All over the internet, the popular discussion of the day, seems to be President Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor. If approved she would be the first Hispanic and the third woman appointed. The appointment which was supposed to galvanize Republicans in opposition has instead once again turned the party into a circular firing squad with contradicting messages.
First off, there’s GOP spokesman Michael Steele suggests restraint to avoid the appearance of anti-Latino sentiment. Then there’s Rush Limbaugh’s comments claiming ‘reverse racism’. I don’t know how Republicans could object to her, she’s been voted on twice by the Senate. She was originally nominated by George Herbert Walker Bush. It just seems that this going to be a ‘win’ for Obama and objections by Republicans will prove futile. Sometimes you have to pick your battles and barring any explosive new, previously undiscovered vetting material; it appears to be a solid nomination that will gain approval.
I’ve read Sotomayor’s ‘controversial’ comments which reminds me of statements by Sandra Day O’Connor’s concerning her disappointment at not being replaced by a woman. We don’t want activist judges. But remember judges issue ‘opinions’. They obviously have differing and dissenting viewpoints which must be based on something other than straight facts and the law. So it seems rather naive to expect that a person’s life experiences would somehow not influence their decision making process.
Since you mention O’Connor, I want to add her to the list of judges who I hold in total disrespect (along with “homophobe” Scalia, “coke can” Thomas, “harasser of black voters” Rehnquist, and “clerks wrote his opinions” Marshall).
When Gore was announced as the winner of the 200 election, O’Connor bemoaned at a party “Oh, this is terrible”. Then went on to cast the deciding vote in the disgraceful and nonsensical “Bush v. Gore” decision.
Disgusting. Morally bankrupt.
“I don’t know how Republicans could object to her”…? Really? Just one reason:
Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
This not only give Republicans a reason to object to her but some southern Democrats that may be up for reelection.
There is the argument that all judges are activist. It just depends on whose side you are on and how much money is involved.
In reading what some of you all had to say on the other thread, part of the problem seems to be that most males simply do not see themselves as belonging to a privileged class. If you were female for a week, you would understand it.
Let’s start with the fact that there have only been 2 female Supreme Court justices. There has never been a female president. There is still a glass ceiling in many companies. In the major Christian religion, women cannot be priests. In many protestant religions, women cannot be ordained ministers. In many Jewish synagogues women cannot be rabbis. We still say ‘male nurse’, ‘male flight attendant, and ‘female doctor.’
I think 50% of the population just sees these issues from a totally different perspective. I also want to wait until the dust settles to find out about this lady. Right now, the ‘opposition’ is on such an attack, I can’t even see my tv for the dust swirling.
So according to Sotomayor the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms is not a reason for anyone to object to her?
I think that this would be the number one reason, then of course her racist statement and her ruling on a reverse discrimination case which backs up her racist statement would be number 2 and 3. I could go on if you would like me to Alanna…
Moon-Howler, even if you believe in some degree of judicial activism, is it really possibly proper for a judge to suggest that her ethnic and gender background gives her not just a different perspective, but a superior one?
She is said to be a bully and I am definitely seeing a picture of someoner who is privileged by ethnicity and gender and has an inflated opinion of self, and a lack of respect for others.
I’m not part of any coordinated right-wing attack – but her statement really offends me and embodies what I dislike the most about the intellectually bankrupt elites who dominate our society.
“How about on sheer qualifications? Sotomayor sure has them. Raised by her mother after her father died, Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude and from Yale Law School. She has spent 17 years on the federal bench, longer than either John Roberts or Samuel Alito had served before they ascended to the Supreme Court.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/navarrette.sotomayor/index.html
She was appointed by the first Bush, how flaming liberal can she be?!
I am glad that Obama nominated Sotomayor. She will heop balance Bush’s distrous appointments. I sure am glad that McCain lost as he would have appointed activist conservatives like Scalia and Thomas.
