The Sort Of BS To Which We Will Be Subject

So what about Sotomayor's racist "wise Latina" comment?  Let's cut to Ta Nehisi-Coates of The Atlantic for an example of the sort of BS to which we will be subject as the defenders of Ms. Sotomayor ride forth to defend what would be utterly disqualifying if uttered by a middle-aged white guy.

First, some context:

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.

Next, the "I've heard worse" defense, which is where the BS begins:

I think we can immediately dispense with the crazies who think this statement should disqualify Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.  It's worth noting that William Rehnquist once endorsed segregation, and yet rose to be Chief Justice of the court.

I have no idea whether the author expects his readers to click on the link, or whether he has done so himself.  Rehnquist clearly endorses the concept of judicial restraint and expresses the notion that the court should not try to get ahead of public opinion.  If Rehnquist is endorsing anything it is a judicial process rather than an outcome. 

"Loving v. Virginia", the famous 1967 anti-miscegention case, provides an example of the sort of judicial restaraint touted by Rehnquist.  The Supreme Court ducked miscegenation cases throughout the 50's and only joined in after Congress had passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and many states had repealed their miscegenation laws.  In 1952 Rehnquist thought the Court should be similarly circumspect in the "Brown v. Board of Education" case, although history has decided differently.

In any case, the Rehnquist "endorsement" was in 1952 and I will bet that he had moved long past it by the time he became Chief Justice.  Is there any evidence that Ms. Sotomayor has moved beyond her concept of identity politics? 

Having established that it is no big deal, Ta-Nehisi Coates then explains that Sotomayer is wrong:

That said, I think Sotomayor's statement is quite wrong. I understand the basis of it, laid out pretty well by Kerry Howley over at Hit & Run.  The idea is that Latinos have a dual experience that whites don't have and that, all things being equal, they'll be able to pull from that experience and see things that whites don't. The problem with this reasoning is it implicitly accepts the logic (made for years by white racists) that there is something essential and unifying running through all white people, everywhere. But White--as we know it--is a word so big that, as a descriptor of experience, it almost doesn't exist.

Indeed, it's claims are preposterous. It seeks to lump the miner in Eastern Kentucky, the Upper West Side Jew, the yuppie in Seattle, the Irish Catholic in South Boston, the hipster in Brooklyn, the Cuban-American in Florida, or even the Mexican-American in California all together, and erase the richness of their experience, by marking the bag "White."

Uh huh.  It's preposterous, its racist, but it's no biggie.  Whatev.

Comments

[Porchlight]

So who is going to ask Sotomayor if she is, as a "wise Latina," going to be able to "reach a better conclusion" than her white colleagues in cases where everyone involved is white?

Stupidity is as stupidity does. I can't believe we even have to argue the merits of such a ridiculous statement.

[Thomas Collins]

I don't know whether Sonia has read any of Peggy McIntosh's work, but Sonia is clearly a proponent of McIntosh's line of thought. McIntosh has devoted much of her work to the study of "white privilege." The folks who write in this area have as one of their central tents that white privilege is so pervasive that whites not only take their privilege for granted, but don't even recognize privilege as privilege. Under this line of reasoning, a Latina woman, looking at cases through lenses other than white privilege, would come to more just decisions.

Sure, it's hokum, but give it to Peggy McIntosh and other academic PT Barnums; they have made careers out of this stuff.

See LUN for some of McIntosh's thoughts.

[BumperStickerist]

Ann Althouse's take:

... Now, it's a separate question whether being female and Hispanic is supposed to play a part in constitutional interpretation. Both Obama and Sotomayor have made statements that suggest they believe something that many lawprofs say all the time: That a judge's background experiences and understandings play a role in answering hard questions of interpretation.

If you don't think that is true, think deeply about why you disagree. What do you know about the how human mind works that makes you think that our reasoning is abstracted from our real-world context?

I'm curious what effect her ethnicity and gender had with the "hard questions of interpretation" that resulted in Sotomayor being overturned more often than not.

By, you know, other judges and/or justices.

-

[Neo]

I really wish they would drop the "historic" stuff. Of course, it's historic.

If they put me or Tom Maguire on the SCOTUS, it would also be historic.

If they put Al Sharpton, David Duke or Kim Jong-il on the SCOTUS, it would be historic, but I doubt they would call it that.

[Jane]

I still feel sorry for white men.

[bear1909]

Is she resourceful based on her lessons learned as a Latina?

Who knows what she has learned. Just being Latina doesnt make one any better than any other two-legged creature.

Has she learned from her lessons growing up and maturing with a LAtina identity?

But what merits does that have given the interpretation of constitutional laws? Are there laws for Latinas that only Latinas can interpret to any degree of accountability better than say a Kenyan?

Absolute bunk.

Grill her on her record. She's been overturned more times than a manhole cover.

Bear1909 out.

[Thomas Collins]

Don't feel sorry for me, Jane. I have my World Wide Wrestling and Gansett beer to console me while I am bashed by the identity police! :-))

[Neo]

A federal judge ruled yesterday in favor of a college administrator and law school graduate from Long Island who sued the state Board of Law Examiners in 1993, claiming that a reading disability has prevented her from passing the state bar exam five times. Judge Sonia Sotomayor of Manhattan's Second Circuit Court of Appeals said Marilyn Bartlett, 52, of West Bay Shore is entitled to "reasonable accommodations" in taking the bar exam again because she is an individual with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Hey, this "historic" decision has all the trappings of a future appeal for all her clients.

[Jim Miller]

Jane - Don't feel sorry for me. I read, just recently, that older white Republican guys are happier than almost everyone else. And having just come in from a bike ride on a beautiful day, with glimpses of Lake Washington, the Olympics, and Mt. Rainier, I am an example of that generalization.

And it isn't as if this is anything new. I recall being told in graduate school, way back when, not to study a particular field because I was the wrong race.

(The study didn't mention this, but I suspect that older white Republican guys are happier in part because most of them are lucky enough to know a number of conservative women -- which would make almost anyone's life better.)

[Jane]

I suspect that older white Republican guys are happier in part because most of them are lucky enough to know a number of conservative women -- which would make almost anyone's life better.

Jim, you panderer you.

TC, I have no doubt if anyone can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse it is republican men.

[bad]

Dibs on Jim Miller....

[sbw]

I wrote only one sentence overnight for my future editorial on the Supreme Court nomination:

Why should diversity be good reason for doing something stupid?

[boris]

Allow me to express a perspective that may not be particularly compelling but nevertheless provides a valid illustration of the flawed reasoning on the left.

Call it Cargo Cult Justice:

The notion that the liberty, equality, and prosperity that white males created for themselves and eventually shared (over time) with women and minorities, was actually some gift to all humanity from the heavens unfairly stolen by the white males and withheld from the rightful beneficiaries. A POV which justifies in those small minds the "transfer" of a fair share (plus punitive damages) of prosperity and special rights from the greedy white male thieves to their deprived victims.

[Jim Ryan]

Wouldn't a gay black justice make even better decisions than a hispanic female one? Why hasn't Sotomayor suggested a gay black nomination instead of herself?

[bad]

Jim Ryan, I'm offended that Little People are being ignored for a position on SCOTUS.

Talk about a new perspective....

[Jim Ryan]

Little People? Yeah, what about us guys who stand only 5'6"? Hah? Things look different from down here. We'd make better decisions, promise.

[Jim Ryan]

It's unamerican to look at the individual's inner resources, smarts, accomplishments and drive, rather than at the color of his skin or what sex of person he likes to #%%&.

[Cecil Turner]

The problem with this reasoning is it implicitly accepts the logic (made for years by white racists) that there is something essential and unifying running through all white people, everywhere.

Well, that's part of the problem. The other part is that by offering a value judgment on ethnicity and the experiences thereof, Sotomayor is jumping on the bigot bandwagon in a bigtime way. And she's apparently too dim to realize that it's a losing argument.

It's hard to complain about breadth of experience, so "diversity" makes some sense in most applications. But if I have to place a relative value on them (presumably by picking between the cultural referents that gave us Washington, Jefferson, et al, and those which gave us [var. third-world gov't reps]), well, diversity is overrated. And frankly, "wise" does not immediately bring to mind (as in a Password clue), "Latina."

The fact that she'd float such a flawed argument is frankly more concerning than the possibility that she's a bit of a chauvinist bigot. It suggests, well, that maybe she's not the sharpest bulb in the deck. It also suggests she has little interaction with those who aren't like-minded (or perhaps constrained to agree). I don't think it's a disqualifier . . . but it certainly isn't a recommendation.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Why are those who are now touting diversity on SCOTUS always bitching about Justice Thomas? Don't his experiences as a poor black boy growing up in the segregated south add to his unique perspective on justice?

And what about guys like Manuel Estrada? Aren't they hispanic enough?

All of this is poppycock. Sotomayor was a pedestrian prosecutor, District Court Judge and Circuit Court Judge. There is absolutely no reason to believe she is any more intelligent on Constitutional matters than Harriet Meiers.

Of course, there is always the viewpoint expressed by Roman Hruska during the unsuccessful SOCOTUS nomination of the pedestrian Judge G. Harrold Carswell (who, coincidentally, had essentially the same qualifications as Judge Sotomayor -- but wasn't hispanic):

Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

[rich]

So, if it's ok to expect different decisions from a person who is a Latina woman than a white male, then shouldn't it be ok to consider race and gender in hiring decisions? After all, apparently a white male boss will be more likely to agree with the decisions made by his employee if he hires another white male.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Oh, damn. I intended to add a slight pander to our conservative female commentariat. We Jims have to stick together, and there are plenty of you to go around, aren't there?

[bad]

Dana Milbank makes fun of Obama's reading skill: LUN

Obama was so excited about the announcement that he skipped right past the Framers of the Constitution to ancient Rome. Justices, he said, "are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time." (Technically, that would have been papyrus back then, unless Obama misread his teleprompter and meant to say "more than two centuries ago").

And he goes on to point out that Sotomayor was a compromise (blackmail) appointment:

Off to the side, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and other staffers watched like proud parents. Their grins were particularly wide when Obama announced that "it's a measure of her qualities and her qualifications that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush." Actually, it was part of a deal in which Democrats also confirmed a conservative nominee -- but yesterday's rollout was not the time for such details. It was time for Sotomayor's story.

Dana's gonna stop getting invitations to the Kewl Kid parties.

[Appalled]

TM:

Challenge to the blogger:

OK, I get it that you are tired of the great American racism industry ginning up its usual defense of an inconvenient sound bite. But, tell me (if you would):

1. Is this a disqualifying gaffe, in your view?

2. Is this something the Republicans should be emphasizing, in their opposition to the candidate?

3. Does this really tell us much of anything about the candidate?

I guess, I would like to see, for a change, a judicial candidate debated on the merits. I have a feeling that Republicans, if they push this hot button, will look like Ted Kennedy, howling in outrage that Alito was on the board of a society that published a weak bit of satire that was allegedly racist. A smarter debate, it seems to me, would concentrate on the idea of "empathy" as a theory of jurisprudence.

[bad]

Appalled, I think it's safe to say Sotomayor is unlikely to have empathy for white males.

[Jim Ryan]

Jim, yes, we enjoy an embarrassment of riches here.

[bad]

BTW, I read somewhere that GHWB commented about Thomas' empathy.

[bad]

Dibs on JOM Jims....

[boris]

"A smarter debate, it seems to me, would concentrate on the idea of "empathy" as a theory of jurisprudence."

At the very least it suggests a serious risk with the "empathy" theory of jurisprudence. Abandon hope all ye white males who come unto empathy justice.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Yeah, Appalled, but don't forget what Kennedy was able to do to Judge Bork, a man who was undoubtedly as qualified as all but a few SCOTUS nominees.

If the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee all quietly vote nay on the motion to send the nomination to the Senate, the nomination will fail.

The opposition should Highlight Sotomayor's views on judicial legislation, affirmative action and reverse discrimination, which I believe to be "outside the mainstream" of the public's view of the judiciary's role.

[Lesley]

My dear Mr. Turner,

What the heck is "the sharpest bulb in the deck"? Is this a military reference with which I am not familiar?

Sincerely,

Your fan (who is presently consumed with the giggles),

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

The Republicans could use their own poo throwers like Schumer or Kennedy and they need to get busy.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Cecil has the best mixed metaphor of all time!!!

[Pofarmer]

Let's just face it. It's cool to discriminate against whites now.

[fdcol63]

As offensive as I find her "wise Latina female" comment, I worry more about her view that policy is made by the appellate judiciary, and her view that international law should be considered when determining what is and is not "Constitutional".

[Ignatz]

--Is this a disqualifying gaffe, in your view?--

Sounds more like a general philosophy of who should be sitting on the bench and who makes a better judge than a gaffe.

--A smarter debate, it seems to me, would concentrate on the idea of "empathy" as a theory of jurisprudence.--

I can't actually see how her 'gaffe' is seperable from "'empathy' as a theory of jurisprudence". Don't they both flow from the same root?

[Danube of Thought]

Thank you for feeling sorry for me, Jane. Now I think that if you were to hustle out here and mix me up a large Stoli martini I would feel all better.

[DrJ]

It's cool to discriminate against whites now.

Did you know there is "diversity" language that must be included in every technical proposal submitted to NSF? There must be a plan to include under-represented minorities (including women), K-12 outreach, incorporation of the research with undergrad and grad education, and a post-doc mentoring plan. Most Universities have built up the infrastructure for that sort of thing, and most submissions look pretty similar.

What makes it noteworthy is that in a recent panel I was the only American-born person on the panel. The rest were from India, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Iran and Italy.

The next one was composed predominantly of people from the former USSR, though in this case there were two others born in the US. The rest were from China, India, Germany, Iran and Turkey.

All are Professors at US Universities, other than one Russian fellow and I who work in industry.

What is wrong with this picture?

[Danube of Thought]

I have secretly and cravenly resolved to appropriate "sharpest bulb in the deck" as my own, and without attribution. (I'll have to be careful not to use it here--people will know.)

[Original MikeS]

Someday, I would like to know exactly what rich experiences latinas have that make them better judges than white males. Meanwhile, it appears that Sotomayor's appointment to SCOTUS is a fait accompli.

I can only hope that as a result of Associate Justice Sotomayor's appointment, the other justices will benefit from her rich experience and learn from her wiser conclusions.

[jimmyk]

Appalled, while it's true the wise Latina comment is getting lots of attention, there is plenty of discussion of her empathy-based jurisprudence, so your point is something of a straw man. And I have no doubt that the hearings will focus more on that than on this particular comment. But I have no problem with bringing it up. It is not an Obama-style gaffe, it is how she really thinks, and that is certainly fair game.

As for whether she should be rejected, Republicans need to think about who would be the next choice, and whether it would be any better. Obama is not likely to come back with a more moderate candidate. It would be great if the Republicans kept rejecting one extremist after another, but I don't see that happening.

[Porchlight]

"the sharpest bulb in the deck"

Love it!

Brightest sandwich on the tree
One knife short of a picnic

This is fun

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Yeah OMS, and just how do her rich experiences cause her to side with Breyer, Ginsberg and Stephens, whose rich experiences are somewhat, um, different than hers?

[Cecil Turner]

Is this a military reference with which I am not familiar?

Nah, just riffing on the bandwagon that you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to know which way the wind dances . . . if ya know what I mean.

I guess, I would like to see, for a change, a judicial candidate debated on the merits.

Why now? Is it just because the shoe's on a horse of a different color? It seems to me that if there ever was a time when obstructionism made sense, it's when a single-party supermajority rushed to pander. In other words: you guys buttered your bread, now lie in it.

[Lesley]

Yeah, Porchlight -

I'm thinking Sotomayor won't be the sharpest Pope in the woods.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Cecil's on a role.

[fdcol63]

Sotomayor: "Defendant, would you like to make a statement in your defense?"

Defendant: "Your Honor, you can understand, can't you? I'm just a poor Latina woman from the Bronx, trying to make a living. I didn't mean to kill that white man for his money, and I don't feel that I should be punished for it."

Sotomayor: "Defendant, I know exactly where you coming from. I've been there, too! I feel your pain, and I cane mpathize with you. Despite the ruling from the New York court that sentenced you to life in prison for murder, I've consulted similar cases in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Somalia, and I've decided to reduce your sentence to time served. You're dismissed."

[JM Hanes]

Jim R:

"We Jims have to stick together, and there are plenty of you to go around, aren't there?"

What goes around, comes around. Happily.

[cathyf]

...lump the miner in Eastern Kentucky, the Upper West Side Jew, the yuppie in Seattle, the Irish Catholic in South Boston, the hipster in Brooklyn, the Cuban-American in Florida, or even the Mexican-American in California all together...

Well, of course, those ARE all one group. City folks...

[Nick]

"It's preposterous, its racist, but it's no biggie."

If you read Judge Sotomayor's speech, and not merely take one sentence out of contest:

Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

you will find that she makes the following points:

1. That judges necessarily are influenced in their decisions by their backgrounds.

2. That while not everyone is always limited in their perspicacity by their background, even preeminent "wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society." (In fact this is in the very next sentence and adds part of the necessary context).

The wisdom that a Latina woman would allow her to avoid the bad decisions made by wise white men such as Holmes and Cardozo--two truly great American jurists.

Moreover, Holmes echoed this point when asked, in his 90's, why he ruled differently from a very similar case he presided over in his 60's--it was because he was much younger then, and had learned better since.

Similarly, your "bet" that Rehnquist had moved past his endorsement of segregation implies the same idea that experience informs judicial decision making.

Segregation and gender discrimination are bad things. Sotomayer is clearly saying a Latina judge is less likely to endorse racial discrimination than even the best white male judges. Experience seems to bear that out.

[Original MikeS]

...just how do her rich experiences cause her to side with Breyer, Ginsberg and Stephens...

Well, I do expect her to lean hard toward the left. Since there is little to no chance of stopping her appointment, I will look for a silver lining. In this case that would be that she may grow by her association with what she would call more bland intellects.

[Thomas Collins]

We need justices who adhere faithfully to the notion that a stitch in time seizes the opportunity.

[PD]

There is absolutely no reason to believe she is any more intelligent on Constitutional matters than Harriet Meiers.

Heh. I was wondering to myself this morning whether Sotomayor wouldn't turn out to be Obama's Meiers.

[Porchlight]

You raise an interesting question, Original MikeS. Has a liberal justice ever "grown" in office, as did our beloved Souter?

[Original MikeS]

Experience seems to bear that out.

Before I read that last line, I thought you were serious!

[Appalled]

Cecil:

Revenge is a dish best not served.

The votes are likely not there to defeat this nominee. So why have the GOP go to the hearing all red faced and angry, and focused on a comment that most will not take to be terribly important? Given the GOPs quickly developing reputation as the angry party, it seems foolish to go Rove on this woman.

There's nothing wrong, on the other hand, using the occasion to take Obama's judicial philosophy to task. Demanding "empathy" from justices suggests that what Obama wants is a judiciary that thinks like a jury member on a John Edwards case.

[Original MikeS]

Has a liberal justice ever "grown" in office

Let me say this in a different way. I think Republican Senator's should ask questions that demonstrate Sotomayor's opinion of her own superiority as a judge. (compared to all the non latinas at SCOTUS)

[PD]

Given the GOPs quickly developing reputation as the angry party, it seems foolish to go Rove on this woman.

My impression is that Rove is one of the most measured, least angry people I've ever seen. And Republicans need not be red faced and angry to grill her, forcefully, on her views. Your paragraph is that of a fantasist.

[Rocco]

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.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary

racism - a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

[bad]

Sotomayer is clearly saying a Latina judge is less likely to endorse racial discrimination than even the best white male judges.

Ask the New Haven firefighters how they feel about her racial discrimination discrimination.

[Appalled]

PD:

Rove is a tactician. He uses anger, sound bites, and trivia amplified out of proportion to achieve a result.

[bad]

thinks like a jury member on a John Edwards case.

Does. Not. Compute.

[JM Hanes]

If Supreme Court decisions were consistently 8 to 1 (Ginsberg) or 8 to 1 (Thomas), then white male hegemony theorists might have a female/black leg to stand on, however wobbly it be.

I'd like to ask Sotomayor how our Female Hispanic Constitution differs from our White Male Constitution. I would challenge her, as a Supreme Court nominee, to lay out a case for the universality of Constitutional principles without regard to race, gender, religion or ethnicity. For starters.

I would also like to put my outrage on record at being summarily expected by pundits, press and pols, to applaud the "historic" ascension of creeps like Nancy Pelosi to leadership positions as an advance for some putative sisterhood of which I am presumed to be a part.

[Cecil Turner]

Segregation and gender discrimination are bad things. Sotomayer is clearly saying a Latina judge is less likely to endorse racial discrimination than even the best white male judges. Experience seems to bear that out.

Now that's funny. My experience suggests the only current proponents of legal racial discrimination (things like racial quotas and race-based reparations) are members of "minority" classes that would tend to benefit from them. And, front and center, is her argument of individual racial experience claimed as superior. The only way to read this as a morally superior position is to first accept the proposition that only white males can be guilty of racism. Otherwise . . .

BTW, your link to the full "context" is the same one TM proffered all of, oh, four posts ago.

The votes are likely not there to defeat this nominee.

My understanding (and as someone alluded to earlier) is that the current system requires at least one vote from the minorityin order to leave committee. If so . . .

[JM Hanes]

Appalled:

"Rove is a tactician. He uses anger, sound bites, and trivia amplified out of proportion to achieve a result."

And this distinguishes the GOP from the Dems precisely how?

[Porchlight]

And, right on cue, from Hot Air:

Gibbs warns: Be “exceedingly careful” in how you criticize Sotomayor

[Appalled]

JMH:

I wasn't aware I was trying to make a distinction.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

What is wrong with this picture?

Well, first answer would be "Nothing. We got them, they didn't."

Second answer might be to ask why American natives don't like academic jobs.

[RichatUF]

Going OT for a minute: Did anyone catch the Obama speech at Nellis today? I'm looking for a transcript and haven't seen one.

[JM Hanes]

Appalled:

"I wasn't aware I was trying to make a distinction."

So the GOP is just developing a context free reputation as "the angry party"?

[daddy]

Well I see from Drudge that a bunch of Middle Aged White Guys (The">http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39913120090527">(The Russians), are suddenly not real happy about the North Koreans reopening the Korean War. Where the heck is their empathy?

[DrJ]

ask why American natives don't like academic jobs.

Most of the senior faculty are white males. The junior faculty, particularly at the second- or lower-tier schools, are not. I think it is largely a numbers game: US-born students just don't go into science and engineering in the numbers that they used to, particularly at the graduate level.

I must admit it is odd to talk about how the putative grantee would recruit American blacks or hispanics with the panoply of accents one hears.

[JM Hanes]

cathyf:

"Well, of course, those ARE all one group. City folks..."

Too right! Outside of racial demographics in the last election, the results make it almost indisputably clear that the primary polarity in politics today is urban vs. ex-urban.

[Neo]

One of the Republicans should ask her if she is smarter than Arlen Specter.

If she says yes, then confirm her.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Oh I'm sure that Ms. Sotomayor's life experience gives her a unique perspective. Afterall, how many Americans have had the benefit of an education at Princeton and Yale or the chance to be indoctrinated by liberal dogma by left-wing professors?

The two most discriminated groups in America are young white straight males and fat people. Their perspective is probably far more in tune with America than some woman with the elitist of elite educations.

[Danube of Thought]

"It would be great if the Republicans kept rejecting one extremist after another, but I don't see that happening."

I don't either, because they simply don't have the power to do so, even were they so inclined.

If we'd had a Court with nine white boys we'd never have had Brown v. Board of Education, right? And how could we ever hope that six white boys and one black--er, man--would bless us with us Roe v. Wade?

What experience seems to be bearing out is that we are already experiencing, right here of this ole thread, the very kind of BS Maguire warned us about.

[Appalled]

JMH:

Let's see. Last GOP candidate was McCain -- Mr. Anger Management himself. There's some context.

When we see the GOP in action, it's usually to complain about something (it's the nature of being the opposition party).

And then, there is the voice of the Republican party, eminating from the golden EIB microphone. Limbaugh never sounds terribly angry on the radio, but his transcripts, on the other hand, are incitements to anger.

Context enough?

The GOP's voices of sweet reason just haven't been very visible lately.

[Captain Hate]

Grill her on how she'd rule on Kelo if some poor but plucky Latina was being displaced. Getting that disgusting decision reversed should be job #1 and with that POS Souter gone it might be possible

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

OT: In case you missed it, both Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee are endorsing Rubio in Florida over Crist.

[Fresh Air]

The problem with this reasoning is it implicitly accepts the logic (made for years by leftwing diversity mongers) that there is something essential and unifying running through a diverse people, everywhere. But Diversity--as we know it--is a word so big that, as a descriptor of experience, it almost doesn't exist.

I made a couple of edits, but I think you can see the stupidity of this woman without a magnifying glass.

[Fresh Air]

Nick--

You have shown nothing. There is not a shred of connective tissue between what you wrote and the background of Holmes, for example, much less a strong correlation. You, in fact, are the racist, in that you evidently buy into the notion that certain people necessarily (natch) would rule a certain way based upon their race, etc. Conservatives reject this notion wholeheartedly and that is why we think this nominee is a racist as well.

[Janet]

Okay here's a mixed metaphor..."In the stitch of an eye"

[Danube of Thought]

"The GOP's voices of sweet reason just haven't been very visible lately."

Jeez--you must not have been listening to Secretary Powell. Now there's a political leader we can count on! I'm seeing a Powell-Specter ticket in our future...

[Original MikeS]

If the GOP doesn't want to be seen as angry they should stay away from stuff like, "requires a willful suspension of disbelief," or your loyalty to Pres. Bush seems to have "overwhelmed your respect for the truth." And who can forget the old angry stand by, "Betray us Petraeus."

[Pofarmer]

the results make it almost indisputably clear that the primary polarity in politics today is urban vs. ex-urban.

Rural vs Non-Rural, thank you.

Gibbs warns: Be “exceedingly careful” in how you criticize Sotomayor

There have been lots of radio bits saying that Gingrich is trying to paint Santomayor as a racist. I don't know if that's true, or they're taking bits of something out of context, or what. If that's what Newt is going with, then I think he's outlived his usefulness.

The two most discriminated groups in America are young white straight males and fat people.

Holy smoke. What if you're a young, fat, straight, smoking, white guy????

Hosed, hosed I say.

And then, there is the voice of the Republican party, eminating from the golden EIB microphone. Limbaugh never sounds terribly angry on the radio, but his transcripts, on the other hand, are incitements to anger.

That's gotta be one of the stupidest things I've read in a while. But, consider the source.

[matt]

why is it that the Republican leadership is rolling over on virtually every one of Obama's policies to date? Spineless, incompetent, unprincipled.

Her decisions have been overturned more than I would think 80% of the appellate bar. Not a great legal mind...or even a moderately competent one, it would seem.

And the term Latina is a joke. She's a Puerto Rican, which is not a Salvadorean or Mexican or Dominican or Colombian etc. One more data point confirming the subtle racism of the Left. Puerto Ricans are emphatically not Latinos to other Spanish speakers.

[PD]

"Rove is a tactician. He uses anger, sound bites, and trivia amplified out of proportion to achieve a result."

And this distinguishes the GOP from the Dems precisely how?

Wait. I deny Appalled's premise in the first place. He's alleged use of anger on Rove's part, and I reply: No. From what I've seen of Rove, he's cool, calm, and collected. He makes rational arguments, and he supports them with evidence. He lays out premises and draws conclusions.

Nothing of what Appalled has said about him squares at all with the reality of Rove as I've observed it.

[Jane]

Gee, I had so much to say, and then you all said it better. How Rude!

Thank you for feeling sorry for me, Jane. Now I think that if you were to hustle out here and mix me up a large Stoli martini I would feel all better.

Well just because you have my empathy DOT does not necessarily translate into my subservience. We will have grey goose and I'll be there in an hour.

Segregation and gender discrimination are bad things. Sotomayer is clearly saying a Latina judge is less likely to endorse racial discrimination than even the best white male judges. Experience seems to bear that out.

Nick, How do you explain Ritchie?

[Michael]

Judge Sotomayor's criticized comments are the equivalent of boy's locker room talk. We don't get all huffy that the football team at Notre Dame is called the 'Fighting Irish' perhaps implying that the 'gamecocks' of Auburn should just lie down. The Republicans are going to impress people generally that they can get their panties real tight in pursuing it. Heh, I was impressed that she can pronounce Sotomayor so it sounds Spanish. I'd prefer to find out why she disagrees with Professor Epstein in his review of her role in the Didden case. Her biography might be read as that of a government ward who will, with her life experience, tend to side with it as the in locis parentis. In the Didden case this would seem to have allowed inappropriate taking by a government agent acting in his own interest.

[PD]

Judge Sotomayor's criticized comments are the equivalent of boy's locker room talk.

Right. The fact that she makes them in public, before an audience, doesn't matter. They're just like comments made on the sly in the locker room.

[JM Hanes]

Apalled:

"The GOP's voices of sweet reason just haven't been very visible lately."

And if everybody else would just calm down, Dems and the press could ignore the opposition altogether. Great plan.

[Pofarmer]

As I recall, Fred Thompson makes some pretty good, reasoned arguements for Conservate principle's and philosphy's but????

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Michael, my daughter, an Auburn Tiger, will be very upset when you named her team after the South Carolina mascot.

BTW, are the S. Carolina women's teams the "Lady Gamecocks" or the "Gamehens"?

[JM Hanes]

I'm afraid I can't remember whom to thank for this piece on SCOTUS Reversals, but it seems particularly relevant:

Every term, commentators attempt to predict the outcomes of the cases in the Supreme Court docket. The statistics, however, suggest that the betting person’s answer should be reversal. According to a recent article in Slate, and based on SCOTUSBlog data (2004 term, 2005 term, 2006 term):

Overall, this past term the Supreme Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases they considered on their merits. The pattern holds true for the 2004 and 2005 terms as well, when the Supremes had overall reversal rates of 76.8 percent and 75.6 percent, respectively.

It is interesting how remarkably constant the reversal percentage is — 75%. It suggests that the Supreme Court primarily takes cases it wants to reverse, with only a few exceptions. Assuming the Court takes about 70 cases a term, it will only affirm in about 17 of them. So perhaps the new game for commentators should be listing those 17 lucky cases that will get affirmed.

Even if Sotomayor's role in Ricci didn't seem outrageous on its face, IMO, the above suggests that she is likely to be reversed. I'm praying that opinion will be released before her confirmation, although SCOTUSblog suggests that even if the Robert's court reverses:

...now that it knows that its opinion will have an affect on the confirmation proceedings, the Court may well write its opinion differently, out of deference to what in all likely will be a future colleague or out of a desire to avoid seeming political entanglements.

The outcome, however, seems far less important than the possibility that Sotomayor could decline to answer questions about the case because it was still being nominally adjudicated.

The Wall St. Journal notes that the 2nd Circuit was reversed in Riverkeeper v. EPA (6-3), and Merrill Lynch v. Dabit (8-0!). While they upheld Sotomayor unanimously in Knight v. Commissioner, "her reasoning drew a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts" who wrote that,"The Second Circuit opinion 'flies in the face of the statutory language.'"

All of which suggests some additions to my growing list of questions for Obama's nominee:

Along with an artfully phrased question about how her feminine Hispanic experience influenced her judgment in Ricci, I would ask if, upon reflection, she agrees that Merrill Lynch and Knight deserved reversal. If not, I would ask her to spell out her disagreement with the Supremes -- especially in the case of their 8-0 opinion.

[PD]

Regarding this "60% reversal" figure for Sotomayor's decisions that I've been seeing:

* Who's reversing them?
* What's the average reversal percentage?

[Original MikeS]

If not, I would ask her to spell out her disagreement with the Supremes -- especially in the case of their 8-0 opinion.

Yes!
From now on the only people who will have any influence on Sotomayor are the other justices. I would encourage them to do so.

[Pofarmer]

Along with an artfully phrased question about how her feminine Hispanic experience

I had to read that 3 times before I didn't see feminine Hygiene experience. I swear.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Very funny moment on GMA today as James Carville is caught in an 'all (conservative) hispanics look alike to me' gaffe. Ann Coulter makes sure it doesn't get overlooked.

Bonus; Diane--I Don't Get It--Sawyer, shows why she gets paid the big bucks; she's pretty.

[JM Hanes]

If I write it again, Po, I'll be sure to put Hispanic first!

[JM Hanes]

I wonder if Orrin Hatch is not as safe a bet for the Republican vote which will send Sotomayor to the floor as I thought:

Many analysts, reporters, and grassroots advocates act as if a judge’s philosophy can be determined with a calculator: They look at which side won, or which political interest benefited, and label the decision and the judge accordingly. That is the wrong standard. Politics is about winners and losers, and it is appropriate to characterize politicians as being pro-this or anti-that. But judging is about the process of reaching results — about whether the law or the judge determines winners and losers, no matter the issues or the parties involved. In their oath of office, in fact, judges swear to administer justice “without respect to persons” and to perform their duties impartially.



In the Senate, on the campaign trail, and during his first months in office, President Obama has suggested that he thinks judges should do something quite different. He has said judges should decide cases based on their personal values, or what is in their hearts. He has not only promised to appoint judges who have personal empathy toward certain groups, but also said that such personal feelings are essential for arriving at just decisions. Empathy is an admirable quality, but the question is not whether judges have empathy, but what they do with it — whether they use it instead of the law to make decisions. If so, then President Obama’s criteria are simply code for good old-fashioned judicial activism. If that is what he means, he should defend it. If that is not what he means, he should explain it.



It would be appropriate to assume that Judge Sotomayor at least generally fits the president’s criteria. And she has made statements of her own that raise similar concerns. In a 1996 article, she endorsed a legal system in which judges are “constantly overhauling the law.” In a 2002 speech, she doubted whether judges can transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices “even in most cases” and questioned whether they should do so at all. At a 2005 conference, she stated flatly that “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” The confirmation process is an opportunity to determine what these and other clues about Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy mean, and what they say about her qualifications to join the Supreme Court.

Patrick R.S:

I thought Coulter's riff on Obama setting and example for Republicans by voting against Roberts & Alito was pretty inspired.

[sbw]

Appalled, stop dragging a Rovian red herring across the thread. These dogs and doggettes will not be distracted from pointing out the singular absurdity of both Sotomayor's and Obama's intimation that justice is served by ignoring the law.