T Nation

Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick


Of course. See my thread about job interviews for Caucasian males. These people never even thought of interviewing by accomplishment, just discrimination.

We are doomed, just like the old Roman Empire. The Satanists are taking over..


This is a quote from the AP:

"Sotomayor, with 17 years on the bench, would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years".

I'll admit that I probably know as much about her as you do HH...the hearings are for that.

What I am trying to grasp is the point you are trying to get across.

Isn't the Court now, and has always been, mostly white males?



Any proof that she is lacking accomplishments? Or, rather do you just assume that she lacks accomplishment because she's a Latina? Surely only white males can do anything of relevance!

I wasn't aware that she was a Satanist either...


I just don't understand why the USSC is even necessary anymore. There is no constitution anymore so there is no need to have a court to "protect" it.


How many Caucasian males did Obama and His team interview? Were white males even remotely considered?

The issue is not the credentials of His choice, but whether He even had any white males in the running.

If the best person is chosen, wonderful. But was His pool of choices fair? LOL!!


Fortunately she does not seem to have the intellectual ability of the Conservative Justices so that will at least offset some of her left wing programming.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.





If you read how the USSC came to be the final arbiter of what's Constitutional and what's not, the reasoning was very thin indeed.

Marshall served for a record of over 34 years; he participated in more than 1000 decisions and authored over 500 opinions. Marshall was instrumental in establishing the court's authority in the national government. During his tenure, the court began issuing single majority opinions, enabling it to speak with a more definitive, unified voice. Rulings during this era bolstered federal power over states. Marshall wrote the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review of laws passed by Congress. He helped establish the Supreme Court as the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution."


"In making his ruling, Chief Justice Marshall declared that Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission. He continued, however, that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, as it purported to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not involving states or ambassadors, thereby establishing that the courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch."

In other words, the original framers of the Constitution in 1789 did something...that was...unconstitutional??

We've been suffering ever since.


It seems that she thinks being white and male is a disability [edit: at least when it comes to being a USSC justice]. From Sottomayor's 2001 speech at UC Berkeley:

"[i]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.[/i]"


Scotusblog says it best:

"The attacks are inevitable and tremendously regrettable, just as they were for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. A cottage industry -- literally an industry, given the sums of money raised and spent -- now exists in which the far left and right either brutalize or lionize the President's nominees. Because the absence of controversy means bankruptcy, it has to be invented by both sides, whatever the cost to the nominee personally and to the integrity of the judiciary nationally.

That is not to say that there aren't legitimate -- in fact, critical -- debates over issues like judicial philosophy and the proper way to interpret the Constitution that can and should be front and center in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. But the most extreme interest groups and ideologues are transparently uninterested in that reasoned debate as they rush to caricature the nominee and the opposing viewpoint."


That is taken out of context. She is talking about decisions expressly dealing with race and sex discrimination. And maybe she's right. Someone who has experienced such discrimination certainly brings something to the table that others don't. Although, there is the counter-argument that they are too close to the issue to be objective and reasoned.


This really loses its meaning out of context. It is an intersting speech. I think everyone would benefit from reading it, particularly the end after this excerpt.


This is the very problem with taking parts of a total speech out of context, simply to make a point.

Near the end of the speech, Judge Sotomayor says:

"...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 (vs. The Board of Education)..."

History has also taught us that picking Supreme Court nominees based on the feeling that they will "support" or vote a certain way can be a VERY tricking game.



I thought I did justice to the larger context of the speech.


I think she deserves a fair audit, and sitting on 2d Circuit affords a great deal of material to evaluate.

That said, first blush is disappointing. She doesn't seem to generate a great deal of enthusiasm for her intellectual firepower - and that is among those agreeable to her ideology. While she satsfies the identity-politics wing of the Democratic Party, about the most praise anyone seems to give her is "competent".

Ironically, in a perverted twist, identity-politics will prevent perhaps the best candidate - as measured by "intellectual firepower" - from being nominated: Cass Sunstein. One of the most distinguished jurists of his time (at least academically) and a reliable liberal, he never had a chance, being a white male.



My apologies if I took your point out of context.



The white man can't seem to catch a break. Gosh darn!


you started this thread saying it was unfair because he didn't take into account accomplishments by unknown white candidates.

and how do you know that obama had no white male candidates for the position?

now you're saying its not credentials that should dictate who gets the position, instead your issue is that she had no white male opposition , regardless of their qualifications.

you flip and flop, and then argue that the president should have racial quotas in interview policy for the ussc.

and isn't she against affirmative action? wouldn't that be ironic.


No problemo. We perhaps bring our differing experiences to bear when interpreting her speech.