No, she's not the best candidate. Absolutely not!

I thought Justice was blind and didn't care if the judge was an old white male.

sandy

Do you have any actual evidence related to her judicial actions, particularly over the last seventeen years on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and encompassing the thousands of cases she has been a part of ruling on, that could support your opinion?

I find it ironic that here we are reviewing a justice and using reverse discrimination to bias the choice (woman/Latino). Justice is blind and so should the selection process. The best candidate for the role should be chosen, not a political chip place on the table for future elections...

Sotomayor just wouldn't look good in one of those robes!

Maybe if you got her one of those Princess Leia wigs..........

Does anything else really matter?

I mean, obviously they don't appoint justices based on silly things like ethics or the ability to FAIRLY judge cases using that silly "outdated piece of paper" called the Constitution!

Pinch - In case you missed it, the most recent event in the Judicial life of judge Sotamayor is the case over turned last week in the Supreme Court where the Justices ruled that white fire fighters were discriminated against when their test scores were tossed because of low, or no, minorities having passed the test. As a sitting Judge on the Circuit Court, Judge Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters. Also, her association with groups like La Raza calls into question her fairness and objectivity. If a white, male nominee had been associated with an exclusionary group like this, they would be roundly hammered, and rightly so. But sadly, since she's a woman and minority, many demand she be given a free pass. It's amazing how "equal opportunity" can be touted while "equal scrutiny" is reviled. Remember how Senators hammered Justice Thomas? And what they went after him for had little to do with his judicial life.

Get...

Why would the selection of a white male make Justice more blind and automatically be the "best candidate". Referencing for instance the Warren Court, how are past selections, all made by presidents with political agendae, not in some way political chips?

PINCH,

Good question. The Brennan Center released a report showing Judge Sotomayor ruled with the majority 98.2% on constitutional cases, and 94% of her decisions were unanimous. It hardly indicates a so-called "activist" judge that too many in my former GOP are desperately trying to purport.

"The stronger is the vote, the stronger is the message to the president and his team that we have some bandwidth here, or some leeway for more progressive nominees,"

Bandwidth? Oh my isn't that hip? Oh, and by the way, why didn't this activist say Liberal? Call a spade a spade. I'm a proud Conservative. I guess they can't say the same about being a Liberal/Progressive.

How can Al Franken`s 48hours of experience being a senator really give any clarity to this lunacy.Maybe Israel can release and forgive Cynthia Mckinney for trying to deliver care packages to terrorists and make it back to D.C. just to add a little racist Anti-american tone to this process.There clearly is a lack of it here.

She has already proven that she is a racist by her comments and rulings.  If a white judge had made the same comments they would be crucified and the NAACP would be involved or Al Sharpton. 

The question should be:

"How much BETTER could our country be with a bunch of rookies running it?"

The voting masses will never vote out incumbents. They go to the polls blind and just vote... oh that name looks familiar I'll vote for them, or he has the same last name as my cousin I'll vote for him..... that seems to be the way folks vote there is no knowledge when they go to the polls. But it's their right to stick head up butt and vote.

I say that because I've seen so many of the incumbents voted back in and they have been in power for over 20 years. Then you get tax payers complaining about how the government is run, wake up people things won't change unless you get these long time folks out of office,we would not be having this issued with our congress and senate if you the voters would have voted some of these jerks out of office! Don't start complaining now the chance was back in Nov. now you have to wait it out. Hopefully we have a country by 2012!

Well, I understand the complaint some of you have about her comments and rulings. But, really, are those rulings any different from the rulings by white judges who put affirmitive action in place? She apparently thinks that minorities need an advantage to compete in a country in which whites control the money. I know a lot of whites who think the same thing. I don't see her being any more activist in that respect that any other liberal judge, and rest assured, this President will nominate only liberal judges. Given that, and given her record, I don't think she's any worse that any other judge that's likely to be nominated, so they may as well go ahead and confirm her.

White radical right wing conservative republicans really really sadden me. There is no equality in this country, it is still a white domination mentality by the disenfranchised[sic] white radical conservatives who want to continue the status quo that the mere nature of their skin, they are entitled. There is truly nothing I have read by anyone from that group, that says or proves anything other then the fear of the unknown. God help you if it had been a white female nomination that had said she was smarter then a white male, "you people ( yes, like in white dominating males and subjugated while females) would have eaten her up, with Women belong with the kids mentality"

Just in case I am a white moderate conservative, that the ultra right wing of the movement makes me totally sick. And you dare call yourselfs American , land of the Free and the Brave and Equality for all as you love to say from the mouth outward only!

I often wonder if people on the right actually have cable and internet or if your TVs only get FOX and your radios AM. Judge Sotomayor is the most qualified and well educated nominee in 25 years. She votes with the majority on her circuit in over 90% of cases, in 100 discrimination cases she has ruled for the plaintiff only 14 times almost always ruling with established law as she did in the firefighters case, it was the Supreme Court which acted as an activist body in reversing 60 years of rulings based on the 1963 Civil Rights Act. She has 3,000 decisions 4 of which have been overturned on appeal. Her decisions have been so solid they almost are never reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Educationally she graduated as valedictorian at Cardinal Spellman won a full academic to Princeton where she graduated Summa Cum Laude and won the Pyne prize, probably the most prestigious undergraduate award in the US. Scholarship to Yale Law, editor of the Yale Law Journal and Managing Editor of Yale Studies in World Public Order.

She has always been registered politically as an Independent and all of this trash from the right is because she does not have an overwhelmingly pro business voting record and is not a Federalist Society Member. Roberts, Alito and Scalia are all Federalist Society and Thomas is a rubber stamp. All of these are extreme activist judges looking to overturn almost all Social and pro-labor, pro equal rights rulings since 1932. Read who has funded the Federalist Society and by proxy Scalia, Alito and Roberts and you find a who's who list of reactionary right wing billionaires whose faux foundations have provided qasi intellectual justification for everything from Reaganomics to preemptive war and torture. These are the activists in the judiciary not the Sotomayors of the world.

JKHayes

She has several things going in her favor. She won't have lies told about her as the dems do with every republican nominee. She will have a senate vote, unlike most republican nominees. AND she has the national press lapping at her feet instead of attacking her as happens to every republican nominee.

What she has stated won't matter because the democrats want her confirmed so they'll get more latino and women votes. Whether she follows the Constitution or not doesn't matter... for the same reasons. The only thing that matters is getting more votes.

She should not be made a supreme justice, she was in on the firefighters that could not get promoted because they were white... It is suppose to be Justice for All, but she is right along side of people like Al Sharpton... It is what they can do for their people, their kind... If there were fire fighters that were Latino, and not on the job as long as the white fire fighters, then in her book, they would be promoted first ??? Where is the Justice in that ??? Pinch 2.1-- you said it right, and she is not untouched by Injustice... And the Fire fighter case has shown that...

Boo,

Read her majority decision, she simply refused to overturn the 1963 Civil Rights Act which in a narrow split decision the Supremes effectively did, now there is a group of judicial activists.

JKHayes

I suppose none of you are aware of the "anti-immigrant" mind set out there. Whenever a Latino surname pops up in articles on MSNBC, there are many Newsvine posts that reveal a anti-Latino stance in the USA.

Why can't a Latino, born and raised in this country, be vocal and proud of their heritage without being viewed as a racist?

robin...

Given your post, I am not at all sure you are qualified to comment on racism. You surely don't not understand the Constitution of the land I am assuming you live in, the role and conduct required of the legal system, or the role of precedent case law, especially Supreme Court precedent (see Bakke for a little more understanding of these things).

Is she the best candidate? That is a rather broad question that cannot be answered without looking at each and every judge in the United States, then going back and doing the same when each of our court Supreme Court Justices were nominees. I am almost certain that at the time, there were folks that felt there was someone more qualified than each of the Justices, and yet each one is now on the court.

The question instead should be "is Judge Sotomayor qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice" and the answer is an emphatic yes! Not only that, but I suspect that if the naysayers on this board would actually watch the confirmation hearings, they would find out that she is not nearly as out there as some Congressman would have the public believe.

Judge Sonya Sotomayer WILL come out of this fight with her intelligence apparent, and her dignity intact; and she will become the next Justice of the US Supreme Court!

Wouldn't it be nice if partisanship didn't play such a big part of the process of governing the country. Wouldn't it be refreshing if the leaders (we are presently led by partisan hacks, not leaders and have been for generations) were interested solely in doing the right thing and not gaining political advantage from their actions. Could it happen, its unlikely the partisan fools hold the power and will not willingly let it go and it seems the voters are content with the mediocre performance of both party's. Change would require that the voters turn their backs on the current structure and create new organizations with standards for both character and actions not lame schemes to misdirect the voters. Change would mean we recreate the government not expand it, change is scary and difficult it wont happen so long as we repeat the mistakes that put us here and that mistake is supporting either party. We have a constitution that outlines citizen rule, we have party's that have created a professional class of ruling elites that have little in common with the people they claim to represent. Sadly they have a rabid misinformed group of followers who would gladly follow them (either party) right over the cliff and they are doing just that.

TOR-744926, Latinos can and should be vocally proud of their heritage, just as every other ethnic group in this great country should be. It does not make anyone less American to do so, but rather adds to the wonderful mix that is American society!

Truth be told, there is no shortage of bias on these boards, and it is attributable to the fact that they are anonymous. People that are sure of themselves and in there own strengths and shortcomings, do not feel the need to put down an entire culture.

CBWY777, please allow me to point out one crucial fact that is missing from your statement. Affirmative Action is not racist, because one of the main beneficiaries of the policy has been...now wait for it, 'cause I know this is going to shock you...WHITE WOMEN!

Tell me? Are they "racist" as well?

As the Black folks have fought and won to end segregation (which is a good thing because it is suppose to be Justice for all) But, they have segregated themselves, there are over 60 colleges that are for blacks only, I have seen first hand, there was a white person, and a black person, who both had the same financial background, they both needed help from welfare. But the black person got it, and the white person did not, all because of their Race... Where is the Justice in that ??? And this is happening every single day...

I could cut and paste, or reword as you have, at least a dozen references that refute everything you've said, in about a minute Mr. Hayes.

And believe it or not, not all of them would be FOX or AM radio.

I could give you pages of internet info, twisted and contorted to promote either way of thinking. It wouldn't take much longer to find something that says Sotomator is a lesbian Al Qaeda operative.

There's one thing that doesn't lie, and that's video tape. Regardless of what statistics you prefer to use to bolster your argument, the only REAL issue has nothing to do with percentages, but rather the ability to hear cases without bias. If ANYTHING, she has demonstrated the opposite.

MichiganWolf, I absolutely love the way that you conservatives have the uncanny ability to forget the fact that our former President GWB sent out his very handsome, and very Latin American nephew, to drum up Latino votes when he ran for re-election. Of course, that was perfectly fine, as conservatives simply looked the other way, and pretended it wasn't happening. Now, because many Latinos woke up to the fact that Conservatives really could care less about issues that effect them and returned to the Democratic fold, you cry foul? Please!

Perhaps you all should not have assumed Latinos were too stupid to see that you only want them around during election time?

Focusing on her life story and not the constitution. This is how our Dic tator in Chief was elected. She is not qualified nor is Obamination, but some people fall in love with the story.

That's not fair to her, Charles. She is far more qualified than Obama was.

Hey, there Boo. Exactly how have I "segregated" myself from you? I work the same jobs as White's do, attend the same colleges, and use the same financial aid to do so.

