Sotomayor

[FOTD]

The racism is so deeply embedded that they can't even see it.

Sonia Sotomayor is not Clarence Thomas


Why do Republicans think Sotomayor is a mediocre beneficiary of affirmative action? Because they had their own. When the wingnuts attack Sotomayor with inaccurate stereotypes, they're projecting onto her the shortcomings of their own beloved Clarence.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/05/29/clarence_thomas/


"Eighteen years ago, the Senate confirmation of Thomas earned historic notoriety for its bizarre descent into conflicting recollections of sexual harassment and pornographic banter. But the lingering question about the man selected to replace the legendary Justice Thurgood Marshall was whether he fulfilled the White House description of him as "the most qualified [candidate] at this time." As Thomas confessed in his memoir a few years ago, "Even I had my doubts about so extravagant a claim."

So extravagant was Bush's assertion as to verge on comical. Far from being the "most qualified," Thomas was a nominee with no experience on the bench beyond the 18 months he had served on the U.S. District Court of Appeals. He had never written a significant legal brief or article. He had achieved no distinction in private practice or law enforcement. He had never even argued a case in federal court, let alone at the U.S. Supreme Court."

White males have benefitted from reverse affirmative action for years through the exclusive club known as the Old Boy's Network.

[cannon_fodder]

White males have benefitted [sic] from reverse affirmative action for years through the exclusive club known as the Old Boy's Network.

Ergo, we should discriminate in another direction?  You logic also falters by assuming that all white people are magical members of said network.  Which is as asinine as assuming all black people are criminals. So basically, it's a great example of why classifying or giving credence to judgment by skin color is a stupid idea.


Would she have been nominated if she wasn't a female?  No.

Would she have been nominate if she wasn't of a particular race?  No.

If a white man claimed to be superior by virtue of his skin color and having a penis would he be excluded from consideration and dubbed a racist?  Yes.

Would the other party be making the same arguments if they were on the other side?  Yes.  They are both willing and able to whip out the race card when it serves their purpose.  Pot, meet the kettle.

Is she qualified to be on the Supreme Court?  Yes.


The Democrats are played with race to force the Republicans to play with race.  The Democrats  had to push a candidate that was qualified by relatively extreme.  The Republicans have to act shocked and outraged but respectful of the fact that she has a vagina and is Hispanic.  It is a big stupid game that won't change the fact that she will be confirmed.

[Conan71]

I AM impressed with the idea that Sotomayor is credited as being the most accomplished jurist nominated for SCOTUS in the last 100 years.  I am put off with her notions though that her ethnicity and gender somehow make her a better judge than a white man.  I'd be just as put off if it were a white male nominee who made such claims.  If it were the other way around, the President would have already pulled the nomination off the table.

I simply question "statement" nominations.  How many other judges are out there with the same or more creds who could do the job just as well or better?

[rwarn17588]

I AM impressed with the idea that Sotomayor is credited as being the most accomplished jurist nominated for SCOTUS in the last 100 years.  I am put off with her notions though that her ethnicity and gender somehow make her a better judge than a white man.  I'd be just as put off if it were a white male nominee who made such claims.  If it were the other way around, the President would have already pulled the nomination off the table.

I simply question "statement" nominations.  How many other judges are out there with the same or more creds who could do the job just as well or better?

I have no idea why anyone would object to this statement:

"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."

The points of emphasis are "with the richness of her experiences" and "who hasn't lived that life." You could switch the people in the sentence, and I would have no objection. I certainly would rather have a judge who's been around the block a few times than someone who's sequestered himself from the outside world.

[Conan71]

I have no idea why anyone would object to this statement:

"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."

The points of emphasis are "with the richness of her experiences" and "who hasn't lived that life." You could switch the people in the sentence, and I would have no objection. I certainly would rather have a judge who's been around the block a few times than someone who's sequestered himself from the outside world.

Huh?  Did you read all my post?  I agree she's been around the block as a judge.  Certainly there are other equally or more-accomplished judges available for this post.  Explain to me why given a subjective test such as number of years on the appelate bench, number of cases heard, number of opinions written, GPA at a similar law school, bar scores, etc. how is the ethnicity or gender of one judge superior to anothers?

"I'm a better judge because I'm an Hispanic female"

As it comes to issues relating to Hispanic females, I suppose she's correct.  As far as it makes her more adept at legal issues affecting all Americans of every race, ethnicity, and gender (or cross-gender), I drop the BS card.

What's stumping you on that RW?  Would you be okay with a white male candidate for SCOTUS making a claim to be a superior judge because he brings the richness of growing up white, male, and rich in the lap of luxury?

[cannon_fodder]

"I would hope that a wise [white male] with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a [female minority] who hasn't lived that life."

By implication the white male is wise because of his experiences.  Ones that, presumably, the female minority would be unable to have.  Thus, he is a better judge because he is a white male.

That would not over well.

I agree that a hispanic female has had different experiences than a white male.  I agree that it will give different perspective and could lead to different decisions.   Variety of viewpoints on the court is probably a good thing.  But if the situation was reversed, as above, the left would be crying foul.

Really probably a non-issue, but you should at least be able to see where they are coming from.

[rwarn17588]

What's stumping you on that RW?  Would you be okay with a white male candidate for SCOTUS making a claim to be a superior judge because he brings the richness of growing up white, male, and rich in the lap of luxury?

I do think a poor person who pulls herself up to a very prestigious legal position with her ability and intelligence is a lot more of an excellent choice to any position than a not-as-bright white guy who got a foot in the door solely due to affluence and family connections.

For a clear example of the latter see: Bush, George W.

[rwarn17588]

I agree that a hispanic female has had different experiences than a white male.  I agree that it will give different perspective and could lead to different decisions.   Variety of viewpoints on the court is probably a good thing.  But if the situation was reversed, as above, the left would be crying foul.

Really probably a non-issue, but you should at least be able to see where they are coming from.

Which was kinda my point. If the situation were reversed, the context would have an entirely different meaning. But it's been abundantly clear in much of the history of the United States that the white race, for whatever reasons, has had more inherent (and even legal) advantages than people of other races.

That situation has only begun to fade away in the past 40 years or so. The U.S. had a chance to do this much earlier, after the Civil War, but fumbled the ball starting in the 1890s. It took until the 1950s and '60s before Jim Crow and other racist laws and bad behavior by white people were finally addressed.

[Conan71]

I do think a poor person who pulls herself up to a very prestigious legal position with her ability and intelligence is a lot more of an excellent choice to any position than a not-as-bright white guy who got a foot in the door solely due to affluence and family connections.

For a clear example of the latter see: Bush, George W.

You keep side-stepping my argument.  I said someone with equal or better experience using some sort of subjective yard stick.  Naturally, anyone would hope we'd get the best and brightest.  If that person is Sonia Sotomayor, I'm all for it.  Her claim that being Hispanic and female gives her a better perspective smacks of an arrogance that would be unforgiveable coming from a white male.  The point being made that you keep ignoring is: given the same level of intellect and real-life experience as a jurist, why should one person have a leg-up on another for a position based on their race, ethnicity, or gender?

This is a statement hire.  Otherwise, why make such an issue out of "first Hispanic" or "first Hispanic female" nominated to SCOTUS.

[rwarn17588]

The point being made that you keep ignoring is: given the same level of intellect and real-life experience as a jurist, why should one person have a leg-up on another for a position based on their race, ethnicity, or gender?

Easy answer: Because a minority had more to overcome than a white person.

[nathanm]

I agree that a hispanic female has had different experiences than a white male.  I agree that it will give different perspective and could lead to different decisions.

This is why I think that presuming all appointments meet some basic qualifications as being not-loony and having the requisite experience to be a justice, the Court's makeup would ideally approximate the ethnic and gender makeup of the US as a whole.

As it stands, white males are extremely overrepresented on the Court and as such cries of reverse racism are completely misplaced, unless some totally unqualified female or person of other ethnicity were nominated.

[cannon_fodder]

Easy answer: Because a minority had more to overcome than a white person.

Really?  So you'd be less impressed with a white person from the exact same background accomplishing the exact same things?  Ahh, I dream of a day when people are judged by the content of their character. . .

I have a friend whose father was the UN ambassador from an African nation.  He went to Oxford for undergrad and is fluent in English, an African dialect (can't remember which it was) and French.  He then went to the University of Tulsa for a masters petroleum engineering with all expenses paid by his father (he drove a brand new luxury car, flew to the coast for long weekend, etc.).  He returned briefly to his country but decided he preferred the US of A so his fathers connections hooked him up with a great job in Houston for a major oil company.  Probably makes $100,000+ a year.

I have a neighbor who is white.  He grew up in a crap hole part of Dallas to a single mother.  Was shot when he was a kid for "wearing the wrong colors in the wrong neighborhood."  His mom was a drug addict and he ended up in DHS custody bouncing around.   He had a kid when he was in high school and dropped out to get a job.  Probably makes about $15 an hour.

I have a Indian (Hindu persuasion not Native) who is a laser eye surgeon after graduation from Johns Hopkins.  Woe be his minority tale.  I have a white uncle who was a Vietnam vet and never got his life back together before dying of liver failure.  I worked my way through college and graduate school while some minority friends road minority scholarships.  Do a disproportional number of minorities have it harder than many white kids?  Yes.  But the color of their skin is not the driving factor.

The color of their skin was not the primary factor in what happened.   Extreme examples?  Absolutely.  The notion that skin color is a direct correlation to a persons life story is simply a fallacy.   In the present case it seems Ms. Sotomeyor did rise up from an "underprivileged" background.  I am impressed by her accomplishments, but not because of the color of her skin.

[rwarn17588]

Really?  So you'd be less impressed with a white person from the exact same background accomplishing the exact same things?  Ahh, I dream of a day when people are judged by the content of their character. . .

Considering that Sotomayor attended Princeton at a time when the school was just beginning to admit females  (and even fewer Latinos) and graduating with high honors, and excelling at Yale Law School, I'd say the disadvantages, inevitable racism and sexism that she had to overcome (not to mention her poverty background) speaks highly of her character indeed.

[Conan71]

Considering that Sotomayor attended Princeton at a time when the school was just beginning to admit females  (and even fewer Latinos) and graduating with high honors, and excelling at Yale Law School, I'd say the disadvantages, inevitable racism and sexism that she had to overcome (not to mention her poverty background) speaks highly of her character indeed.

That's not entirely accurate.  Women had been admitted as early as WWII.  The first full time female undergrads were admitted in 1963.  By 1973, female discrimination was becoming a thing of the past.  Perusing some of her writings at Princeton, she was quite the activist.  I wouldn't call her militant, but I'd go so far as to say she had a chip on her shoulder.

I still fail to see why one's own sense of extreme adversity over someone else's sense of it makes someone a superior jurist or candidate for SCOTUS.  Here's her own words from her Princeton days (this was in relation to a student search committee for a new "dean of minorities"):

"In closing, we raise the issue to begin discussion and reevaluation that will prevent such unfortunate actions in the future. As a start, we feel a definite policy on administrative appointments should be set forth in writing. For instance, regarding student involvement, a detailed policy on the area and extent of our involvement, should be delineated. Also, clear channels should be established to ensure legitimate student input when it is sought. And finally, concerning the appointment process, the procedure established should insure uniform treatment of all candidates.  A candidate's background or the position he or she seeks to fill should be no reasons for preferential treatment on the part of the university."

(bold and italics for emphasis are mine)

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/05/15/23732/

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/05/15/23734/

http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/05/sotomayor-as-student.php

[Conan71]

Harry Reid says he's not read any of Judge Sotomayor's opinions and hopes by the time this is all over he won't have to.  I'm sure I've taken this all out of context, right RW and FOTD?  Don't you think it would set a good example of leadership to at least figure out the quality and relevance of her opinions?

What a total moron: