David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[TexasWSP]

"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 Judge Sotomayor"

switch some of those words around and people would go apeshit crazy.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

"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 Judge Sotomayor"

switch some of those words around and people would go apeshit crazy.

I completely forgot about that quote. It was in response to a question about how Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg have said that a wise old man and wise old woman should reach the same conclusions in deciding cases. There was also a statement at a panel discusision for soon-to-be judicial clerks where she talked about how it's the job of appeals judges to make policy. Both are situations where she should have chosen her words more carefully, but I'm not sure that either will make a difference in the confirmation process.

One thing that bugs me about this; I think President Obama is making things slightly harder for her in that he keeps harping on her background and upbringing. I know it makes for good press with the public, but he should just stick to the fact that she's very smart and thinks well on her feet, has an excellent academic background, and has been a successful federal district and appeals judge. At the end of the day, those are the things that will be most important when she sits on the SCOTUS bench, and he's just setting her up for a ton of questions from Republicans about whether she'll let her personal experiences outweigh her respect for the law.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I completely forgot about that quote. It was in response to a question about how Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg have said that a wise old man and wise old woman should reach the same conclusions in deciding cases.

The line is actually from the 2001 Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at UC-Berkeley School of Law. While I'd agree that the words could have perhaps been chosen a bit more prudently, here -- as is so often the case -- context is everything.

Here is part of the speech:

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. . . .

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. 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. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

The entire lecture is much longer.

(And reading the whole thing, I'm not sure but what the line in question wasn't intended to get a laugh.)

[KSigkid]

Thanks for posting; the quote makes a lot more sense there, especially looking at the next paragraph - at the end of the day she's extremely qualified, and it will probably end up being a side note that's repeated ad nauseum throughout the confirmation hearings.

I love Supreme Court history and talking about the Court, but I absolutely hate the confirmation hearings.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Thanks for posting; the quote makes a lot more sense there, especially looking at the next paragraph - at the end of the day she's extremely qualified, and it will probably end up being a side note that's repeated ad nauseum throughout the confirmation hearings.

I love Supreme Court history and talking about the Court, but I absolutely hate the confirmation hearings.

I love Supreme Court Bobbleheads from the GreenBag. Brandeis is the newest one, I'd like to see Thurgood Marshall soon.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

One thing that bugs me about this; I think President Obama is making things slightly harder for her in that he keeps harping on her background and upbringing. I know it makes for good press with the public, but he should just stick to the fact that she's very smart and thinks well on her feet, has an excellent academic background, and has been a successful federal district and appeals judge. At the end of the day, those are the things that will be most important when she sits on the SCOTUS bench, and he's just setting her up for a ton of questions from Republicans about whether she'll let her personal experiences outweigh her respect for the law.

I agree: I think I'm beyond bugged and it gets to be offensive. The person just ends up becoming a token.

I think well-intentioned liberals, egged on by the mainstream media, can't be faced with a liberal Black or Latino overachiever without putting the "up from the ghetto/barrio/sharecropper" story on them, whether or not it's true. When it's true, as seems to be the case with Sotomayor, I feel like it almost diminishes her accomplishments because her whole life story is condensed to that sound bite. When it's only slightly true, in the case of our President, it seems as if liberals and the mainstream media can't stomach the idea of a successful black or Hispanic person who came from an educated middle-class background. When it can't be applied at all, or if the politics of the person in general don't fit in with the mainstream media (case in point: Condolleezza Rice), it's not seen as an accomplishment at all. It's been annoying me for a little while now, and maybe the conservative press does it as well, so I'm just sensitive to it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I agree: I think I'm beyond bugged and it gets to be offensive. The person just ends up becoming a token.

I think well-intentioned liberals, egged on by the mainstream media, can't be faced with a liberal Black or Latino overachiever without putting the "up from the ghetto/barrio/sharecropper" story on them, whether or not it's true. When it's true, as seems to be the case with Sotomayor, I feel like it almost diminishes her accomplishments because her whole life story is condensed to that sound bite. When it's only slightly true, in the case of our President, it seems as if liberals and the mainstream media can't stomach the idea of a successful black or Hispanic person who came from an educated middle-class background. When it can't be applied at all, or if the politics of the person in general don't fit in with the mainstream media (case in point: Condolleezza Rice), it's not seen as an accomplishment at all. It's been annoying me for a little while now, and maybe the conservative press does it as well, so I'm just sensitive to it.

I probably wouldn't have said exactly that the media can't stomach the idea of successful black or Hispanic people with middle class backgrounds, but I agree that they oversell the up from nothing background story when the person's politics is correct. If you are conservative, forget it; it's just assumed that your were middle class or rich, it seems to me.

On the one hand, I'm a fan of giving Black and Hispanic kids successful people of originally meager means and similar ethnicity to look up to. On the other hand, why the love affair with people starting out poor? Sure, it's great when people overcome adversity, but how many of us are really born with silver spoons in our mouths? How many people in the last 50 years got to the level of Supreme Court nominee without having sincere personal accomplishments, Harriet Miers excepted?

I'd also, like those of you who've already said so, like to see people promoted and evaluated based on their accomplishments. I find the idea of using identity and ability for empathy kind of troubling standards in the judicial system, but Obama's been pretty open about using them.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'd also, like those of you who've already said so, like to see people promoted and evaluated based on their accomplishments. I find the idea of using identity and ability for empathy kind of troubling standards in the judicial system, but Obama's been pretty open about using them.