No matter what you say, there are never two exact same students, with exact same situations. But, with the understanding that you might be right, please provide proof. Tell us the name of the school or the students involved, so that the situation can be investigated; 'cause I will tell you what. Countless White students have taken schools to task for preferential treatment given to minorities, and actually won their cases. Why did not the student you refer to, do the same? If you like, I can look up a few cases for you, for reference sake. You see, I live in a state where Affirmative Action is no longer the law of the land, because it has been challenged.

If you are going to make a statement, make sure you give all factual data.

  She is a member of "La Raza" which literally translated means "The Race"  How could anyone in their right mind not see that she is a racist, and activist judge.  La Raza is the equivalent to the Hispanic KKK.  She has NO BUSINESS on the supreme court based solely on her affiliations.

I have come to the conclusion that the only reason Right Wingnuts are so conservative is because they are gullable fools. Why? Because they believe everything they read in forwarded e-mails and form their world views from that.

The thing that aggravates me most when I read the postings on this site, is the way the Democrats and Liberals twist the truth. Conservatives do no care about Sotomayer's race, or sex, or how she did in school, or any of that stuff. I have never read a conservative posting that said anyone could not do something because they were from a certain race, or because they were a woman. Liberals are the ones trying to make this a race issue, from Obama down to the last left wingnut. What the Conservatives are complaining about is the fact that SOTOMAYER is a racist, SHE has the extremists ties with La Raza. Conservatives do not get worked up about race, sex, age, or anything like that. We look at a person for what they are and the company they keep, so quit trying to make us look like the racists when it is the Democrats all along who try to make race THE issue.

I love fuzzy math. The supreme court has only reviewed 5 cases which were ruled upon by Sotomayor and her fellow judges. 3 were overturned. If you consider that 232 cases were ruled upon then you'd say that only 1.3% were overturned as a non-review by the Supreme Court implies that they agree with the conclusion reached assuming appeal. But don't let the truth stand in the way of your argument. What's the saying? If the facts are on your side argue the facts, if not attack the messanger?

She is certainly the best candidate. Obama needs her there to get Cheney. I imagine she is the only one he hasn't bought off. I mean when you steal 2.3 trillion dollars from the pentagon then have the investigative offices there bombed, you have a lot of buy power. Obama recently said he was against the Cheney probe and he just wants to move forward. I think the reason he said that is he needs to get the republican party to approve Sotomayor. The republican party is trying to get his numbers down so they can get into office and do this 911 stuff all over again. She is a fine candidate one that will get this country the justice it deserves.

There is also that other never-mentioned fact that one of the now-sitting Supreme Court Justices had 100% of his decisions which were appealed to the Supreme Court overturned.

The Bush administration did 911 a 100%. Not Bin-laden, not Al-quida. Pelosi and Obama know all about this. It has taken them eight years to get this administration. Obama still has to kiss ass with the right to get them to approve her. We the people have to oust the republican party. We have to make sure any republican that was in office during the Bush administration needs to be taken out of office. So if Palin decides she wants to run again you have to do whatever the hell you can to make sure she doesn't get in office. Even if she decides to run Democrat.

All of this is about 911. Michael Jackson dying I imagine was a wagging of the dog. We need SotoMayor. I completely understand now. And believe me before this is all over there is going to be a lot more celebrities dying especially when big political news hits. I mean take a look at this:

Acting Chief Of Staff Indicates Stand Down Order Held Until After Missile Hit Pentagon
On September 13th, 2001, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, was asked whether the order to scramble fighter jets had been given “before or after the Pentagon was struck.” Myers replied: “That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.”

* Andrews Air Force Base assigned to protect the Capital is 11 miles from Washington DC.
In the 1st nine months of 2001, the base scrambled jets 67 times to relatively minor incidents involving commercial airlines.
* Fighter jets travel at 1,500 miles per hour and routinely go from ‘scramble order’ to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes.
* Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City International Airport in Pomona, 8 minutes from New York consistently maintains two F-16 fighters on the runway and pilots on 24 hour scramble standby. On 9/11 these standby F-16's were specially decommissioned.

* The first plane struck the WTC at 8:46 am (Alleged AA 11)
* The second plane struck the WTC at 9:03 am (Alleged UA )
* The missile struck the Pentagon at 9:38 am (Alleged AA 77)

Some time well before 8:46 am the FAA had reason to order the scrambling of fighter jets to intercept the alleged hijacked aircraft. At 8:46 am the FAA and NORAD had every reason to scramble interceptors and to shoot down any hijacked aricraft. By 9:03 most of the world knew America was "under attack". By 9:25am the FAA, in consultation with the Pentagon, had banned all takeoffs around the country and still had plenty of time to scramble interceptor jets to take out the missile aimed at the Pentagon. However, According to General Meyers & Mineta, Cheney's stand down order prevailed.

The FAA was aware of American Airlines Flight 77 hijack when it made it's first unauthorized turn at 8:54 am, twelve minuets after the first plane hit the towers. The FAA stated that AA 77's transponder was turned off at 8:56. According to the 9/11 Commission Report: “At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon."
- The question we ask is how Arab hijackers with box cutters turned off flight transponders and programmed auto pilots to fly planes off course to 38 miles from the Pentagon? Furthermore, the aggressive flight path of the missile that hit the Pentagon confirmed the fact that no 757 flew into the Pentagon as did the wreckage and damage to the Pentagon.

Recordings of FAA flight controllers on 9/11 were confiscated and destroyed and the flight controllers were issued gag orders.

9/11 Commission records indicate that FAA flight controllers monitoring flights on 9/11 stated that American Airline 11 never struck the first tower as claimed. The Commission reports that the FAA scrambled aircraft after "Phantom" hijacked aircraft.

Detailed analysis of video taken of the second aircraft to hit the WTC indicate that it was likely a Military aircraft equipped with a 40ft Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System dome on the aircrafts underside. J-STARS is used for airborne battle management allowing the aircraft to be controlled remotely like a missile -see section on Dr. Dov S. Zakheim below.

Video analysis also reveals an explosion in the tower just prior to the aircraft hitting the second tower, either from a missile fired just prior to the aircraft hitting the tower or from explosives planted in the tower.

In May 2001, by Presidential Order, Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control all war game and field exercise training and scheduling exercises especially FEMA this also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD exercises. Standard scramble and shoot down orders for hijacked aircraft were specifically removed from NORAD generals and placed in the exclusive control of Cheney.

On 9/11 Cheney was running the largest war-games exercises ever in the U.S:
1. Northern Vigilance – mock cold war hijack
2. Vigilant Guardian – insertion of false radar blips on radar screens.
3. Vigilant Warrior – live fly hijack drill
The FAA had more than twenty 'hijacked aircraft" blips on their radar on 9/11. The diversion exercises Cheney ran on 9/11 ensured confusion when the missiles hit the WTC & Pentagon. It is also reported that Cheney ordered as many possible scramble fighter jets as he could to partake in exercises in Alaska so as to ensure the missiles were not shot down.

In June 2001, Vice President Cheney took charge of the Counterterrorism Task Force, but never convened a single meeting. Weeks before the first Anthrax attacks began, Dick Cheney’s staff were ordered to begin taking the Anthrax antibiotic Cipro.

The day before 9/11 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced "According to some estimates we [The Pentagon] cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," he went on to "declare war" stating "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy,".

The section of the Pentagon hit by the missile on 9/11 housed accountants, analysts, bookkeepers and The Budget Analyst Office covering the lost $2.3 trillion. The entire chain of command Office of Naval Intelligence and Budget/auditors investigating government corruption and who were also monitoring Cheney's War Game deceptions were killed by the missile that hit the Pentagon.

The individual in charge of the Pentagon's budget working with Rumsveld, Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, was also a PNAC member who co-authored the infamous PNAC "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES" that called for "a new Pearl Harbor". The PNAC paper literally states "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Dr. Zakheim served as the CEO of System Planning Corporation, Inc. whose CTS and FTS technology provided a "fully redundant turnkey range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles" and "remote control and flight termination functions" see and FTS. His companies technology was perfect for flying the aircraft into the WTC and the missile into the Pentagon. Dr. Xakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The level of hate and out right racism on these strings always amazes me, and I don't know why. It seem it is perfectly okay with many to slander, ridicule, debase any one or anything that even mentions conservatism, yet the same people scream fowl if you dare to question anything liberal. I am against Judge Sotomayor solely for her views. I could care less if she is Latino or not. And those who are supporting her simply because of her race are the worst form of racist. Had she been a white male and member of the KKK, the only Federal job she could get would be Senator of West Virginia. But, no, she can be excused for making racist remarks. She can be excused for bragging about being a "product of affirmative action". She can brag about getting advanced above others based on her race and gender, but don't you let a conservative mention it. It's okay for Liberal Senators to sit in judgement of a Black nominee, essentially calling him a rapist, when their own behavior is fully documented and far worse. But don't let it happen to a liberal.

BTW - basedrum, as my old Statistics Professor used to say: "Figures lie and Liars figure". You can also look at the figure that 60% of her cases that the USSC reviewed were over turned. It is as accurate as you stating that only 1.3% of her cases were over turned, as the Supreme Court normally reviews such a small percentage of cases from any court. Would that be "fuzzy math"?

Conservatives twist the truth until it breaks.

As to the fuzzy math, you have to look at the cases that were appealed to the supreme court, not heard by it. SCOTUS implicitly agrees with a lower court ruling when it turns down an appeal.

Also, look at those overturned rulings, all of the Appeals court rulings were based on long standing SCOTUS precedence. SCOTUS overturned the precedence in all the cases. Appeals court judges are bound by precedence. The Ricci case in particular was based on the precedence of how the civil rights act applies to work place hiring practices. The SCOTUS ignored precedence in over turning the decision in a 5-4 vote(not a very decisive vote).

Clint Horace,

Much to my technological shame I do not know how to cut and paste. I read both internet and library sources. The sources I find best are usually depending on the topic are the US government which has libraries and data bases on an enormous range of subjects, Harvard law library will even let you call and a reference librarian will look up info., George Washington and Georgetown have excellent reference libraries and access also Georgetown Walsh School of Foreign Service. On religious issues and history the Vatican Library is easy to use and excellent. Please to show me any site not sponsored by faux academic foundations or business or political intersts that refute one word of what I have written. Daedlus from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is and has been my favorite periodical (quarterly) since college in 1977 it gives you all from science to poetry and fiction. Please do not reference Judicial Watch, Heritage, Drudge, World Net, Eagle Forum, NewsMax, Human Events, Town Hall, Weekly Standard, Wall St Journal Opinion or other Murdoch gutter press or dozens of other propaganda mills created for the skewing of statistics and the manufacturing of opinion. Having Jeff Sessions as point man in itself should tell you a great deal. Sessions failed to be confirmed as a federal judge because of racism and sexism as well as prosecuting civil rights workers and being a frequent C-Street attendee shows such malevolence and ignorance from the top as to make the whole process absurd.

JKHayes

Boo...

The "firefighters' case" proved no such thing. You, like the vast majority of American citizens, have not read either the original suit, the filings and arguments, the decisions of the lower courts, or even the arguments and ruling of the Supreme Court in this case. All of this business about this being about the discrimination against the white firefighters is, legally, nonsense. If the people who had passed the test had all been black, and those not passing had been white, and one of the black firefighters had started the legal ball rolling after a similar action by the City of New Haven, this case would have proceeded the same way, and ended undoubtedly with the same result.

If you had read the actual case papers, you would have realized that this, other than in the equally uneducated mass media's sensationalistic mind, was quickly not a case about the firefighters at all.

This case revolved around the City of New Haven's use of Title VII as a defense for not honoring a promotional policy they had proposed, implemented, and then rejected, which was in fact fully in line with precedent law (Bakke, a Supreme Court decision) as all lower courts stated so the Second Circuit of the Court of Appeals, of which Sotomayor is one member, did the only thing they are legally able to do.

