|
Quote:
I believe that no matter who he were to choose, both he and the candidate would be scrutinized, so he should just go with whomever he believes is best suited. I hope that she is the best pick and is confirmed and does a great job as a Supreme Court Justice! |
Meanwhile, former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee attempted to stay ahead of the game by releasing an early morning statement to the press which read as follows:
"The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric." One huge problem there, Mike! Her name isn't Maria. Contrary to popular belief, every Latina in the United States isn't named Maria. We'll forgive you. We're sure you were just watching West Side Story last night in preparation for this statement and got confused. There have been a host of other mischaracterizations of Sotomayor, including media outlets that have defined Sotomayor's parents as "immigrants." Being that she is of Puerto Rican descent and that those born on the island have been American citizens since that pesky little Spanish/American War ended and congress made it so in 1917, this definition is 100% incorrect. Puerto Ricans who migrate from the island to New York are no more "immigrants" than those who move from one state to another. This is just another stark reminder that even though we have come so far, there is still a long, long way to go. http://www.latina.com/lifestyle/news...alls-her-maria I thought Sonia was running...o well |
Quote:
You're right. And the town was Pin Point, Ga. This choice, as are all presidential SC choices, is by definition, political. In addition to the president's ideas about what a justice should bring to judicial decision making, the choice also plays to audiences particularly important to continuing Democratic consitutencies (Hispanics, women) and puts his political ememies, at least initially, in a quandry as to how to attack. It's the same thing Bush41 did with then nominee C. Thomas -- remember how conflicted the NAACP was in whether they should oppose the nomination in filling what was then considered to be "Marshall's seat" on the court? ...and for the record, Eclipse, you have been gone waaaaaaaaay too long from around these parts. Any updates on what you have been doing (minus the unneccesary shots at Skyline Chili) would be greatly appreciated. :) |
Quote:
I'll grant that the backstory probably plays better with DNC-aligned audiences, but it's still generally compelling, and the only 'downside' is that it allows the RNC to really strike using stereotyping and innuendo, which isn't exactly a perfect, no-fail strategy considering how much the Republicans need Hispanics going forward. |
Quote:
Granted, I think I'm a little tender about this sort of thing, and as a result am probably a little less than coherent, since the first thing I heard from my liberal colleagues was her background. Why do I care? As a person of color, I could give two ishts about what color or gender the next Supreme Court justice is, or how they grew up. |
Quote:
|
I find this conversation rather odd... I think we should publicize stories of those who rise from unlikely situations into one that is making an impact on society. If she becomes the next SCOTUS member or not, it is great representation for those individuals out there who feel like they are stuck in their economic situation. I remember working at a grocery store, and hearing a girl talk about how she needs to have a baby soon so that she will qualify for welfare. To me, this seems like a defeatist attitude that a lot of disadvantages kids take. So any story that shows that they are not stuck in their current situation, I am definitely fond of. I think that is why Obama was hitting on the story, as education, and instilling drive within today's students has definitely been consistent with his actions so far.
Now whether or not it affects the senate's vote to confirm her, I think that is more of a problem of if we elected the right senators who can look past media biased and onto the pure facts at hand... |
Quote:
Would her background be as widely-played if she were white and from Harlem, then went to Princeton and Yale? |
Quote:
Did Roberts get this much scrutiny? I honestly dont remember |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If Roberts had said anything along the lines of "I'm a white man and make decisions based on that," it would have been that last you would have heard of him. |
Quote:
Quote:
In the context of confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, media focus on her background =/= "scrutinized." Every SCOTUS nominee is heavily scrutinized, both before the nomination is announced and after. |
Quote:
Here was my whole issue with the thing - I just think that President Obama is underselling Sotomayor's considerable talents and professional experience by using this whole backstory of "empathy" and understanding, and by over-selling her personal background. You get people wondering whether she was nominated because of her feelings and personal background growing up, instead of focusing on the fact that she's a brilliant lawyer who has earned the right to be a SCOTUS nominee. At the end of the day, I don't think it's especially fair to her. It probably won't affect the nomination process to any large degree, and I understand it makes for good copy and for a compelling story, but I just don't agree with the way it was framed. |
Quote:
|
The president is "selling" different things to different audiences with regard to this nominee. (just like every late 20th century, 21st century president before him has done.)
To the general electorate (political, gender, racial) audiences who, beyond an expected passing interest in her legal qualifications, want to connect on some deeper socio-political level, the persavearance angle plays and plays well. It's really politics 101. The legal community will (regardless of whatever else the president says to other audiences) focus on her legal credentials. Again, standard operating procedure. I really don't see what the big deal is. This is America. We see what we want to see. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
A sidebar (sort of):
Peggy Noonan's column in today's Wall Street Journal: Republican's, Let's Play Grown-Up: Sotomayor's hearings are an opportunity for serious debate. ETA: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Even batisht Michael Steele's telling the GOP to bacdafucup: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/re...-on-sotomayor/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So, I do know exactly what I'm hearing. But thanks! |
Quote:
You said NPR, which one would reasonable assume means "National," not just NYC shows. So maybe it's not that you're hearing what you want to hear, and you do know exactly what you're hearing. But not everyone else in the country listening to NPR is hearing what you're hearing. |
My opinion of Sotomayor will lie within in her response in defending her comment that a latino woman is more fit to make judgement than a white male. This comment baffles me, and if a white male had made the comment their nod for the Supreme Court would seem like a long shot. I think race will be the big issue here, as it already is coming to the foreground of discussion. I am not in the mind that Sotomayor is a racist, and I applaud use of empathy to a certain degree as the Supreme Court is to be the protector of the underdogs, but I am weary to the degree in which Sotomayor practices it. The Republicans who approach this angle as part of the defense against the nomination should tread likely. It is difficult for rich white republicans to discuss race in this country, and it could easily come off as smear and spectacle that will wash back in their face... If they approach the issue fairly with cool headed debate, it could be their only way of overturning the nomination. With that said, I am an avid supporter of Obama and her record itself looks great, so unless Sotomayor produces a satisfying reason for her comment, I am in favor of her nomination.
|
Quote:
Unless it comes out that she's a child molester or something like that, there's no way the Republicans are overturning this nomination. As a Republican, I don't really think it's worth the fight anyway - she's smart and qualified, and her judicial philosophy overall seems pretty solid. I'll leave the empathy thing alone...I'll just say that empathy/sympathy/etc. are really only considerations on the trial level (where the judges are dealing with probation, sentencing, etc.), and on the appellate level it doesn't (and really shouldn't) play a part. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
At any rate, I'm kind of tired of how people are acting as though this woman is "racist" simply because she was in support of affirmative action and made some of the comments she has made. That's not a reason to delay or prevent her confirmation. If people would hire on the basis of qualifications, we wouldn't need affirmative action in the first place. We only need it because people are often refused acceptance on the basis of a handicap, race, or sex or some other issue. |
The confirmation will not be stopped and probably not delayed. This is just an opportunity for the Republicans to whip up their base into a frenzy about Obama picking "racist" [read: anti-white] judges, supporting liberal policies, etc.
It's just a bit more of the political gamesmanship which both parties engage in to whip up their respective bases. Trent Lott was a white supremacist because he said he'd vote for Strom Thurmond for President, Sotomayor is a racist because she things her different experience brings insight to the bench. Tomayto tomahto. |
Quote:
He was taking about a race when Thurmond ran as a segregationist; I'd say that Lott's comments were considerably less acceptable. He basically was saying that the country would have been better off had we not integrated. I think Sotomayor's comment is problematic because she seemed to assert the idea that an individual would come to a better decision based on that individual's ethnicity and culture. That's troubling to me, no matter what racial or cultural identity that person has. I'm less troubled, but not completely convinced, by an argument that asserts a nine justice court made up of people of different races, ethnicities, and cultures, assuming that they are all well-qualified jurists as well, will make better decisions, and I suspect that's really the broader argument. It's not worth getting or pretending to be outraged over. |
Hispanic vs. latina
|
Quote:
Quote:
I will agree, though, that it's really not worth getting or pretending to be outraged over. |
Quote:
But I don't think it matters very much. |
Quote:
"A Latina Judge's Voice" essay in full the last 6 or 7 paragraphs are especially interesting. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think "more fit" somewhat skews that statement. Reading the whole thing in context, it seems clear to me that the point she was trying to make was that while it's a laudable and proper goal for judges to set aside their personal biases when ruling, this cannot really be done completely, and successful attempts to do it can only come if the judge recognizes and acknowledges what his or her experiential biases are. I think she was also taking a stab at holding up white males as the standard by which to measure all other judges, as though white males are somehow exempt from experiential biases and as though the biases of judges who are not white males are measured by how they compare to the "non-biased" white males. Everyone has biases based on experience, background, etc. You can't ingore them or set them aside to rule on the law unless you understand what they are to begin with. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Isn't the quality of the conclusion a judge reaches, especially when considered alongside the reasoning that guides the decision, really how we should evaluate judges? Again, I'm satisfied with her at present. What's been discussed so far seems like pretty widely held ideas about diversity express in a way typical of the PC lexicon. It would be unspeakable today to assert the same idea but conclude that the white man would more often than not reach a better decision, but pretty much any other group is welcome to make the claim. We should just nod along and hope the rest of the justices remain healthy and interested in serving. |
Welp, MysticCat said everything I was going to say.
I will add that there is a balance between treating white and male as the neutral standards versus focusing too much on the experiences of nonwhites and females. The latter can make it seem as though their experiences skew the results and that only nonwhites and nonmales have any potential for irrationality and nonobjectivity in their decision making. White males' decisions are just as impacted by race, gender, social class, other status group memberships and experiences as any other judges' decisions. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. 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 Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, 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.In other words, she was suggesting that she would hope that a "wise Latina woman" would reach a better conclusion in certain cases than, say, judges like Oliver Wendell Holmes or his successor at the Court, Benjamin Cardozo -- still among the most respected judges of all time, who nevertheless upheld discriminatory laws. |
Quote:
Too bad many more won't bother to go back and read the speech as a whole and understand that. Thank You. |
Quote:
It also doesn't make a lot of sense to me to compare historic legal decisions that we generally regard as wrong today with the likely behavior of anyone in the present. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.