The thing is, he's said that, but Sotomayor (as well as the other rumored nominees) is extremely qualified. Yeah, she may have the "ability for empathy," whatever that means, but she's also got one heck of a resume.

That's part of my problem, which I think was echoed by Munchkin - by focusing on these touchy feely things, it ends up seeling someone short who has the brains and professional background for the job (like Sotomayor). At the end of the day, the reason she is up for the spot is mostly because of her accomplishments.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

If you are conservative, forget it; it's just assumed that you were middle class or rich, it seems to me.

I'd also, like those of you who've already said so, like to see people promoted and evaluated based on their accomplishments. I find the idea of using identity and ability for empathy kind of troubling standards in the judicial system, but Obama's been pretty open about using them.

I don't really remember anyone back in 1991 playing up Clarence Thomas's background when it's just as humble, if not more so, than Sotomayor's. There's a double-standard for sure, but it's also probably based on the fact that GHWB's base wasn't into the "back story" the way that many liberals are.
The fact that he was a good jurist was enough for the GOP back then--why isn't it for the left wing today?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I think well-intentioned liberals, egged on by the mainstream media, can't be faced with a liberal Black or Latino overachiever without putting the "up from the ghetto/barrio/sharecropper" story on them, whether or not it's true. When it's true, as seems to be the case with Sotomayor, I feel like it almost diminishes her accomplishments because her whole life story is condensed to that sound bite. When it's only slightly true, in the case of our President, it seems as if liberals and the mainstream media can't stomach the idea of a successful black or Hispanic person who came from an educated middle-class background. When it can't be applied at all, or if the politics of the person in general don't fit in with the mainstream media (case in point: Condolleezza Rice), it's not seen as an accomplishment at all. It's been annoying me for a little while now, and maybe the conservative press does it as well, so I'm just sensitive to it.

I don't think when that happens that it diminishes her accomplishments at all. If anything it goes to show that not everyone has to come from a privileged background in order to be successful. I'm really not sure why it would be an issue if Obama chooses to highlight the fact that she wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth since she is qualified.

[Kevin]

Wasn't Cardozo the Court's first hispanic?

Some folks count Portuguese as "hispanic." I have no earthly idea why, but they do.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wasn't Cardozo the Court's first hispanic?

Some folks count Portuguese as "hispanic." I have no earthly idea why, but they do.

Eh, these same people think they speak Spanish in Brazil!

eta - wait, aren't Brazilians considered hispanic? Now I've confused myself . .. so, slightly off-topic - what is required to be labeled "hispanic"?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wasn't Cardozo the Court's first hispanic?

Some folks count Portuguese as "hispanic." I have no earthly idea why, but they do.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

According to the wikipedia entry I was reading, it's not even firmly established that you can trace Cardoza's family history to Portugal although it was the family tradition.

Per that same Wiki article, it appears that all that is known for sure is that his grandparents were Sephardim -- which would suggest that the families came from either Iberia (Spain or Portugal) or northern Africa -- and that the name Cardozo is a common Portugese surname.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Eh, these same people think they speak Spanish in Brazil!

eta - wait, aren't Brazilians considered hispanic? Now I've confused myself . .. so, slightly off-topic - what is required to be labeled "hispanic"?

Per the dictionary:

Hispanic = Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America; of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.

Brazil would be Latin American but not Hispanic.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Per that same Wiki article, it appears that all that is known for sure is that his grandparents were Sephardim -- which would suggest that the families came from either Iberia (Spain or Portugal) or northern Africa -- and that the name Cardozo is a common Portugese surname.

Per the dictionary:

Hispanic = Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America; of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.

Brazil would be Latin American but not Hispanic.

From OMB Directive 15, it's much less clear.

Definition of Hispanic

The current usage of the term "Hispanic" in the health literature is driven by Directive 15 of the Office of Management and Budget (1). This directive was issued in 1978 to increase the availability of data on persons of Hispanic origin and to encourage uniform collection and reporting of data on different racial and ethnic groups by federal agencies. The racial and ethnic categories suggested by OMB Directive 15 are:

• American Indian or Alaskan Native
  
  A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
• Asian or Pacific Islander
  
  A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Isl ands, and Samoa.
• Black
  
  A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
• Hispanic
  
  A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish Culture.
• White
  
  A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

Note that the two bolded statements conflict with one another. This sort of goes to my point (if I didn't make the point earlier, I meant to) that "Hispanic" is a completely artificial racial classification.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

From OMB Directive 15, it's much less clear.

Note that the two bolded statements conflict with one another. This sort of goes to my point (if I didn't make the point earlier, I meant to) that "Hispanic" is a completely artificial racial classification.

Yeah, I was going with the basic dictionary definition. Some of what I looked at noted that government definitions/classifications might be more . . . convoluted.

Just to muddy it up more, the basic dictionary definition of latino/a means anyone from Latin America (which would include Brazil), while government/census-type definitions equate latino/a with Hispanic.

And just to add the icing, some definitions would include Haiti and Quebec in Latin America -- the "Latin" referring to use of a Romance language.