However, the Supreme Court has the ability to parse definitions in a way no lower court can. But they did not believe they should actually overturn Title VII. So they inserted an additional definition, stating that FEAR of violation of the Title was not an adequate defense. This allowed them to uphold the idea that an actual challenge promoting a violation of the Title would have allowed the City to prevail, but that just the City's FEAR of such a challenge did not have the same impact.

Thus, the Supreme Court, and only that Court, could "make new law" without discarding an old one. Supreme Courts have done this before many times when an issue does not fall neatly within the actual words of the Constitution, and it is for just such reasons that we have them.

So there was not "overturning of Sotomayor" since Bakke was allowed to stand. The Supreme Court was even careful to insure that they were in no way criticizing the decisions of the lower courts, but their fine-tuning of Title VII allowed for a clarification of the Title which caused the City of New Haven to no longer have an adequate defense. In other words, the white and Hispanic firefighters did not win. They simply benefited from the fact that the City of New Haven lost. I know it is a subtle difference, as many legal opinions are, but is true, nevertheless, and it is an important distinction.

This is more whitewash from the fools on Capital Hill. Look at what is going on:

1. BO promised illegals everything on his campaign trail.

2. BO appoints Napolatono (who was the leader in America for prosecuting illegals, over 6000 arrested and prosecutions) And gets her to change her mind and NOW she is re-writing the laws so we can't go after them(Illegals).

3. BO has nominated a judge who is a part of La Raza to help him give the illegals everything they want and not be challenged.

Yep sounds like the wools being pulled over the AMERICAN CITIZENS eyes once again.

Its his way to insure him the Hispanic vote in 2012. What a crock of S%$T!!!!!!!!!

yes, she is. She was overwhelmingly confirmed when a Republican President nominated her to the appeals court. Her record is spectacularly bipartisan, only considering the law. She is not a legislator and will not try to legislate from the bench as Alito does. Give it up now, she is well qualified and desrves much more respect from all Americans. The only real complaint about her is who nominated her and that will not change no matter who it is he nominates. Be glad you got a sensible intelligent person on the court.

JK Hayes

Much to everyone's delight you don't have the technical skills to cut and paste.

I can't imagine all the crap you'd post if you could!

I understand though, it is a highly technical procedure. Maybe with a tutor or some night classes you could master the art!

By the way, I find it amusing that you think whatever you happen to read and agree with, is somehow gospel. The fact that you use MSNBC in your arsenal tells me you just might.....just maybe.....slight chance.... you would back ANY nominee endorsed by our Supreme Leader. Even if she was a bigot, part time baby seal killer, and an Al Qaeda operative.

Forget the bigot part. I gather that's not a big issue with you.

Clint Horace,

Not the case actually, I had little to no issue with the Roberts confirmation and the same can be said of Alito, I did not like their political leaning but other than affiliation with The Federalist Society and accepting speaking fees from radical right wing funded organizations I saw nothing that made them unqualified. Scalia and Thomas on the other han I thought should have been disqualified Scalia created his own philosophy of original meaning and believes in a chief executive more powerful than the other two branches. Clarence Thomas had only two years on the Federal bench and very few decisions or opinions of consequence. Very credible, graphic and specific testimony by Anita Hill showed the strong possibility that we were placing someone who found sexual harassement a mainstream acceptable practice on the court should have been an immediate disqualifier.

I suspect I could master cutting and pasting if I saw a need to do so, my interests are in reading, researching and learning not in finding trite quotations from obscure or less than credible sources. Accusing a woman who's entire career has been one of achievment and success of being a bigot because a certain segment of society chooses to misrepresent a statement and a ruling is both destructive and disingenuous. It is too bad that when ones beliefs are discredited and their heroes found to be villians they use the last resort of a scoundrel or the Rovian destruction of a fine person for political ends at the expense of truth and justice.

JKHayes

Dennis,

Comparing La Raza (or any other group Sotomayor has ever associated with) to the KKK serves only one purpose, to deceive people too ignorant to know the difference and to lazy to find out for themselves.

Are you trying to deceive or just re-distributing the deception played on you?

How...

1. Please quote me exactly where illegals were promised anything by Obama on the campaign trail or at any other time.

2. Not only are no such laws even on the books, but there are currently no such laws making illegals anything other than what they are - people who are breaking the law. There is a law being written which we seriously need, and that is the one that goes after the root of the problem - American citizens who encourage and hire illegals in order to undercut their competition and avoid paying legally required taxes. The other law we need changed, but no work is being done yet, is the one preventing illegals convicted of any crime from choosing to serve time in our prisons (at $20,000 dollars each of our tax dollars) instead of being immediately deported to serve their time in their own countries. Whoever dreamed that one up is nuts. The support for going after the Americans (who even send buses and trucks to pick up illegals) is proven by the fact that since the economy went south, so are the illegals.

3. Judge Sotomayor was a member of the "La Raza" from 1998 to 2004. If you actually even bothered to look up anything about this organization, you would know that it has been working on advocacy and education for Hispanics for decades, and has received many awards and even governmental grants to support its work. They do not and work absolutely against the concept of open border, and do not in any possible distortion of fact support amnesty for illegals. Therefore, it does the president no good to cultivate this group through her, since she is no longer a member and the group does not approve of illegal immigration, so illegals would continue to be unable to vote in any election. Besides, as I mentioned, with the economic situation and the coming crackdown on employers exploiting illegals, they are leaving anyway.

So I guess we'll be picking our own vegetables and paying a lot more for them.

JK Hayes

I've been posting on these boards for a while, and it's obvious to me you would "research" whatever was necessary to back our Supreme Leader and his every thought, as would PINCH, and an ever-dwindling cheerleading squad.

Some of your posts are interesting, but the majority scream a certain bias that is becoming harder and harder to stomach.

ClintHorace

Kinda off subject,but how many pictures of her are they going to stick on their site.......one is more than enough!

Yet they can only seem to find ONE picture of Palin!

EVERY FRICKIN TIME they run a story about Palin, they have that stupid "beauty queen" pic. Yet Sotomayor has a veritable portfolio of pictures. Huh?

You don't suppose they're trying to portray Palin as a one-dimensional ditz, while trying to imply Sotomayor is a multi-faceted wonder-woman by any chance, do you?

Nah, no prejudice here at MSNBC!

Behind my Screen - Your brand of hate filled rhetoric is exactly what is wrong with political discourse today. You can not seem to make a cogent argument with out resorting to name calling or other nonsense. Yes, I'm Conservative and proud of it. I have seen the truth twisted by both sides and refute it when I can. I clearly remember the "Medi-Scare" tactics of the 90's, the out right racism of the Thomas confirmation hearings and the many other times when Conservatives were hammer for nothing by Liberals.

Pinch - Using your "logic" about La Raza, you should excuse the KKK since all they are doing is trying to advance their race. If a white group advocates for the advancement of whites, they are considered racist. I have seen news reports, yes even on NBC and CNN, about La Raza representatives advocating for the change in status of illegals and calling racist any one who dares to demand they play by the same rules. A far cry from just advocating education. And your comment about picking veggies is telling...You seem to all for the lower wages being paid to the illegals who come here for these low paying jobs. I thought we had a minimum wage in this country that was required to be paid to all workers. Why should the farming and construction industries get away with paying people less just because they are illegal? Who are the real racists here?

Bob

I actually did research La Raza, because I felt like I needed to be able to see how much of what I was hearing was actually true. I have interviewed the members of the Bord and Directors of various regions and they are proud to show their educational outreach programs and other community development projects. I saw nothing even remotely objectionable or racist. As matter of fact they employ a lot of white and black people who have learned or are quickly learning Spanish, and they also serve white and black families and children in their programs. That was a surprise to me.

I did find some instances in various news reports concerning some definitely over the line verbal exchanges, which the organizational people decry, but even checking police blotter archives for some years back, can find no records of any arrests where the involvement of a person as a La Raza member if mentioned.

I certainly didn't find any records of any lynchings, dragging behind vehicles, cross burnings on people's front yards, throwing of Molotov cocktails through people's windows. or bombing of churches killing small children. So no, I can't find any evidence that would cause me to equate the La Raza folks with the KKK. Yelling even obscenities is a far cry from killing people, in my mind. I find it scary that you don't see a difference or that you are as offended by some idiot yelling stupid things as by the dead bodies of other human beings.

We do have a minimum wage in this country, but if you talk to a lot of the growers in the areas where there are employers recruiting illegal labor, they will tell you just what they told me. They are having a hard time competing when they pay legal wages and pay taxes, unemployment. health benefits, toilet facilities, etc., and these other guys pay a couple of bucks in cash a day and no benefits or taxes, and maybe have to spring for the buses or panel trucks to go pick up the laborers.

I made the crack about picking our own vegetables because with a little work I can pass (I've passed for just about every nationality when needed), and I actually did go out in the lettuce fields and the grape vineyards a while back to talk with some of the illegals, and it is nasty, dirty, backbreaking work for a few bucks under the table. I can see why most people would not want to do it day in and day out for even minimum wage and benefits. But if there is no one regulating these areas, what is going to stop this exploitation?

I would love to believe that there really will be a crackdown on these "exploiters", but their neighing legitimate growers tell me this has been set up before, and even when they have tried to call to report them, they get a voice mail and no one calls them back, so I don't know now if I believe it or not.

I don't have a personal knowledge of the construction situation, but I have heard about it from others who do, and apparently, it is the same situation there.

I don't know what you are asking about who the real racists are? What are you asking?

Pinch - I have no direct knowledge of the farming industry as I do not live in a rural area, only what I see on NBC and alike. However, I do have some knowledge of construction. All you need to do to witness the situation in the construction industry is to go by a "Day Laborer Site" set up by well meaning communities to get work for these folks. You could also drive by a Home Depot, Lowes or 7-11 parking lot and see the same. What these well meaning people are accomplishing is the exploitation of the workers. Site supervisors drive by, honk the horn, load a bunch of workers and drive off, paying them a pittance under the table, while charging the end user Union wages on the contract. Does it really happen? Yes, even Government contractors in the DC area have been caught using undocumented (read-illegal) workers on sensitive job sites. When the fed swoop down and try to deport then illegals, groups like La Raza shout to the heavens that it's racist. SoI ask you: Who are the racists? People, like me, who complain about the illegals and demand that government (Local, State, and Federal) enforce the laws on the books, and not make "sanctuary cities" that promote illegal immigrants to gather, or the "well meaning" who allow this exploitation to continue? Why not demand of people who wish to comer here what my grand-parents had to do...wait their turn, get the proper documentation, assimilate into the culture, and learn English. But, then again, their trip was over an ocean and not a river. I am personally sick of having to "press 1 for English". I am tired of having my taxes increased because politicians can not get the backbone to declare English as the official language of the US, there by saving millions spent on printing forms in many languages. And I am most sick of being labeleda "hater" for demandingthat we treat citizens correctly and quit coddlingcriminals (and if you break a law, including immigration laws, you are a criminal).

Bob

I have no quarrel with anything you say, and since I have personal knowledge of the situation in the agriculture industry but no direct knowledge of the same in the construction industry, it was extremely helpful to me to hear you confirm what others have told me. In the construction situations, I would think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that there would also be possible safety hazards involved in using untrained workers in that area. I do know that construction projects have to meet codes and such, and I would think that using workers who do not understand English and certainly can't be aware of the correct operation of some equipment and the codes that must be adhered to must somewhat jeopardize job integrity as well as worker safety. Is that possible?

I live in a diverse area where you have several buttons to push for the language of your choice, especially when precise communications are required, and I have to admit, it really doesn't bother me. However, I think that it would be helpful if we did not also continually criticize and remove funding from those programs which try to teach English as a Second Language if we want to eliminate this inconvenience. I don't think we can have it both ways.

