Sonia Sotomayor for USSC?

[Faeelin]

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.

Interesting. So you don't think think judges bring their personal baggage with them into the Court Room?

[Caliga]

I think judges should strive to leave that personal baggage behind, but concede that it's probably almost impossible to do so.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think it was a wise thing to say, but I also don't think the basic truth can be questioned - a person's background and personal experience affects the way they think about problems and reach decisions.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think it was a wise thing to say, but I also don't think the basic truth can be questioned - a person's background and personal experience affects the way they think about problems and reach decisions.

What she is saying is not so different from an old saying that we wouldnt want a criminal court judge who hadnt been thrown out of a pub at least once in his youth.

[Valmy]

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

Well I can only speak to what I believe it to be.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

The irony being that the big criticism of O'Connor was that she decided cases more on gut feeling than on rigorous legal analysis.

[grumbler]

Interesting. So you don't think think judges bring their personal baggage with them into the Court Room?

Interesting.  So you think judges should decide cases based on their ethnic/gender preferences rather than the law?

[grumbler]

I don't think it was a wise thing to say, but I also don't think the basic truth can be questioned - a person's background and personal experience affects the way they think about problems and reach decisions.

True, but there is a difference between lamenting the extent to which different judges would reach different decisions in the same based on their background and experience, and celebrating that fact. 

Once we accept the idea that judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preferences, we have created a situation where "justice" depends explicitly on whether one has the clout or luck to get the "right judge" for one's case. 

We would universally abhor this language coming from a white male.

[Barrister]

I don't think it was a wise thing to say, but I also don't think the basic truth can be questioned - a person's background and personal experience affects the way they think about problems and reach decisions.

True, but there is a difference between lamenting the extent to which different judges would reach different decisions in the same based on their background and experience, and celebrating that fact. 

Once we accept the idea that judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preferences, we have created a situation where "justice" depends explicitly on whether one has the clout or luck to get the "right judge" for one's case. 

We would universally abhor this language coming from a white male.

I think you are reading more into the few comments of hers I have seen than is there.

I doubt very much that if asked she would agree that "judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preference".

[PDH]

I think you are reading more into the few comments of hers I have seen than is there.

I doubt very much that if asked she would agree that "judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preference".

Go back to Russia, Commie.

[grumbler]

Well I can only speak to what I believe it to be.

Again, so long as you do not mistakenly believe that anyone understands what you mean by the words you post, you can assign any meaning to any word or phrase you "believe" them to have.

However, one should generally not try to correct someone using the near-universally-accepted meaning of Affirmative Action in order to assert the superiority of a meaning based on your private beliefs.

[grumbler]

I think you are reading more into the few comments of hers I have seen than is there.

I doubt very much that if asked she would agree that "judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preference".

I disagree with both of these assertions.  I think you are reading into her statement that which you wish to hear, and in fact that you ignore her last sentence in that (as "odd") when it isn't odd at all, given her position.

[Barrister]

I think you are reading more into the few comments of hers I have seen than is there.

I doubt very much that if asked she would agree that "judges should rule based on ethnic/gender preference".

I disagree with both of these assertions.  I think you are reading into her statement that which you wish to hear, and in fact that you ignore her last sentence in that (as "odd") when it isn't odd at all, given her position.

You are correct that I seem to more or less ignore that one sentence.  For her to say that people come with their own biases and experiences is fine - but when she says that the experience of a latino woman would be better than a white male, well, given the absurdity of the statement I don't think it unreasonable to assume she mis-stated whatever she was trying to say.

[Scipio]

You couldn't have posted something more detailed than that Cal? It doesn't say anything about her views, politics or judicial philosophy.

She was a protege of Daniel Moynihan, who got Bush (H.W.) to nominate her to her first federal judicial position to the district court in Manhattan.  I have never appeared in front of her.  Anecdotally, my impression is that she is solid but not one of the judicial stars of the Circuit.

Katzmann is a much better option, IMHO.

[DGuller]

but when she says that the experience of a latino woman would be better than a white male, well, given the absurdity of the statement I don't think it unreasonable to assume she mis-stated whatever she was trying to say.

Yeah, I think we should all stop being so lawyerish about everything she's saying.