Michael Ramirez for May 29, 2009

So, where did Sotomayor say this?

OK, I think that particular quote about a wise Latina woman coming to a better decision than a white male was not a smart thing to say. When that sentence is read in context with the entirety of her remarks, it is not as startling nor brazen. Others have noted that Justice Alioto made quite similar remarks about his background affecting his opinions.

I don’t think her overall remarks are as “racist” as some are making them out to be. I resent the characterizations of Rush Limblahblah and Gingrich that she’s not intelligent enough. That’s nonsense. From what I have read about her decisions, she is an intellectual giant compared to Thomas, and she has far more experience on the bench, and as a trial judge, than others currently on the bench.

I think she made an imprudent remark that can be twisted into meaning something other than what she meant.

I know I want another woman on the Court. I do have difficulty believing that a panel of all men, or almost all men, can make wise and informed decisions on issues affecting women. As someone else pointed out, I’d like like woman justices be deciding the case of the 13-year-old honors student who was strip searched by school officials. If I was that girl’s mother, I’d want to knock the block off those officials and charge them with sexual battery. II think that’s how I would have felt if it had happened to me at the age of 13. I just don’t think a bunch of men could ever know the degree of harm, shame and injustice that would cause a young girl.

OK, end of rant

They showed the video of her making the “comment”. EVEN SHE stated it was NOT “politically correct” when she made it. But the simple fact is, those who’ve lived with reality, rather than in ivory towers can make more informed judgments. Remember, it was a “Hispanic”(Gonzales), and “Asian” (Yoo), that said torture was perfectly okay, even if totally illegal. It should be remembered they too lived in ivory towers, despite their “ethnicity”. Race alone in this country does NOT warrant any contact with reality.

If the Reich wants to continue to deny human psychology - we are all the sum total of our experiences, then the reich will continue to inhabit a strange parallel universe that means nothing to the real world.

ColPappy, I’m not sure your comment made sense – at least I couldn’t figure it out. But it’s clear that we are talking about one sentence when the woman has a 16-year record of judicial decisions. Pay attention to what’s important!

Her 3 most important qualifications are 1. Liberal, 2. Liberal, 3. Liberal.

The fact that she is a woman and a Hispanic, is only icing on the cake, for if she was conservative, those attributes would have been rendered meaningless, if not negative.

Her comment is important to the extent that, if it was in reverse - a white man would have no future in public endeavors, public / political or private.

“Her 3 most important qualifications are 1. Liberal, 2. Liberal, 3. Liberal.”

Then she fails. She’s no liberal.

“The fact that she is a woman and a Hispanic, is only icing on the cake, for if she was conservative, those attributes would have been rendered meaningless, if not negative.”

In a perfect world, it should be meaningless. We know, however, from posts such as yours, that they are not.

“Her comment is important to the extent that, if it was in reverse - a white man would have no future in public endeavors, public / political or private.”

You’re absolutely right. However, where you are also wrong is that the standings on race are NOT reversed as well. Due to the institutional racism and sexism that STILL abounds in this country, a specific race and gender is, by default, elevated by the depression of other races and the other gender.

All things being equal (and they’re not), a reversal of roles is not unusual. However, since they’re not, a role reversal would be racism.

I know what you’re thinking, so let me nip that in the bud:

Let’s say you had three apples on the table. If you add one orange, you’re still at a deficit of two oranges in order to have an equal amount of each on the table. If you then add another orange and one more apple, you’re STILL at a two-orange deficit (two oranges and four apples).

Some would say that adding TWO oranges is “fruitist” (racist) if you don’t also add TWO apples at the same time. Of course, doing so also further continues the two-orange deficit.

What you’re claiming, petergrt, is that if she said that it’d be better to add two apples and she’d be run out of town. And you’re exactly right.

Yes, I know that’s a silly analogy, but it’s as silly as your “if it was in reverse” quip because you can’t “reverse” real life like that.

I recall the Scots woman who appeared on a British talent program rather frumpy but with a compelling story. Her appearance was met with derision by the audience. She then amazed everyone by exceeding expectations. If she appeared coiffured and well dressed the result might have been different. In other words she manipulated the outcome. I don’t mean to demean her talent; I recognize how she sold it. I question how compelling her story was.

I like what the conservative pundit Kathleen Parker had to say about this:

“Could a white man get away with saying something comparable about a Latina? Of course not. After Latinas have run the world for 2,000 years, they won’t be able to say it ever again either.”

tpenna: Your post begs the question: do two wrongs make a right?

“Then she fails. She’s no liberal.”

Most liberals don’t think of themselves as such, but rather as centrists.

The reality is that the philosophical needle has moved so far left that JFK would now be to the right to Reagan.

No, ANandy. I agree with Parker’s assertion that it was a poorly worded statement. Nonetheless, I truly believe that racism from a community that has historically held very little power, while ultimately wrong, is not the same thing as the racism of the majority.

I’m going to have to word a strong letter to my paper for editing out that assertion that Sotomayor’s statement was poorly worded. I strongly believe that racism from any source is wrong. I also believe Sotomayor is not a racist, only bigoted. On the basis of her bigotry she should be removed from the bench under the provision of the Judical Canons of the ABA. Canon 4, Rule 4.01C[2]. http://www.abanet.org/judicialethics/Canon4Final.pdf

Just reading about how the term “white man” came to fore, in 1757, to propagate more hate in the wars against Indians. Also interesting how some of those swore that Natives who turned to Christianity actually had their skin whiten and facial features change to become “white”–

Spain was here before England. My ancestors were here for 10,000 years before the Spanish. Maybe it is time to diversify the court, and the country, with a little intellect and awareness of reality?

“Most liberals don’t think of themselves as such, but rather as centrists.

The reality is that the philosophical needle has moved so far left that JFK would now be to the right to Reagan.”

You owe me a new monitor. I’ve never done a spittake before!

Daniel, you’ve just made my point. Even your saliva is vitriolic.

But seriously, do take a look at some of JFK speeches - they are eye openers for many.

I think that one of the problems is that with the ‘fall’ of Communism, our universities have stopped ‘officially’ teaching of Marxism. It is still being taught, but not as Marxism.

ANandy, Kathleen Parker writes: “Sotomayor’s point was that the ethnicity and sex of a judge ‘may and will make a difference in our judging.’ Who doesn’t believe that?”

If you don’t read this as an attempt to clarify poorly chosen words, then that’s your problem. I don’t think you need to write your paper about it.

Also, your assertion that Sotomayor is a bigot is laughable. You should have read by now that she has ruled in favor of abortion protesters and against minority claimants. A bigoted person is intolerant of any views that differ from his or her own. I put this question to you, then. Could a pro-choice bigot ever rule in favor of abortion protesters?

Huh?

Was Judith Exner one of them JFK peaches?

^ good one, charliekane

petergrt: Your assertion that the schools are teach “Marxism” even though they aren’t calling it that is as laughable as saying that that the “philosophical needle has moved so far to the left”.

I have looked at JFK’s speeches over the years and a great many of them would be regarded as “liberal” if the right actually told the truth about what “liberalism” is. But they, like you, only perpetrate the myth that “liberal” must mean “communism/socialism/Marxism” and any attempt to show otherwise is disregarded.

I really don’t know where you see vitriol from me.

tpenna said: “Also, your assertion that Sotomayor is a bigot is laughable. You should have read by now that she has ruled in favor of abortion protesters and against minority claimants. A bigoted person is intolerant of any views that differ from his or her own. I put this question to you, then. Could a pro-choice bigot ever rule in favor of abortion protesters?”

ANandy responds: Since you object to my characterization of Sotomayor as bigoted I’ll compromise and agree with you that she is biased, as shown by her claim that an opinion from a latina is better than that of a gringo. I have never mentioned any concern other than her sex and ethnicity bias and her belief that the Court of Appeal is a proper venue to set policy. Her conduct warrants review by the ABA.

Fine, ANandy. You say you’re compromising and assert that she’s “biased” (something each of us is guilty of). I’ll continue to agree with Kathleen Parker that she made a poorly worded statement.

As for the other statement, Scalia agrees with her that courts set policy. It is no stretch of the truth to say that a Supreme Court decision (such as Roe v. Wade) is the law of the land. Such is also the case with a lower court decision that is not elevated to the SC.

I have seen nothing that suggests Scalia agrees that the bar should make policy. However if he did, I disagree. I disagree that Parker suggested she made a poorly worded statement, more like poor judgement. Not exactly what we desire in a judge.

Scalia in 2002 case, Republican Party of MN v. White:

“This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of ‘representative government’ might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to ‘make’ common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well.”

Now you’ve seen evidence of it, ANandy. As for Parker, believe what you like. As far as I’m concerned, she’s the only conservative pundit honest enough to look at Sotomayor’s comment within its context and decide that it was just poorly worded.

Do you recognize the phrase state-court judges? Their decisions can influence state constitutions. “That has nearly nothing to do with the role of the federal courts, however, where Judge Sotomayor and Justice Scalia both sit. It has been established law since the 1930s - it’s one of the first things every law student learns - that there is no such thing as general federal common law. There are some discrete areas of federal common law - maritime law, federal contractor law, etc. - but the big ticket issues for the Supreme Court are its constitutional and federal statutory dockets. In point of fact, Justice Scalia has been an opponent of the expansion of federal common law (see his 1994 opinion for the Court in O’Melveny & Myers v FDIC). Still less is the power to make common law a legitimate way for judges to approach the Constitution.” http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2009/05/28/jason-linkins-encounters-the-hazards-of-blogging-a-subject-you-do-not-understand/ You are also mistaken about Parker’s conclusion.

I feel like the only way for you to understand Parker’s position is to continue ramming it against your head, ANandy. So here it is again:

“Sotomayor’s point was that the ethnicity and sex of a judge ‘may and will make a difference in our judging.’ Who doesn’t believe that?”

How am I interpreting this incorrectly?

As far as “no such thing as general federal common law”, that’s pretty tricky, bro. I saw you insert the word “general” there. Pretty astute reference to the 1938 Erie decision, I’ll give you that. But we all know that there are, in fact, areas in which the federal courts have authority to make law (think bankruptcy and civil rights). In the US, Congress is empowered to alter said law, but that does not change the fact that federal courts are thus empowered.

tpenna said: “As far as ‘no such thing as general federal common law’, that’s pretty tricky, bro. I saw you insert the word ‘general’ there. Pretty astute reference to the 1938 Erie decision, I’ll give you that. But we all know that there are, in fact, areas in which the federal courts have authority to make law (think bankruptcy and civil rights). In the US, Congress is empowered to alter said law, but that does not change the fact that federal courts are thus empowered.”

ANandy replies: The insert to which you refer is not mine; it belongs to the lawyer who wrote the piece. You’ll notice the quotation marks. What gives Federal Courts the authority to make law? If the courts are able to make law, why do we need Congress? The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to make policy (legislate) because of the wisdom of giving the Executive veto authority, called checks and balances.

You’re right, ANandy. I missed the quotation marks. I assumed that you were making an assertion of your own and I attempted to complement you for your awareness of the aforementioned case. Apparently my complement belongs to Dan McLaughlin.

As for what gives federal courts the authority to make law, I don’t know. I haven’t looked into it enough to know. But I know they do, in fact, make common law.

Even McLaughlin says so, as I go back and read in his essay: “There are some discrete areas of federal common law - maritime law, federal contractor law, etc. - but the big ticket issues for the Supreme Court are its constitutional and federal statutory dockets.”

I simply disagree with his apparent dismissal of civil rights and bankruptcy law (areas not mentioned by him in which the federal courts also exercise common-lawmaking authority) as somehow not “big ticket issues”.

“Civil Rights” are an invention of civil rights pimps, who have created a career of identity politics, or the politics of victimization. Rights defined in the Bill of Rights are the only real “Civil Rights”.

You don’t think that the Fourteenth Amendment spells out a civil right (full citizenship)? It’s not in the Bill of Rights!

Such an understanding of civil rights is draconian and not shared by any but the far fringes of American society.

Besides, you’re changing the subject. Federal civil rights law and bankruptcy law are huge! And the federal courts are empowered to make law regarding these and other types of law mentioned by McLaughlin.

tpenna said: “You don’t think that the Fourteenth Amendment spells out a civil right (full citizenship)? It’s not in the Bill of Rights! Such an understanding of civil rights is draconian and not shared by any but the far fringes of American society.”

ANandy replies: You are correct, no part of our Constitution may be ignored. A resolution to any grievance can be found in our Constitution. What can you find draconian and not shared by a majority of our society about the Fourteenth Amendment?

I’m not going there with you, ANandy. Stay on topic. I already waste too much of my time on here. See my post immediately above your last one. Do you have a rebuttal?

The only basis for a Federal Appellate Court to accept jurisdiction of a case is on the basis of a Constitutional question. The civil rights applicable to all citizens are found in the Amendments. McLaughlin made no reference to federal civil rights. Federal Bankruptcy courts are a seperate system; cases are not decided on Constitutional issues but on Bankruptcy Law enacted by Congress. When did I stray off topic?

You strayed off topic on the question of what constitutes a civil right. We can agree that, whether you like the term being applied to one thing or another, there is such an entity as civil rights law. (If you can’t agree to that, then you’re entirely beyond help.) And we should be able to agree that abridgments of said civil rights represent matters of Constitutional question.

You’re correct that McLaughlin makes no mention of civil rights law. You’ll note that he said “maritime law, federal contractor law, etc.” Civil rights law fits into the “etc.” (along with antitrust and interstate commerce law), but he preferred not to list it because it shows a significant area of federal common law that federal courts are permitted to make. McLaughlin’s argument was that the only such areas were insignificant, and listing civil rights law would have damaged his argument. That’s why he chose to list the two least significant areas.

When in trouble, rationalize.

Well, no. More like when in trouble, use reason.

Or I could do as you do when in trouble, ANandy, and fail to answer an argument but instead make a snarky remark.

tpenna said: “Well, no. More like when in trouble, use reason. Or I could do as you do when in trouble, ANandy, and fail to answer an argument but instead make a snarky remark.”

ANandy replies: Show me an example of a “snarky remark” ot your post please.

ANandy, this conversation is going nowhere. You are apparently ill-prepared to reflect at all, and I’ve got a wife coming home and a weekend to get to. Enjoy!