And I do, like you, consider anyone who enters thins country through any but the legally established channels as someone who is breaking the law, and should be dealt with appropriately. But I also think we as citizens must put some of the blame on those among our own citizenry who are encouraging and profiting from the use of illegals and thereby avoid paying the taxes they owe us, the taxpayers, and who are also doing serious damage to their honest competitors. If these people didn't pursue the illegal worker market, and were held to the laws in place to prevent such activity, there would be no work for these people and they would not be waiting for those trucks, for agricultural or constructions work.

Pinch - Thank you for the comments. As for the people working in the construction industry, the standards are set, but the labor they hire them for is basically "hammer and nail" or "pick and shovel" work. You rarely see them used for "skill" positions. However, had you heard of the mess with the Oregon firefighters? Several supervisors were fired since the Government hire a bunch of non-English speaking workers to work on the fire line during the wildfires. As Oregon requires supervisors be able to communicate with at least one of the workers they supervise (and the personal people hired so many who could not speak English), the supervisors who could not speak Spanish were let go. Could this be considered racism towards the American supervisors? There was a bigincident at an airport where ICE came in and detained a huge number of illegals working in secure areas of the airport. And state and local agencies are setting up "sanctuary" areas for the illegals to congregate, causing an increase in crime in those areas (Northern VA has seen a dramatic upture in crime since setting up these areas). And these are just the Government folks who are the tip of the iceberg. Landscapping companies claim they can not survive with out these illegals, yet I know that one of the most successful ladnscapping companies in the DC area hire migrant workers, sponsor them each year to come here from South and Central America to work from March to October, sends them home each year and sponsors them again the neaxt year. They NEVER have had a problem with the feds or the state on these folks. And they always send them home, giving them a bonus each year to bring them back. Can small companies afford to do this? Probably not, but they can sure look at the documentation of workers before they hire them. With unemployment approaching 10%, there is a large segment of Americans looking for work. If they get off their collective butts and do these jobs, the availability of jobs will dry up and the illegales will have less of a reason to be here. Butif they do, groups like CASA and La Raza will complain that they are taking the jobs only illegals wish to do.

Bob

Thanks for answering me. I learned a few things, but I guess now I have a few questions.

I understand the business of hiring illegals for "hammer and nail" or "pick and shovel" work, but with my even limited background in this area, I can't help but see some problems, especially when combined with the situation exemplified by the Oregon fire fighting situation, which I was aware of. I am familiar with the landscaping industries, so maybe I can make my point concerning how I see these things coming together using that venue.

In the agricultural industry, you can have one "supervisor" who speaks Spanish and hundreds of workers, and there is a single explanation for the work to be done, which is very simplistic. There are no surprises, no unexpected occurrences, and no real judgment calls. And if there are a few "should have been pickeds" left out there, it is not a major catastrophe, just as if a few "shouldn't haves" or "incorrectly cuts" get by, because there is a second line of checking done, and even this requires only one supervisor explains the routine and redundant procedure to a very large group. Hazards, accidents, and even safety issues are not a real major consideration.

However, in the fire fighting situation, and I know in the construction business, this is not the scenario. Mistakes here are not only costly but can be dangerous, and this can also be true in the landscaping business. There is often not enough time to thread communications through a narrow tunnel of communication, especially when an event might be moving quickly (I had a tree unexpectedly twist in the chain harness recently and there was about two seconds to pick and yell a single instruction to a crew, in one language - there wasn't time to pick 1 for English or 2 for Spanish or 3 for Haitian). In the small (very small) construction projects I have been involved with as the gc, if I did not speak several languages (and even though I do) I don't want to have to repeat myself when a city plan is wrong and a water main is hit and we have a slab caving in. I want people to move in response to instructions, at most only from me to a sub to the workers, and I don't want anyone standing around because they are not sure what to do. We deal primarily with energy-efficient and universal design prototypes for residential and small commercial buildings on municipal contracts, and the technology is moving that way. We have less and less margin for error due to the constant new design and material options available, even at the manual level, which makes it difficult to use people who cannot see the whole picture and make at least some basic and independent decisions. And even a nail ata fraction of an inch off in a beam can cause major problems later down the road. A pickaxe undercut that is too deep or too shallow may lead to a similar headache later. In a fire fighting scenario, there are often life safety issues at stake and the old relay game of spreading the word has to be quick and precise, even if we are just talking about digging or clearing breaks, or hauling hoses. These people who are already here because they have broken the law, and who have full knowledge that their stay in a job is temporary at best, do not have the same incentive to do a perfect job or ask "too many" questions to make sure even the most menial task is done exactly as it should be.

Relative to the situation you describe with the landscaping company in the DC area, you are right. Most small companies I know cannot afford to do this, so the workers tend to be let go when not needed, which now creates extra demand on our charitable institutions for food, clothing, shelter, etc., but for the legal migrant workers, they can just move on to other locations, as they have been doing for generations. It is not a great life, but it is a legitimate one, and does not drain other resources, since they make what they should and do have access to unemployment, etc., if necessary. Programs for those not proficient in English follow their moves, as do educational programs for their children, so they can assimilate more easily, since they are citizens, and all their co-workers do not necessarily speak anything other than English - contrary to what a lot of people think, a lot of migrant workers are not Hispanic.

I have had encounters periodically with a landscaping company where the majority of basic workers are not here legally or with work permits. They have been reported numerous times. The city hires them to spray for insects, and trim hedges, among other things. I speak only a related language to theirs, but have had numerous problems because the turnover rate of the workers is so high, and the supervisor isn't even always on site. I have had damage to my private property up the butt, because they are careless and not paying attention, and even if I catch them in time, I can't make my wishes know or describe to them what I want or don't want done, especially regarding the pesticide spraying which has wiped out whole sections of our xeroscaping, because they thought there were only weeds there (things not really developed yet). Because of the half-life on the chemicals they are using (some of the worst, but cheapest, in the world), all of the dirt has to be dug up and replaced, so we can start over. We do bill the company, and are paid for our receipts, but the labor of sometimes years is not a reimbursable expense and some things can't be replaced. We are not the only home that is effected, but even reporting the maintenance company that controls the hiring does no good. The codes department (and I used to work there) says they are now too short-handed to deal with private property issues.

The worst situation was when there was a rat problem in a small area around the lake (a few blocks from us), and they decided to put out rat poison everywhere. Many of us have pets, and I have show dogs. Since is is a forested area, and our yard is completely fenced, bait was thrown over my fence without my knowledge and one of my dogs almost died. A few others in our neighborhood did. I have signs all over my property (which isn't really the decor I was going for) saying we are a chemical free zone, but the workers do not understand. I have even stopped them blowing off my front porch and spraying around my door, where they blew debris (which we sweep up) into our fountains and ruined a pump. We do legally have the right to maintain our own property (although we still have to pay our share of the community maintenance fee regardless, and I don't care about that), but we have no recourse through what used to be the "appropriate channels", and I have gone all the way to state codes enforcement on this.

Why do I bring up this one small example of my own property in such detail? I do because I believe it exemplifies on a mini-scale, a lot of what you are saying on a larger scale (people in restricted areas, non-communication issues, high turnover, etc., lack of government recourse or control, etc.) In addition, I would not want a fire in my house handled in a similar fashion, where communication is a major issue.

That is precisely why we have the rules for appropriate immigration into this country which includes learning English. And in this job deficit economy, I know a lot of people that would be willing to do this work even for minimum wage (three experienced out-of-work landscaper laborers live just down the street), but not for a couple of bucks under the table and no required benefits/deductions each day. So I am not at all sure it is just because they will not get off their collective butts.

I cannot speak for CASA (but I will be checking them out too, from the inside as I usually do), but I have checked out La Raza for decades, by working with them off and on, as I do other groups I question, and they are absolutely opposed to illegals and actually work to support the programs which help people immigrate correctly, including the running of many of the language and educational programs I mentioned earlier. They also realize that there are too many unemployed legal Hispanics in this country who need these jobs, but should not have to work in exploitive conditions. They also do a lot of checks on the restaurant industry, which is another place (in the back, washing dishes or such, where an illegal is not noticed) where these violations are rampant.

Sorry to ramble on, but I guess I am really still asking you about your concerns relative to the possible immediate safety issues and down-the-road problems that seem to me inevitable when we have the situation of illegals being used even for the "simple" things, especially at the expense of Americans, Hispanic or otherwise, facing increasing unemployment, tax dollars not being paid into our sorely depleted coffers, and no real investment in the quality work we need to rebuild our economy, which even the lowliest worker contributes to.

My major concern is that these job could, and should, be filled by people legally here and legally allowed to work. I have heard representatives from several industries (construction, agriculture, etc) state that we will be paying more for items if they do not have access to "cheap labor". Well, if you are paying your employees what is scale (Minimum wage, union wage, etc) and the associated taxes for these jobs, then the price should not change. If you are paying below scale, then are you not violating contracts, if not labor laws? And if you do not have a reliable address for your workers, then how can you prove they are legal, how can you investigate them is something happens on your job site that they may have been involved in, and how can you be sending in their taxes to the state/feds if they do not have a verifiable residence? As for the CASA organization, they have various branches (CASA of MD, CASA of VA, etc) and they are the ones who set up the "Day Laborer" sites. They angrily protest when day laborers are removed from private businesses (7-11's, Home Depot's, etc) and demand police leave them alone. They are the ones agitating for relaxing laws about deportation. When states like AZ, MD, or VA try to actually crack down on illegals, CASA comes along marching on state houses under foreign flags to protest. Can you understand the frustration of a person whose family has played by the rules for generations, who waietd their time to come to the land of opportunity, who pay taxes and serve the country, only to have these folks come in and break the rules with impunity and no appearant penalty?

Bob

As I said, I will be looking into CASA, since I have contacts in Arizona whom I talked to briefly after you mentioned them, and I have never followed their movements. But I will, just as I have with many other civil rights groups, many since their inception.

However, I have never agreed with the exploitation and even encouragement of illegal labor, not just because of the items I mentioned in my earlier post (safety issues, code violation issues, tax dollar revenue lost, burdens on charitable services, etc.,), but I agree with the various problems you have just itemized.

From a purely economic standpoint, there well may be a slight ncrease in costs on some items, since the companies who are playing by the rules will have a more competitive edge if the violators have to play by the same rules and cannot continue to force legitimate costs and profits down.

But this is exactly what the American citizenry must begin to understand. You can't have things both ways. You can't gripe about the demise of American manufacturing and yell "buy American" and then go to WalMart where there isn't an American-made item in sight because you don't want to pay a little higher price. And you can't yell the same thing and then criticize companies who ship jobs overseas, or the elected officials for making that easier, when you then buy those very products because they are cheaper. In this instance, you can't keep demanding the government spend more dollars we don't have to close the border, find and deport all illegals, and then both buy the products of these exploitive employers and scream about not wanting taxes raised.

Both the government and the private sector are consumer driven. And we have become a very greedy people, who want instant gratification, and the best bargain in sight, but do not realize that everything comes with a price eventually. I am sure that the two or three previous generations did not realize things like the outcome of allowing companies to use illegal labor for jobs Americans truly did not want to do in better times, and how that would eventually become a serious problem as time went on. But that is why we need people to make the decisions, on the individual citizen level, that would solve a lot of problems without having to yell at the government to take care of it.

Realistically, if people did not buy from violating companies, they would go out of business instead of the legitimate ones. And the cost result would be a few pennies here and there, instead of large tax increases on everybody. We are the problem, and we are the solution.

