« American Education System Needs a Monopoly-Buster | Main | Mancow Waterboarding Was A Hoax »

Don't Worry About the Hispanic Vote

What a collection of namby-pamby wussies! I mean, of course, those esteemed - not to mention self-ordained - prophets of doom who insist that any sort of harsh criticism of the appointment of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States will result in further election losses, as Hispanics will see the opposition as racist.

This claim is a cowardly lie, and nothing else. In fact, such a claim is itself a nasty form of racism, for the obvious fact that it brushes all Hispanics with the same vulgar insinuation, that a whole demographic group will react in the same way and not consider the deeper implications of Sotomayor's belief that feelings sometimes trump fact or even the constitutional limits of a judge's authority. It assumes that all Hispanics agree with the notion that some races should be granted preferential treatment by the courts and others suppressed, as in Sotomayor's reverse discrimination decision against New Haven firefighters, including a Hispanic by the way among those denied their rights through liberal revisionist tactics. It seems to me a very arrogant contention, to presume that Hispanics are just a puppet demographic in thrall to the Left.

I live and work in Houston, Texas. It should come as no surprise then, that I know many Hispanics, from all sorts of nations and backgrounds. Like any large ethnic group, they exhibit a range of opinions on all sorts of issues and topics. Hispanics are no more monolithic as a voting bloc than anyone else. Yes, their culture influences their perspective, but just as they were not unduly swayed by Bush just because he speaks Spanish, neither will they consider Sotomayor only on the basis of her bloodline or genealogy. It may or may not be possible to prevent Sotomayor's confirmation by the Senate currently in place, but the Republicans can and should challenge any hint of race bias or identity politics in a SCOTUS justice. Hispanic Americans love the ideals of our Constitution as much as anyone else, and the nation should be reminded in no uncertain terms that the only political party making racist assumptions is the Democratic Party.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35838.

Comments (49)

I can assure you someone wi... (Below threshold)
dee73:

I can assure you someone will take offense and the republicans will be criticized for their line of questioning. However, they should not back down and they must choose their words wisely.

I don't give a damn about h... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I don't give a damn about her race, or her gender. I DO care about how she's going to use 'empathy' to help render her judgements.

Justice needs to be blind. The law needs to be upheld without regard to race or gender or 'feelings of empathy'. Last I checked, 'empathy' wasn't found in the US Constitution. (Look for yourself - user your browser and search for it here.)

Martin Luther King must be spinning in his grave at this point. EMPATHY? A 'wise Hispanic woman' being able to deliver a better judgement because of EMPATHY?

Man, identity politics just suck.

"Yes, their culture influen... (Below threshold)
MAJ Arkay:

"Yes, their culture influences their perspective..."

Um, that would be cultures, plural, according to my spouse and mother-in-law of Mexican descent and my co-workers of Cuban, Spanish, Costa Rican, Panamanian and Brazilian descent. None take kindly to the notion that they are "hispanic," or that there's a monolithic "hispanic" or "latino" culture.

If you want to ease the Texas grid's electric production load, just call my MIL "hispanic," then harness the energy from those black eyes staring you down...

I too am from Houston and a... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I too am from Houston and agree that hispanic's are not monolithic. I think the republicans should really hone in on her racist views.

MAJArkay, my ancestors came from Czeckloslovakia. My culture is based on that. But yet, I am painted as white and european as if it is all inclusive. I got used to it. ww

My ancestors met the boats ... (Below threshold)
MAJ Arkay:

My ancestors met the boats arriving from Europe. Since my ancestors melted into the woods and blended into the white "culture" instead of going on the Trail of Tears, we don't count as tribal members (not on the early 20th century count thingie), so we're lumped in with the white folks of non-Spanish speaking backgrounds.

Sheesh. This identity crap is just that.

I. Am. A. Murkin!

"Some of my best friends ar... (Below threshold)

"Some of my best friends are black!"

