Sonia Sotomayor for USSC?

[jimmy olsen]

What should they have called the article then?  Maps of what the United States would look like in the alternative history if Sotomayor is appointed?

Why the hell would I have anything against the title of the article?  I'm obviously responding to her views. Surely you don't won't me to quote the whole long list do you?

Also, how would that be alternate history? That's a future timeline.

[Berkut]

I loved how NPR was talking to soeone about potential nominees, and they stressed that Obama was committed to finding the "best person for the job" and then proceeded to list nobody but women, and predicted that it would be a black or hispanic woman who got the spot.

Affirmative action on the USSC! Awesomesauce!

Affirmative Action is having lower standards for certain minorities not picking from fully qualified people who happen to be minorities.

Bullshit. When you limit your selection list to only people of a certain demographic, you cannot claim you are looking for the best person for the job.

You can claim you are looking for the best female minority, but that is not the same thing at all.

And it is most certainly affirmative action. If we limited the list to only white people, we would call this "affirmative action" racism.

[Syt]

Is she related to Cuban high jumper Javier Sotomayor?

[Valmy]

Why the hell would I have anything against the title of the article?  I'm obviously responding to her views. Surely you don't won't me to quote the whole long list do you?

Any particular issue upsets you the most?

[The Minsky Moment]

  I wish he could have gotten somebody who seemed more moderate.

Of the 3 female candidates mentioned, she is probably the most moderate.  She is ex-prosecutor, has a tough law-and-order rep, was originally appointed by a republican president.  I would advise treating much of the CNN list with a grain of salt.  first, b/c it is singling out the few cases that got Supreme Court review out of thousands she participated in.  Second, b/c the legal issues presented in these cases were not exactly the issues as presented by CNN.

I do not think she is the single most qualified candidate to serve on the Court, by any stretch, but I do thing the accusation of radical liberalism is very far from the mark. 

[Valmy]

Bullshit. When you limit your selection list to only people of a certain demographic, you cannot claim you are looking for the best person for the job.

You can claim you are looking for the best female minority, but that is not the same thing at all.

And it is most certainly affirmative action. If we limited the list to only white people, we would call this "affirmative action" racism.

Ok it's racism and sexism and not affirmative action.  Clearly he is only looking for a woman who is a minority to balance out the court for political purposes.

[Valmy]

Of the 3 female candidates mentioned, she is probably the most moderate.  She is ex-prosecutor, has a tough law-and-order rep, was originally appointed by a republican president.  I would advise treating much of the CNN list with a grain of salt.  first, b/c it is singling out the few cases that got Supreme Court review out of thousands she participated in.  Second, b/c the legal issues presented in these cases were not exactly the issues as presented by CNN.

I do not think she is the single most qualified candidate to serve on the Court, by any stretch, but I do thing the accusation of radical liberalism is very far from the mark. 

Well what the heck do I know about legal opinions?  I get most of my legal knowledge form the various rants on this message board.

If you say she is moderate I guess she is the best we will get.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm obviously responding to her views.

that list mostly contains a list of cases.  How exactly are you discerning her views from a case list?  For example would you conclude that Justice Scalia was soft on terrorism because he ruled the executive detention of Yaser Hamdi was unconstitutional?

[PDH]

that list mostly contains a list of cases.  How exactly are you discerning her views from a case list?  For example would you conclude that Justice Scalia was soft on terrorism because he ruled the executive detention of Yaser Hamdi was unconstitutional?

Scalia has been moving to the left for a long time now...

[jimmy olsen]

I'm obviously responding to her views.

that list mostly contains a list of cases.  How exactly are you discerning her views from a case list?  For example would you conclude that Justice Scalia was soft on terrorism because he ruled the executive detention of Yaser Hamdi was unconstitutional?

This right here speaks to her personal views and makes me want to vomit.

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."

[grumbler]

Affirmative Action is having lower standards for certain minorities not picking from fully qualified people who happen to be minorities.

I understand that this is what you believe AA to be, but its advocates certainly wouldn't agree with you.

[Barrister]

I'm obviously responding to her views.

that list mostly contains a list of cases.  How exactly are you discerning her views from a case list?  For example would you conclude that Justice Scalia was soft on terrorism because he ruled the executive detention of Yaser Hamdi was unconstitutional?

This right here speaks to her personal views and makes me want to vomit.

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."

Other than the very last sentence (which is just - odd) what exactly is so hugely offensive in that paragraph?

[PDH]

Other than the very last sentence (which is just - odd) what exactly is so hugely offensive in that paragraph?

I think Tim's detailed analysis of her views showed that clearly, Mr Smartypants.

[grumbler]

Other than the very last sentence (which is just - odd) what exactly is so hugely offensive in that paragraph?

That statement says that impartial judicial decision-making may be a disservice to the country.

Judges who think like that need to be retired judges.

[jimmy olsen]

Other than the very last sentence (which is just - odd) what exactly is so hugely offensive in that paragraph?

I completely disagree with her and agree with Mrs O'Connor.  One should strive to overcome the differences of gender and national origin, not embrace them. One should attempt to be as objective and impartial as possible.