Pinch - Ah, but I do live as I preach. When I bought a new Ford vehicle, I checked the VIN. Did you know that on Ford vehicles, if the VIN starts with "1", it is assembled in the US, "2" means Canada and "3" means Mexico? I will not by a car or truck who's VIN starts with a "3". Yes, I know that is merely the assembly plant and not where the vehicle parts are made, but I do check the "% of American parts". As for Wal-Mart, I rarely, if ever, shop there, and then it's for items like DVD's or alike, hard line items that are normally the same from Best Buy or Target, but with a slightly better price. I do not buy clothing, shoes, or jewelry from them, mainly because I dislike the selection. And I do not buy electronics from them because who would want a no name, foreign made, extremely cheaply made items from them (I made a mistake and bought a TV from them in 1995, and will never make the same mistake twice.). I will pay more for items I trust, and do my research as to "% American Made" before making large ticket purchases. As for fresh fruits and veggies, I buy them from our local Amish market or the City Farmer's Market. If either of these groups are hiring illegals, I would be suprised.

Bob

Then we both know at least two people who are not part of the problem (yes, I did know about the VIN number business, and a similar system also applies to many barcodes and serial numbers also).

I also know I spend a little more than a lot of my neighbors but I do almost all my business with smaller, local places I know, and it saddens me that so many of them are struggling and even closing, because they cannot compete with the "big boys" and the "Made in China" (just to name one) label.

So knowing what we know, how do we get other people to take more personal responsibility for the survival of their own country's return to leadership and prosperity and not depend on "the government", which really is all of us, to fix everything caused by the WANTS of its own citizens?

Ivan

In the opinion of or funding fathers, the Justices on the Supreme Court needed a freedom from the political winds of any given day, and a secure knowledge that they would most probably outlast any particular Executive or Legislative branch, and even the elected judiciary at the lower levels.

The course of our politics changes with the fluctuations in attitudes and mores of the American citizens, not to mention the popularity of various candidates, the economy, the various events occurring around the world, etc. But they believed the laws of the country should have a stability that soared above such things, and that Justices should not be campaigning for jobs, but should have all of their attention on the job of maintaining laws.

In the highest Court of our land, where there is really no other place to go when a decision is made, Justices should not have to be concerned with which way the often-fickle wind of political preferences might be blowing. They should have to give up their political party preferences and only address the cases in light of the Constitution and the laws already in place in this country. They should not have to worry about how their decisions are viewed by any particular constituency or whether or not it is an election year, or what the current political popularities are.

They require the consistency of a secure place on the bench to allow them to remain immune to all of these things, and to also enable presidents of different persuasions to balance the court as needed as those elected presidents see fit.

In short, the Constitution and the laws of this sovereign nation should be untouched by the rumble-tumble of our political system, and such stability is most assured when the Justices themselves are also untouched by same.

That's an awfully long way of saying, " Since Obama wants her, let's just forget about whether or not she's qualified, and get on with the business of getting her appointed".

Hey, it worked for Obama!

Pinch, that is correct. You have missed one important point. There is a certain group of jurists (politically motivated ones) that beleive the constitution is a "living document" and can be interpreted according to the "winds" at any given time to facilitate change. This view is preposterous in that the constitution can only be changed by amendment not by the cogitation of justices in methods to usurp the constitution through construction as its own form of governing power. The sly use of the word empathy is an application to just that end.

Eric

You bring up an interesting point. There are jurists who have expressed that point of view, and in the context of the evolution of both our society, our technology, our economic complexities, our global involvement, etc. there is some truth to the idea that the Constitution does not cover many of these items and thus, the Justices sometimes have to venture into "uncharted" territory when making their decisions.

The most recent case involving the promotional procedures of the City of New Haven is a perfect example. Obviously, the CRA did not exist nor was it even imagined in the days when the Constitution was written, but it is now part of the laws of this land. Although the public widely viewed this as a discrimination case, a reading of all documents, proceedings, and decisions shows that is really didn't involve the firefighters' race at all. The reverse situation, where all those that passed had been minorities, would have been open to exactly the same series of judicial events if the City of New Haven had acted in the same way, which they indicated they would have done.

The City of New Haven's use of Title VII as a defense for not honoring a promotional policy they had proposed, implemented, and then rejected was in fact fully in line with precedent law, as all lower courts stated, and was in fact, the crux of this case.

However, the Supreme Court has the ability to parse definitions in a way no lower court can. But they did not believe they should actually overturn Title VII. So they inserted an additional definition, stating that FEAR of violation of the Title was not an adequate defense. This allowed them to uphold the idea that an actual challenge promoting a violation of the Title would have allowed the City to prevail, but that just the City's FEAR of such a challenge did not have the same impact.

Thus, the Supreme Court, and only that Court, could "make new law" without discarding an old one. Supreme Courts have done this before many times when an issue does not fall neatly within the actual words of the Constitution, and it is for just such reasons that we have them.

We are not the same society, country, or world member we were at any point in our past, nor will we be in the future. But the Constitution does not change because of the Supreme Court, as you have noted, since we have only prescribed mechanisms, arising from the populace, which can alter this document. We also have new law being passed and approved by the other two branches of the government almost every day, and all of those can eventually be examined by the Court in light of their Constitutionality. And like the case I used as an example above, the Court does have the right to let the laws passed stand and still make a decision that brings them more in line with the spirit of the document our founding fathers left us - a right that no other court has.

Nice speech!

Unfortunately it doesn't address the racially motivated bias Sotomayor brings to the table.

You can tap dance around the issue all you'd like, but anyone with half a wit knows the REAL reason Sotomayor is being "given" her seat.

I know this because I am more capable of making a rational decision than some Latino woman.........ya know, ............because I'm a white male.

I know this because I am more capable of making a rational decision than some Latino woman.........ya know, ............because I'm a white male.

I know this because I am more capable of making a rational decision than some Latino woman.........ya know, ............because I'm a white male.

I know this because I am more capable of making a rational decision than some Latino woman.........ya know, ............because I'm a white male.

Clint Horace,

Such statements are certainly not a reason to exclude a justice, Alito and Scalia have both made statements as to how their ethnicity an upbringing have affected their world view and decisions. Clarence Thomas is very likely to be guilty of sexual harrassment and had an extremely limited judicial resume. She has an extrordinary record of educational and judicial success and no matter how much the crazies on the right complain there is nothing in her record that is at all unusual for a person of her age and gender.

JKHayes

Ivan,

The current court rivals the Warren Court for political activism and as the final arbitor of Constitutionality decisions will often be seen as activist. The 2000 presidential election was the most activist decision ever made by the Court it anointed a president, they have fast tracked the decision process to place politically charged issues on the docket and have issued rulings such as New Haven which run contrary to established law. The current courts radical right wing agenda would overturn everything from Brown vs the Board to Roe v Wade if it could.

JKHayes

Clint...

Our founding fathers gave every president the right to nominate ANY person they deem qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I have no idea why people are suddenly surprised, given our history with situations such as the Warren Court, among others, that any given president, including the present one, wouldn't exercise this right with the inherent biases incumbent in that decision.

We have had only a very few presidents who have not had an opportunity to nominate a member of the Supreme Court. Some have had the opportunity to nominate more than one. Occasionally, the elected representatives of the American people have rejected a nominee. Since these elected representatives were and are largely white males, deciding on generally white male nominees, we must assume that their decisions were in line with the will of people such as yourself. We must also assume the same regarding their decision on this nominee.

JK Hayes

I disagree.

ClintHorace

PINCH

Very creative!

I think I've heard it all now.

Jim...

Actually, the Supreme Court, in the recent Ricci vs. The City of New Haven, did not actually violate precedent law, which in this case would have been their own decision in Bakke. Unlike lower courts, they do have the ability to parse words in both the Constitution and in other bases of legislation. In this case, they neither overturned Bakke, which still stands as the precedent law in cases such as this and which the Second Circuit of Appeals was bound to uphold, nor did they overturn any part of the CRA.

What they did do was draw a clear distinction, relative to Title VII of the CRA, on inadvertent discrimination in hiring or promotional practices and just FEAR of POSSIBLE inadvertent discrimination. They qualified Title VII to exclude only FEAR of violation as a viable defense for a hiring/promoting entity. This is not the first time they have had to qualify a legislative action, as opposed to actually overturning an action by the elected representatives of the American people. And given the fact that some laws passed are not as closely scrutinized from every angle, both foreseeable and unforeseen, I am sure it will not be the last time.

I wonder what the republicans on this board would have said when Warren Harding a Republican President appointed Howard Taft a former Republican president to serve as Chief Justice after 21 years removed from the judicial bench and after only 13 years of being a judge. Would he still have been considered qualified?

And what of Alito's 100% overturn rate for Supreme court reviews? Any thoughts on that?

Pinch,

In parsing such a decision does it not open up numerous hiring decisions already made and affirmed using the same criteria under CRA. I am not a lawyer my degree and post grad are in history and economics. Even though not overturning Bakke does it not pry open CRA for continual and expanded review.

Jim

La Raza is not a radical organization any more than the NAACP or any other group fostering the advancement of any political, religious or ethnic group. The very idea that it is somehow racist or radical is idiotic it even recieves funding from WalMart and Ford for Gods sake. Anything with an identifiable name becomes a lightning rod for rght wing assaults. As an example ACORN has been around since 1970 and has been supported as an engine for urban renaissance and expanding the electorate , all irregular ballots were reported by ACORN and not one case of voter fraud has been found or prosecuted in spite of the rights multimillion dollar effort to do so. Get out the vote efforts on the Right have far more problems with active fraud prosecution of Mark Jacoby and Young Political Majors who were paid per signature for Republican Only registrations , they recieve little coverage because their violations are annoyances not endemic corruption, all electioneering where activists are paid have violations the signifigance lies in the intention to fraudulently register of which there has not been one case from ACORN.

Jim

Actually, is does. Fortunately, it is a pretty easy distinction to make however.

First of all, it is not a retroactive decision, so it will only impact those in process or going forward. To be really devious here, if the City of New Haven had wanted to guarantee a win, they would have subtly, and through a third, fourth, and even fifth party removed, stirred up the minorities in the community to issue a court challenge to the testing. This would have eliminated the Supreme Court ruling as written, but they might have been able to come up with another way to parse the wording of Title VII without overturning anything yet again.

But to directly answer your question, this decision simply says that even if an employer THINKS a hiring or promoting procedure MIGHT be discriminatory, not honoring it as advertised and implemented will not hold up in court unless there is a direct and legal challenge to its assumed non-discriminatory nature. Even if an employer has some secret doubts about possibly and inadvertently being discriminatory, he or she will have to wait for such a challenge before discarding or changing the rules after the game. In other words, a "gut feeling" will just not cut it anymore.

I do think the whole issue of CRA will be revisited again, and this decision will hasten such review. Personally, I think it is due for one. Much of it outdated and other parts have become more of a hindrance to minorities than a help. As society changes, many of our laws need to be revisited occasionally to insure continued necessity and relevancy.

Sandy, You are right she should not be confirmed. This totally blows my mind. The Dems are the first to scream racism; however, they want to put a racist on the Supreme Court. Obama and the Dems are turning this country into a land we no longer know. She will be confirmed; as the Republicans can not stop this. We have a president who was not properly vetted and pays attorneys in Ca. to make sure his records stay sealed. Now we will have a sitting Supreme Court Justice that is a definite racist. The groups she chose to belong to says it all. I think it is about time for term limits for these judges as well. Why should they be selected to a post forever.

Sandy,

Alito and Scalia have both repeatedly made refernce to how their ethnicity, personal stories, families and journies through life affect their world view and decision making process and no one has ever questioned it.

Jim...

Supreme Court Justices are inherently required to give up their overt political affiliations when they take the bench. But it would be foolish indeed for any of us to be asked to suddenly "forget" all that has made us who we are, including qualified for any given position.

Interestingly enough, in the current economic atmosphere, we are asking exactly that of an entire population of people, and I strongly object to that also. Just this morning (and practically every day), I hear some expert address the problems that "older" (past 40) people are having in the severely depressed job market. They are told to "lose" everything they know about anything before 1980, do everything they can, including plastic surgery, to appear younger, remove dates from their resumes, and as this expert said, take off anything which indicates a position of executive seniority, specifically a title like "Vice-President of".

We are not computers. We are the sum of our experiences, which in turn gives rise to our assumptions, our prejudices, our knowledge, our beliefs, and our values. For a member of the judiciary, we can ask one to make his or her best effort to set these things aside, and concentrate solely on the Constitution and the other laws of our land while wearing the robes, but to assess his or her entire competency based on those occasions when these things have been expressed in a non-judiciary setting is rather silly.

As long as these personal things do not overtly influence the outcomes of their decisions, I think this is the best we can do in selecting judges or Justices, since in the end, they are just as human as the rest of us.

Pinch,

I agree wholeheartedly it would be foolish to believe that our experiences do not gide our decisions it is as it should be we do not exist in a vacuum. Circumstances and conditions change if we cannot adapt our systems and institutions to an unforeseeable future we will fail. I fear that the myopia which has engulfed society over the last 30 or so years threatens the Republic in much the same way as the no nothings in the 1840s or the segregationists of the 1950s it is pervasive and threatens any forward vision for us as a people. Going forward by going backward has never succeeded as a method for a society to expand and I fear we are still in a period of fear fed societal contraction.

JKHayes

Jim...

Although I agree with everything you said, I have to give the American people a bit of a pass due to the totally unbelievable and never before seen economic turmoil we now find ourselves in.

People have not had a real chance to understand or adjust to the idea of a global society, much less a global economy. People are truly suffering things they would have never imagined in their wildest nightmares. They are watching their jobs, their retirements, their homes, their children's educational dreams, and so many other things disappear almost faster than they can intellectually track. They are terribly afraid, frustrated, and angry. They want desperately to find the "enemy", but as Pogo said, "...it is us". That does not compute with most people. They want that responsibility to be somewhere else, somewhere they can get to, and they are finding that may not be possible.

As I am sure you know from your own fields, people in these situations do move backwards and contract emotionally. Feelings they may have tried to move beyond, and even felt they had succeeded in overcoming, come out in shocking ways. The Salem witch trials may seem archaic to us now, but how different is it that we now instead burn people, sometimes even wishing for their deaths, with words instead of torches?

For so many, the changes which some of us know must now happen for our future survival are terrifying, and the rearview mirror offers a picture of safety and security. The temptation to glue one's eyes to that picture and not look ahead is often all-encompassing.

And now on top of everything, we really do have to make many major changes simultaneously. Perhaps one of the things these vines and places like them offer is a place to vent some of these feelings, and also perhaps, this is a good thing. I hate to think what our society might become if such an outlet was only available on the streets of our country.

You want to know what this is really about do you? It's about a whole bunch of nothing and noise making because another white man isn't being appointed. The arguments these fools are making against her are just absurd. Take a look at this quote and tell me if this elected moron makes any sense.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the highest-ranking Republican on the committee, accused Sotomayor of embracing a legal philosophy that is "incompatible with the American system" and said she will be asked to answer for that this week.

"She has criticized the idea that a woman and a man would reach the same result. She expects them to reach different results," Sessions said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I think that's philosophically incompatible with the American system."

He added that he is "flabbergasted by the depth and consistency of her philosophical critique of the ideal of impartial justice

WOW! You don't say Senator. I had absolutely no idea that women and men see things the same and come to the same conclusions on everything, especially when it pertains to the law. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Mom...

I heard the same program, and actually I was flabbergasted by the implication that we all, regardless of gender, age, ethnic background, etc., were somehow "incompatible with the American system" when we did not all see things the same way.

I guess these vines are excellent examples of "incompatibility with the American system".

You are 100% correct Doug, and it's funny I didn't read one article about how the Democrats were going to lose the Latino vote if they did not approve him. One reason they did not approve him was because they wanted to be the first to nominate a Latino. Now all of a sudden if you don't vote yes you are a raciest. We have no more free press , that's for sure . Now we have a government who doesn't care about its people but only about winning votes. Where was the media at when the Democrates were attacking Gonzales? Oh thats right they were on their side , like they always are.

Doug-422908,

Sorry, but that is not accurate. Gonzales was never nominated to the Supreme Court. In fact when his name was mentioned as a possibility, conservative organizations (ex. National Review, Focus on the Family, etc.) immediately released opposition at even the suggestion of Gonzales. Please go back and research it.

Well we're gonna have to make up for that by appointing a bigot to the Supreme Court.

Excuses Excuses Excuses!

It should be obvious to any rational thinking person that this nomination is solely designed to bring more power to the left.

But hey, a trillion dollar "stimulus plan" , Cap & Tax, universal Health......

What's one more sham?

To Broklyn Boxer and those of your Ilk;
Since you think things are so bad I suggest you leave the country right away. Go to someplace in the world that has a better and fairer system. Perhaps you could find a country like Iran who ignores the voters so a "sensible leader" can be installed for the good of all. You could find a country where the judges stick to the law and listen to the voice of God as interpreted by a supreme leader.

perspective,

What semantics you bring up! The dems killed that proposed nomination off before it could be presented to the Senate. You know full well that he was the first.

What is the difference in questioning Sotomayor's statements of making policy from the bench to the questioning they gave Clarence Thomas? In his case allegations were brought up, but now we have hard copy documentation of belonging to LaRaza, a video tape of her pronouncement, and oh, yea those 1.8% when she didn't rule with the majority. How many of her cases have been over-ruled by the Supreme Court? This most recent one by the firefighters? That was decided in hours to overturn. A very clear cut. Sure it was 5-4 but that was along the expected lines which is remarkable as no one in the entire firefighting business seems to think that the test is biased!

I think "our ilk" would like to see our country get back to the "fair system" we've lost since SELECTING a socialistic, power-hungry celebrity, who wants to see the same "affirmative action" that got him Selected, carried over into the Supreme Court.

If Obama wants to take his "policies" to another country that embraces that type of governance, he and "his ilk" are more than welcome to do so!

fair system?!?!? the system is has been manipulated by the ClintHorace of the country. Blacks had to fight to get equality, woman had to fight for their, everyone had to fight for fairness. If this was another old white judge there would be little or no discussion over the matter. So take a bite out of the crap sandwich, if the system was fair from the beginning no one would be complaining. You have 4 years until you get to vote in another All Mighty Whitey, until then work on solutions, forward them to your Congressman, Senator and make a difference.

So your idea of justice is placing minorities in high positions simply because they are minorities?

Hiring otherwise incompetent beings because they are in a minority?

If this was another old white (I assume you forgot to write MALE) judge, I'd think we were in the twilight zone!

So, white males are the problem huh?

I don't sense the least bit of racism in your post 1stgenamerican!

Clint...

You have objected to this nomination entirely on the basis of race.

Many posters, myself included, have NEVER even intimated that justice was placing minorities in high positions simply because they are minorities. Nor have they suggested that incompetent people should be hired because they were minorities.

We have had white males rejected by the elected representatives of American citizens just like you (the majority), so to make the statement that "white males are the problem" is ridiculous on its face.

As I said before, and you responded with "creative", when in fact what I said was simply the truth, our Constitution allows any president sitting when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, to select the person they prefer and feel is qualified, and the elected representatives of ALL Americans will then make the final decision on whether that nominee will be seated on the bench.

The kind of nonsense going on on this vine and others has occurred with every Supreme Court nominee ever put forth. In the past, it has perhaps not been so instant and public, because we have not had the technology we have now. But it has been no less vitriolic. The same thing applies to elections, even local ones. This is the process of discussion and debate with which this country exercises its right to free speech.

The only thing I would change is the obscenity, name calling, and blame gaming that seem to be a hallmark of so many posters. At least in times past, we who wished to have a civil and intelligent discussion of actual issues did not have to also include those who only have those items to add to the debate.

PINCH

Are you answering for 1stgenamerican?

My last post was directed toward him, not you. Are you implying that he/she didn't suggest "payback" was in order? I'd ask how you could possibly interpret it any other way, but spinning seems to be your forte.

And yes, I call your rationale "creative" because you're essentially using off-topic topics to defend this nomination. I'm using what I've SEEN and HEARD, not what I've read or created.

Since we're in fantasyland, I'd say Obama was elected purely for his political knowledge and unwavering policies, just as Sotomayor will get the nod for her stellar record and unquestionable ethics, just as Pelosi will get reelected because she's done such a wonderful job as Speaker.

I'm gonna get back to reality now..........bye.

Doug et al,

What alternate universe was Gonzales nominated in? If he had been he should have been blocked he was less qualified than Harriet Myers.

JKHayes

Clint..

"Seeing" and "hearing" as evidence is only as good as the source. Court documents do not cherry-pick quotes, paraphrase statements, or judge intentions sans factual support. Everything I wrote is available to anyone who cares about the truth in the actual documents of the courts through which this case progressed.

Even the "talking heads" have gotten it wrong. So have most of even some of the Pulitzer-prize-winning op-ed writers. But the media is in it for the sensationalism of the moment, and the ratings which they hope will surely follow, because after all, they are above all else a business, and it is not to educate the public, unfortunately.

Actual first hand study and research of real first hand documents is hard work. As we become more and more of an ADD society with a need for instant gratification, most have less and less time or patience for such labor. So the constant repetition and eventual acceptance by the majority of these standard talking points from both sides is certainly understandable. But it does become a little tedious when so little effort could have been put into checking on simple facts - like the fact that Gonzales was never nominated as a potential Supreme Court Justice, or that no division of the LDEF has, or ever has had, a slogan, or even a motto.

And then there is the business of the quotation containing the words "wise Latina" being continually misquoted, not to mention taken out of context, just as the now-famous quote from Michelle Obama has been, over and over. Repetition does not change truth. Truth is what actually happens, not how often it is repeated.

And I am very sorry if you find truth "creative".

Ward-374799,

That's hilarious. Semantics, indeed--the operant word being "proposed." LOL Contrary to revisionist history, I understand full well Gonzales was never nominated, and as noted, conservative opposition was reported at even the proposition of Alberto by President Bush at the time.

Blah blah blah blah.

Now I guess you're going to tell me I didn't actually see what I saw, or hear what I heard?

You do more dancin' than Fred Astaire!

Clint...

If this post is directed at me, I will tell you that you may very well have seen and heard what you claim, but I am definitely questioning the accuracy and completeness of your source. I am also sure from your posted information that you are not using an original and complete source for your "seen" and "heard", but that would take more than 30 seconds and actually involve some work, now wouldn't it?

However, your information would be a lot more accurate if you did not let other people who are paid big money (they are a business after ratings, not an educational entity) show you what to see and tell you what to hear.

PINCH

Are you just typing for the sake of typing?

You don't even know what the hell I'm talking about, yet you claim to be certain I misunderstood what I saw and heard!

It's like talking to a stump!

Clint...

As I think you acknowledged in another of your posts, you have been typing on these vines for a while now, and I have read and even reviewed a number of your posts.

You are correct on this one. I don't even know what you are talking about. When you started with the "seen" and "heard" bit, I must have mistakenly assumed you were talking about the subject at hand to which you were objecting. Sorry. I guess you didn't signal that you were changing subjects entirely.

The problem with your posts is that you don't really say anything about anything for yourself. Your posts are just a consistent negative barrage concerning what someone else is saying. You really are not part of the discussion, since you have nothing to add. You are like the heckler in the back of the crowd.

I will stop trying to ask you for anything of substance that would actually allow a discussion because your mind is already made up on every subject, even other posters, and even after they correct you on your assumptions concerning them.

I guess I find it interesting that you would type for the sake of typing when you don't even bother to actually join the conversation.

PINCH

Double-talk will get you nowhere. (Except on NEWSVINE)

I think you know very well the things I've seen and heard. You just elect to dismiss them as "unimportant", and thus, not worthy of addressing.

"Let me be clear": Sotomayor has said on numerous occassions that she is more qualified to make decisions based on her "experience" , than some old white male.

She honestly believes that, and you apparently agree with her. She also feels she has the ability to "make law". I've seen it with my own eyes, and I've heard it with my own ears. (Must have been trick photography eh?)

Now, what were you saying about Presidents having the ability to choose which Justices they would prefer appointed? Why not bring up the color of the sky? Dance dance dance little sister! Let's hear about the 1880's and who was chief of the Arapahoes!

I must commend you on your liberal slight of hand!

You'll have a few more months to work on your EXCUSES while this circus act continues.

Keep that wool placed firmly over your eyes, lest ye shall see the light.

Clint...

Once again, both of your quotes are incorrect and are taken out of an extensive context which effects the meaning. If you were accurate, I would agree with you, but you are not. As I said before, I am not questioning what you saw and heard, but I am questioning your sources and your failure to actually research the entirety of what you are commenting on.

And if you read the Constitution, presidents do get to pick nominees for the Supreme Court, and to believe that every one of them has taken advantage of that opportunity to further their own political agenda would make you very naive. This has been going on for two hundred years This is not the first Supreme Court nominee.

I don't need to make make excuses. I report the results of extensive research. Maybe you should try it. It is harder work than just quick listening and looking but it is enlightening and educating.

PINCH

With all of your extensive research, why don't you tell me what exactly I saw and heard?

Give me the EXACT quotes, and then start your tap dancing.

I need a good laugh.

The part about the President having a choice, has nothing to do with what I'M talking about. You just use that to try and deflect from the REAL issues. Standard liberal procedure.

But you know that..... I think.

Either that, or you're thicker than I thought.

Clint...

So if you would like me to do some "extensive" research, give me some EXACT quotes and I will research them and get back to you. This began a long while back and is getting tedious, so unless you have something concrete to offer the discussion, like an actually opinion based on facts and not the explorations of your sensory experiences, and also something other than taking wild guesses about me or my political persuasions with again, no facts at all (it might surprise you a lot if you actually knew), I think I will move on to someone with something to discuss.

I don't need a laugh anymore. I've had mine. Thanks.

Is she qualified? Yes. Is she a racist? Absolutely!! Her use of the word "better" when describing a Latino woman's judgement as compared to a white male's makes all the difference. This usage cannot be spun any other way as she employed it six times in speeches. She did not mean Latinos had a "different" perspective. She said "better" in six different speeches. That is racism.

Since when has experience meant being a member of the BAR? They hijacked the courts and have since used their powers to regulate who and what they will admit to be heard. No longer is the peoples constitution a matter of supreme law since the adoption of the tests of standing. Congress and the president can do virtually anything they want without the court being used to check their behaviors UNLESS they agree. We the people are barred from using or enforcing the law as written. The further politicization of the court is now a tool to grant the other two branches of government the power they naturally seek, to control the people.

Eric

Tests of standing simply prevent individual lawyers from going to courts with issues in which they have no vested interest. In a court system already overloaded with sometimes frivolous cases where the litigants do have standing, what argument could be made to allow just any attorney who does not like something unrelated to any particular event or decision related to them to tie up an inappropriate court with their personal objectives?

Look at the process we have now regarding death sentence appeals. There is, to me and others, especially as our technology in the forensic sciences has advanced, no reason why a person convicted and duly sentenced to death (where still allowed) can take a decade or more of continuing appeals on technicality after technicality, even to suggesting that the punishment itself is "cruel and unusual punishment". And for this, as taxpayers, we pay.

So the minor number of cases that are denied standing due to non-personal involvement in an issue seems a valid and reasonable manner in which to leave the courts free to devote their limited time to cases where people actually personally involved in controversies can have their deserved day in court.

Ah, the art of the out-of-context quote. Tell me, did anyone read any further in the speech in question?

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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. 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.

[...]

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate. [emphasis mine]

Wm...

I am so glad to see that someone else bothered to actually read the entire speech/article. In this ADD society of instant gratification we seem to be becoming, the art of seriously researching something from its original source seems to be vanishing.

Thanks, Pinch!

I think there's also a hefty dose of identity politics wrapped up in this one-- it suits the "victim" mentality of the "white, conservative male" identity to rail against Sotomayor as a racist, instead of accepting that a person's circumstances have an effect on their thinking and to remember, as she states, to check one's assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and try to work above them.

I'm Hispanic too. She is a racist (see my post above). Your comment is racist on two counts. First, you use the term WASP (analogous to Spic). Second, you are inferring that all all Hispanics (as well as other minorities) think alike. Are you against diversity within a minority group?

Jose, Did you feel the same about Alberto Gonzalez when the Democrats opposed his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush? Why were the Democrats who shot down his nomination not labeled as racists? I guess we are now on a one-way street in this country. Anyone who disagrees with the Obama leftist agenda is a racist. Anyone who thinks that Michael Jackson was strange is a racist. Anyone who believes that O.J. actually butchered his children's mother is a racist. Ms. Sonia Sotomayor stated that a wise Latino woman would make better decisions as a Judge than would a white male. We are about to confirm this racist wise Latino woman as a Supreme Court Justice. What a shame!

Jose, are you a member of La Raza? I bet you've got a bumper sticker and everything. Are you for the "Reconquista" of the Southwest? As always, when someone doesn't have a valid argument they resort to claims of racism. If you're looking for racism just look in the mirror.

By the way, Jose, ours is a Republic... not a Democracy.

Yes Doug, we a re a repbublic, but a democratic republic.

Doug

I would like to offer two corrections. First of all Alberto Gonzalez was never nominated as a potential Supreme Court Justice. His name was floated around, but he was never officially put into nomination.

Secondly, our form of government is actually classified as a "representative democracy", although we were ideologically called "The Republic of the United States".

She used the term "better.", not "a new perspective" which would have been acceptable.

You know, I'm getting sick of being called a racist and a bigot every time I disagree with someone who leans towards the left. Come up with another mantra will you!! Read some of the notes above, George Bush was the first president to put forward a latino for the Supreme Court.. democrats shot him down..Hmmmm were they all bigots? And have they all changed since then?? Doubtful.. It's all about votes and you are just a pawn in that game. And as for the Constitution being made by old white men.. Wow! It's really worked for over two hundred years and should be interpreted not amended by the courts just as it was meant to be. Some of these postings are garbage, on both sides of the political spectrum but some have a lot of good information in them. Read them with an open mind not with your own form of bigotry.

Acceptable to perhaps a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant. That, by the way, was in a speech which has been taken out of context. It is really grasping at straws, I think. The Republicans feel obligated to oppose her nomination and they are just looking for anything at all to complain or make an issue about. Does anyone really believe that she will allow for widespread racial discrimination against White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants? I think that is very unlikely, impossible. She has been notably moderate in her rulings and I think the Republicans really know this.

I say go ahead and get sick and tired. It has been a long, hard struggle to change this country and now is the time to make those real changes. By all accounts from people who know about the law and the Supreme Court, say that Judge Sotomayor is intelligent, a moderate, with volumes of rulings on numerous issues. She has been regarded as perhaps the best qualified jurist to be considered for the Supreme Court in some time. I find little, if anything, to justify any real opposition. I am told I should read all these posts with an open mind. I actually do too much of that. I find the code words for racism pretty quickly. I have been living with and working with these so called conservatives for so many years, and yes, I had an open mind. I bore with them. It became clear, that, in time, they opposed the Civil Rights movement, the peace movement, the poverty programs, indeed, every advance this country has made in at least the past seventy or eighty years. They would be content with a poverty rate of forty or fifty percent, with eighty hour work weeks, with filthy air and water, with corporations holding all the power in this country, with only White-Anglo Protestants holding any and all political and economic power in this country. They will never allow that this country has committed injustices or that we should ever change. Last fall, in a remarkable election, the American people decided enough was enough, that we needed to move on as a nation, that we need to consider people as people, and not hold them down according to their racial or ethnic background or by their gender or sexual oritentation. We have more important things to do. Now, President Obama, perhaps too slowly and too moderately, is moving our country forward, to bring us in to the 21st century, not only in technology and the economy but socially. What do we hear from the conservatives, the right wingers? No, no,, no, let's continue with the ways of the past. We don't accept the results of the last election, we don't want to move forward, to become a country that is, once again, looked up to as a beacon of social progress, a country that allows for success for all. Judge Sotomayor represents that new perspective, a new look, a new hope for America and humanity, as a truly socially progressive nation that will lead the world in justice and decency.

You seem to have an awfully broad brush to paint the american public with. Isn't that a form a prejudice?? I'm a white Anglo-Saxon Catholic and I don't see a lot of power coming my way. I'm also retired military, you know one of those that defended your and my rights. Watch the brush you could find yourself painted as well.

CBWY777, I am so glad you people lost the election and we can get away from your attitudes. It is silly to say that she is racist, of course. Anyone with any sense knows this. She is going to be a great asset to our Supreme Court and our nation.

Tom Delno, I too, am a veteran of the Armed Forces. I had perhaps too many great adventures in uniform. I served proudly and I hope in some way my actions kept our nation safe and free. I hope that it would be safe and free, not just for white males but for women and Hispanics, and African-Americans. I served side by side, heroic and decent men and women of all racial and ethnic groups. If these various groups are considered fit for the military service, I believe they should also be seen fit for serving on the U.S. Supreme Court.

wag

First and foremost, thank you for your service. And Tom, please accept my thanks also.

wag, I too am starting to think that all this use of the word "racist" is getting a bit silly. If you advocate for the betterment of your family and even brag on them, you are considered honorably family-oriented. If you work to improve your neighborhood or community and promote them even over others, you are considered a good citizen. If you really sell your state to others, pointing out the options your state offers over others, you are considered a great representative of your state. If you join the military to defend your country, you are considered (I hope by all) the epitome of patriotism.

But if you dare raise your voice to educate and uplift your ethnic or racial group, you are suddenly a racist.

In the first set of examples I gave, if you used the words "I would hope (insert any of them) would be better than (insert anything else)", no one would be crucifying you. But with the entry of any racial or ethnic word, the context immediately changes to something negative. It seems that pride is truly in the eye of the beholder.

Look, I do understand how some would feel about someone not of their ethnic group expressing pride and hope for themselves. I grew up in the south and the southwest. I grew up hearing racial stereotypes stated as actual fact. Hispanics were thought to be sweaty, beer drinking knife wielding thieves, African-Americans were watermelon eating lazy fools, only good at playing sports and making music. Along come Sonia Sotomayor and says 'No!' She is a wise Latina who sometimes, may, actually make a better decision than a white male. I don't understand why this would make her a racist.

wag and others:

It's not that she expresses hope and pride for the people of her gender or ethnic heritage that makes her racist, it's that she has in the past (and so can be expected in the future) made or advocated for judicial decisions that unfairly advantage poeple that share her gender or ethnic heritage, or disadvantage those who do not share such characteristics. I don't care is she's female or Hispanic or Barney the Dinosaur, as long as she is unbiased and can judge fairly. Justice Sotomayor has clearly demonstrated by word and deed that she can do neither.

wag

It was actually refreshing to hear you paraphrase her quote accurately. I think I have heard it so many times distorted beyond belief that I was thinking I had read the wrong speeches. But that is exactly symptomatic of the problem, in my opinion.

This country is in the midst of a totally unbelievable and never before seen economic turmoil. People have not had a real chance to understand or adjust to the idea of a global society, much less a global economy. People are truly suffering things they would have never imagined in their wildest nightmares. They are watching their jobs, their retirements, their homes, their children's educational dreams, and so many other things disappear almost faster than they can intellectually track. They are terribly afraid, frustrated, and angry. They want desperately to find the "enemy", but as Pogo said, "...it is us". That does not compute with most people. They want that responsibility to be somewhere else, somewhere they can get to, and they are finding that may not be possible.

People in these situations move backwards and contract emotionally. Feelings they may have tried to move beyond, and even felt they had succeeded in overcoming, come out in shocking ways, and racism is one of those. After all, it has only been a little over a generation since people were forced to acknowledge the "humanity" of blacks, and yet, just yesterday, I saw a poster refer to them as "animals". It has been less time than that since women have been seen to deserve equal rights, and yet they still only make $.76 for every dollar paid a man doing the same work. And our older children were not even born when people with disabilities began to be viewed as actual human beings, with abilities as well as disabilities, and with the potential to use technology to keep up with those temporarily able-bodied. The Salem witch trials may seem archaic to us now, but how different is it that we now instead burn people, sometimes even wishing for their deaths, with words instead of torches?

For so many, the changes which some of us know must now happen for our future survival are terrifying, and the rearview mirror offers a picture of safety and security, even though it includes some aspects which we as a society have been trying to change, both without and within ourselves. But the temptation to glue one's eyes to that picture with all it entails and not look ahead is often all-encompassing.

And now on top of everything, we really do have to make many major changes simultaneously. Perhaps one of the things these vines and places like them offer is a place to vent some of these feelings, and also perhaps, this is a good thing. I hate to think what our society might become if such an outlet was only available on the streets of our country.

EOM...

Obviously, I will not comment on your reactions to wag's post. He can defend himself if he chooses.

But I will comment on the idea that laws put in place by white men are inherently racist. Even Sotomayor wrote articles directly contradicting that point of view, if you bothered to read anything she wrote or even her speeches (and not just the misquotes taken out of context). Her judicial record, if you bothered to examine her cases, would reveal that in discrimination cases she has rejected over 80% of all cases where the litigants claimed discrimination.

And if you, like so many others, are basing your opinions on the Ricci vs. the City of New Haven case, where she was in the majority of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, you would understand that they did not vote against the firefighters. That was not the case point. They upheld the City of New Haven's defense since they could not "legislate from the bench" and had to follow precedent law which had been set by the Supreme Court decades ago. The Supreme Court, therefore, was the only court that could make any changes to Title VII of the CRA to reject the defense of the City of New Haven.

The firefighters did not "win". They benefited from the fact that with the Supreme Court's altering of Title VII, the City of New Haven lost. This is a subtle distinction, as many Supreme Court parsings of laws are, but it is an important one, and one not allowable to the lower courts.

She is a racist as evidenced by her comments. Please address that point.

Guitar...

I would like to, but I cannot find any of her comments which substantiate your claim, if you quote them accurately and in their context, which means what the point of each comment actually was.

Truth is what it is. Problem with your argument though, is that black men haven't perpetrated and demonstrated a history of racism in this country against whites.

vote out all incumbents!!

The issue is not one of perpatrating racism against a specified race or color. This issue is one that she made a reacist comment that contradicts the fundamentals of our constitution and country by making a racist comment.

For the record racism is not exclusively for blacks. It is a common practice that can be invoked against anyone for any reason. The comment provoked exactly what I expected.

Still not white or black and pissed, but blind,

What do you mean by she made racist comments that contradict the fundametals of our Constitution? The Constitution was written by racist!

Eom...

Although I wouldn't have phrased it quite the way Momus did, the reality is that the majority of the writers of the Constitution were slaveowners and considered their slaves property and not human beings. I think that falls under the dictionary definition of "racism".

Eom,

It is what it is and just like no one apologized for the framer's of the Constitution being slave-owning hypocrites crying about freedom and all, I'm not going to apologize for pointing that little fact out. Just because you don't want to hear it, it doesn't make it false. Furthermore, to call me a racist and a bigot is just plain stupid. I love white women!

It does not matter where you learned the term WASP. Your comment was racist in the context you used it. She is a racist. Now articulate a refutation. By the way. The nation just elected a black president. That should dispel the notion that we have institutionalized racism in the states. Also, if people in PR embrace your ideology, you do have a racist problem.

Miami...

And yet again we have another example of what happens when people do not do any research on their own before posting.

If you read the original filings, the arguments and decisions of the lower courts, and especially the arguments and ruling of the Supreme Court, you would be aware that this decision actually did not involve the firefighters as anything other than ancillary. The firefighters who scored the highest could just as easily have been black and the lowest scoring white, and the movement through the legal system and the final result would undoubtedly have been the same.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, of which Sotomayor is one member of a three-judge panel, did not have anything from the Constitution to work with in this case (nor did the courts before them). This case revolved around the City of New Haven and their publicizing of a promotion procedure, the implementation of said procedure, and then the failure to honor said procedure after the fact.

This is not a Constitutional issue. This has to do with legislation passed by Congress, specifically Title VII of the CRA. The City used as their defense that since the Title says that even an unintentional discrimination in hiring or promotion is illegal, they had a right to refuse to honor their procedure's results. All lower courts are bound by precedent law, and at this time, Bakke, a Supreme Court decision, among others, is precedent law in this area. Therefore, all lower courts had to rule in favor of the city.

However, the Supreme Court has much more latitude, especially concerning their own decisions. They were very careful not to criticize the decisions of the lower courts, and in fact did not overturn Bakke or technically, even the lower courts. They merely parsed the language in Title VII to note that there is no defense possible when there is only a FEAR of possible inadvertent discrimination, when no such challenge has actually occurred (the black firefighters never actually sued for discrimination).

So in fact, this legal technicality allowed the SC to rule against the defense offered by the City of New Haven, not for the firefighters. The firefighters just happened to benefit from the City's loss. This is a subtle distinction, as most legal decisions of this type are from the Supreme Court, but it is an important one.

The Supreme Court in fact "legislated from the bench", which they are allowed to do. Had a lower court done anything but follow precedent law, they could have been censured for "legislating from the bench", which is what everyone says these courts are not to do.

And by the way, this decision will most likely cause the entire CRA to ve revisited many times, which I personally think needs to be doe. Much of it is no longer practical, and some is now even more harmful to minorities than it is helpful. Like many laws which are not Constitutionally based, this one deserves review periodically, and the time is probably long overdue, and that includes the minority percentage system (which as part of the CRA, is not part of the Constitution and therefore cannot be unConstitutional).

So I certainly hope you would not have had more respect for her had she essentially broken her own oaths and the laws of the lower courts.

Eom

I am having a little problem figuring out how you got from "new immigrants" and illegals to your criticisms of multiculturalism and diversity. It appears you are saying that America should be a homogenized society, with no chocolate or strawberry recognized as truly American.

If I am misinterpreting your association here, please enlighten me.

hoonue

Please explain your definition of an activist group and then how any division of LDEF fits into this. Also, please explain the connection between this group (any division) and ACORN.

I am not being obtuse or confrontational. I am actually asking serious questions and would appreciate serious answers.

hand raised

Richard...

I guess I missed something. I am unable to find any place where Sotomayor has said that race is more important than intelligence.

If you are referring to the case which involved the firefighters in New Haven who scored well enough to be considered for promotion, this group included two Hispanics. Are you considering that this case, had she not been bound by Supreme Court precedent law to rule as she did, would have somehow proven that Hispanics were not intelligent? If so, how?

Al

In what cases did Sotomayor not rule on Constitutional law? I have read her cases and she hasn't had that many dealing with application of the Constitution, since her cases are controlled by precedent law.

jmarmont,

Please tell us how many of her INDIVIDUAL decisions have been thrown out by a Superior Court?

jmarmont

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, of which Sotomayor is a member of as panel of judges, and therefore issues no decisions on her own, has a 60% reversal rate.

We currently have a Justice sitting on the Supreme Court with a 100% reversal rate.

El...

I agree. That is why I am glad that Sotomayor has ruled over 80% of the time against the minority litigants in discrimination cases.

Dear deedeenTX,

First of all, I see it for what it really is. Please don't get it twisted about how racism works. From your comments, you seem the one to be naive and shallow to me. The difference between the history of blacks and whites concerning racism, is that the white man has used terrorism as a means throughout the history of this country to control minorities. What do you know about black culture and how do you figure it's the most racist culture we have? Because you're afraid to go into a black neighborhood it makes it so? I don't think so!

And what would you know about blacks wanting to be superior? What makes you think that? Could it be because every time blacks are brought into something that has always been dominated by whites, after a few years blacks start to dominate? Could that be the basis for your argument?

Rise up my Puerto Rican, Mexican, and Native brothers and sisters and take your place in the seats of Justice and get what's yours! See, I'm not racist!

momus, people should advance based on ability not on skin color, whether black or white. some blacks are racist against whites and vice versa, neather is right. however statistics show about 80% of prison population is black, and blacks are about 17% of the population. i guess thats a racist comment and blacks are unfairly targeted. these people need to get of their collective buts and go out and work to get ahead like all the other minorities in this country. slavery ended 200 years ago, get over it. and by the way it was black people in africa who originally sold their blacks to slave traders.

mrwood,

Surely you can't be serious. LMAO

"statistics show about 80% of prison population is black, and blacks are about 17% of the population"??????

First of all, Where are you getting your statistics from? Please post where you got your numbers from.

Secondly, Blacks in the workforce in this country work just as hard, if not harder, than their counterparts. There are more whites with their hands out than there are blacks too. You want to talk about welfare states, take a look at West Virginia and then get back to me. What do you know about African History that makes you a scholar on what originally happened over there? You only regurgitate what you hear from other people and that is evident.

mrwood...

I would just like to once again try to clarify this business about the dealing of slaves in Africa. The civilizations in Africa were destroyed by the take over of the European countries (check some very old maps of the continent) and the tribal systems which remained were largely run by warlords who made their money by trading with those same countries. They captured people from less powerful tribes and sold them for money.

With the logic you are using, only the sellers are guilty. Therefore, people buying drugs should not be guilty either - only the sellers. So we should immediately release all people in prison for buying drugs.

In addition, all the comments concerning people who took bad loans, even knowing they could not afford them, should be innocent, Only the banks and other agents selling the mortgages should be guilty, so why are we not only not holding them accountable for their crimes, but are even giving them more money?

There are more examples using your logic, but I would be glad to hear your responses to just these two. And you might possibly add a comment on whether or not your logic also makes a crime okay as long as the perpetrator and the victim are the same color.

Eom,

You said about PINCH: "we know that you are a Left Wing Liberal Commie who backs the Socialist Obama"

That is just plain good comedy right there! You must have stayed up all night thinking of that one. What's wrong with asking for clarification during a discussion? If you don't know what you're talking about (which it seems you never do) then why not just keep a lid on it. I mean, to go off on some sort of half-cocked tangent because you can't answer a simple question is quite disturbing to say the least. And you say you want to have an intelligent discussion.

Eom

I really am sorry that you have such an antipathy for learning. I actually do real work to clarify anything I am asked about as do others. I agree it takes a little initiative and the knowledge that neither I nor anyone else knows everything, except apparently you, but please allow the rest of us to actually have meaningful discussions and share information.

Or are you afraid that learning might change your mind on something?

Oh, and by the way, you would be very surprised if you knew who I was, but I will tell you that none of the labels you just threw out there at me are even remotely accurate.