[turtle777]

Well, I would hope that a caucasian male with common sense would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman with an activist agenda.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

A good (and balanced) summary is here:

A Sotomayor Ruling Gets Scrutiny - WSJ.com

While the decision itself was an issue, how it was made was a bigger issue: it was not heard by the full appeals court, and one of the judges who didn't hear the case publicly questioned the decision. I'm not sure how the court decides to hear cases, but it was clear that there was more disagreement than you would normally see among judges on this issue.

The way it went down (which is glancingly referred to in the article) is that after the unanimous three judge decision, there was an appeal to have it heard by the entire court. This appeal lost 7-6. It was from that appeal the other judge questioned the decision and it got shot upstream.

I'm still looking for how this wasn't a judgement call, especially considering the firefighters' argument is based on the city's intent, rather than what's legal or not. If they had presented a different argument things may have turned out differently.

"At hearings in July 2006, the firefighters' lawyer, Karen Lee Torre, argued the city tossed the exams because elected officials were worried about losing support among black voters."

This is a tough row to hoe.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kobi 

..... Jabba-The Rush ....

Oh now that's HILARIOUS!!!

OAW

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, I would hope that a caucasian male with common sense would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman with an activist agenda.

-t

[OAW]

In response to the big hoopla over this .....

Originally Posted by Judge 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 who hasn't lived that life.

.... let me first point out this .....

A new national poll suggests that by a margin of greater than two to one, Americans approve of President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Poll: Americans back Sotomayor by 2 to 1 margin � - Blogs from CNN.com

So despite all the consternation and hysteria from some of our friends on the right, it appears that the vast majority clearly see this "controversy" as much ado about nothing. Having said that, I'll also reiterate a point I made in another thread about all of this.

Originally Posted by OAW

She never said anything about her "race" makes her wiser or better able to know right from wrong than some "white guy". The only people talking that foolishness is the Fox News crowd. The entire context of that quote was in regard to seminal Supreme Court decisions that involve and affect women and people of color. What she was saying was that she would hope that a wise Latina woman who had a different and more diverse life experience would reach a better conclusion (in such circumstances) than a wise white male who had not (had such life experience). IOW, America is more than wealthy white males from the Ivy League crowd who's life experience has predominantly been in lily-white, male dominated environments. (::::new comment:::: As is undeniably case for the typical Supreme Court justice ::::new comment::: It's only common sense to expect that a diversity of backgrounds would add to the quality of the decisions made. One would expect that a woman who had to work and who's family has always had women who had to work would bring to the table a more knowledgeable and empathetic perspective than a wealthy white male who's wife and mother were always housewives in a gender discrimination case. Not to say that would always be the case, but more often than not. And if that concept goes over your head then so be it.

If anyone wants to debate the finer points of that I'll be glad to participate. If, OTOH, the argument boils down to a simplistic "she mentioned her race so she must be racist and I'll conveniently overlook the 'life experiences' part when I rail against her comments' approach then I'll most certainly pass.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The SCOTUS is part of the system of checks and balances and it's doing exactly that. It's not that checks and balances have to be put on the court, there already are.

If 5 judges declare something "unconstitutional" that clearly the letter of the law and the intent of the founding fathers should allow, what real check is there to force the issue? You can't vote them out, overrule the courts and with the way that stare decisis has been put into place in order to ensure that activists engaging in unconstitutional law making, there are no "do overs" for really bad and unconstitutional interpretation of the law (see Roe V. Wade).

[quotes]The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, it checks their constitutionality and interprets the constitution.[/quote]

That's woefully naive.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bingo.

If they had, then the way justices on the Supreme Court make decisions would be unconstitutional. They didn't, so it isn't.

Some decisions made by the courts STILL ARE unconstitutional. I don't think that the founding fathers ever intended for the opinions of 5 unelected guys would make moot the words the put into law via compromise and a well-thought out plan at the founding of our Country.

As it stands now, if 5 guys who were given political appointments decide that they don't like the Constitution as it's written and as the framers intended, they can just make up a reason for it not to be followed based on a series of lies (see Roe V. Wade again).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If 5 judges declare something "unconstitutional" that clearly the letter of the law and the intent of the founding fathers should allow, what real check is there to force the issue?

You misunderstand.
Of course every branch of government makes mistakes (even though people may not always be able to agree on what they actually are) -- and that's precisely what checks and balances are for.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can't vote them out, overrule the courts and with the way that stare decisis has been put into place in order to ensure that activists engaging in unconstitutional law making, there are no "do overs" for really bad and unconstitutional interpretation of the law (see Roe V. Wade).

Problematic Supreme Court decisions have been overturned by later courts (key word `separate, but equal').
But even more importantly, for someone who likes to quote the intent of the founding fathers so often, it's quite clear that this is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind: a court whose members are appointed for life (they did not put term limits on the presidency either) and who were independent. This gives the Supreme Court the power and the punch they wanted it to have. Ultimately, they get to decide what is and isn't constitutional. Whether you agree with their judgements doesn't really matter, but they are the final authority on that matter (which actually matters).

Of course, by all means, you can criticize all this and suggest a constitutional amendment to change the situation, but the court as it is now is what the founding fathers had in mind.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Some decisions made by the courts STILL ARE unconstitutional. I don't think that the founding fathers ever intended for the opinions of 5 unelected guys would make moot the words the put into law via compromise and a well-thought out plan at the founding of our Country.

Appointments to the Supreme Court are confirmed by the Senate and thus have the full legitimacy afforded by the people through representation. The wish that there was a way to overturn rulings by the Supreme Court completely contradicts the intention of the founding fathers.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You misunderstand.
Of course every branch of government makes mistakes (even though people may not always be able to agree on what they actually are) -- and that's precisely what checks and balances are for.

And what "checks and balances" are there on the Supreme Court? Can you list them?

[OreoCookie]

The checks and balances on the Supreme Court are:
(1) Appointees must be confirmed by the Senate.
(2) The Supreme Court cannot pick up cases it likes and consider them at will, but a case must make its way to the Supreme Court. This is a rather serious constraint.
(3) The Supreme Court cannot enforce its rulings. It has to rely on other branches of government for that.

This, in fact, gives a lot of power to the SC -- precisely because they are the final instance on what is and isn't constitutional. This doesn't depend on my particular opinion on the subject, I'm just saying that a strong Supreme Court has been the intention of the founding fathers. I keep on repeating that word, because stupenduousman cherry picks when to invoke them and when to ignore them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Are we libs going to turn on her before or after her confirmation?

At the very least your entertaining.

Likely after her first Pro-life opinion is logged.

Careful, it's this whole "entertainment value" that draws you bleeding hearts in. You'll pretend you hate us because our views stand in stark contrast to the failed paper-ideology of your educators, but by the time your first child is able to call you "daddy" (or "mommy") you'll be a gun-toting, card-carrying, AM radio-listening conservative Republican. Trust me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The checks and balances on the Supreme Court are:
(1) Appointees must be confirmed by the Senate.
(2) The Supreme Court cannot pick up cases it likes and consider them at will, but a case must make its way to the Supreme Court. This is a rather serious constraint.
(3) The Supreme Court cannot enforce its rulings. It has to rely on other branches of government for that.

In addition to your point, I was going to add;

4) the appointees are selected by the sitting, elected President
5) Sotomayor would be Obama's selection seated alongside Clinton's two appointees, Ford's appointee, Reagan's two appointees, GHW Bush's two appointees, and GW Bush's two appointees.

[OreoCookie]

Yes, good points, ebuddy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

In response to the big hoopla over this .....
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Poll: Americans back Sotomayor by 2 to 1 margin � - Blogs from CNN.com

room for shift and why
In the same poll, nearly 6 in 10 said legal qualifications should be more important than making the court more like the nation in terms of race, religion, ethnicity or gender.

Still, despite early support, there is room for a shift in public opinion as the AP poll found a 48 percent plurality of Americans do not yet have an opinion of Judge Sotomayor.

The bottom line: no one knows who she is. The opinions of her will drop as people come to realize that she enjoys a 60% rate of reversal by the very court she hopes to join and as the Ricci firefighter's case adds to the rate.

So despite all the consternation and hysteria from some of our friends on the right, it appears that the vast majority clearly see this "controversy" as much ado about nothing. Having said that, I'll also reiterate a point I made in another thread about all of this.

I wouldn't call it consternation and hysteria rather, very well-founded concern over a questionable judicial record and an even more questionable judicial philosophy evidenced by statements that even our level-headed, highly enlightened friends on the left have deemed unfortunate.

If anyone wants to debate the finer points of that I'll be glad to participate. If, OTOH, the argument boils down to a simplistic "she mentioned her race so she must be racist and I'll conveniently overlook the 'life experiences' part when I rail against her comments' approach then I'll most certainly pass.

Finer point #1) Sotomayor's statement of "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." was her own crafted response to the broader notion of Supreme Court justices before her; "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases”

Finer point #2) We do not legislate on the color of skin or the "richness" of a Justice's experiences. These are qualities of people that may or may not lend themselves well to Constitutional interpretation, but law itself is not contingent upon these principles. The "robustness" of her record will be more important than some immeasurable notion of "rich" life experience. Don't take my word for it, ask the tolerant left what they think of Justice Thomas.

Obviously, Sotomayor's hearings will help clarify the statements. I'm personally giving her the benefit of doubt here. She's still largely unknown and while she may or may not have a "rich" life experience, I'd like to hear more of her judicial philosophy.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Finer point #2) We do not legislate on the color of skin or the "richness" of a Justice's experiences. These are qualities of people that may or may not lend themselves well to Constitutional interpretation, but law itself is not contingent upon these principles. The "robustness" of her record will be more important than some immeasurable notion of "rich" life experience. Don't take my word for it, ask the tolerant left what they think of Justice Thomas.

Obviously, Sotomayor's hearings will help clarify the statements. I'm personally giving her the benefit of doubt here. She's still largely unknown and while she may or may not have a "rich" life experience, I'd like to hear more of her judicial philosophy.

Many of the same Senators who are now touting Sotomayor's "compelling life story" are the same one who filibustered Miguel Estrada's appointment to the DC Court of Appeals.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Finer point #1) Sotomayor's statement of "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." was her own crafted response to the broader notion of Supreme Court justices before her; "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases”

I do think that from the perspective that the government should reflect society, women and Latinos are underrepresented. And I can see this to be an argument among equally qualified candidates (of which there are many more than seats on the Supreme Court). If you then want to decide between your candidates of pretty much equal qualification (in practice it's often hard to compare), I don't mind if equal representation is taken into account as well.

But qualifications have to come first.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Many of the same Senators who are now touting Sotomayor's "compelling life story" are the same one who filibustered Miguel Estrada's appointment to the DC Court of Appeals.

By the same token, a bunch of Senators who are complaining now didn't seem to care when Alito told them he takes into account his family's experience of being immigrants who were discriminated against when he makes court decisions.

Asshattery knows no party.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

By the same token, a bunch of Senators who are complaining now didn't seem to care when Alito told them he takes into account his family's experience of being immigrants who were discriminated against when he makes court decisions.

Asshattery knows no party.

Asshattery, I like that

[kobi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The bottom line: no one knows who she is. The opinions of her will drop as people come to realize that she enjoys a 60% rate of reversal by the very court she hopes to join and as the Ricci firefighter's case adds to the rate.

It's funny how the right is focused on the 3 out of 5 cases that were granted certiorari and reversed by the SCOTUS. There's never a mention of the other 2,995 cases of hers that haven't been reversed. Judge Sotomayor has ruled on over 3,000 cases, out of those 3,000 cases........

Judge Sotomayor wrote 380 opinions, out of those 380 opinions 5 of them were granted certiorari and were heard by the SCOTUS. 3 of her 5 cases that were heard were reversed by the SCOTUS. So that means that the other 375 cases that she wrote opinions on, and the other 2720 cases that she has heard, her rulings still stand.

The reversal rate of other Federal District Judges is closer to 80%-90%.......just saying. Yet the right is worried about her 60% reversal. Oh the hypocrisy.

[kobi]

Judge Sotomayor's Senate Judiciary questionnaire is available here.

Looks a lot better that Harriet Myers questionnaire.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Still, despite early support, there is room for a shift in public opinion as the AP poll found a 48 percent plurality of Americans do not yet have an opinion of Judge Sotomayor.

Point well taken.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Finer point #1) Sotomayor's statement of "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." was her own crafted response to the broader notion of Supreme Court justices before her; "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases”

But again ... and I encourage you to read the transcript ..... that was in the context of a wider discussion regarding "seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males."

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Finer point #2) We do not legislate on the color of skin or the "richness" of a Justice's experiences. These are qualities of people that may or may not lend themselves well to Constitutional interpretation, but law itself is not contingent upon these principles. The "robustness" of her record will be more important than some immeasurable notion of "rich" life experience. Don't take my word for it, ask the tolerant left what they think of Justice Thomas.

Indeed. We don't legislate on the color of skin or the "richness" of a justice's experiences. However, Judge Sotomayor never said anything about the "color of skin". Again, that is only coming from our friends on the right. The fact of the matter is that being "Latina" has nothing to do with skin color. Hispanics can be white, black, native american, or any combination thereof. Furthermroe, the point that Judge Sotomayor was making was that a justice's background often impacted the judging that he did. As indicated by her very next statement ....

Originally Posted by Judge Sotomayor

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.

So the "wise old white male" justices didn't reach the same conclusion for quite some time. The decisions they came to in those days may have been "legal", but they certainly didn't constitute "justice". She goes on to say ...

Originally Posted by Judge Sotomayor

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.

Without question the Supreme Court for decades chose to see the facts that it wanted to see when it came to race and sex discrimination cases. It upheld these things in its decisions. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a "lily-white, male, Ivy League background" court would be at best insensitive and at worst downright hostile to the interests of those with a "non-white, female, and/or poorer background" in that era. Because despite what America purported to be about in theory ..... in practice it was something else. As a nation we have often not always lived up to our ideals. Things are much improved in that regard ... no doubt about that. But that improvement has come about with the participation of those from different backgrounds in the legal process. It simply did not happen to any significant degree when it was "wise old white males" exclusively on the bench and before it. So I will say again ....

Originally Posted by OAW

It's only common sense to expect that a diversity of backgrounds would add to the quality of the decisions made. One would expect that a woman who had to work and who's family has always had women who had to work would bring to the table a more knowledgeable and empathetic perspective than a wealthy white male who's wife and mother were always housewives in a gender discrimination case. Not to say that would always be the case, but more often than not.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

By the same token, a bunch of Senators who are complaining now didn't seem to care when Alito told them he takes into account his family's experience of being immigrants who were discriminated against when he makes court decisions. Asshattery knows no party.

You're really equating Alito's statement above with Sotomayor's? I frankly don't see the connection. It's one thing to be keenly aware of discrimination and another to discriminate. Perception is reality and the reality is if anyone of anglo-euro descent had said what she said they'd be disqualified immediately.

Worse, the Ricci case was ruled in such a manner that white candidates affirmed through testing were denied the position because of their ethnicity. The Supreme Court will be handing down this reversal while she's in the throws of her hearing. This is going to be tough for her to explain away, but I think she likely will.

[Chuckit]

Sotomayor says the Supreme Court never upheld a gender discrimination claim before 1972, but I'm not aware of any such cases that went before the Supreme Court until then. Can anybody find these evidently sexist decisions we're talking about here?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're really equating Alito's statement above with Sotomayor's? I frankly don't see the connection.

They're saying virtually the same thing, except Sotomayor went a step further and basically said that her experience could enable her to make better decisions than someone who had the more typical judicial background. In both cases, they say that their background is one of the things that is taken into account in their judicial rulings.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're really equating Alito's statement above with Sotomayor's? I frankly don't see the connection. It's one thing to be keenly aware of discrimination and another to discriminate. Perception is reality and the reality is if anyone of anglo-euro descent had said what she said they'd be disqualified immediately.

So we weren't supposed to take from that said keen awareness makes him a wiser judge when making decisions that concern that issue? Perhaps wiser than someone without those experiences, or at least wiser than someone who hasn't put in the effort to be as aware?

Was he regaling us with irrelevant trivia then?


Regardless, I humbly disagree with your claim that perception is reality. Isn't that statement usually used in regards to a situation where perception has distorted reality?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Worse, the Ricci case was ruled in such a manner that white candidates affirmed through testing were denied the position because of their ethnicity. The Supreme Court will be handing down this reversal while she's in the throws of her hearing. This is going to be tough for her to explain away, but I think she likely will.

It was ruled in a unanimous manner.

I have yet to even hear a response to my assertion the firefighters' argument is based on the intent of city officials rather than whether what city officials did is legal or not.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Sotomayor says the Supreme Court never upheld a gender discrimination claim before 1972, but I'm not aware of any such cases that went before the Supreme Court until then. Can anybody find these evidently sexist decisions we're talking about here?

They don't have to make a decision, they only have to refuse to grant certiorari.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

It's funny how the right is focused on the 3 out of 5 cases that were granted certiorari and reversed by the SCOTUS. There's never a mention of the other 2,995 cases of hers that haven't been reversed. Judge Sotomayor has ruled on over 3,000 cases, out of those 3,000 cases........

Judge Sotomayor wrote 380 opinions, out of those 380 opinions 5 of them were granted certiorari and were heard by the SCOTUS. 3 of her 5 cases that were heard were reversed by the SCOTUS. So that means that the other 375 cases that she wrote opinions on, and the other 2720 cases that she has heard, her rulings still stand.

Again, leftist shilling and math deficiency. Let me ask you kobi, at what other point in time would a judgment of any kind come under such scrutiny? At what other time do you have a direct comparison between the opinion of a circuit judge and that of the Supreme Court? You're right kobi, the ones granted cert.

Of the some... 3,000 cases Judge Sotomayor has ruled on, how many are you familiar with? How many of her majority opinions are you familiar with? Now take the average guy. A guy who lives life. He may even be a congressman. How many of all the potential nominees' cases is he going to be familiar with? How many shall he use and which ones might give him the best idea of her judicial philosophy, temperance, and performance? That's right kobi. Very few.

I've seen folks quick to bring up Alito's 2 for 2 @ 100% reversal while in the same breath claiming that Sotomayor's 3 for 5 is too small a sample to gauge her judgments. I'm curious what the remainder Supreme Court Justices' rates of reversal were. You seem to be resourceful, can you tell me?

The reversal rate of other Federal District Judges is closer to 80%-90%.......just saying. Yet the right is worried about her 60% reversal. Oh the hypocrisy.

First of all the Supreme Court reverses approximately 75% of its load. I don't know where you're getting your figures. It is also true that the SCOTUS primarily hears cases that are destined for reversal, but I think one should take into account the nature of the opinions offered. She was affirmed 11 of 44 votes through these 5 cases......................

In one of the 2 cases affirmed by a 5-4 majority, the opinion included that her interpretation of a statute in Knight v. Commissioner; "flies in the face of the statutory language.” ...................

Her judgment was reversed by an 8-0 margin in Lynch v. Dabit, regarding whether or not the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act preempts class actions in state court by investment brokers alleging fraudulent inducement to delay selling stocks.

[Chongo]

Sotomayor has used the phrase "wise woman" on numerous occasions. Sonia has "some splaynin to do"
CQ Politics | Legal Beat - Sotomayor Repeatedly Referenced 'Wise Woman' in Speeches

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.

Those speeches, released Thursday as part of Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, (to see Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee click here and here) suggest her widely quoted 2001 speech in which she indicated a "wise Latina" judge might make a better decision was far from a single isolated instance.

A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her "racist."

In addition, Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said "a wise woman" would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.

The summary descriptions of speeches Sotomayor provided indicated she delivered remarks similar to the 1994 speech on three other occasions in 1999 and 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law.

Her repeated use of the phrases "wise Latina woman" and "wise woman" would appear to undermine the Obama administration's assertions that the statement was simply a poor choice of words. After details of the 1994 speech circulated before the questionnaire's release, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, emerged from his private meeting with Sotomayor and expressed new concerns about the nominee's "identity politics."

Categories: Supreme Court

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This thread is absolutely astounding. Anyone else from another country find this?

I guess this is what ends up happening when you start doing stupid stuff like involving the legal system in politics by voting on judges.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

So we weren't supposed to take from that said keen awareness makes him a wiser judge when making decisions that concern that issue? Perhaps wiser than someone without those experiences, or at least wiser than someone who hasn't put in the effort to be as aware?

No. The statement did not intend to indicate that his "rich life experience" would make him a more effective Justice than those currently seated, but played on the well-known fact that both parties have sought to create a SCOTUS that "looks like America". The richness of life experience would offer the perspective of diversity, not necessarily "better" judgments suggesting that the current Justices aren't color-blind. There's a subtle difference there that I think you're not willing to see, but one that I think is important in regards to Judicial temperance. One is simply encouraging consideration based on the desire for diverse perspectives while the other is slightly more militant suggesting that her perspective is actually superior contingent upon the case before her. She has to let her judgments and record speak to this. Personally, I'll be paying close attention to her answers and the manner in which she's treated. There's this picture of evil Republican attack dogs being held back only by the leash of their "racially sensitive" constituency while failing to realize that there are a great many Dems who need to know where she is on Roe V Wade.

Regardless, I humbly disagree with your claim that perception is reality. Isn't that statement usually used in regards to a situation where perception has distorted reality?

No. The statement is generally used to remind you that your intentions are not as apparent as your actions. If people perceive your actions as negative, your intentions have less bearing because they are not as apparent. Her actions in speeches and even those behind the bench are what have raised questions about her temperance. I believe they're good questions.

It was ruled in a unanimous manner.

I might add; in an unusually short and unsigned opinion, three panel judges including Sotomayor held up the district court Judge's ruling without offering any analysis of their own. In light of the weight of the Constitutional principles behind the case and the haste for which it was reviewed by the 2nd Circuit, begged for review by the SCOTUS and quickly granted cert.

I have yet to even hear a response to my assertion the firefighters' argument is based on the intent of city officials rather than whether what city officials did is legal or not.

The entire case rests on equal protection under the law subego. I don't know how you can say this. Title VII, the federal law that prohibits most workplace harassment and discrimination, covers all private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions with 15 or more employees against workers because of race, color, national origin, religion, and gender.

www.slate.com
In 2003, the city of New Haven, Conn., decided to base future promotions in its firefighting force—there were seven for captain and eight for lieutenant—primarily on a written test. The city paid an outside consultant to design the test so that it would be job-related. Firefighters studied for months. Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. None of the African-American candidates scored high enough to be promoted. For both positions, only two of 29 Hispanics qualified for promotion. Frank Ricci is a 34-year-old "truckie"—he throws ladders, breaks windows, and cuts holes for New Haven's Truck 4. His uncle and both his brothers are firefighters. He studied fire science at college. He has dozens of videos about firefighting tagged on a Web site he set up to recruit for the department. He is also dyslexic, which means that his high score on the promotion test was especially hard-won. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law. They said that New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the test.

The racial disparity of the test itself was never in question subego. The question was why the results of that testing were thrown out, denying the promotions it was intended to qualify. There was sufficient cause to believe the results of the testing were thrown out because it did not produce a State-based, racially biased outcome. This most definitely has merit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is entirely possible what the city officials did was patently illegal. The SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case. I'm reasonably confident that;
1) The SCOTUS will grant a fair and thorough review of the facts of this case.
2) The SCOTUS will reverse the ruling of the 2nd Circuit.

What do you think of points 1 and 2 above?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But again ... and I encourage you to read the transcript ..... that was in the context of a wider discussion regarding "seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males."

... and yet look at the seminal decisions granted Constitutional Principle OAW. How was it that this lily-white and racially insensitive SCOTUS arrived at the rulings they did in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Heart of Atlanta v. United States (1964), Civil Rights Act of 1964, Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1964), and Voting Rights Act (1965)?

Do we really have to go back more than 50 years to give your point merit? I submit that your argument in defense of Sotomayor makes her appear a trifle antiquated, even out of touch with the State of our society in the new millennia.

Indeed. We don't legislate on the color of skin or the "richness" of a justice's experiences. However, Judge Sotomayor never said anything about the "color of skin". Again, that is only coming from our friends on the right. The fact of the matter is that being "Latina" has nothing to do with skin color. Hispanics can be white, black, native american, or any combination thereof.

Interesting point. You'd have to conclude then that there are also lily-white Hispanic woman; likewise insensitive to racial disparity. In light of this argument OAW, why is Sotomayor's ethnicity of importance again? To your point, knowing that "Latinas" can be white, black, native american, or any combination thereof including those insensitive to racial and gender disparity, what then is it of her ethnicity that is supposed to make her "wiser"?

Furthermroe, the point that Judge Sotomayor was making was that a justice's background often impacted the judging that he did. As indicated by her very next statement ....

We may simply disagree that this, in and of itself, is some credential worthy of consideration in membership of the highest court in the country.

So the "wise old white male" justices didn't reach the same conclusion for quite some time. The decisions they came to in those days may have been "legal", but they certainly didn't constitute "justice". She goes on to say ...

Again, it was the actions of a collective that determined racial equality and justice, not rulings from the SCOTUS. If we have to go back greater than 50 years to make your argument, we've relegated Sotomayor's credentials more useful for archeology.

Without question the Supreme Court for decades chose to see the facts that it wanted to see when it came to race and sex discrimination cases. It upheld these things in its decisions. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a "lily-white, male, Ivy League background" court would be at best insensitive and at worst downright hostile to the interests of those with a "non-white, female, and/or poorer background" in that era. Because despite what America purported to be about in theory ..... in practice it was something else. As a nation we have often not always lived up to our ideals. Things are much improved in that regard ... no doubt about that. But that improvement has come about with the participation of those from different backgrounds in the legal process. It simply did not happen to any significant degree when it was "wise old white males" exclusively on the bench and before it. So I will say again ....

... to which I will say again;

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This lily-white and racially insensitive SCOTUS would arrive at such rulings as they did in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Heart of Atlanta v. United States (1964), Civil Rights Act of 1964, Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1964), and Voting Rights Act (1965) to name a few.

Again, If we have to go back greater than 50 years to make your argument, we've relegated Sotomayor's credentials more useful for archeology.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's a subtle difference there that I think you're not willing to see, but one that I think is important in regards to Judicial temperance. One is simply encouraging consideration based on the desire for diverse perspectives while the other is slightly more militant suggesting that her perspective is actually superior contingent upon the case before her.

If anything, I would hope it more likely a case of me just being wrong rather than a lack of willingness, but I'll let my judgments and record speak to this.

In terms of what I am seeing, the key difference is one of them takes the concept to its reasoned conclusion while the other does not.

If the point of diverse perspectives is not better decisions, what does fulfilling a desire for them accomplish?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Personally, I'll be paying close attention to her answers and the manner in which she's treated. There's this picture of evil Republican attack dogs...

I'd say the "attack dog" image is due to the people who have made up their mind already. What you say here explicitly excludes you from that group.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I believe they're good questions.

Agreed.

You double FAIL as an attack dog.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The entire case rests on equal protection under the law subego. I don't know how you can say this. Title VII...

...Is the exact same law the city argued they'd get sued under if they let the test stand as is. I'm saying it because the city said it.

I (and everybody else) already know what the firefighters' beef is. What I've been asking over and over again is what's wrong with the city's counter-claim?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

If anything, I would hope it more likely a case of me just being wrong rather than a lack of willingness, but I'll let my judgments and record speak to this.

In terms of what I am seeing, the key difference is one of them takes the concept to its reasoned conclusion while the other does not.

If the point of diverse perspectives is not better decisions, what does fulfilling a desire for them accomplish?

Premise: Diversity of viewpoints is good when making a judgment
Conclusion: A Latino will be able to render better judgment than a white

Premise: Genetic diversity is good in a biological population
Conclusion: A Latino makes a better parent than a white

I would say we're actually taking it a bit past its logical conclusion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Premise: Diversity of viewpoints is good when making a judgment
Conclusion: A Latino will be able to render better judgment than a white

Assuming you agree with the premise, I'll put the same question to you.

If a person with a different viewpoint isn't going to make a better decision about some things, what is the value in having a diversity of viewpoints?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

If anything, I would hope it more likely a case of me just being wrong rather than a lack of willingness, but I'll let my judgments and record speak to this.

I say willingness in terms of you accepting a premise offered by one who is, shall we say... right of center. Your "record" was the primary determinant.

In terms of what I am seeing, the key difference is one of them takes the concept to its reasoned conclusion while the other does not.

The "reasoned" conclusion seems to be that those currently sitting on the SCOTUS lack her degree of wisdom. It is a statement (she's made numerous times) that calls her judicial temperance into question. I think the onus is on Sotomayor to establish how her view of "Latina superiority" is of any benefit to the SCOTUS. Equalizing is a great thing as long as you're elevating one to the other, not dragging the other down from behind the bench. If you are willing to show this lack of respect for a Supreme Court Justice based on race, what is there to conclude that you won't have a similar disregard for white, male citizenry.

If the point of diverse perspectives is not better decisions, what does fulfilling a desire for them accomplish?

I'd say shrewd politics subego. Replace Souter with someone vastly more to the left (arguably activist) while placing Republicans in the extremely uncomfortable position of potentially alienating themselves from the single fastest growing voting bloc in the country. Both parties play it. I honestly don't believe Obama appointed her because she's Hispanic, I think it has a lot more to do with her judicial philosophy. In this, "better decisions" is obviously subjective.

...Is the exact same law the city argued they'd get sued under if they let the test stand as is. I'm saying it because the city said it.

Title VII is not intended to protect cities from lawsuits subego.

In your scenario (on behalf of the city), the law would require only that New Haven show the testing was in fact "job-related". They could've done so easily as they hired an outside consulting firm who drafted the examination with just this intention 6 years ago and no problems until the Ricci case.

In this scenario (on behalf of Ricci), they now have to establish why their own examinations were not "job related", why they're a problem now, and why they were thrown out. This is the conundrum. Equal protection under the law. They did not establish that the testing had a bias until the result of the examination failed to produce a preferred racial outcome. Fear of litigation is not an acceptable defense of racial preference. Again, IMO.

I (and everybody else) already know what the firefighters' beef is. What I've been asking over and over again is what's wrong with the city's counter-claim?

The city's counterclaim is that they threw the results of 6 year old testing away because it did not produce the preferred bias. Out of fear to protect one class, they've alienated another. IMO and I'm guessing the eventual opinion of the SCOTUS; the 2nd District ruled hastily, offered no analysis of their own, and upheld the discrimination of qualified whites based on the fact that they did not satisfy a racial bias. Affirmative action should not be construed as the act of giving jobs to those who aren't qualified nor should it necessitate the disenfranchising of another class.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I say willingness in terms of you accepting a premise offered by one who is, shall we say... right of center. Your "record" was the primary determinant.

This is just insulting. If you're going to take a shot at me, at least back it up. I don't care if casual sniping is "board culture" around here. I'm not into it.

I'm out.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is just insulting. If you're going to take a shot at me, at least back it up. I don't care if casual sniping is "board culture" around here. I'm not into it.

I apologize for having offended you, but you started off calling concern over this appointment "asshattery" when there are perfectly acceptable questions in play here. You then went on to use Alito as a comparison when the two statements show if not better than anything else, a difference in temperance. Really, the "wiser Latina" stuff isn't even the end of it. In light of the fact that Alito has not talked seriously about policy-making from the bench then mocking the notion by laughingly claiming he knows he's not supposed to say that, but..., it seemed to me you were trying to pull a "But enter name here" argument for nothing more than to be argumentative. If you don't believe Sotomayor's statements are questionable, you don't think they're questionable, but to equate them with Alito's statements was just fallacious IMO. The statements by Sotomayor are not generally perceived as those that acknowledge equality as much as proclaim superiority and I think there are real questions here.

While there were 29 Republicans who opposed Sotomayor's appointment to the 2nd Circuit back in '98, both parties are equally quick to acknowledge the unfortunate choice of words in her statements.

I'm out.

You probably won't believe it, but for what it's worth...
I'll miss you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I apologize for having offended you

Thank you. I appreciate this.

I apologize for losing it.

I thought you were making a general statement rather than referring to this particular thread. You make fair accusations here which I will attempt to prove myself not guilty of.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

but you started off calling concern over this appointment "asshattery" when there are perfectly acceptable questions in play here. You then went on to use Alito as a comparison when the two statements show if not better than anything else, a difference in temperance. Really, the "wiser Latina" stuff isn't even the end of it. In light of the fact that Alito has not talked seriously about policy-making from the bench then mocking the notion by laughingly claiming he knows he's not supposed to say that, but..., it seemed to me you were trying to pull a "But enter name here" argument for nothing more than to be argumentative.

I need to apologize again for giving you the impression I think any question of her temperance is illegitimate, wise Latina statement included. I've solely been arguing as to whether the statements taken on their own (which I believe they should be, she made them long before she was a Supreme Court nominee) are "out of line".

As to my personal opinion of her temperance. I'm certainly curious about the answers she gives at confirmation, but from what I've seen beyond the wise Latina statement, she's absolutely, positively not my type of justice.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you don't believe Sotomayor's statements are questionable, you don't think they're questionable, but to equate them with Alito's statements was just fallacious IMO. The statements by Sotomayor are not generally perceived as those that acknowledge equality as much as proclaim superiority and I think there are real questions here.

Simply put, it's a kind of superiority you get from being unequal, so I fail to see how it's any great shakes to be in a position to claim it.

I'm wiser about getting the short end of the stick... Whoopee!

She (or anyone else) could have a complex about it, which is where temperance (among other things) comes into the equation, but I don't see how there's any untruth to the basic proposition she put forward.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You probably won't believe it, but for what it's worth...
I'll miss you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Simply put, it's a kind of superiority you get from being unequal, so I fail to see how it's any great shakes to be in a position to claim it.

It's exactly the vicious cycle that needs to be broken. In just about any instance you'll find of someone abusing others due to a feeling of 'superiority' there's a catalyst where the abuser rallies around some 'unfair treatment' or inequality they suffered, either real or imagined. (Unjust armistices, carpetbaggers, etc.) How about we break the cycle already?

A bad principal doesn't become a good one just because a different group of people discovers how to use it to their advantage.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... and yet look at the seminal decisions granted Constitutional Principle OAW. How was it that this lily-white and racially insensitive SCOTUS arrived at the rulings they did in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Heart of Atlanta v. United States (1964), Civil Rights Act of 1964, Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1964), and Voting Rights Act (1965)?

Do we really have to go back more than 50 years to give your point merit? I submit that your argument in defense of Sotomayor makes her appear a trifle antiquated, even out of touch with the State of our society in the new millennia.

Brown vs. Board of Education - As Judge Sotomayor indicated, it was the participation of minorities in the legal process that led to this decision. Let's not forget that it was the NAACP's chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall, who successfully argued this case. The same lawyer who went on to become the first African American justice on the Supreme Court.

Gideon vs. Wainright - This is a case where the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment required that state courts have to provide legal counsel to defendants in criminal cases that can't afford one. To my knowledge none of the principal litigants were minority or female so I'm not sure how this case pertains to the point being discussed.

Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States - This case was brought about because the motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At this point the tide was turning and it was the same Warren Court that had previously ruled favorably in Brown vs Board of Education. The same goes for the other cases you cited.

Again, my point remains. Diversity on the bench AND before the bench is a good thing. I'm not saying diversity at the expense of qualifications. So please don't even try to go there. But IMO the government should reflect the people of the USA. Including the courts.

And as for you "50 years ago" comment, I'd simply ask you to realize that this is not ancient history by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not sure how old you are .... but suffice that there are millions of people in the US still living who directly experienced Jim Crow. Millions more of us whose parents directly experienced Jim Crow. I don't think derisively referring to Judge Sotomayor's comments as being more applicable to "archaeology" is at all fair based on these facts.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Brown vs. Board of Education - As Judge Sotomayor indicated, it was the participation of minorities in the legal process that led to this decision. Let's not forget that it was the NAACP's chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall, who successfully argued this case. The same lawyer who went on to become the first African American justice on the Supreme Court...

Let's not also forget that the "white men" of the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 on this case. We're not talking about whether or not a minority can argue a case with more wisdom. We're talking about the context of a wider discussion regarding "seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males." (in your words)
Remember?

Gideon vs. Wainright - This is a case where the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment required that state courts have to provide legal counsel to defendants in criminal cases that can't afford one. To my knowledge none of the principal litigants were minority or female so I'm not sure how this case pertains to the point being discussed.

A racist Judicial system with any sense could easily see what a profound impact this ruling would have on the representation of minorities who likewise couldn't afford defense. This is about civil rights and the merits of this ruling and their impact on minorities is unquestionable.

Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States - This case was brought about because the motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At this point the tide was turning and it was the same Warren Court that had previously ruled favorably in Brown vs Board of Education. The same goes for the other cases you cited.

This was a convenient way to breeze past the fact that this group of white men ruled with as much wisdom as could be expected from a minority. These were a small list of some seminal decisions in race discrimination cases having come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. Yes indeed, the same goes for the other cases I cited.

Again, my point remains. Diversity on the bench AND before the bench is a good thing. I'm not saying diversity at the expense of qualifications. So please don't even try to go there.

I've never claimed diversity on the bench is a bad thing and I wouldn't dare entertain your "qualifications" strawman. I've had many criticisms regarding Sotomayor's temperament, not academic qualifications.

But IMO the government should reflect the people of the USA. Including the courts.

Yes and it should do so in an equitable manner. Especially in the courts.

And as for you "50 years ago" comment, I'd simply ask you to realize that this is not ancient history by any stretch of the imagination.

... and yet you mention above the ruling of SCOTUS' in Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States was the product of a "turning tide" in 1964. Here we are, 45 years later and you might be surprised to know that most feel the tide has turned. Of course discrimination remains as it always will among human kind, but in light of the fact that it has manifest in discrimination of whites as well as minorities and given the evidence above of the wise rulings of "old white men", race is not as profound a factor for judicial temperance as it once was.

I'm not sure how old you are .... but suffice that there are millions of people in the US still living who directly experienced Jim Crow. Millions more of us whose parents directly experienced Jim Crow. I don't think derisively referring to Judge Sotomayor's comments as being more applicable to "archaeology" is at all fair based on these facts.

I can appreciate a "never forget" mentality with regard to the US' institutional, racially insensitive past, but we have indeed come a long way in 45 years. It might surprise you to know that many regard Jesse Jackson for example, a relic; a dinosaur who's movement has outgrown him. This doesn't mean the issue he's fought for lacks merit nor is it "derisive". It means simply that some are perpetrating old ills for personal gain. There is in fact a difference between equal justice under the law and comeuppance. Comeuppance is not acceptable Judicial philosophy IMO. Sotomayor's statements bring her temperament, not her qualifications, into question.

[Gee-Man]

A few data points about the supposedly "racist" Sotomayor:

1) Her actual record on the bench doesn't support the accusation that she views the cases before her solely through a race-based prism. ScotusBlog did an analysis of all the race-based cases that came before her court, and found that in the vast majority of cases she sided against the person claiming discrimination:

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

2) One of those cases, Pappas vs. Guiliani, involved a white NYPD desk-bound employee who was caught mailing racist and anti-Semitic material anonymously (and on his own personal time). The NYPD fired the individual, he sued, and Judge Sotomayor dissented from the majority in asserting that the NYPD shouldn't have fired him, on 1st Amendment grounds. The man never claimed that he didn't distribute the racist material, just that he shouldn't have been fired for it. This bears repeating - Judge Sotomayor defended a white racist's 1st Amendment rights.

I'd say that's pretty hard to reconcile with the caricature of her being some kind of reflexive anti-white bigot.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Ahh. So the new definition of 'not-racist' = defending a white racist.

Heh.

I know, I know the point you're making, but you gotta admit, that's kind of... odd?

[Gee-Man]

Odd? Hardly. It's actually quite impressive how you managed to pull that interpretation out of what I actually said. That must have taken a lot of mental contortions to twist my words that way - congratulations. Nice effort!

Back to the point - she never defended the person (if you'd actually read her dissent, you'd know that), she defended the right of that person to have their own repulsive views. Seems to me that's exactly what conservatives claim to always want in a judge - one who will put aside his or her own personal views to rule based on what's legal and constitutional.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Odd? Hardly. It's actually quite impressive how you managed to pull that interpretation out of what I actually said. That must have taken a lot of mental contortions to twist my words that way - congratulations. Nice effort!

Okay, clearly your reading skills aren't very good. I said I understand the point you're making.

What's odd is, in a discussion about Sotomayor being a racist or not, you put in bold "she defended a white-racist". Of course without realizing that's not exactly a refutation of herself possibly being a racist in defending one.

(Now, I know this point is subtle, therefore it will fly over your head like a 747, but in a nutshell, I'm not saying she IS a racist based on any of this, just that it proves nothing about her not being one just because she defended a racist.)

[Gee-Man]

No, I got that you understood my core point. I'm amused by the fact that you're unwilling to simply leave it at "yeah, you have a point", you've got to find *something* to oppose, even if it makes little sense. I guess it's reflexive - you're a conservative, I'm a liberal. You finding agreement with something I've said might cause the universe to collapse, I suppose.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What's odd is, in a discussion about Sotomayor being a racist or not, you put in bold "she defended a white-racist". Of course without realizing that's not exactly a refutation of herself possibly being a racist in defending one.

It's really not that hard - why would someone who supposedly hates white people, and would in theory rule against their rights any chance they get, turn around and defend a white racist's constitutional rights? How do you reconcile those two things? If you can answer that question, I'd be happy to concede your "point", whatever you think that point is.

(Now, I know this point is subtle, therefore it will fly over your head like a 747, but in a nutshell, I'm not saying she IS a racist based on any of this, just that it proves nothing about her not being one just because she defended a racist.)

There is very little logical reason for a racist to defend the rights of people whom they supposedly hate. You don't see lawyers for the KKK admitting briefs in court in defense of the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act, do you?

Ok fine, let's leave the world of common sense for a minute. I get it - sure, anything's possible. Maybe a racist Puerto Rican judge would defend a racist white NYPD employee. But is it likely? Does it fit into a pattern of behavior? Did you even notice the other major point in my post, that she dismissed the vast majority of discrimination cases that came before her as a judge? Wouldn't all of this evidence, taken as a whole, start to seriously refute the idea that she's a racist?

No, it's not definitive proof. We can't read her mind, so none of us know for sure what she thinks. But if Sotomayor really is a racist as claimed in this thread, she might be the strangest bigot in the history of all bigots - dismissing discrimination cases brought by fellow Hispanics and other minorities left and right, defending white racists as a judge, etc.

I'm just trying to use common sense here. Your argument is amusing, but hardly qualifies as a point flying over my head.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

It's really not that hard - why would someone who supposedly hates white people, and would in theory rule against their rights any chance they get, turn around and defend a white racist's constitutional rights? How do you reconcile those two things? If you can answer that question, I'd be happy to concede your "point", whatever you think that point is.

Maybe she forgot that she hates white people? Everybody forgets things...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Okay, clearly your reading skills aren't very good. I said I understand the point you're making.

What's odd is, in a discussion about Sotomayor being a racist or not, you put in bold "she defended a white-racist". Of course without realizing that's not exactly a refutation of herself possibly being a racist in defending one.

(Now, I know this point is subtle, therefore it will fly over your head like a 747, but in a nutshell, I'm not saying she IS a racist based on any of this, just that it proves nothing about her not being one just because she defended a racist.)

It is pretty compelling evidence that she is not racially biased in the way she is accused of being. Nobody thinks Sotomayor is a white supremacist.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

It's really not that hard - why would someone who supposedly hates white people, and would in theory rule against their rights any chance they get, turn around and defend a white racist's constitutional rights?

First of all the "she hates white people" is just your overly-simplistic thinking getting in the way, but then again, you are a liberal so that's expected. I mean that's how we get to the bizzaro world that says "Defending a white racist is an obvious indicator you're not yourself a racist!"

Outside the loony logic-prezel the left has created over race in this country, that gets a big "Huh? It is?"

It's possible she agreed with his anti-Semitic views, which is basically what the case seems to revolve around, not his own race. Now again, I'm not saying that IS the case, just that by defending this person it really doesn't prove anything one way or another. The firefighter case on the other hand is a better example.

There is very little logical reason for a racist to defend the rights of people whom they supposedly hate.

The key here is 'supposedly'. When it comes to Antisemitism, all bets are off as to it being a left or right thing, or even a race-based thing. (Wait, Reverend Wright is white?)

[Gee-Man]

It's possible she agreed with his anti-Semitic views, which is basically what the case seems to revolve around, not his own race.

No, the case didn't "revolve around" his anti-Semitic views. The person in the case we're discussing distributed white supremacist material that was racially offensive and anti-Semitic. Even if we take your subject-changing speculation that she may or may not have sympathized with anti-Semitic views at face value, it still doesn't answer my question: How does a person who is supposedly racist against whites, who is accused of judging all her cases and potential future Supreme Court cases through a racial prism, end up with a record that indicates the exact opposite behavior?

Ultimately, this is not a left/right argument, this is about specific facts. Does her record indicate that she a racist, or not? What is the evidence for the accusation?