This claim is a cowardly... (Below threshold)
mantis:

This claim is a cowardly lie, and nothing else. In fact, such a claim is itself a nasty form of racism, for the obvious fact that it brushes all Hispanics with the same vulgar insinuation, that a whole demographic group will react in the same way and not consider the deeper implications of Sotomayer's belief that feelings sometimes trump fact or even the constitutional limits of a judge's authority.

Votes do not come in blocks, DJ, they come individually. Hispanics need not think monolithically for some of them to find Republicans' opposition offensive. And if some of them do who might otherwise be open to Republican candidates, then Republicans will be hurt by such opposition.

But you've refuted the nice and easy strawman argument that all Hispanics think exactly the same. Too bad strawman scalps mean zip on election day.

But if you think idiots like Tancredo won't damage Hispanic support for Republicans, such as it is, then by all means, support them.

Since you dislike tearing d... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Since you dislike tearing down straw arguments, mantis, why don't you explain why Ms. Sotomayor feels that a "wise Latina" like herself is better qualified than a "white man" to decide the merits of a legal case under the Constitution?

Her words, your evasion.

Since you dislike tearin... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Since you dislike tearing down straw arguments, mantis, why don't you explain why Ms. Sotomayor feels that a "wise Latina" like herself is better qualified than a "white man" to decide the merits of a legal case under the Constitution?

Read the entire thing, then maybe you will stop lying about what she said (fat chance). First, let's note that the context-free quote is from a symposium at Berkeley Law entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." Let's look at some things she said before the context-free quote:

Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," 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.

She is making the point that pure objectivity among judges is a myth, and none of us can escape the fact that our perspective and our decision making process is shaped in part by who we are, where and how we grew up, and the culture in which we reside. This is not exactly a controversial thing to say, unless you're a wingnut.

Let's look at the specific quote in context, shall we?

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

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.

So she is speaking specifically about race and sex discrimination cases, and she is saying that she would hope that a "wise Latina woman" would reach better conclusions in such cases, due to her experience. She is not, contrary to your idiotic thinking, saying that Latinas are smarter or better judges than white men. She is saying that since it's impossible to make decisions without personal perspective having at least some influence, that she would hope someone who had experiences relevant to the case at hand would come to better conclusions than someone who had not had such experiences. Not only is this not an absurd notion, she is stating that it is an aspiration, something she would hope for, not something with is a fact. There is no certitude there, only a hope, based on the recognition of the reality that judges are human beings, not robots.

This was way more effort than you're worth, as it will no doubt fall on deaf ears (and possible be deleted for being contradictory), and others have explained it better than I, but there you go.

Mantis, it's still evasion.... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Mantis, it's still evasion. You're making your own little straw argument - and by the way, my post was not a straw man argument, you merely hoped you could spin it that way.

I told no lies, but your panic and hysterical response tells me I hit a nerve. The woman is a racist, and there's no denying it when her own words damn her like that (really, did you really your snippet changed what she said or its effect in terms of judicial restraint?).

But I suppose some folks are just in too deep, started with the BDS and now they're addicted to the Obamuana.

Well, that was a really pat... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, that was a really pathetic response, DJ. Not that I expected anything else, of course.

I love that you think what I wrote is panicked and hysterical. Far from it, I'm laughing my ass off at you guys right now.

Mantis, You were doi... (Below threshold)

Mantis,
You were doing fine with your argument until
you decided to involve the monitor in your
post. I don't delete/unpublish yours or
others comments just for the fun of it.
I'll thank you to remember that. Or else I'll
have a senior moment and disemvowel, unpublish,
junk, or even ban you. Just because I can.
Civility will travel you a long way.

I don't delete/unpublis... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I don't delete/unpublish yours or
others comments just for the fun of it.

I wasn't referring to you. DJ has done it before.

Mantis, You didn't m... (Below threshold)

Mantis,
You didn't mean me before or after the fact?
Be more specific next time. Thanks.

Another lie from Mantis. Y... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Another lie from Mantis. Yes, I have disenvoweled before, also deleted. But you lie to claim it's for "disagreement". You get in trouble for abusive language and attempting to hijack the thread. Clean posts which disagree are always left alone, as you very well know.

