Sotomayor is a racist

[lawrocket 3]

Under established precedent, any law which favors or disfavors a class of persons based on race must face "strict scrutiny.". This is fundamentally the death knell for any race-based law.

In theory.

See, if there is a law that establishes that no more than 10% of blacks shall occupy management positions. This would be a race based law and under the strict scrutiny standard the makers of the law would have to show a compelling reason for the law and no less restrictive way to accomplish the reason. It would be overruled.

Now, let's say a law statws that no fewer than 10% of management shall be black. Under the established standards, this law is racially based on its face and would be considered under the same standards as one that disfavors blacks.

That's the way it is supposed to work. Treat them the same.

But it often doesn't work that way.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Her job is to judge the laws, not people

Rarely. Her job is to apply laws to people, facts, etc.

When the SCOTUS issues an opinion, don't they simply interpret the law? Don't they either uphold the judgements of lower courts or kick the case back to the lower courts for those courts to judge the people based on the law as interpreted by the SCOTUS?

I think I have to agree with Quade. A Justice of the SCOTUS is there to interpret laws, not judge people.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Sotomayor is a racist

And GWB is a fucking idiot - but he still got to be president.

Sotomayor ruled 'right' on many issues in the past, and she ruled 'left' on many issues in the past. I think her portfolio is pretty balanced by the look of it. (I did my homework - did you do yours? Or did you just get it from Fox News?)

[likearock 2]

Quote

Under established precedent, any law which favors or disfavors a class of persons based on race must face "strict scrutiny.". This is fundamentally the death knell for any race-based law.

Any precedent you can name, including this one, only became a precedent after a landmark ruling which set the precedent. Before the Brown case, I doubt there was that much "strict scrutiny" being applied to Southern laws enforcing segregation.

So was Brown an activist ruling? Was it therefore a bad ruling? And if you don't consider it activism, you'll have to explain to me what you mean by that term.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> is this all you've got, bill?

Is all you have is "she's racist?"

She is 1 of 3 appellate judges (out of 170) who have written opinions suggesting that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States

She has admitted that culture and experience will trump the constitution when she rules in some cases.

She has stated Latino women will more than likely make better judicial decisions than white males.

I have a feeling there is more to come I suspect……

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Hey, you're handy with Lexus/Nexus (I assume). What exactly has been her history on the bench.

Notably, she was in the majority on the appellate court in this case, which ruled that if an unbiased examination failed to give the right racial mix, it was ok to simply cancel all promotions to avoid promoting the people who actually passed the exam, but happened to have the wrong skin color.


For what it's worth, I think that the folks throwing out accusations of racism here are just as silly as the ones crying racism about various and sundry issues (gun control, states rights, etc).

I certainly don't agree with her on affirmative action. I don't think that makes her a racist--just someone who I disagree with.

This case is currently before the SC and is expected to be ruled on in June of this year

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I wouldn't consider her racist. I would consider her activist. I would also consider her brilliant. Brilliant enough to justify within herself that it's okay to make decisions based upon notions of socioeconomic class.

I do not believe that she is wrong when she says that courts announce policy. Activist courts do all the time. The judiciary should reiterate policy and not make it.

I find it interesting that people often define "activism" according to their own ideological bent. Case in point, Sotomayor's decision to back the city of New Haven against the white firefighters who are asserting reverse discrimination. Is that an activist decision on her part? I don't think so. She was affirming established legislative statute and policy by ruling the way she did. I would argue that siding with the firefighters would have been more of an "activist" position on her part.

BTW, I happen to think she made a bad decision there and should have sided with the firefighters. Judicial activism has its place and this case was one of them.

So you do not agree with the seperations of powers?
You want life time apointed judges making policy and law. Wow
Talk about trashing the constitution

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

The White House hit back at Newt Gingrich on Wednesday for a twitter post made by the former House Speaker accusing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of being a racist.

Early on Wednesday, Gingrich put up a post on twitter rapping Sotomayor for saying that her background as a Hispanic female allowed her to understand cases in a different, better, manner than her white male contemporaries.

"Imagine a judicial nominee said "my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman" new racism is no better than old racism."

Asked at the daily briefing to respond to the tweet, spokesman Robert Gibbs offered a bit of thinly-veiled frustration with Gingrich and warned against the escalation of racially heated rhetoric.

"I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe aspects of this impending nomination," said Gibbs. "I think when the people of America and the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker that they will come to the same conclusion as the president did. ... I feel certain that partisan politics will take a back seat to common sense and open-minded decisions based on a full examination of the record, and I think that that's what every Supreme Court and judicial nominee deserves."

Playing up the racial aspect of Sotomayor's candidacy is a dangerous proposition for the conservative community, with the risk of offending wide swaths of Hispanics omnipresent. To this point, the charges of reverse-racism have been primarily trumpeted by non-elected officials. But as Greg Sargent pointed out first, the director of new media for the Republican National Committee, Todd Herman, re-tweeted Gingrich's post, bringing the line of attack ever closer to the rank-and-file GOP.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/140286/white_house_smacks_gingrich_for_calling_sotomayor_a_racist/#more

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[rushmc 23]

Yep, only conservatives need be careful. They are the only ones who make people mad

The Libs have never pulled any shit like this on any SC nominees


WTJ


Careful my ass Her record speaks for itself. Let the chips fall where they may

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

There are a few characteristics of activism. One is by failure to adhere to stare decisis. So, if a court overturns an established precedent (i.e. Roe v Wade) it would be activist.

Another way to be activist is to conjure up stuff that just isn't there in the Constitution. The Warren Court did this often. Thus, when Robert Bork was villified for his statement that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution, the fact that it isn't in there is not as important as "it should be, and justices should say the right is there."

Which is hand in hand with intruding on legislative power.

See, from a political standpoint, I love what the Warren Court did for personal freedoms. I really like the policies they announced.

How they did it, though, I have serious problems with it. Because the same disrespect for precedent and disregard for the text of the Constitution leads not only to decisions I applaud but also to decisions I abhor.

It's why I like textualism. Because there is a high degree of certainty with it. We may not like it, but it is what it is.

The Cali Supreme Court issued an opinion that is a remarkable example of judicial restraint and explaining exactly why it could not overturn Prop 8. The court found that they were being asked to rule that the Cali Constitution is too easy to amend, and while they may agree that it is they cannot make that ruling.

Note: the interesting thing about activism is a respect for precedent. For a court to overturn an activist decision woul, by definition, make that court activist.

I am getting a sense that this Roberts court may be moving in that direction.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

She has admitted that culture and experience will trump the constitution when she rules in some cases.

Really? Where?

Quote

She has stated Latino women will more than likely make better judicial decisions than white males.

She said she hoped they would. She was talking specifically about decisions in cases relating to gender or race discrimination. She said she hoped they would make better decisions in those cases due to them probably having more relevant experience of those things than a white male judge. She never said a white male judge would be unable or unlikely to make a good decision in those cases.

It's an uncomfortable statement, and one I don't neccesarily agree with, but it's a bit of a storm in a teacup, isn't it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

... it's a bit of a storm in a teacup, isn't it?

But the storm is the point. It doesn't matter who the nominee is, there will be a lot of political posturing aimed at motivating the base and rebuilding the Republican party. They've actually stated that point specifically.
Some quotes gathered by Media Matters:

“Remember,” adds Princeton law professor Robert George, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, “that the base does not expect to win this. That’s the little secret. [Republicans] don’t have the filibuster, the Democrats have the votes. For [the conservative base], this is about the future of the Republican Party, not who is going to sit on the Supreme Court. . . . . That is why conservatives are going to be interested in it, and what they are going to hold people accountable for.”

“We are very excited about waging an ideological debate,” says Richard Viguerie, the well-heeled conservative fundraiser and direct-mail guru. “We never lose battles. Even if we lose the vote we win, we build the movement.”

“Whether they fall into category of something I think is not such a bad nominee, or a bad nominee, we and other Republicans are going to question the nominee very vigorously,” Grassley said.

"It's an immense opportunity to build the conservative movement and identify the troops out there," said Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative fund-raiser. "It's a massive teaching moment for America. We've got the packages written. We're waiting right now to put a name in."

"a great opportunity to really prepare the great debate with a view toward Senate elections in 2010 and the presidency."

"This is an issue that if Americans focus on it, it will bring out their conservative side," he said. "And that could help the political fortunes of conservatives in the future."


Read the article here if you like.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Yep, only conservatives need be careful. They are the only ones who make people mad

The Libs have never pulled any shit like this on any SC nominees

Miguel Estrada. If the democrats hadn't filibustered his DC appellate nomination, I bet he'd be sitting on the supreme court today.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

How they did it, though, I have serious problems with it. Because the same disrespect for precedent and disregard for the text of the Constitution leads not only to decisions I applaud but also to decisions I abhor.

I concur.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Thus, when Robert Bork was villified for his statement that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution, the fact that it isn't in there is not as important as "it should be, and justices should say the right is there."

If the right to be left alone is not part of the 9th Amendment then nothing is, and in that case I cannot fathom why the drafters put that amendment in there.

I still boggle over the stretching to include privacy (and many other things) in the first amendment, when it would be so easy to find it a home in the 9th.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Activism has no place on the bench. Their job is to judge on the law not what they think is right. You may hate guns so if you were a SC justice would you rule against the 2nd whenever you had the chance?

And it's interesting that you bring that up in this Sotomayor thread. Because she wrote an opinion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the States - in other words, unless you live on federal property, you have no right to keep and bear arms.

Yep, she's anti-gun. What a surprise.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did it not occur to you that when I asked to see it, that I had in fact already seen it and knew it was taken out of context?

Hell, even the ONE sentence is truncated. Why? Because to not do so would scream even louder that that it was a statement cherry picked out of context of a larger discussion about race, sex and the judicial system.

Here's the FULL sentence, "Second, 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."

Hmmm, does it sound to you like MAYBE there's something that goes in front of this? Yeah it kinda does!

here's the entire paragraph:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, 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 not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. 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 experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

put in context, its still a racist statement.

Gotta disagree with ya there, cowboy. I think anyone who see racism there is missing the point.

IF this is not a racist position, it sure as hell is a biggoted one.

I agree and will also throw in there that the statement is also sexist. She is promoting herself over white males.

wise experienced latina > white male = biggoted and sexist

wise experienced person > unwise unexperienced person = not biggoted nor sexist.

race nor sex has anything to do with her conclusion.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

race nor sex has anything to do with her conclusion.

Well, it kinda does when you take into account that the entire speech is geared around cases to do with race and gender discrimination. In that case the first hand experience of race and gender discrimination that a Latina woman will almost certainly have more of than a white man could be to some degree relevant to how they understand the case.

She wasn't saying or suggesting that ethnic women are better judges than white men.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Rstanley0312 1]

I don't know about racist but I do not like this.....

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[nerd137 0]

Quote

IF this is not a racist position, it sure as hell is a biggoted one.

Really? You're absolutely certain the intent of her comment to convey the relative inferiority of white men compared to Latina women?

I think her point whizzed right over your head.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Or did you just get it from Fox News?

Did you just get yours from MSNBC?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe aspects of this impending nomination," said Gibbs.

How DARE they question The One????

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

race nor sex has anything to do with her conclusion.

Well, it kinda does when you take into account that the entire speech is geared around cases to do with race and gender discrimination. In that case the first hand experience of race and gender discrimination that a Latina woman will almost certainly have more of than a white man could be to some degree relevant to how they understand the case.

She wasn't saying or suggesting that ethnic women are better judges than white men.

In that sense then wouldn't I be a better judge than the majority here of whether or not her statement is biggoted since I happen to not be white?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[tkhayes 348]

I actually said "I did my homework". sorry I did not elaborate, but yes, I read many articles and saw several points of view, INCLUDING Fox news.

et tu?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

She wasn't saying or suggesting that ethnic women are better judges than white men.

Yes, she was.

She was saying that they were better judges in some cases. Assuming she doesn't think they are worse judges in an equal number of cases, then the natural result is that, overall, they are better judges.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com