Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor

[brianwspencer]

I don't find it even remotely as troubling once the scare quotes are removed and the entire speech is read.

I do get that it's certainly asking a lot from some people to dig into things and find out what they're really about when there's such a ripe soundbite out there for the taking....but if you're interested -- it's here.

It has much more to do with being the kind of judge who will always strive for impartiality (and there is no evidence at ALL that she has failed in this regard. If this is really some sort of festering problem, there should be ample case evidence from her to prove it, right? No.....oh wait.), while refusing to deny where she came from and being honest and acknowledging that no judge will ever be 100% free from doing so.

Total something out of nothing, or at the very least something out of next to nothing...but this whole thing has to do with Obama, so color me less than surprised.

The hilarious thing is that I hope they torpedo her, because she's not even that liberal, from everything I've gathered in researching her. He could have gone far more liberal, and if this nomination fails, outside of the obvious benefit of solidifying a Republican minority even more, it will give him an opportunity to go even more liberal. I wouldn't mind.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Gunna be an uphill climb for her. See, if you combine the racist comment with the legislating from the bench comment, then you've got (what I feel will be) quite a substantial problem. There's a good chance that you're gunna be against her for one of those two comments. Since they let Uncle Tom on there, I guess she has a chance to talk her way out of it in the hearings. OBA should have saved the bullets for healthcare. She's not worth what it's going to cost.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Gunna be an uphill climb for her. See, if you combine the racist comment with the legislating from the bench comment, then you've got (what I feel will be) quite a substantial problem. There's a good chance that you're gunna be against her for one of those two comments. Since they let Uncle Tom on there, I guess she has a chance to talk her way out of it in the hearings. OBA should have saved the bullets for healthcare. She's not worth what it's going to cost.

Anybody he would have nominated would have come under fire for one reason or another. There is nobody he could have picked that wouldn't have been attacked by Republicans all over.

She'll get her grilling, of course, and she'll wind up on the court just fine. I think it's funny so far that everyone has these two comments that they're so worried about, but up to this point, zero actual decisions from the bench that indicate that either of the comments is actually a problem.

So until someone is able to put together a substantive argument against her based on her extensive judicial history, it's all a bunch of throwing **** at the wall hoping something sticks, which is basically all that's been happening since January...and none of it has worked....and it's not going to start working now.

LOLZ to all of it.

EDIT: Really though, barring some REAL bombshell that actually matters, the only way she doesn't get confirmed is if in the course of the hearings, she shows her hand...and it's an anti-choice one from a Roe v. Wade perspective, and that's an issue that isn't totally clear from her past either. That's the only way the current makeup won't confirm her.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Anybody he would have nominated would have come under fire for one reason or another. There is nobody he could have picked that wouldn't have been attacked by Republicans all over.

Well, most on here would say I am a Liberal, or a Socialist. I supported OBA all the way, and the racist comment is enough for me to say she is not an appropriate person to be making decisions of this kind.


BTW, is there any part of a pig that this woman doesn't like to eat?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well, most on here would say I am a Liberal, or a Socialist. I supported OBA all the way, and the racist comment is enough for me to say she is not an appropriate person to be making decisions of this kind.


BTW, is there any part of a pig that this woman doesn't like to eat?

But do you have anything outside of a comment, taken out of its proper context, that makes you think she's a racist, or are you just taking the wingnut bait?

Give me a decision. A comment in a decision. Anything from a decision anywhere -- and she has PLENTY of them -- that even comes close to making it seem like this comment actually plays out in her judicial philosophy in the activist way the wingnuts want you to think it will.

Methinks you will find nothing...which is why the scare quote is all anyone's got, because you better believe that if there was even anything CLOSE in one of her decisions, they'd be using that instead of this pathetic attempt at playing the racist/fear of the brown lady card. Since they don't have anything, they go back to their usual -- pulling things totally out of context to scare people...and you're falling for it.

Speaking of meat -- give me something meaty if you're going to go along with those opposing her. Out of context scare quote doesn't cut it...look how well that worked out in the last election.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

But do you have anything outside of a comment, taken out of its proper context, that makes you think she's a racist, or are you just taking the wingnut bait?

Give me a decision. A comment in a decision. Anything from a decision anywhere -- and she has PLENTY of them -- that even comes close to making it seem like this comment actually plays out in her judicial philosophy in the activist way the wingnuts want you to think it will.

Methinks you will find nothing...which is why the scare quote is all anyone's got, because you better believe that if there was even anything CLOSE in one of her decisions, they'd be using that instead of this pathetic attempt at playing the racist/fear of the brown lady card. Since they don't have anything, they go back to their usual -- pulling things totally out of context to scare people...and you're falling for it.

Speaking of meat -- give me something meaty if you're going to go along with those opposing her. Out of context scare quote doesn't cut it...look how well that worked out in the last election.

Brian, How is the quote taken out of context? Does the quote have different meaning if you read her whole speech? I don't think so. If a white, Republican male made the same comments, would you be saying that it's a non-issue and simply scare tactics?

I think you are totally wrong in your assessment of this whole thing. As I said earlier, there are plenty of people that are fairly liberal such as Scuds who are troubled by the comments. I think it's insulting for you to say that anyone who disagrees with you on the issue must simply be falling for scare tactics. I think it's totally the opposite. Her comments are not taken out of context. I think people totally understand her comments and are offended by them. Did you consider the possibility that you may be biased on the subject and that you would find the comments offensive if she was a white, republican male?

I do think you are correct that her judicial record is more impotant than some quotes she has made. But I think her quotes are certainly something that people will and should consider just as they would if she was a white, republican male.

Mr. Obama and his aides responded by denouncing her critics while saying she had used a poor choice of words. “I’m sure she would have restated it,” Mr. Obama said on Friday. “But if you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through — that will make her a good judge.”

The White House and its liberal supporters also dug up quotes from Republican-appointed justices, including Samuel A. Alito Jr., who said at his confirmation hearing that his immigrant roots played into his consideration of cases.

“When a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases,” he said at the hearing, “I can’t help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.”



Its silly to think a person's past experiences wont
in someway affect judgement. The Supreme Court
takes on the very toughest cases. If the cases were
easy, they would all be 9-0.

This pontification about the Supreme Court having
to view the Constitution in a perfectly sterile way is
absurd, yet this is basically what we are fed.

If everything is so darn clear why do we have all these
5-4 decisions with dissents and opinions dressed up
by very good writers in order to appear to lack any political
or personal bias...

If you follow the Supreme Court you can usually pick which
judge voted where as long as the legal question is made clear.
Occasionally there are some surprises.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Brian, How is the quote taken out of context? Does the quote have different meaning if you read her whole speech? I don't think so. If a white, Republican male made the same comments, would you be saying that it's a non-issue and simply scare tactics?

I think you are totally wrong in your assessment of this whole thing. As I said earlier, there are plenty of people that are fairly liberal such as Scuds who are troubled by the comments. I think it's insulting for you to say that anyone who disagrees with you on the issue must simply be falling for scare tactics. I think it's totally the opposite. Her comments are not taken out of context. I think people totally understand her comments and are offended by them. Did you consider the possibility that you may be biased on the subject and that you would find the comments offensive if she was a white, republican male?

I do think you are correct that her judicial record is more impotant than some quotes she has made. But I think her quotes are certainly something that people will and should consider just as they would if she was a white, republican male.

Of course I would find those comments offensive if a white, Republican male made them. Actually, perhaps offensive isn't the right word, but delusional would be better.

Only white, male, Republicans think that white, male, Republicans have some unique set of life experiences. Minorities of all kinds, folks without the sorts of built in privilege, DO have a unique view on things. I fully believe that, and it has nothing to do with quotas, affirmative action, or anything. White, male, heterosexual, Republicans would easily be the most privileged class of folks in the entire country, so of COURSE it would be different, because it would make absolutely no sense and it would rightly be seen as nothing but a racialist comment.

I firmly believe, and people can disagree all they want, that being a minority and having qualities about you that have no privilege does make one privy to a unique set of circumstances....and white, male, heterosexual, Republicans are about as privileged as you can get.

If the concept of privilege is lost on you, then I could type 80,000 words on it and you'll never get it.

EDIT: Let me add that I don't think that this unique set of experiences I'm talking about should influence her judicial philosophy, and she was being honest in that speech while acknowledging that it exists, how her striving to remain impartial is key. She knows that this potential bias is there, but she admits it's there and talks about how she avoids letting it influence her. The fact that she's a Latina isn't why I think she should be a judge, and she essentially admits as much in her speech. I take this whole dustup as nothing more than people interpreting something she said in a way she didn't mean it whatsoever, because to me, all she's done is acknowledge that minorities realize that their experience is unique in white America.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

But do you have anything outside of a comment, taken out of its proper context, that makes you think she's a racist, or are you just taking the wingnut bait?

Give me a decision. A comment in a decision. Anything from a decision anywhere -- and she has PLENTY of them -- that even comes close to making it seem like this comment actually plays out in her judicial philosophy in the activist way the wingnuts want you to think it will.

Methinks you will find nothing...which is why the scare quote is all anyone's got, because you better believe that if there was even anything CLOSE in one of her decisions, they'd be using that instead of this pathetic attempt at playing the racist/fear of the brown lady card. Since they don't have anything, they go back to their usual -- pulling things totally out of context to scare people...and you're falling for it.

Speaking of meat -- give me something meaty if you're going to go along with those opposing her. Out of context scare quote doesn't cut it...look how well that worked out in the last election.

I can think of a case that makes it seem like her comments play out in her judicial philosophy. How about the case involving the firefighters?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354041637563491.html

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

But do you have anything outside of a comment, taken out of its proper context, that makes you think she's a racist, or are you just taking the wingnut bait?

She didn't say a Conservative White Male, or a Republican White Male. She didn't say a rich white male, or a white male from a well to do family. She singled out a group based solely on sex and race. You(on the other hand) have used Republican White Males as a group that is privileged. At least you've used something besides sex n' race. You've at least used someone's political outlook. She simply used sex n' race. I think it's too big of a brush for someone to be using if they are going to be considered for a spot on the Supreme Court. I considerate quite odd to want to ignore a comment she made that singled out a group of judges based solely on their sex n' race. I don't know why anybody would want her after reading she said that. Minorities have got to someday get beyond the blame whitey man attitude that she represented quite well in that statement(I consider it to be nothing less than her showing you her subtle racist/sexist view of the world.) I think he should find someone better than that. Plenty of people have lost jobs for these types of public statements. Trying to prop her up shows you're not out for equality or fairness (as you correctly do in the gay marriage issue) in judges, because your willing to overlook the same type of sexist-racist remarks that I'm sure you would find inappropriate for many others to express. It's a double standard. I do not see the immigrant statement made by Judge Sam to be like this. Having some bias towards immigrants is not the same as having a bias against someone of a specific sex and/or race. If you objectively look at this, she shows signs of having bias against white males, and that really should make her unacceptable. I'm sure he can find a Liberal Judge that is much less biased against a specific sex and/or race. No matter the huge effort you put into to denying it, that is a sexist/ racist statement she made. I don't have to overlook it just because she's a Liberal Judge that I would probably agree with on most issues. I see no reason to. Why should I?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Trying to prop her up shows you're not out for equality or fairness (as you correctly do in the gay marriage issue) in judges, because your willing to overlook the same type of sexist-racist remarks that I'm sure you would find inappropriate for many others to express.....

...

If you objectively look at this, she shows signs of having bias against white males, and that really should make her unacceptable.

I am objectively looking at it, and I don't see it as any kind of bias whatsoever. I believe that people's unique set of perspectives should be acknowledged....and judge Sotomayor apparently seems to as well.

I'm far more concerned with her case history, and her upholding the NH firefighter case is hardly some smoking gun of a "blame whitey" mentality that you want to make this out to be. There's nothing objectionable in her case history, and that's the point I keep trying to make.

If this quote ACTUALLY means what you keep saying it means....how come she's done a 100% great job of hiding it through countless decisions...throughout her entire life, for that matter?

She must be really stupid then, to be hiding it all this time and then in a moment of weakness in a prepared speech, just freely admit it. Please. The point here is that it you can say all day long that she's some secret whitey-hating racist sexist manhater, but the fact remains that it's clear she's not and her case history proves that a billion times over. And that's what a judge is supposed to be, right....a judge? So until there's a real problem with her history of being a judge, this is all way blown out of proportion.

And like HIG said earlier...this is all politics. Since there's nothing in her case history to complain about, this is the outrage du jour. It'll be forgotten in short order and she'll be a fine justice on the Supreme Court. Good will win out over selective outrage every day of the week....sometimes it just takes awhile for people to calm down and regain their bearings. I'm confident that this will all turn out the way it should, and that's why it's all so entertaining to me for the time being.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Gunna be an uphill climb for her. See, if you combine the racist comment with the legislating from the bench comment, then you've got (what I feel will be) quite a substantial problem. There's a good chance that you're gunna be against her for one of those two comments. Since they let Uncle Tom on there, I guess she has a chance to talk her way out of it in the hearings. OBA should have saved the bullets for healthcare. She's not worth what it's going to cost.

unless they dig up a corpse under her porch, it's going to be an easy downhill coast to confirmation.

most elected republicans are relieved someone more ideological wasn't nominated. many liberals may wish they had gotten the ideological choice but aren't going to oppose her.

supreme court nominations are fund raising opportunities for advocacy groups of all ideological stripes. the nominee doesn't matter in terms of whether there's going to be some "controversy" manufactured.

looking at a judicial record that shows no evidence of bias in favor of minorities and generally narrow rulings that apply only to a specific case, only the seriously uninformed could think this is a troubled nomination.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

unless they dig up a corpse under her porch, it's going to be an easy downhill coast to confirmation.

most elected republicans are relieved someone more ideological wasn't nominated. many liberals may wish they had gotten the ideological choice but aren't going to oppose her.

supreme court nominations are fund raising opportunities for advocacy groups of all ideological stripes. the nominee doesn't matter in terms of whether there's going to be some "controversy" manufactured.

looking at a judicial record that shows no evidence of bias in favor of minorities and generally narrow rulings that apply only to a specific case, only the seriously uninformed could think this is a troubled nomination.

I would agree with you that she is a very heavy favorite to be confirmed.