But your paranoia is as keen as ever. Wonder if I should take credit for the black helicopters you no doubt are seeing right now?

Heh.

Before the fact. You've on... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Before the fact. You've only deleted my comments (or disemvoweled; same thing) for being nasty, which I understand. DJ has deleted my comments because they refute his arguments a bit too well.

In your dreams, mantis. Yo... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

In your dreams, mantis. You can't even maintain your focus on the topic for more than half a post, let alone "refute" anything but the notion that you are a mature adult.

In fact, I have not deleted anything of yours for a long time, Mantis, because

A - Maggie has whacked the nasty ones first many times;

B - Mantis' arguments are so self-defeating that they often prove my point.

Clean posts which disagr... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Clean posts which disagree are always left alone, as you very well know.

That's a lie and you know it. When I had pointed out enough holes in your ridiculous conspiracy theories about polls before the election, you started deleting all my posts, which were non-abusive. I would refer back to them to prove they weren't abusive, but since you deleted all the evidence, I can't.

LOL!<br ... (Below threshold)

LOL!


I would refer back to them
to prove they weren't abusive, but since you deleted all the evidence, I can't.

Now that there is funny!

By the way, who's evading n... (Below threshold)
mantis:

By the way, who's evading now? Care to expound on your arguments reflecting the context of the judge's remarks? I understand you may consider "She's a racist cuz I say so," a solid argument, but others will probably find that pretty unconvincing.

Mantis, I'm not going to in... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Mantis, I'm not going to indulge your paranoia. It's pretty far gone, as Maggie's last post notes. I will remind you that while differences of opinion are welcome at Wizbang, anarchy is not allowed and there are boundaries.

As to Ms. Sotomayor, the fact that she felt comfortable using identity politics in connection with her statement on judicial conduct proves the charge. You do not seem to recognize that O'Connor's point was that the law MUST be blind to color, race, ethnicity, and every other superficial factor. The Constitution does not have different meanings for different genders, races, et cetera, and for a federal judge, let alone a SCOTUS nominee to miss that or reject it is very much a problem. It might help if you imagined a white male judge from, say, Harvard, saying that a black woman from Texas Southern University could not grasp the intricacies of constitutional law, or that minorities lacked the proper set of experiences to make proper decisions at the federal level. Such arrogance would rightly be shouted down, and like it or not, Ms. Sotomayor's statement, spin it however you like, was clearly in that same racist spirit. That she chose to demean white males instead of another group is irrelevant to the question.

"She is saying that sinc... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"She is saying that since it's impossible to make decisions without personal perspective having at least some influence"

If that's the case, then she doesn't belong on the bench.

Mantis, would you have no problems with a white male nominee who said: "a wise white male with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life"?

Not that I'd expect an honest answer from you on that. But my point is, regardless of the context that was a pretty bigoted statement. The law is the law and race and gender should have nothing to do with it. Things like that only factor in if the judge is a fascist activist.

Mantis:Get a hotel r... (Below threshold)

Mantis:
Get a hotel room.
ac halle
PS:
It.is .called . a Blog.....

I have read and re-read her... (Below threshold)
Eric:

I have read and re-read her speech in it's entirety and that one sentence still sounds racist to me. To me, it still smacks of saying one race would do a superior job than another. And how is that not racism?

Another thing, it groups all white males into a single racial stereotype, as if a white male from Georgia would come to the same conclusions as a white male from Massachusetts or a white male from Russia.

Look at this discussion here. I assume that both sides of this debate have several white males involved and yet they see the issue completely differently. Why assume that more often than not white males will reach an incorrect conclusion on any given subject and more often than not a latina female will reach a better conclusion?

I don't think the context matters whenever you say that someone of any particular race will ever do a better job than someone of a different race, to me that sounds racist.

The question then arises does she have a racial bias? What if a civil case comes before the court and the two parties are a latina woman and a white male? Would she judge the case based on the facts, or would she have a bias towards the latina female, because they are more often correct than white males?

... and Mantis, before you ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

... and Mantis, before you spew off that the cases were racial or gender discrimination cases, let me clarify that in such cases the racial identity of the judge is even less relevant to the case.