It is traditional for members of the out-of-power party to raise a stink about nominees in order to rally their base. There is no chance that this nomination could be defeated, however, because there are too many Republican Senators who voted to confirm Judge Sotomayor during previous administrations. Remember: her first nomination came from George Bush I. It would look really bad for moderate Republicans in the Senate to essentially say, “I was once a moderate, but now my party has forced me to become radicalized to the point where I’ve had to change my mind.”
This is doubly bad because of the current reputation Republicans have of being the “Party of No” and the “Party of No Minorities.” I don’t think that these 10 or so Senators are going to consider it worth while to accept Rush Limabaugh silliness as fact and then pretend to be outraged about it. The political cost would be too great. The President gets to nominate Supreme Court Justices. It’s in the Constitution.
M-H, that is an excellent point about being part of a privileged class. This is just as likely to affect the way a judge sees the world as not being part of a privileged class. I don’t think we can freak out about either one. We certainly shouldn’t freak out about trying to shape the highest court in the land so that it represents the diversity of America. This would be the only way to do it if we truly believe in equality and representative government. I think in this increasingly diverse society, it is a valid point to make that we should not have only white men serve on the Supreme Court, and it’s not really a good argument to say there is a problem with it being diverse.
Mind you: we are discussing race and gender because there are no grounds for objecting to Judge Sotomayor based on her experience and her qualifications. I think this fact in itself is a sad indicator of where we are as a nation right now, or at least where extremist Republicans are.
@Moon-howler
All that conservatives such as myself really want is a Court that does not make stuff up. Activist judges make up rights that are not in the Constitution, e.g. the right to privacy. If the Supreme Court sticks to its job of strictly interpreting the Constitution, then diversity and background of the individual justices is irrelevant. When justices talk about bringing common sense, or empathy, or a level playing field, what they actually mean is that they intend to interpret what they think OUGHT to be in the Constitution, rather than what is really there. I acknowledge that Judge Sotomayor is very experienced and has great qualifications. But if she chooses to make up rights, then I will vigorously oppose her.
Great points kelly3406 which is why I oppose her. She honestly believes that the second amendment makes the right to bear arm illegal to individual citizens. I’m still amazed that people seem to overlook that about her.
Let’s hope Republicans keep to the usual play book about “activist” alarmism rather than try to create another race issue out of this.
Again, activist judges is a code word for those who oppose what we think is right.
Looking at things realistically, when the bulk of the Constitution was written, many of today’s issues weren’t even known about.
Also, a right to privacy is strongly implied. If everything were spelled out exactly, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.
I hear Martin Luther King is spinning in his grave, as yet another person is judged by the color of (her) skin and not the content of (her) character. I think he would be sickened at the screaming headlines of “First Latina Justice!”
In the meantime, ask the firefighters who worked in good faith for a promotion that they were subsequently denied because the exam was too hard for enough African-Americans to pass what they think of Sotomayor’s sense of justice. I hope the Supreme Court overturns her nonsense.
No doubt she will be confirmed. You’d have to be an outright tax cheat these days not to…..oh, wait a minute.
@Moon-howler
You can make the argument all you want that “activist judges” is a code word, but that does not make you right. Rather than simply interpreting the law, an activist judge is one that enacts policy, such as busing to counteract segregation, or directs the legislature to pass gay marriage, or allows cities to take property to increase its tax base, or finds the “right to privacy” where there is none mentioned. An activist judges is one that considers the Constitution to be a living document, which means that she injects personal values and finds implied rights that no else can find.
The right to privacy is not strongly implied at all. Even Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion for Roe vs. Wade, stated that “in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have indeed found at least the roots of that right (of privacy).” Do you read that as a strong implication of the right of privacy? I certainly do not.
Today’s issues may have been unknown to the its authors, but the principles of the Constitution still are very relevant. If the Constitution does not cover a particular area, then it should be amended. But relying on implied rights that only a select oligarchy can understand does not bode well for a nation governed by laws.
Amazing, once again I am in agreement with Alanna and Elena.
Contrary to what “most” of you may believe about her, I have listened to as much C-Span info as is avaialbe on her “qualifications” and her background.
I believe she will surprise everyone, and will do so because above all else she supports “rule of law”, something “most” of you don’t support.
As I have said many times before, “most” of you are dead wrong when you make this a “racial, gender, religious or ethnic group” issue. She will not let her race or her gender sway her critical analysis of the LAW, the constitution, and very STRICT and NARROW interpretation of it. She is known by her peers as a “moderate”, extremely well liked, very respected, and has been overturned by the supreme court only 5 times in over 400 appellate court rulings. You also need to rememder what an appeals court does, it does not determine guilt or innocense, but whether or not the lower court was correct in its proceedings and can over-rule based only on the existing evidence and not on greater “scope” issues, as some judges like to push the limits of interpreting law, to making policy.
I think she will make a fine addition to the bench, not because she makes the court have “diversity” or “inclusion” or “empathy” or “liberal” or “conservative” views, and especially not just because she is a woman and there are not enough women on the bench (racist talk) and not because she is Puerto-Rican (also even greater racist talk), but because she is smart, well qualified, loves the challenge of understanding the constitution, loves to understand and discover the “truth” above all else, in the EXISTING law.
Most of you (other than Alanna, and Elena here) are way off the rationale mark, if you thing she will be a liberal, or a radical religious conservative. She will have a tendency to understand the LAW as it is applied to EACH individual regardless of race, gender, religion or ethnicity.
She will likely look to liberals like a “conservative”, just like Scalia, looked to conservatives like a liberal. Then the joke will be on Obama fans, but not Obama, as he ia a very wise man, also searching for constitutional truth, though a bit radical, and “racially preferential” about it at times.
Are you serious, Michael?
How do you square your ringing endorsement with this Sotomayor quote:
“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.”
Or with this one:
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Michael, ahem, explain please why I am way off. I said I wanted to hear what she said rather than jumping to conclusions provided to me by talking heads and people with an agenda. I just don’t see what is way off about that. I am withholding judgement.
“Looking at things realistically, when the bulk of the Constitution was written, many of today’s issues weren’t even known about. ”
Yes, well I’ve come to agree with those on the right that we need LEGISLATORS to make laws, that is the difference between a “Democracy” and a “nation run by elitists”.
In my younger days I thought judicial activism was fine and dandy but it’s become obvious to me that it actually holds society back. It’s harder to acheive consensus on things when the courts are engaged in tyranny.
And it will be even harder to achieve consensus with a President who has stated in the past that the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
What I wouldn’t give to read his college/law school writings to understand how he REALLY feels about us white folk and our racist system of government. Why not release them so we can see him in all his brilliance?
People, give me a break…
“males simply do not see themselves as belonging to a privileged class. If you were female for a week, you would understand it.
Let’s start with the fact that there have only been 2 female Supreme Court justices. There has never been a female president. There is still a glass ceiling in many companies. In the major Christian religion, women cannot be priests. In many protestant religions, women cannot be ordained ministers. In many Jewish synagogues women cannot be rabbis. We still say ‘male nurse’, ‘male flight attendant, and ‘female doctor.’”
Rather than make Moon angry again for no reason, lets role reverse and see if you can spot the “racism” and gender “malogeny” or “hatred of males” in the above writings, by juxtaposing male and female perspectives on gender bias.
“females simply do not see themselves as belonging to a privileged class. If you were male for a week, you would understand it.
Let’s start with the fact that there have been 2 female Supreme Court justices appointed just because they were female. Lets add the fact that females get preference in school funding, preference in admissions, and government program funding only for female benefits. There has always been a desire to have a female President, just to help females, discrimminate against males, and their has never been a male President that females did not want replaced with a female. There has never been a political office or agency position that females did not want a majority in because then they could control the vote to take care of only female needs and desires. Females have favorite anti-male slogans, like “you go girl”, “Girls rule, boys drool”, a “woman who makes history NEVER behaves” as if bad conduct is a virtue, and “sistas stick together” meaning “lets beat those evil males” with “group advocacy” There is still a glass ceiling in many companies that females claim exists (but the LAW says it does not and has said so for 30 years) so they can increase their salaries to be ABOVE the “mythical” average male salary (believing without FACTS their are no POOR, homeless males or males of low income, or more males on “unemployment” or males that should NEVER choose to work and stay home to watch the KIDS instead, and if they do they are maliciously called “bums”. A woman who refuses to work is never called a bum she is “smart” and “domestic”). A woman who chooses to live off of someone else’s salary rather than her own abilities and education is “applauded” as “getting her man”. Women who do “choose” to work want this “average” salary (which includes the non-existant salaries of women who choose NOT to WORK in the “averages” of the mythical “average female salary), shoul get equal or higher wages whether or not they are qualified for the job. They insist they deserve this, but only because they are female and deserve more privileges than males, and advantage over males in the job market, based only on their sex. At they same time when they go out to eat with one of those males they insist he pay for everything, and if not he is a “cheapskate”, thus lowering his effective salary by 10-20K per year on entertain of “others”. Women want these “average salaries”,only because they want the “numbers” of females in those jobs to be higher than the “numbers” of males in those jobs and to get equal or higher pay whether their skills or education demand it or not. In the major Christian religion, males cannot be priests and follow centuries of written doctrine without women insisting basic religious doctrine be changed to benefit only women. Even though all modern churches allow women to be priests and to preach in the pulpit, in many protestant religions, men cannot be ordained ministers according to their religious beliefs, and women ordained according to the beliefs of the church they choose to associate with. Let’s take an anology with Basketball or Football or Field hockey where women insist they have the right to compete only with other women and not against men in their own special leagues, BUT at the same time must ALWAYS be allowed to join any male basketball, football, or soccer league they wish, while males cannot join a women’s field hockey league, basketball league, softball league, ice skating competition, swim team or aerobic gym class. In many Jewish synagogues men can be rabbis, but cannot claim exclusive rights to be rabbis based on religious doctrinal beliefs any more than they can join the church female social club or garden club, or female sorority or female political advocacy group that insists on only “women” being the senior executive officers. We still say only females make the best nurses, female flight attendents deserve the right to wear special uniforms based on their sex, and male doctors are stupid when it comes to women’s physiology, women’s hip and joint replacements, women’s “race for the cure to cure breast cancer only”, female cancer doctors, female cardiologists, and hold firmly they are the only ones who can provide baby food (forget formulas), and that young males are never allowed to be baby sitters of young children, are never allowed to have the right to raise children, and are the only ones who should be required by mandatory law to make money in a family and the only ones who should pay for a very expensive $10K wedding “gift”, keep the children in divorce, deny visitation rights because they don’t like the father, and want the children kept away from the father because he can be easily and falsly accused of all kinds of false abuse without a right to a hearing or a right to access to the children.
I could go on about the bias why women think they are better than men, deserve more in social obligations than men, and deserve to have “right” and “wrong” defined only from a woman’s definition of “right and wrong”, good and bad, jerk and non-jerk, usually defined by character assssination and a demand to have the social norm and social order only in the woman’s favor regarding long-held social custom and male-leveraged financial favors because they are “the weaker sex”.
Emma, on THAT statement I believe she put a hidden racist foot forward, but it has not boirn out in her previous rulings, only her public social comment of one or two cases.
Moon, you and “most” everyone but Alanna and Elena, are way off from the perspective you yourself argue that she is a woman and a “latino” deserves to be there because of that, not what you say about her skills “which you did not address…
Michael, I never mentioned that she was Latino. I never argued she should be nominated because she was a woman either. Don’t check those reading skills at the door.
I responded to the males that they didn’t see themselves as members of a privileged class. I actually don’t feel that you can address the issue. You aren’t female. You can’t address it any more than I can address being male or black or latino from a first hand experience.
You only see through your own eyes. You don’t appear to have ever looked at what men have had that women have not had. Let me give you a very basic example. Technically, because of the 15th amendment, black men and white men could vote from 1865 on. No woman regardless of her race was guaranteed the right to vote until 1920. Do you think that is insignficant?
Now does that mean women weren’t citizens? Why did it take the 18th amendment to ensure that women had the right to vote?
Frankly I would be happier if there had been a little more judicial activism back then. One would think an idiot could infer that women were also citizens.
Michael, you are frustrating because I end up arguing with you about something I did not say. Why would I argue in favor of someone I admitted to k nowing nothing about? Why would I argue for a Latino woman? Give me one, just one quote where I said she should be nominated because she is a Latino woman. Since I don’t feel that way, I doubt you will find it.
Don’t try reversing the words. It doesn’t apply. This is not a bi conditional situation.
Michael, I finally got through your diatribe. You display every sign of being a misogynist. You actually think all women feel the thoughts you have written? Nothing could be further from the truth. You have shown your true colors. Next time you want us to have a snapshot of Michael’s dislike of women, use paragraphs. I can’t sift through something like that twice in one lifetime.
Moon, so by not being able to address a racial, gender, religious, ethnic specific “racial” point of view, because I am white, and a male then you also imply that only black people can represent themselves and deserve to have black laws made just for them, and only latinos deserve to have latino laws made just for them, and only women deserve to have female laws made just for them, BUT…
White people do not deserve to have special laws made just for them (because that would be discrimminatory), and males do not deserve to have special laws made just for them (because that would be mysogeny), or if they claim that only “white males” can represent them and thier own special “personal white male” interests, then THAT would be “racisim” or “White supremicism”.
I can’t believe what people think these days about racial and gender representation… it undermines every fairness doctrine principle of the “individual right” we ever had…
I guess “diversity and inclusion” really is only about making sure one each of every race, gender, religion and ethnicity is represented to make special laws that apply only to their special group needs even if its only 6% of the population, and let’s just ignore the fact that there are 250 million white Americans, and 125 million males who don’t deserve equal representation under the law as “individuals” because their “vote” does not count equally (kind of like 1/3 if you are a slave) and they are incapable of and too stupid to understand anything but white male needs.
Do you know how ridiculous and racial such a notion sounds?
Boy that really shoots down that hallowed principle over the supreme court building that Obama is so proud of to mention as a symbol of why he chose Sonya…
“equal justice for all under the law”.
Moon I also don’t give a damn about history and the wrongs of the past. I care about the rights every individual has to be “equal” under the law today.. and what you advocate is not “equal”.
Get out of the past and think about the reality of the law of the present and the fact that social customs are still gender, racial, and ethnically biased and discrimminatory if they are not based ONLY on the fairness to the individual. ALL 360 million of us.
And reversing words and roles does apply Moon. If they don’t sound “exactly equal” when you read both versions for EVERY individual, THEN BOTH versions are absolutely wrong and constitutionally immoral.
Moon, my reversal was a “spoof” used to get people to think of both sides and why “neither” view is right. If you can’t understand that then believe what you want, it will still be wrong to have it one way for some and not the same way for all. That is my politcal point about male AND female beliefs.
Michael, you are being preposterous. I never said any of those things. I attempted to explain to the men here why a woman might have phrased something a certain way. I don’t live in the past. However, you don’t get to decide what females think about. During MY lifetime the playing field has not been level. I don’t expect anyone to do anything about it. Don’t dismiss it and don’t even start on gender….blah blah blah. No one wants to hear it. As for discrimination, and I am not saying you aren’t being discriminated against, how come I seemed to get through it with a whole lot less whining?
While I am on a roll, yes you do piss me off because you misinterpret what I say and say I make statements I do not make.
Michael, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You are a misogynist and I just prefer not to converse with you. Good luck finding someone who will.
Note to Republicans – your man lost last fall.
Obama will appoint whoever he wants to nominate and there’s nothing you can do to change anything.
Deal with it.
Is “you go girl” any more anti-male than “atta boy” is anti-female? I think they are both just phrases of encouragement. But perhaps in light of political correctness, we should just say “you go non gender specific person” and “atta human”!
\
My jury is still out on her.
Moonhowler,
Michael is obsessed with this phrase “ethnic gender religious racial bias”. He clearly cuts and pastes it in EVERY comment. It is boring and old.
Michael forgets that this country was based on equality, that is the reality and historical frame of reference from which your world view and my world view is based upon.
For those that cry “judicial activisim” like it actually has any meaning except a catch phrase, human beings MUST bring to bear their ability to think and forumulate. At one point in our history, slave were LEGALLY property. If the logic of “follow the law” was taken to heart and the ability to think through real life consequences of laws were forbidden, africans would still be property and not seen as equal human beings!
@michael
Of course customs are based on gender, culture, religion, etc. That’s why they are customs!
Should I throw out my Christmas tree? Should women stop talking about their periods? These are all parts of culture. We are all different, and the sooner we reconcile with that, the sooner we will be able to work with one another.
Politics and culture won’t ever entirely be color blind, but the law should be. And it’s not, no matter where we are on the political spectrum. This is a weak link in our judicial system.
For example…do you think for one minute we would win a case against the BOCS for supporting a racist group when that support essentially violates laws against discrimination? HA! Of course not. We’d have an easier time arguing Sotomayor isn’t really a woman.
@Elena
Elena, I haven’t the slightest idea what “judicial activism” is.
“At one point in our history, slave were LEGALLY property. If the logic of “follow the law” was taken to heart and the ability to think through real life consequences of laws were forbidden, africans would still be property and not seen as equal human beings!”
What do you think would have happened back then if the Supreme Court had outlawed slavery? How do you think that would have played out?
Starrynights, I think you are definitely on to something.
Excellent point about Slavery, Elena. I couldn’t fit it in my explosion last night.
Also someone on here talked about the Constitution not being a living document….huh? I was always taught it most certainly was a living document and one that could withstand the test of time. Could have fooled me.
Well, what happened when it was outlawed by executive order, Rick?
The 13th amendment settled the issue once and for all. However a bunch of supreme court decisions danced all over the place on the issue for years. In fact, they are probably still dancing.
yes, the same thing would have happened … you can’t change society by executive mandate … it’s form of tyranny … 9 elitists issuing politically-tinged “judgements” is no way to change hearts and minds.
So it’s not an “excellent point” about slavery. The Supreme Court had no power to prevent war or to meaningfully outlaw slavery.
Rick,
What about Brown vs the Board of Education? What about Roe V Wade?
Dredd Scott affirmed that Slaves were not truly human beings, basically, was that decision acceptable? What if it had gone the other way? Well, we will never know. But the abolishionist did not rise up and start fighting. Had it been the other way around, possibly, just possibly civil war could have been averted. We will never know.
How about Plessy vs Fergeson? Was this an “judical activism”? was it judical activism when the outrageous ruling was finally and RIGHTFULLY overturned?
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/acs/1890s/plessy/plessy.html
Justice Alito was allowed to talk about ethnicity and empathy without raving extremists calling for a culture war. Hmmmmmm…
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/empathy-just-alright-if-your-name-samue
Rick, it happens all the time. I disagree.
Judicial activism is whatever people don’t like. It something is spelled out clearly, it rarely makes it to the Supreme Court.
The next big one that I can see coming is gay marriage (or civil union). It will be decided as a civil rights issue, regardless of how many bans there are on it. It will be seen by some, those who oppose it, as judicial activism.
Rick, I just got to thinking about your form of tyranny remark. Don’t you feel that being in the minority on anything is a form of tyranny? For instance, I didn’t vote for George Bush, yet I had him as a president for 8 years.
But when elitists enforce things through US law – or in the case of illegal immigration, do the opposite and deliberately fail to enforce US law – by circumvention, without any elected officials taking responsibility, that’s a greater tyranny.
“What about Brown vs the Board of Education?”
Was that “activism”? In my judgement it’s a quite reasonable reading of the Bill of Rights.
“What about Roe V Wade? ”
I’m not arguing with that decision. But it’s a great example of how the court making a decision doesn’t take the issue off the table or acheive any social consensus, it just incites anger. Congress has never chosen to confront the issue – never tried to ensure abortion rights in any cases. They are content to leave the issue “in the courts” and play politics with the issue. Not that I’m arguing with that decision. I don’t have hard-and-fast opinions on whether states should be able to outlaw abortion. I do think the Federal Government should not be able to.