• 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!

Breaking: Sotomayor Made Same “Wise Woman” Speech In 1990s

If it's the case they she has a real strong belief in what she has said, not twice, then who wants to continue bashing Limbaugh about his opinion about her? Frankly I think he is really contending that she has a racial bias.
 
To me the issue with her is not so much that she might be a racist, I doubt she is, it's that she readily admits her emotions and personal point of view affect her judicial opinions.

The ideal is to try to strip away those influences to deliver the purest interpretation of the law possible.
 
Anyone who thinks that Supreme Court Justices (or anyone else) are not influenced by their own life experiences is incredibly naive. This is the case whether they are male, female, white, black, Latino, liberal, conservative, from wealthy backgrounds, or from poor backgrounds. EVERYONE brings his or her personal experiences to the table.

The idea that the law always has a "right" and "wrong" answer - which could just as easily be fed into a computer - is ridiculous. I don't see what's so horrible about acknowledging that, or what's so horrible about suggesting that diversity is a good thing.
 
Anyone who thinks that Supreme Court Justices (or anyone else) are not influenced by their own life experiences is incredibly naive. This is the case whether they are male, female, white, black, Latino, liberal, conservative, from wealthy backgrounds, or from poor backgrounds. EVERYONE brings his or her personal experiences to the table.

The idea that the law always has a "right" and "wrong" answer - which could just as easily be fed into a computer - is ridiculous. I don't see what's so horrible about acknowledging that, or what's so horrible about suggesting that diversity is a good thing.

You can be influenced by them, but when it comes to judging cases I want The Constitution to be the floor from which they are judged, not her emotion, or experiences.

.
 
You can be influenced by them, but when it comes to judging cases I want The Constitution to be the floor from which they are judged, not her emotion, or experiences.

.

Are you aware that studies have been done and show that people of different backgrounds rule differently? She actually refers to them in her speech. Course you would have to read the whole speech to know that, and not just the soundbite Rush gave you.
 
You can be influenced by them, but when it comes to judging cases I want The Constitution to be the floor from which they are judged, not her emotion, or experiences.

.

Well regardless of what you want, Supreme Court Justices are human beings who ARE influenced by their experiences, just like everyone else.
 
Anyone who thinks that Supreme Court Justices (or anyone else) are not influenced by their own life experiences is incredibly naive. This is the case whether they are male, female, white, black, Latino, liberal, conservative, from wealthy backgrounds, or from poor backgrounds. EVERYONE brings his or her personal experiences to the table.

The trick is to ignore one's personal perspective as a judge. It's not an easy task. In fact, it's so hard to do it, that we only have nine people out of over 300 million on the high court.


The idea that the law always has a "right" and "wrong" answer - which could just as easily be fed into a computer - is ridiculous.

Of course it is. but we are rapidly developing the proper software, then the Courts can be properly automated.

The place for Solomonic wisdom is the Legislature and the Presidency. The courts should be mechanical in nature.
 
Last edited:
Sotomayor is an angry hate filled leftist. Racist too. She should actually be impeached.
 
The trick is to ignore one's personal perspective as a judge. It's not an easy task. In fact, it's so hard to do it, that we only have nine people out of over 300 million on the high court.

And are you going to tell me that any member of the Supreme Court - past or present - has never been influenced by his/her own life experience? :confused:

Very few (if any) of them would even make that claim.

Oftencold said:
Of course it is. but we are rapidly developing the proper software, then the Courts can be properly automated.

That is ridiculous. Many parts of the Constitution are vague because the courts SHOULD interpret it. The Constitution doesn't spell out what "cruel and unusual punishment" is. It doesn't spell out what laws are "necessary and proper." It doesn't spell out what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are. It doesn't spell out what "unreasonable searches and seizures" are. All of these things can and should be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Hell, the 9th Amendment is practically BEGGING to be interpreted to fit the times.

Supreme Court Justices from different backgrounds will obviously have different views on what those things mean. To claim that a mindless piece of software could dole out mechanical justice is absurd. The Constitution exists to be a living document.
 
Last edited:
Are you aware that studies have been done and show that people of different backgrounds rule differently? She actually refers to them in her speech. Course you would have to read the whole speech to know that, and not just the soundbite Rush gave you.

I don't want that influence on the Supreme Court; or let's put it another way... I want rulings to be as little about "experiences" as humanly possible.

Hers is blatantly obvious, embraces her emotions, flaunts them, and says she is better because of them.

We don't need that on the Supreme Court. If she wants people to know her emotional state, she can go on The View.

.
 
I don't want that influence on the Supreme Court; or let's put it another way... I want rulings to be as little about "experiences" as humanly possible.

Hers is blatantly obvious, embraces her emotions, flaunts them, and says she is better because of them.

We don't need that on the Supreme Court. If she wants people to know her emotional state, she can go on The View.

.

That influence is already there. By the very act of growing up, and attending school, and experiencing life for 40 + years, every single person is shaped, and it does effect their decisions, including those from the bench. Don't want personal experience affecting how judges rule, you better eliminate people from the bench then.
 
That influence is already there. By the very act of growing up, and attending school, and experiencing life for 40 + years, every single person is shaped, and it does effect their decisions, including those from the bench. Don't want personal experience affecting how judges rule, you better eliminate people from the bench then.

The job of a judge is to detach experience from your ruling and just go by the law. If you can't do it, then either abstain from the vote or if it will always affect you then don't be a judge. You know, judges do take themselves off of cases for this reason.
 
The job of a judge is to detach experience from your ruling and just go by the law. If you can't do it, then either abstain from the vote or if it will always affect you then don't be a judge. You know, judges do take themselves off of cases for this reason.

Have you read the thread? The point is that while many say they strive for this, and while many more try, it's doubtful that any succeed. Everyone is necessarily shaped by their own experiences and perspectives.

I think the news value of this story, as it is, is not so much in the content of the speech, but rather in the fact that it contradicts Obama's claims about the 2001 speech.
 
Of course it will affect you, but you shouldn't just say that it will and that your experiences are better than another person's experiences. Judges should strive to detach themselves completely from their emotions when making a decision. It won't be perfect though, but they should always be reaching for that goal.
 
Of course it will affect you, but you shouldn't just say that it will and that your experiences are better than another person's experiences. Judges should strive to detach themselves completely from their emotions when making a decision. It won't be perfect though, but they should always be reaching for that goal.

So a judge who lies and says that he makes his decisions without personal prejudices is better than a judge who is honest about the fact that these things affect them?

It seems like the critics on this point are failing to understand that the mere recognition of the way in which personal experience affects thinking is not an indicator that the person in question will actually use personal experience more than someone who refuses to recognize its impact.
 
So a judge who lies and says that he makes his decisions without personal prejudices is better than a judge who is honest about the fact that these things affect them?

I didn't say that. I said that judges should strive to separate their emotions from their decision making. They shouldn't say outright that their experiences will help them to make better decisions. It means that the decisions are based on experience and not on law. That's not what we want.

It seems like the critics on this point are failing to understand that the mere recognition of the way in which personal experience affects thinking is not an indicator that the person in question will actually use personal experience more than someone who refuses to recognize its impact.

No, but the way she says that her experiences will lead her to better conclusions shows that she will use her emotions and not just the law.
 
I didn't say that. I said that judges should strive to separate their emotions from their decision making. They shouldn't say outright that their experiences will help them to make better decisions. It means that the decisions are based on experience and not on law. That's not what we want.



No, but the way she says that her experiences will lead her to better conclusions shows that she will use her emotions and not just the law.

Quick quiz: Which one of the following people is more likely to base their judicial decisions on personal experience rather than the law?

A. Judge who says that it's possible to totally separate personal experience from the decision making process

B. Judge who recognizes that it's not possible to totally separate personal experience from the decision making process

C. Not possible to determine the answer from this set of facts
 
B (you said more likely, not who will definitely do so), but this is not the same situation. She openly said that her experiences were better than others, meaning that she will use them in decision making and has no problem with that.
 
Let's assume that personal experience does affect judicial rulings, and that can't be helped.

How come, as Sotomayor claims, women make better decisions than men? She's apparently said this twice, so it's not a slip of the tongue.
 
B (you said more likely, not who will definitely do so), but this is not the same situation. She openly said that her experiences were better than others, meaning that she will use them in decision making and has no problem with that.

The correct answer was C.
 
Sotomayor Used ‘Wise Latina’ Line More than Once

If this was a white male if you would be getting a free pass by the liberal media for his racism and sexism?

Sotomayor Used ‘Wise Latina’ Line More than Once | ABA Journal - Law News Now

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s controversial remark about wise Latina judges has appeared in more than one speech.

Sotomayor frequently remarked on her ethnicity and gender in 84 speeches released by the White House yesterday, according to reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post. The speeches by Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, show the Supreme Court nominee “is driven by a powerful ethnic pride and a belief that she has an obligation to lift up fellow people of color,” the Post says.

Earlier reports of the controversial remark identified a 2001 law speech at the University of California at Berkeley in which Sotomayor said the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

“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,” said Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent.

The Washington Post found another 1999 speech to the Women's Bar Association of New York State in which Sotomayor referred to "sister power" and used similar phrasing. "I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion," she said.

The Times said Sotomayor made the wise judging comment, referring to women generally, in 1994. Then in 2003 she said a “wise Latina woman” would “reach a better conclusion,” although she didn’t say better than whom.

The White House argues that Sotomayor has explained that she is impartial despite her references to her background. It points to a speech in which she said, “I have to unhook myself from my emotional responses and try to stay within my unemotional, objective persona.”

Other Sotomayor quotes published in the Times and Post stories:

“Somewhere all of us Puerto Ricans and people of color have had a defining moment when we were shocked into learning that we were different and that American society treated us differently. … The shock and sense of being an alien will never again, I suspect, be as profound for any of us as that first experience, because I know from personal experience that our education and professional training have equipped us to deal better in this sometimes alien land.”
 
The correct answer was C.

I think I presented you with a pretty good argument why the answer was B. You can't just say the answer is C and be done with it. I know you want the answer to be C, but I don't think it is as clear as you think it is.
 
I think I presented you with a pretty good argument why the answer was B. You can't just say the answer is C and be done with it. I know you want the answer to be C, but I don't think it is as clear as you think it is.

Do you have any evidence to support your argument that simply because someone says that personal experience necessarily affects judgment, they are more likely to let it happen than someone who publicly denies that it happens that often?
 
Do you have any evidence to support your argument that simply because someone says that personal experience necessarily affects judgment, they are more likely to let it happen than someone who publicly denies that it happens that often?

The person who says that personal experience does not affect judgment will try harder to separate his emotions from his decision. The person who accepts that it is there will try less to separate his emotions from his decision. That's how I would bet my money.

Besides:

B (you said more likely, not who will definitely do so), but this is not the same situation. She openly said that her experiences were better than others, meaning that she will use them in decision making and has no problem with that.
 
Back
Top Bottom