David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[Kevin]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

Well, I'm not sure the situations are comparable: Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,"

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't recall her actually saying that. It seems to me as if you are taking her words out of context and twisting them.

She said it, but in context it doesn't seem like it's exactly what she meant. MC and others have quoted it earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Well, I'm not sure the situations are comparable: Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,"

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.

Look at the statement that MC posted - again, in the context of the rest of her speech, it doesn't seem like she was saying that at all. She immediately talks about how a bunch of old white guys wrote the opinion in Brown.

I will agree, though, that it's really not worth getting or pretending to be outraged over.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

She said it, but in context it doesn't seem like it's exactly what she meant. MC and others have quoted it earlier in the thread.

Look at the statement that MC posted - again, in the context of the rest of her speech, it doesn't seem like she was saying that at all. She immediately talks about how a bunch of old white guys wrote the opinion in Brown.

I will agree, though, that it's really not worth getting or pretending to be outraged over.

I think you're being too generous about the quote, even in context.

But I don't think it matters very much.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think you're being too generous about the quote, even in context.

But I don't think it matters very much.

"A Latina Judge's Voice" essay in full

the last 6 or 7 paragraphs are especially interesting.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't recall her actually saying that. It seems to me as if you are taking her words out of context and twisting them.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

She said it, but in context it doesn't seem like it's exactly what she meant. MC and others have quoted it earlier in the thread.

No, she didn't say that a Latina judge was "more fit." She said "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."

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.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

"A Latina Judge's Voice" essay in full

the last 6 or 7 paragraphs are especially interesting.

No why didn't I think to link the whole speech when I posted the long excerpt in post 21? Oh, wait . . . .

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, she didn't say that a Latina judge was "more fit." She said "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."

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 some 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 male.

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.

No why didn't I think to link the whole speech when I posted the long excerpt in post 21? Oh, wait . . . .

didn't see it...my bad.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, she didn't say that a Latina judge was "more fit." She said "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."

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.

No why didn't I think to link the whole speech when I posted the long excerpt in post 21? Oh, wait . . . .

So, you think that when you are talking about judges that "reach a better conclusion" doesn't equal "more fit." That seems kind of odd to me.

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Slight hijack -

http://www.slate.com/id/2219165/