The woman is a racist and Obama picked her because the left is OBSESSED with race and gender.
Click to expand...

Exactamundo...woops!
 
Redress said:
Gender and ethnicity are part of experience. Men and women have different upbringing, leading to a different set of experiences. You have never had a gynecological exam, or a yeast infection, just to name a couple quick things off the top of my head(due to a stupid joke my brother told me earlier). A hispanic has a different set of experiences from a black person from a white person.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
It always amazes me how long and drawn out these conversations can be. Let's just cut the crap. The woman is a racist and Obama picked her because the left is OBSESSED with race and gender.
Click to expand...

So was Alito.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom