Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Are you simply that stupid of a man? Or are you so f'ing lazy you can't even bother to look up the word Hispanic? For f*ck sake man get your act together. Portuguese are neither Hispanic nor Latino.

So are we going to be excited when an Azerbaijanee is put on the court? Do we have to have one representative from every dialect and race and nationality appointed to the court before we stop citing it as a quality? I am pretty sure that every person appointed is unique in some way, so must we now always sort that out? She is the first woman who wears her hair in pig tails. He is the first male named Robert who is not called Bob by all his peers. It gets redundant and ridiculous. As MLK Jr called for, let each person be known by their character, integrity, and honor instead of by the race they were born a member of. (obviously paraphrased)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So are we going to be excited when an Azerbaijanee is put on the court? Do we have to have one representative from every dialect and race and nationality appointed to the court before we stop citing it as a quality? I am pretty sure that every person appointed is unique in some way, so must we now always sort that out? She is the first woman who wears her hair in pig tails. He is the first male named Robert who is not called Bob by all his peers. It gets redundant and ridiculous. As MLK Jr called for, let each person be known by their character, integrity, and honor instead of by the race they were born a member of. (obviously paraphrased)

Diversity matters, it's that simple. I don't understand why people are acting as if she was selected solely based on the fact that she's a Hispanic. It is one factor among many and that is OK.

It's easy to drag the matter through the gutter with a slippery slope argument and it's even easier and reasonable when you're in the majority.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Diversity matters, it's that simple. I don't understand why people are acting as if she was selected solely based on the fact that she's a Hispanic. It is one factor among many and that is OK.

It's easy to drag the matter through the gutter with a slippery slope argument and it's even easier and reasonable when you're in the majority.

I always love the argument that the opinions of members in the majority are less important or less valuable simply because they're in the majority. White people certainly aren't capable of understanding or even discussing matters involving race of course.

I don't know that people are acting like she was only elected based on her ethnicity but then again it was used as qualifying factor. She herself frames the opinions and public perception of her through the prism of her ethnicity adn gender.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I always love the argument that the opinions of members in the majority are less important or less valuable simply because they're in the majority. White people certainly aren't capable of understanding or even discussing matters involving race of course.

I don't know that people are acting like she was only elected based on her ethnicity but then again it was used as qualifying factor. She herself frames the opinions and public perception of her through the prism of her ethnicity adn gender.

And who is making such argument?

LOL...no sir, she has said many things in her life but people are focusing on a few comment. The woman is highly accomplished and she can express the fact that she has a unique background.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

And who is making such argument?

It's easy to drag the matter through the gutter with a slippery slope argument and it's even easier and reasonable when you're in the majority.

I think this infers the opinions of those in the majority are wrong simply because they are in the majority. I'll stand corrected if that's not what was meant.

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...no sir, she has said many things in her life but people are focusing on a few comment. The woman is highly accomplished and she can express the fact that she has a unique background.

She did more than just express her unique background. She held it like a flag of honor and basically said it provided her higher qualifications than people of differing backgrounds.

All-in-all none of this matters but I am just amused at how this discussion has gone. She's going to be appointed, she'll be fine as a judge, it doesn't shift the balance of the court. It's why he went this direction with this pick...because those predisposed to fight it will be less inclined to really go hard to the mat since it doesn't matter all that much in the political scheme. Now when one of the 5 conservative leaning judges kicks it he'll go more moderate knowing that the Pubs will fight to the death over it.

Is she liberal? Yeah. What did everyone expect him to do? This is the guy we elected. He gets his shot now.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think this infers the opinions of those in the majority are wrong simply because they are in the majority. I'll stand corrected if that's not what was meant.

My post reflect my sentiment as to slippery slop fallacy used by CRedskinsRule to justify why we shouldn't consider race/sex/background as a factor. And the fact that the arguments tends to be the argument of choice by the majority (i.e. gay marriage could lead to bestiality arguments).

Originally Posted by FRPLG

She did more than just express her unique background. She held it like a flag of honor and basically said it provided her higher qualifications than people of differing backgrounds.

All-in-all none of this matters but I am just amused at how this discussion has gone. She's going to be appointed, she'll be fine as a judge, it doesn't shift the balance of the court. It's why he went this direction with this pick...because those predisposed to fight it will be less inclined to really go hard to the mat since it doesn't matter all that much in the political scheme. Now when one of the 5 conservative leaning judges kicks it he'll go more moderate knowing that the Pubs will fight to the death over it.

Is she liberal? Yeah. What did everyone expect him to do? This is the guy we elected. He gets his shot now.

Is that what this tells you?

"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."

p.s. The future looks bright...everyone will be singing a different tune in 2050.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think this infers the opinions of those in the majority are wrong simply because they are in the majority. I'll stand corrected if that's not what was meant.

She did more than just express her unique background. She held it like a flag of honor and basically said it provided her higher qualifications than people of differing backgrounds.

All-in-all none of this matters but I am just amused at how this discussion has gone. She's going to be appointed, she'll be fine as a judge, it doesn't shift the balance of the court. It's why he went this direction with this pick...because those predisposed to fight it will be less inclined to really go hard to the mat since it doesn't matter all that much in the political scheme. Now when one of the 5 conservative leaning judges kicks it he'll go more moderate knowing that the Pubs will fight to the death over it.

Is she liberal? Yeah. What did everyone expect him to do? This is the guy we elected. He gets his shot now.

I wouldn't be so fast to label her as liberal. Besides these titles are old and worn out anyway. But for someone who has sat on panels and voted with her Republican colleagues 95% of the time, has ruled against funding abortion overseas (hardly a liberal position and counter to that of the President's position on the same issue), I would definitely say she's moderate. Probably left of center or on some days right of center.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I wouldn't be so fast to label her as liberal. Besides these titles are old and worn out anyway. But for someone who has sat on panels and voted with her Republican colleagues 95% of the time, has ruled against funding abortion overseas (hardly a liberal position and counter to that of the President's position on the same issue), I would definitely say she's moderate. Probably left of center or on some days right of center.

I know for a fact that she is liberal because she has messy hair.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Diversity matters.... It is one factor among many and that is OK.

In matters of law it's not supposed to matter. Race, gender, etc. shouldn't be considered. There's a reason Justice is depicted with a blindfold.

Obama stated he would nominate someone in the judical mainstream, with this pick he definitely did not do what he stated. This is a bad nomination, Obama should've done better homework.

Her legal reasoning should be called into question, a 1-5 with one pending is not a good record on cases reviewed by the SC.

Possible Controversial Positions and Statements
• Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.
• Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
• Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....
"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....
"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 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 experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

In matters of law it's not supposed to matter. Race, gender, etc. shouldn't be considered. There's a reason Justice is depicted with a blindfold.

Obama stated he would nominate someone in the judical mainstream, with this pick he definitely did not do what he stated. This is a bad nomination, Obama should've done better homework.

Her legal reasoning should be called into question, a 1-5 with one pending is not a good record on cases reviewed by the SC.

Possible Controversial Positions and Statements
• Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.
• Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
• Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....
"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....
"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 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 experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

Although we all like to believe justice is blind it seldom is. Justice is both subjective and opinionated. Nothing about Sotomayor's actions or nomination contradicts the blindness of justice.

Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hole with these cases. Roberts and Alito history are pretty similar I am sure. The only noteworthy case is Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch and there's presidance of a lone dissenter in the Supreme Court.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Although we all like to believe justice is blind it seldom is. Justice is both subjective and opinionated. Nothing about Sotomayor's actions or nomination contradicts the blindness of justice.

If acknowledging race/sex as a determining factor in the rule of law doesn't contradict the blindness of justice, I don't know what does. I agree with Justice O'Connor.

Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hole with these cases. Roberts and Alito history are pretty similar I am sure. The only noteworthy case is Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch and there's presidance of a lone dissenter in the Supreme Court.

I couldn't find evidence in a quick search but I do not believe either Roberts or Alito have a history of over 83% of their rulings that appeared before the Supreme Court being overturned.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

If acknowledging race/sex as a determining factor in the rule of law doesn't contradict the blindness of justice, I don't know what does. I agree with Justice O'Connor.

At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.

As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice. We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch. Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I couldn't find evidence in a quick search but I do not believe either Roberts or Alito have a history of over 83% of their rulings that appeared before the Supreme Court being overturned.

The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.

As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice. We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch. Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.



The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.

So give me an example of a man and a women both have the same case (to the T) where a women or the man for that fact get a different ruling from a court because of their gender.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.

Based on her own statement about a Latina woman making a better judgement than a white male she is alleging that her sex & heritage makes her better qualified. I disagree with that premise.

As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement -- with prejudice.

We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch.

Interpreting the laws and Constitution of the U.S., with regards to the cases presented to it, is the single most important job of the judicial branch not to protect a minority, majority, or certain race/sex/creed.

Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.

I don't think I've ever mentioned my ethnicity....but yes I'm a white male. I'm not sure what "best hands" I'm supposed to be holding. I grew up lower-middle class, went to public school, financed my own education, served in the military, haven't received any promotions because I'm a white male. I haven't received any government assistance or loans because of being a white male. So I disagree with the premise that the "deck is stacked" in my favor. On the contrary, I've been involved in Federal contracting for over 15 years and if I was a minority based on my contacts and knowledge, I would've started my own 8(a) company and be significantly better off financially than I am now.

Is the country completely color-blind, of course not, but we have made tremendous strides in the last 50 years.

The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.

The 83% number isn't meaningless, unless you can show that the number is consistent among other SC nominees. You are right and I thought about this also, is that the number of her cases reveiwed by the Supreme Court should be referenced against other SC nominees. If the numbers are in-line than they are of no consequence, if the numbers are skewed then they need to be taken into consideration.