Sonia Sotomayor: Obama's court pick

Since Swamp readers will only get one point of view from Swamp writers, in the interest of "equal time" read Stuart Taylor's take on Sotomayor in National Journal: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php

Not too smart, bully on the bench. Sort of like having Kathy O'mally and Judy Marky from WGN in the Supreme Court. Likes too talk alot, but makes little sense. A female Dick Durbin if you will Cjange we can beleive in? Si Se Peunte!

'Her father's death came one year after Sotomayor was diagnosed with diabetes--a decision she says convinced her to give up her dream of law enforcement for a career in law.'

Her father decided to die??? Or she decided to get diabetes???

She's obviously qualified. I don't see much chance of a legitimate attack from that direction.

Moslems ought to be represented. American Indians. Indians from Asia. Chinese for sure and don't forget the Japanese, Philippinos and Viet Namese. And don't forget the Mong!

Is Scalia not Hispanic?

Father gone, raised by mother.

Like Obama.

Cardinal Spelman HS: how Catholic is that?

Trial experience: good.

Experience as trial judge: good.

Diabetes: actually good. Empathy for those struggling with chronic disease.

Familiarity with poverty: good from empathy point of view.

Labor injunction in baseball case: not good for labor.

Not Mexican: a minus.

No children, not married: Hmmmmm. Is this what she has in common with Souter? Hmmmmm.

All in all: not bad. Not bad at all. As Ronnie might have said.

Sotomayor: "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...."

How can that statement, made in public by Sonia Sotomayor, be construed as anything other than racist?

I think we should remember that when conservatives say "judicial activist" what they really mean is "makes decisions based on the law and not conservative 'values'". Sotomayor has enjoyed bi-partisan support before and should be approved. There is no logical reason to do otherwise.

Great choice, President Obama. Now, our hispanic citizens can feel like the rest of us, who have had representatives of our own, for many centuries, in some cases. The great fact of this appointment, is the appearance of a second woman to our highest court. America needs to include all of her citizens, in the governing processes and not just tokens !! Good luck, Ms Sotomayor, I now you will try your best, to judge on the basis of law, merit and fairness !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

The Republican party feels that this candidate is completely unqualified, and as soon as they finish their research into her they will find ..er.. release their excuses.. er.. reasons for why they oppose Obama's nominee. Incidentally, the Republican party also feels that any future Obama nominees for the Supreme Court are completely unqualified, and as soon as they find out who they are and do the research and get Frank Luntz to give them soundbytes to make their bizarre claims sound downright folksy and get Limbaugh, Rove et al to rev up the smear machine, they will tell the American people why.

James Watt was correct about quotas..

What does one's background have anything to do with applying logic to decision regarding the constitution? Is there such a thing as black logic, woman logic, hispanic logic. Anyone who think logic is applied differently by one's color or gender is an freakin' idiot and or liberal.

I do not want a justice who is going to make law, I want one who will uphold the law. I don't want someone who is empathic, I want a justice who is completely impartial, without any agenda either on the right or left. Sounds to me she has an agenda. Disqualified on that basis alone

Hey, why not a white guy? We are so oppressed. I'm sick of being discriminated against like this. When are white guys going to be fairly represented on the Court? Waaah!!!!!!!!!

Heaven help anyone who gets between Sotomayor and someone who she thinks need her "help" judicially. This person will find himself with fewer rights than someone she deems as needing her special empathy.

Groups rights thinking ALWAYS leads to the trampling of individual's rights.

"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...."

So much for 'true' justice and clear judgment.

It is obvious we have another racist sexist hater with a job whether it be man, woman, black or white.

No one can be completely impartial. Humans, by their very nature, are not wholly logical. We feel. The best we can hope for is that jurists do their best to understand their own partialities, to question them, and to try and and limit the effect of those partialities as much as possible. This goes for Conservatives, Liberals, Black, White Hispanic, Straight, Gay, Christian, Atheist, you name it. No jurist ever living has ever been completely free of partiality or agenda. Nor will one ever be. It is the human condition. To look for a Jurist who has never taken a side, who has not been passionate about a cause, who has not spoken about things they care about most deeply is to look for a machine, not a human.

Robert, logic has nothing to do with the law; it's the first thing they tell you in law school--according to Paper Chase.

Harold, what's a Moslem?

RE: Speaking Truth to Power

It's hard for a court with mostly older white men to think of all the diverse experiences of life an American goes through that affect most cases the Supreme sees. All people will gravitate towards their own personal experiences which is mostly created through cultural and idealogical experiences. Naturally, if a court is made up of majority white men then the "lens" that the Supreme Court will see things through will be that of white men. That situation creates a natural bias in itself. The prevailing thought is that when the court reflects the diversity of America then it will be the least biased. The court currently has no minorites (I'm sorry, as Clarence Thomas overcompensates to show his conservative credentials his votes displays nothing to reflect his diversity). Besides, a majority of this country is made up of women and having only one currently is a shame to justice.

I can't confirm the "one" statement that judge Sotomayor says shows prejudges against white men, however, here statement that she has more experiences and viewpoints in life is correct because she has been on almost every side of the fence: immigrant, woman, hispanic, minority, poor, urban, republican, democrat, etc and the others have not (and the other minority purposesly forgets it).

It's too bad that they can't find a person with the qualities necessary for the Supreme Court other than the ones this woman represent which appear to be ethnicity and politics. She also appears to be racist due to her comment at her speech at U of Cal @ Berkley. She must rise on her own feet instead of feeding the beast of racism. Unfortunately, she needs to use the constitution of the U.S. and not her political opinions to be a Supreme Court justice. Doesn't appear that she will. Too bad.

This is ALMOST as exciting as American Idiot, oops, I mean American Idol. NOT!

I am glad a Latina was nominated. We need more diversity in the US Court system. Not everyone in America is far right or far left. So no one group should be telling America what to do. For the people saying that the white man getting discriminated you must be a fool. 89% of Congress is white and 95 % of the Senate is white. So you have no reason to boo hoo....

The moronic Right is demanding the impossible !! What do you want robots on the Supreme Courts ? Since when didn't life's experience mold one's logic !! By your ideological bias, there should not be any logical conflicts, since logic is logic !! Get your ideological blinders off and join the rest of America and wish our new Supreme Court Justice, good luck !! That would be the American thing to do and I know, there are still some real Republicans that are capable of putting country ahead of a narrow-minded Rabid Right agenda. Good luck, Ms. Sotomayor, on your nomination !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

An excellent choice on the fact that she has republican ties. It is fun watching the pugs eat their own. I guess she was good enough for the pugs with shrub, but not good enough now. Here's a clue twitters....if she is not good enough now, then she was not good enough then. Excellent choice Obama.

But she's no Harriet Myer.

Gee, I hope those on the Supreme court are not involved in the decision making when it comes to giving illegal aliens amnesty. If so, we are all in big trouble.

Which is the racist quote..?

-
Quote # 1 - from the SCOTUS appointee---"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
--
OR
--
Quote #2 ...the same quote with no change in context or logic- only the actors..

-
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latino woman who hasn't lived that life."
-
You have to support both if you support either... in either case, your support-if offered, makes you a small minded bigot with an agenda.
-
I would hate to be a white man facing a latino man in her court...

My initial reaction is how any reasonable senator can deny this woman's confirmation with her credentials. Look at the judicial backgrounds of the last few supreme court judges appointed by Pres Bush? I'm impressed with this choice so far.

Here is the video. Watch the whole thing then make up your mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo&NR=1

When she says "policy" she means setting precedents within the circuit. Most cases don't go for appeal on the facts. Usually it is appealed for a procedure or word definition.

Its obvious that so many people, who are quick to ridicule her nomination, know little about her. At least 99% of her decisions have been upheld on appeal, which means she is far from an activist.
Then again, any judge on the Supreme Court needs to be activist at times. Its what they call a precedent setting decision.

Gee, when I heard there was an opening in the Supreme Court, I thought for sure Obama would pick Oprah. Not much of a difference in the person he settled on. The Supreme Court is charged with upholding the United States Constitution, not rewriting existing law. I doubt this candidate will be able to remember that little fact. She 'feels' that women should have their 'experiences' taken into account when it comes to applying the law. That entire mentality is gender biased and discriminatory. Why would Obama pick her? The continued 'wussification of America'. God help us. Maybe they can then have the justices wear pink robes instead of black robes. All we can expect from the media is glowing reports about her judicial past; not the real deal.

If justice is blind, and laws are laws, why does the cultural/racial/gender background of someone matter?

Theoretically, it doesn't, but if we don't have identity politics in the modern world, what politics do we have left?

I'm not saying that she is/is not qualified, I'm just already tired of the "diversity" term usage, and related BS.

I mean, isn't "latina" a gender-specific term which is wholly unnecessary?

How many Americanas do we have?

Cue in the smear campaign by Obama's supporters.

Diane Wood never stood a chance. OF COURSE Obama was going to select Sotomayor. He needs to appease all the Hispanics who voted for him, and he's hoping that they will continue to do so. He loves Mexico and Mexicans - look at his response to the swine flu and his refusal to close the border. I would not be at all surprised if he signs a bill granting amnesty and citizenship to the millions of illegal Mexicans here in this country, so that they too can vote for him in 2012.

This is just like when Bush the first selected Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall, and he said it had nothing to do with race. That was insulting. Sonia Sotomayor got picked because she is Hispanic, plain and simple.

c'mon Repubs ... attack this pick ... I DARE you!!!

This was a good choice; however, America is going to have to once and for all get beyond race. Thanks to the trail blazers such as Martin Luther King Jr., Eleanor Roosevelt, etc.

She will not be the first Hispanic, Justice Cardozo was. Justice Scalia is Italian. This choice should not fly, she is too liberal for 95% of Americans.

What's also needed on the high court, the president said, is "experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.''

As the president said prior to this statement is to interpret the law not make law. The statement above just erased the prior statement. This means feel sorry for some and not the other? I look at that as legislate and being non-consistent. The job of the Supreme Court Judge is to determine if the law of the land was violated to either uphold the lower courts decesion or find that the law of the land was not violated. Plain and simple one would think. This takes the 7 members to come to a consensus and find within a reason of doubt.Legislating from the bench is not an option.

This pick is not about race, or Republican nor Democrat issues, it is about nominating a judge that will dispense justice across the board concerning American law and not from an empathetic view or from a tingly feeling on one particular case.

Liberals always tend to want a judge that representss a race creed or what have you. How about a judge that represents all Americans? Why must liberals segment the American people when we pledged to be one and the same; as Americans...period!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, LET THEM FINISH THE JOB THEY WERE TASKED TO DO AND HAVE DONE WELL! SUPPORT THEIR MISSION; THAT IS: SURRENDER IS NOT AN OPTION LET THEM COME HOME WITH THEIR HEADS HELD HIGH IN VICTORY!

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

--George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

80 Percent of her decisions reversed! Not able to discern between opinion and the law, and the constitutional questions put before her! Likes to make policy rather than adjudicate the law. Obama the Unqualified appointing a judge also unqualifed - good going there OB!

BO picks a judge with "empathy". If one looks at a picture of lady justice, you will see she has a blindfold on - so she cannot see who she is ruling on. The facts of the case should be the only thing a justice uses when deciding the outcome of a case.

If she was a gay atheist she would be more qualified. Diversity is much more important than fair application of the law. Just ask the white fireman she threw under the bus. Her nomination will breeze through for confirmantion. She will ensure quotas are a valid remedy to enforce the diversity laws of the land.

Great, an affirmative action Supreme Court judge. Of course, Dumb-o-crats love it. Merit is the least qualifier for them for ANY position.

Of course being "diverse" and "inclusive" would automatically elimate any white male.

Prepare for more radical legislation from the bench: "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," Sotomayor said.

In response to Bill:

Justice Cardozo was of Portugese Jewish descent so I’m not sure the designation of ”Hispanic” would apply.

Also, Justice Scalia is of Sicilian descent and while the distinction between Sicilian and Italian may seem like splitting hairs, there’s still something of a cultural divide in Italy today between Northern and Southern Italians. Sicilian-Americans can and should claim him with some pride because he stands in contradiction to the old and incorrect slur against Sicilians that they’re all part of organized crime.

Funny how "empathy" has become a bad quality. Terry wants 9 white male robots on the court.

I am impressed with this nomination. It sets a very important precedent for
what may follow not only for the future
choices for the Court itself but for clarification of the responsibilities of its rulings. Judge Sotomayor has suggested that it is the Court's duty'to make law (even though she knows that it must only interpret law). Therefore,
her statement alludes to the fact that the Court sets precedent!
There is no doubt that we need a High Court responsive to the people and their lives. However, I just heard, and I do hope that it was incorrect, that Judge Sotomayor served on a panel of three judges to rule against a Class Action Suit against (I believe it was stated to be against McDonalds). I don't know the facts of the case nor the opinions; however, I do know that class action lawsuits (sometimes promoted as money makers for lawyers) are in fact sometimes the only way that
that many in our society have access to our system of justice.

The Statue of Liberty (a woman) in from her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild
eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This invitation and promise, carved on a stone at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty, can be carried out by our High Court which now has another woman (not yet enough) to fulfill the promise of Lady Liberty.

Good luck to Judge Sotomayor and
those other female Supreme Court
nominees yet to be named!

The point of her quote is that experience is MORE IMPORTANT THAN RACE. It's a statement AGAINST race being significant, saying wisdom based on experience is more important. As is clear from the context that this quote was stripped from.

Here's a quote from that same speech: "I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires."

The racism and activism you see is your own--you're eager to see in others that which is in your own hearts.

Quoting the article: "Her father's death came one year after Sotomayor was diagnosed with diabetes--a decision she says convinced her to give up her dream of law enforcement for a career in law."

Not sure what the "decision" was in the context of this sentence. Can you clarify this?

"As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. The case is likely to be overturned."

This stinks. She is in favor of racism, as long as it favors the "right" races.

I enjoyed Sonia Sotomayor's acceptance for the nomination to SC speech this morning. She was eloquent.

Let's be honest: this is strictly a political appointment of someone who's only real qualifications for this job are her gender and ethnicity. Obama is simply trying to please two constituencies with one appointment. Yes, she has a lot of judicial experience. But experience alone is irrelevant without evaluating the work that is the outcome of her time on the bench. It's the quality of her body of work that counts, not the time spent doing it. And that quality is seriously lacking.

Every single one of her rulings that have gone on to the Supreme Court except one has been overturned, often by a large majority, not simply along political lines, indicating that her decisions in all those cases were particularly bad. In the one and only case where the Supreme Court upheld a decision of hers, they UNANIMOUSLY criticized her reasoning as being completely contrary to the clear wording of the law. In other words, while she got the right answer to the question, she showed either a complete ignorance or disregard (or both) of the law in reaching it.

I understand that Obama wants to get reelected, and needs to please his core constituencies to do so, but putting one of the worst federal judges in the country on the Supreme Court just to do it shows a compete disregard for the well-being of the American people, just in order to advance his own political ambitions.

The rainbow coalition of high government. Doesn't matter whether anyone is particularly qualified. We're hiring on lineage.

"Funny how "empathy" has become a bad quality. Terry wants 9 white male robots on the court.

Posted by: Flo | May 26, 2009 2:24 PM"

Why does the color of one's skin, or what one finds between the legs of a person threaten the left so much. They preach one thing, yet have such a long quota list that includes everything but a 3 eyed one legged pygmy on it.

Rob, you mention the overturning of her previous rulings by the Supreme Court. While I have not read her decisions, it is very possible that they
are the very reason we do need Judge Sotomayor on the Supreme Court right now!

SLF looking to benchpress MIB - Men In Black. POTUS carries my bags.

Diversity is so overrated. Why can't we all just be "Americans"?

The Messiah made another brilliant choice. How does a Puerto Rican from the "housing projects" as the news articles state......graduate from Princeton and then Yale?

I grew up poor in the Midwest.......middle class white....I had NO opportunity to go to Yale or Princeton.....

Of course, today I have no ties to Acorn..so my vote means nothing.

Yee gawds, America. Soon to be,,,,,,,,,,,,,Europe!

Posted by: BDD | May 26, 2009 4:30 PM \

BDD is right. It's wholly a coincidence that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices are white, christian, straight, males. Certainly no one can ever imagine that the fact that they were white christian straight males influenced their appointments. I think it's safe to assume that there were not any other qualified candidates that could have been picked that weren't white christian straight males at the time, don't you? It's proof of quotas and discrimination when anyone other than a white christian straight male is appointed to any job. We must defend the white christian straight male agsinst this sort of discrimination that has gheld them back for centuries.

Other than the veep, can a straight White get a break from this administration?

Republicans have almost zero chance of keeping her out of the court, given the fact that they're in a minority now. Finally, Obama is developing some backbone and telling these guys, "Take a seat. You lost."

Posted by: RDL | May 26, 2009 5:18 PM

Maybe you weren't as smart as Sotomayor? I think you should give that possibility some serious consideration.

The first step in legalizing millions of illegal aliens.

The Messiah made another brilliant choice. How does a Puerto Rican from the "housing projects" as the news articles state......graduate from Princeton and then Yale?

I grew up poor in the Midwest.......middle class white....I had NO opportunity to go to Yale or Princeton.....

Of course, today I have no ties to Acorn..so my vote means nothing.

Yee gawds, America. Soon to be,,,,,,,,,,,,,Europe!

Because she is much smarter than you.