Why?

Because the constitution makes no distinction between rights of different genders or races or cultures. If it's wrong to steal from a White person, it's wrong to steal from a Black person. If it's wrong to make unwanted sexual advances towards a woman, it's wrong to do so towards a man. If it's wrong to refuse promotion to someone because they are Black, it's wrong to do so because they are Asian. And this color-blind, gender-blind requirement of any judge is there to protect minorities, by the way.

Think about it. Just put away the political slant and think about it, seriously.

Do you really want a judge who would redefine what the Constitution says in every case, according to the litigants, their counsel, the officers of the court and the judges involved?

This nation is not perfect, but our ideals stand for everyone.

EQUAL Justice Under Law.

Unfortunately, this concept has been rejected by Judge Sotomayor.

You do not seem to recog... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You do not seem to recognize that O'Connor's point was that the law MUST be blind to color, race, ethnicity, and every other superficial factor.

And you do not recognize Sotomayor's point that while impartiality is what all judges should aspire towards, the fact is our experiences shape us in ways we cannot escape.

The Constitution does not have different meanings for different genders, races, et cetera, and for a federal judge, let alone a SCOTUS nominee to miss that or reject it is very much a problem.

She does not miss or reject that. Stop lying.

It might help if you imagined a white male judge from, say, Harvard, saying that a black woman from Texas Southern University could not grasp the intricacies of constitutional law, or that minorities lacked the proper set of experiences to make proper decisions at the federal level.

I'm not going to say it better than Daniel Larison, so I will just defer to him:

If being a part of a certain white ethnic group is something that one is "entitled to celebrate" in a similar way, would we consider it racist for an Armenian or a Russian or German-American to express a similar pride in his heritage and express the hope that it would inform his judgments in such a way that he would be a better judge than someone not from that background? Perhaps the son or grandson of Russian emigres has a more keen appreciation for the rule of law because his family escaped from the grip of a totalitarian state; he does not take for granted what most of us and our ancestors have always known. Perhaps the grandson or great-grandson of German immigrants would be more attentive to the predicament of ethnic communities that are tied in the public's mind with a foreign enemy in wartime. For that matter, perhaps the descendant of old-line English settlers deeply values the American constitutional heritage because he sees it as being inextricably interwoven with the heritage of his own ancestors, and so his support for the fundamental law has added significance for him. One could come up with other examples, but I think these already make clear that the statement in question-on which so much of the resistance to Sotomayor seems to be based at this point-may be many things, but racist is not one of them.

Let's also not forget that Sotomayor was speaking in the context of discrimination cases, not about judging generally. If you actually gave an honest reverse hypothetical in reference to a white male judge, such as Larison does above, I wouldn't call that racist at all.

Such arrogance would rightly be shouted down, and like it or not, Ms. Sotomayor's statement, spin it however you like, was clearly in that same racist spirit.

It's not, but I see how it is to your perceived benefit to interpret it that way.

Btw, here's another from Larison you ought to think about:

I would go farther and say that I think she wasn't just making an "inoffensive paean to experience." Horror of horrors, she was expressing pride in her particular identity, much as many conservatives claim they wish they could do more freely with respect to theirs without being called racist or racialist or some other derisive label. What is their solution? To call Sotomayor by a name that they usually regard as a bludgeon unfairly used against them all the time. Not only will this gambit fail in the immediate confirmation battle, but it will ensure that the limits of expression become even more constricting and stifling. This is what I don't understand: why would conservatives want to make it easier to categorize innocuous statements as racist and/or racialist? There is virtually no social policy debate in which matters of race are not involved to some degree, and many, if not most, conservative social policy views already have to meet a rather exacting standard to avoid such charges. Why make that standard even more demanding and impossible to meet? Why water down the definition of racialist such that it seems to include any and all acknowledgment of the significance of these differences? How well do you suppose conservative arguments in various policy debates will fare in the future if even Sotomayor's unremarkable Berkeley speech must be described as racialist? Instead of giving more benefit of the doubt to all and loosening the conventional strictures on expression, we hear instead the call to clamp down even more obsessively on everyone. This is the most hare-brained application of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" I think I have ever seen.
Unfortunately, this conc... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Unfortunately, this concept has been rejected by Judge Sotomayor.

You've got nothing but lies, DJ. Pretty pathetic.

"You've got nothing but ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"You've got nothing but lies, DJ. Pretty pathetic"

And there we see mantis' common resort - when his logic fails, he resorts to falsity and crude venom.

Stay classy, Mantis.

"Lies" being anything that ... (Below threshold)
not Mantis (changed for civility):

"Lies" being anything that would cast Dear Leader's impressively impressive judgment in doubt, of course.

[ let's watch the behavior, please? Even in the 'commenter name' box, profanity is not acceptable - DJD ]

Well since He threw the rac... (Below threshold)
914:

Well since He threw the racist reverend Wright under the bus He has to make up for it somehow. What better way then to push a feminist supremacy racist down our throats.

Well mantis, I see you quit... (Below threshold)
epador:

Well mantis, I see you quite eloquently arguing, then falling off the wagon into the mud and excrement all too handily. Your argument, distilled down, is that in cases involving discrimination its preferable or desirable to have someone who has experienced discrimination ruling. So should rape victims be the judges for all rape cases, families of murder victims the judges of all capital crimes, and victims or family members of victims of DUI drivers judge all alcohol-related cases? Generally we remove jurors who have similar backgrounds from serving on cases they have a personal experience in. SO why is it OK with judges????
Does that ring any alarm bells for you?
If not, then you need to activate a few more brain cells.
Impartiality is the foundation we would like our legal system to rest on, not partial and prejudiced reasoning.

excellent point epador<br /... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

excellent point epador

Your argument, distilled... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Your argument, distilled down, is that in cases involving discrimination its preferable or desirable to have someone who has experienced discrimination ruling.

Distorted, not distilled. My argument is that what Sotomayor said at Berkeley is that she would hope her experiences would help her make a better judgement. Her desire is not to be biased, but that those experiences make her a better and more impartial judge. And again, that is her stated hope; she is not stating a fact. Read this part near the end:

I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

and tell me that Sotomayor is claiming Latinas are better judges, or that minorities or women should be the only judges allowed to rule on discrimination cases. She is merely suggesting that our experiences shape who we are, how we perceive the world, and, for judges, inescapably, how we judge, and by being aware of that fact, she can try to use it to become a better judge. It is not about partiality, but a richness of understanding.

So should rape victims be the judges for all rape cases, families of murder victims the judges of all capital crimes, and victims or family members of victims of DUI drivers judge all alcohol-related cases? Generally we remove jurors who have similar backgrounds from serving on cases they have a personal experience in. SO why is it OK with judges????

No one has remotely said that a judge must have been a victim of the crime in question in order to render a judgment, and Sotomayor is obviously talking about a lifetime of experience, not a single event. The reason this is undesirable in jurors is that jurors are not lawyers, are not judges, and do not have the understanding of the law and our justice system that a judge is expected to have. We have expectations of judges that we cannot impose upon jurors. But they are still human beings, and admitting that fact, and hoping that their experiences help them serve the law, should not count against them.

The sad reality is that in ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

The sad reality is that in spite of her bigoted comments, in spite of her memebership in a radical Hispanic racist organization, in spite of her poor--or at best highly questionable--rulings, Sotomayer is one of the best that we could every expect from someone like Obama.

Last November I resigned myself to the fact that we were in for four years of fascist, radical, activist judges being put on the federal level benches. All we can really do now is pray that we can, in the future, recover from the destruction they will do to our nation and its traditional rule of law.

The Republicans should thoroughally question and expose her and all of Obama's nominees, but when it comes down to it, they should allow all them a simple up or down vote and not make fascist jackasses of themselves like the Dems did when President Bush was in office.

You're right mantis we shou... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

You're right mantis we should just believe what you, the white house, and the rest of the far left are saying and ignore our lying eyes and ears.

Oh, and by the way, since t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh, and by the way, since the right seems content to pitch a battle against Sotomayor based almost entirely on two out-of-context quotes, I challenge you all to find evidence of her radical racism in the form of racist rulings and opinions. She has after all, been an appeals circuit court judge for almost eleven years, and a district court judge (nominated by Bush 41, I might add) for six before that. Plenty of material to go through, folks. I've been reading them all week. Don't know where to look? Here you go.

I'm also curious how people here would react if Sotomayor had been talking specifically about her Christianity shapes who she is, and how she would hope (repeat, hope) this would help her make better judgments in say, religious discrimination cases?

BTW mantis,Sotomay... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

BTW mantis,

Sotomayer's citing of Brown doesn't score any points with me.

Brown was morally right, but legally immoral. It was the opening of the pandora's box of judicial fascism which you leftists so love.

Reference to Sotomayor and ... (Below threshold)

Reference to Sotomayor and her 'wise latino'
remark.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23102.html

Of course a third person was speaking for her,
so we don't really know her current mind on
this subject.

"find evidence of her ra... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"find evidence of her radical racism in the form of racist rulings and opinions"

Ricci v. DeStefano comes to mind easily of course, but there may be more. I know a lot of leftists are arguing that it was legally sound and Sotomayer would have actually been an "activist" if she voted the other way. That maybe be, or not-- I've heard and read legal authorities who I respect feel the opposite is true. Time will tell as the majority's decision in Ricci is legally shaky enough that it will likely go to the Supreme Court soon.

As for your link, I'm not about to go wading through hundreds and hundreds of cases on a weekend, but rest asured Mantis, there are those who will and if there's anything there it will come out. This isn't like the old days when the rags and the boob tube controlled the narrative.

I know I don't like the fact that the Court is 4-4 with 1 wishy washy left leaner and still it overturned 3 of the 5 questionable majority decisions for which Sotomayer voted.

She probably did get it right a lot of the time, but she clearly got it wrong some times.

As an American of Mexican-d... (Below threshold)
Spiriitus Litis:

As an American of Mexican-descent, not all hispanics live on the liberal plantation. I just received a letter from my state Rep in TX who is against voter ID. He feared for the sake of the elderly and low income citizens. I come from the barrio/low income environment. My father was orphaned when he was a boy. We never took welfare or any assistance. We did without in our family of seven kids. My father never considered himself a victim and he never taught us to be victims. Unfortunately, President Obama sees himself as a victim, Sotomayor sees herself as a victim. This is the first President to dwell in victimhood rather than responsibility. My father with a high school education knows this and gets it. It's unfortunate my Rep has so little faith in the elderly and those who are low-income to be competent enough to have an ID when it was time to vote. My mother who doesn't speak English understands. As a former socialist/liberal democrat, I'll admit that socialist/liberals have only one goal: to destroy American just to see if they can. Just so they can say, "they won" as all hell breaks loose around them.

Mantis Quick quest... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Mantis

Quick question

WOuld you have a problem with a rwhite republican nominee saying

"wise white men/women" like him/herself is better qualified than a "Hispanic woman" to decide the merits of a legal case under the Constitution?
"
-------------

Lets face it.

Obama could have nominated Charro and the dems would still be crying racism and warning that the republicans should really watch how and what they question her on.

LOL @41&<... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

LOL @41

&

"I'll admit that socialist/liberals have only one goal: to destroy American just to see if they can."

I know it seems that way, but I think they really think they are doing good things and aren't out do destroy America--just remake it.

Some how in their minds I think, even though their form of government has proven time and time again throughout history and even where it still practiced today to be a dismal failure, they really think that the only problem is that no one's ever done it right yet, but they will.

And after all leftism is bad for everybody- Kim, Hugo, & Fidel all have nice spreads. They're not skinny and riding around on bikes like the populations they rule over.

Have cake or eat it?<... (Below threshold)
epador:

Have cake or eat it?

Judges with certain religious backgrounds/beliefs good/bad
Judges with certain ethnic/sexual backgrounds bad/good

We all have innate prejudices, and learned ones. I have carefully read her words in this case - and while there is a veneer of credibility in her argument and yours that sounds o so reasonable, the method of reasoning is what we are objecting to. Its the assumption that only one who has walked in the shoes can make the best objective judgement. Yet when one holds years of prejudicial experience, is it not HARDER to be objective? Oops, wait a minute, we're not looking for OBJECTIVE decisions, we're looking for EMPATHETIC decisions, ones that rely on feelings rather than logic. Well, now that is a WHOLE different situation. And this nominee thinks she MAY be able to do a better job because all those emotional reactions to her many experiences can guide her to make more empathetic decisions.

As far as GWB nominating her, this is another have or eat it question. If GWB was so bad and made so many bad decisions, then how can she not be one more? And if he made a good decision choosing her, was it only by sheer luck he managed it? Are all the other judges he placed in similar positions also equally good candidates for the high court?

These are all arguments that distract from the main question of her appropriateness for the Supreme Court - are her judicial rulings sound and objective, relying on solid interpretation of Constitutional Law, or are they flawed with extraneous prejudices, hidden or overt agendas, and bias?

As far as GWB nominating... (Below threshold)
mantis:

As far as GWB nominating her, this is another have or eat it question. If GWB was so bad and made so many bad decisions, then how can she not be one more?

I said Bush 41. GWB is Bush 43.

are her judicial rulings sound and objective, relying on solid interpretation of Constitutional Law, or are they flawed with extraneous prejudices, hidden or overt agendas, and bias?

Well, I've been reading them and I probably wouldn't bother defending her if I didn't think she was a good judge. What do you think?

"And you do not recogniz... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"And you do not recognize Sotomayor's point that while impartiality is what all judges should aspire towards, the fact is our experiences shape us in ways we cannot escape."

Horse hockey. This is okay, even expected for ordinary people making personal decisions in their lives, but a judge who cannot escape their past experiences to the point that it colors their decisions does NOT belong on the bench. Especially one who embraces that precept.

The point is that policy and legislation is not the realm of the court. Those are things assigned to a different branch of government. That branch, the legislative branch, may make policy and legislative changes as a result of court findings, but that responsibility must not be preempted by the courts.

The court's job is to interpret the Constitution and apply the law equally. They may fail from time to time, but it is absolutely wrongheaded to think that it's OK to endorse they very mindset that may invite bad decisions.

Furthermore, if I had been ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Furthermore, if I had been an abused wife for a number of years and went on to become a lawyer and then a judge - and then had used the argument that the "richness of my experiences" would more often than not help me "reach a better conclusion" than a male, how far do you think that would get me as a divorce court judge?

Mantis: I think Oyster said... (Below threshold)
epador:

Mantis: I think Oyster said it much better than me, and you fail to answer our points against your "reasoning."

prophets of doom who ins... (Below threshold)
MrJimm:

prophets of doom who insist that any sort of harsh criticism of the appointment of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States will result in further election losses, as Hispanics will see the opposition as racist.

Um, DJ, it's not just that Hispanics will see that as being racist. It's that the Democrats will scream "RACISM" at every opportunity, and the newspapers and TV commentators will pick up that lie and repeat it, and it will become accepted knowledge (everybody KNOWS that Republicans are racist...). I mean, can you imagine what ACORN would do with that?

The Democrats have already done something similar - mischaracterising Republican opposition to ILLEGAL immigration as being opposed to ALL immigration - and Hispanics pretty much bought off on that.

It's a lose-lose situation.

Mr Jimm, Gibbs has already ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Mr Jimm, Gibbs has already leveled the preemptive attack with his "be exceedingly careful" remark in regard to discussion about Sotomayor. So far, it has fallen flat - as it should. But it will be revived in the coming confirmation hearings. It needs to be relegated to the "bullcrap dust-bin" every time someone tries to derail discussion with it.

In my opinion, Sotomayor is the one who has already tainted any future decisions with the question of whether she is relying on empathy or judicial impartiality to come to her decision.

Here's something I'd recommend reading. Discount it or ignore it, if you want, because of its source. But if you have an opinion about it, argue it on its merits.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy