Printable View
President Obama has selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Linky winky.
Obviously the GOP is unhappy with the choice, apparently they didn't expect a liberal president nominating a liberal judge. However, she does seem to be all about gender and ethnicity.
Thoughts?
I'm displeased by her decision in the case of the New Haven firefighters, but I'm just one voter with his own opinion.
And I have the feeling the Republicans are going to roll that opinion up and beat her with it until she's black and blue.Quote:
Originally posted by danceswithcats
ETA: meaning the opinion she authored on that case, not your opinion.
The Republicans are stupid (yes, I know, I could end the sentence here) if they waste what dwindling political capital they have left over this nominee. It changes the composition of the Court not a bit, and they will only further alienate Hispanic and women voters.
I hope they don't, because no judge, on either side of the political coin, is going to rule in a manner 100% satisfactory to a given group, nor would I want someone on the SCOTUS which marches in step to a political party. The Supremes have heard that case, and I patiently await their decision.Quote:
Originally posted by OneCentStamp
I don't like the ruling on the New Haven case, and really don't like the ruling on the Lewis Mills High School case (at least as far as I understand them).
However, the line currently being pounced on by right-wing hypocrites makes a lot more sense in the context of her entire 2001 lecture.
I am gobsmacked (though sadly not surprised) at how thoroughly off-the-rails batshit-insane the Limbaugh wing of the GOP has been in attacking Sotomayor. I'd say it's already blowing up in their faces. Hell, when even John Cornyn pleads with the bomb-throwers to dial it back, you know they're charging headlong a cliff.
Rush and the radical right of the GOP don't speak for me. Some of the things I read in this article are troubling, however.
First, Mr. Obama, why are you speaking for your nominee? Should she not be afforded the courtesy of first comment on remarks attributed to her?
Can you imagine the furor and outcry had a white male nominee alluded to the potential superiority of his opinion over other sexes and ethnicities? I'm further troubled that this person feels her gender and national origin will affect her judging. The classic picture of justice, holding a balance, is blindfolded, and should therefore look only to the merits of a case, without regard to individualities of defendant or plaintiff. Ms. Sotomayor seems to disagree.Quote:
She said in 2001: "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." The remark was in the context her saying that "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
Quote:
"My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas in which I am unfamiliar," she said. "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."
I agree with your rationale, Mr. Obama. Unfortunately, Ms. Sotomayor's comments put her in opposition to the standard you seek.Quote:
In announcing Sotomayor as his choice, Obama said he wanted a judge who would "approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice." But he also called her life experience essential, saying she had an understanding of "how ordinary people live."