On Empathy – Sotomayor and Alito: Same Views, Different Reactions
Posted by Michelle Moquin on May 29th, 2009
Is it no surprise that Sonia Sotomayor is getting such a dissing from the right wingers? Is it not bad enough that they have to deal with a black president and now…now an hispanic woman in our justice system? Where is our world headed? In the right direction if you want my little opinion. Shake it up and shake it up good….
In response to the smear attacks on her, Glen Greenwald wrote a great article that I decided to post below. One anonymous person quotes, ”Apparently, the only way to avoid ‘identity politics’ is to pick white men for every job.” Right on anon. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Enjoy the read, Readers:
Justice Sam Alito on empathy and judging
As is true for any Supreme Court nominee, there are many legitimate questions to raise about Sonia Sotomayor, but the smear attacks on her as some sort of “identity politics” poster child — which are still being justifiedlargely if not entirely by the Jeffrey Rosen/TNR gossipy hit piece on her — are nothing short of disgusting. As Anonymous Liberal put it: ”Apparently, the only way to avoid ‘identity politics’ is to pick white men for every job.” Both Adam Serwer and Daniel Larison note the glaring, obvious hypocrisy in simultaneously insisting that “empathy” has no place in the law while protesting Sotomayor’s decision in Ricci on the completely law-free ground that what happened to the white firefighters is so “unfair.” And Matt Yglesias writes that he is “really truly deeply and personally pissed off by the tenor of a lot of the commentary on Sonia Sotomayor” and, in a separate post, notes the wildly different treatment accorded Sotomayor and Sam Alito despite very similar records.
With regard to that last point — how completely different is the reaction to Sam Alito and Sonia Sotomayor — just consider this exchange that took place at the beginning of Alito’s confirmation hearing (h/t sysprog):
COBURN: You know, I think at times during these hearings you have been unfairly criticized or characterized as that you don’t care about the less fortunate, you don’t care about the little guy, you don’t care about the weak or the innocent.
Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life?
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.
ALITO: I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
COBURN: Thank you.
Anyone who is objecting now to Sotomayor’s alleged ”empathy” problem but who supported Sam Alito and never objected to this sort of thing ought to have their motives questioned (and the same is true for someone who claims that a person who overcame great odds to graduate at the top of their class at Princeton, graduate Yale Law School, and then spent time as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, district court judge and appellate court judge must have been chosen due to “identity politics”). And the idea that her decision in Ricci demonstrates some sort of radicalism — when she was simply affirming the decision of a federal district judge, was part of a unanimous circuit panel in doing so, was supported by a majority of her fellow Circuit judges who refused to re-hear the case, and will, by all accounts, have at least several current Supreme Court Justices side with her — is frivolous on its face.
I have no doubt there are legitimate grounds for objecting to some of Sotomayor’s judicial opinions. Doing that, as well as vigorously questioning her on important areas where she has little record (such as executive power disputes), is not only legitimate, but vital. But the attacks thus far — not just from the Right but from the sterling Respectable Intellectual Center — say far, far more about the critics than they do about her. How can her ”empathy” views possibly be distinguished from what Sam Alito — at Tom Coburn’s urging — said when he was confirmed?
UPDATE: The focus on the three instances in which Sotomayor’s rulings were reversed is equally inane. Reversals of that sort are a standard part of how the appellate justice system works and hardly means that a judge’s abilities should be called into question. Any judge who sits on the bench long enough will make erroneous rulings at times. Many times, the Supreme Court makes new law when reversing and other times it is the Supreme Court’s majority that errs.
But leave all that to the side: again, look at how Alito’s reversals were treated, even though there were more of them and involved weightier questions:
* In a well-known 1991 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito wrote a sole dissent supporting a state requirement that women inform their husbands before being permitted to obtain an abortion; the Supreme Court later rejected his view.
* In 2000, Alito ruled that Congress could not penalize state governments for failing to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act; in 2003, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote (including Chief Judge Rehnquist) rejected that conclusion, and ruled that states could be penalized.
* In a 2004 death penalty case which Alito decided –Rompilla v. Horn –Alito rejected the defendant’s argument that his attorney’s had failed to do conduct an adequate investigation to prepare for his sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court reversed Alito’s decision, ruling that the defense attorney’s failure to even review evidence they knew the prosecution was going to introduce at sentencing violated the Sixth Amendment.
There are numerous other instances where Alito’s rulings were repudiated either by the Supreme Court or even his own Circuit. Judge for yourself if those were treated the same way as Sotomayor’s more limited and less meaningful instances of reversals. Was the argument made that this proved Alito was inept, intellectually deficient, and chosen soley for “identity politics” in order to attract the key Italian and Catholic voting blocs?
Glen Greenwald
~~~~~~~~~
Readers: Comment – thoughts? Blog me.
Hey ZL: My mother used to grab us by the wrist and give it a a little twist – the ‘Indian burn’ – why they called it that, I have no idea. Maybe because my skin got red afterwards. Does that sound racist? My family is definitely not racist, but I never thought of that name until now.
Yea Al: We are cool.
TAO - No name for our new alien visitor? Your comment was so very interesting. So am I correct to think that you would not take a bite of a human – that would not be to your liking…but you might lick them to death everywhere? This I could get into – the licking part – not the death part. But hey… I hear there are billions of bacteria on my feet – care for a little toe sucking soon? Call me. :)
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: Your Bad Ass Bitch Editor
For archives dated before January 17, 2008 click on my Blogroll:
or click here: “A Day in the life of…”
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2009on
al, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
May 29th, 2009 at 9:28 am
How to Affair-Proof Your Marriage
Steven D. Solomon, PhD
It seems that every week we learn about another politician, sports star or celebrity caught having an extramarital affair. But public figures are hardly the only ones guilty of infidelity. Surveys show that between 40% and 60% of husbands and between 30% and 50% of wives will be unfaithful at some point during their marriages.
Loneliness is the most common cause of infidelity. Almost everyone who enters into marriage does so intending to remain faithful to his/her partner, but long-term relationships are difficult. Partners often drift apart. The romance and the excitement of the initial period eventually ends. Many people do not know how to recover the closeness of a relationship once it fades, so they look outside the marriage for the fulfillment that they no longer receive at home.
The secret to a fulfilling and faithful long-term marriage is maintaining “emotional intimacy” — openness, trust, communication and caring between partners. When spouses feel this intimate closeness, they are unlikely to cheat.
Emotional intimacy is not just one skill — it is a combination of several different abilities…
SELF-INTIMACY
In order to have an emotionally intimate relationship with someone else, you first must understand your own emotions. Men in particular tend to pay insufficient attention to their emotions.
What to do: Take one to two minutes a few times a day to ask yourself three questions — What emotion(s) am I feeling right now? What specific situation is causing me to feel these emotions? What, if anything, do I need to do about this situation to take care of myself?
Example: I’m feeling anger… I’m feeling it because that guy cut me off on the highway… The best thing I can do to take care of myself is let the anger go.
Run through these questions two or three times each day for 60 days and you will become much more aware of, and in charge of, your own emotions.
CONFLICT INTIMACY
All couples fight, but couples with emotionally intimate marriages fight productively. They don’t just try to win arguments — they listen to their partners and come to understand their points of view, even if they do not agree.
What to do: When you are at odds with your spouse, try an established technique called Initiator to Inquirer or I to I. One spouse serves as “initiator.” This spouse raises a troubling issue and shares his feelings and opinions on the matter. The initiator presents these thoughts as his perspective on the situation, not as the only way to look at it.
Example: The wife, as the initiator, says, “I felt hurt because it seemed to me as if you intentionally were trying to hurt my feelings,” rather than “You intentionally hurt my feelings.”
The other spouse’s role is “inquirer.” He is to repeat back the substance of what the initiator has said to show that he has heard and understood. The inquirer then asks questions that aid in understanding.
The inquirer is not allowed to question the validity of the initiator’s feelings. When the desire to do so arises (and it will), the inquirer should silently remind himself that “this is not about me… it is only about my partner’s perspective on the situation, and it is important for me to understand this perspective.” When the initiator has had her say, the partners can switch roles. Avoid distractions during I to I time, and do not try this when one or both of you are exhausted.
This will not be a comfortable process at first, particularly if lots of negative feelings exist between you and your spouse. If you practice it two or three times each week for about 20 minutes at a time, it can become a very useful process for working through the marital conflicts that could lead to unhappiness. You and your partner will get good at fighting productively, which will end up bringing you closer.
AFFECTION INTIMACY
Being in love with your partner is not enough to prevent infidelity. You also must show your love and affection in the ways that your partner needs. Even a well-meaning spouse can run into trouble here if he fails to realize that the type of affection he is providing is not the type that his partner desires. Types of marital affection include…
Verbal. How often do you tell your partner that you love him? How often do you express your gratitude for the things your partner does for you?
Actions. How often do you do things just because your partner enjoys having them done? This might include buying a gift or doing some favor or chore for the partner that goes beyond your normal responsibilities.
Physical (nonsexual). How often do you hold hands, hug or kiss your partner? How often do you provide foot massages or back rubs?
Sexual. How often do you have sex with your partner?
What to do: Do not assume that your partner desires the same types of affection that you do or that you know what your partner needs because you have been together for years. Come right out and ask your partner what types of affection he/she would like you to provide more often. Get specifics. Then communicate your own needs. Do not take it personally if your partner says you have not shown enough affection. This reflects the partner’s personal affection needs, not your own shortcomings.
Example: A man thinks he shows his wife plenty of affection by buying gifts, holding hands and helping out around the house. His wife feels he is never affectionate, because she wants verbal affection and he never says, “I love you.”
If you fail to provide the types and amounts of affection that your partner considers appropriate, your spouse may stray. Provide the desired affection, and your spouse is less likely to seek it from others.
TO TELL OR NOT TO TELL
My patients who have had or are having extramarital affairs often ask me if they should tell their spouses about the affair. I tell them that if the affair is ongoing and you have no intention of ending it, then you must. Infidelity is a major violation of marital trust, and the very least you owe your partner is the opportunity to deal with the violation as he sees fit, whether that means divorce, separation, couples therapy or something else.
If your infidelity has ended and you have no intention of repeating it, it might be better to leave the past in the past. Do not confess to unfaithfulness simply because it will feel good to get it off your chest. Telling your spouse could cause more pain and problems than it solves.
Bottom Line/Personal interviewed Steven D. Solomon, PhD, a licensed clinical psychologist based in La Jolla, California. He has more than 20 years of experience in couples therapy. http://www.therelationshipinstitute.org. He is past president of the San Diego Psychological Association and coauthor of Intimacy After Infidelity: How to Rebuild & Affair-Proof Your Marriage (New Harbinger).
May 29th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Michelle
I was referring to the number of different kinds of bacteria, not the number of a particular bacteria.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am
It’s shameful that the only Bush cartel crime being addressed is the torture issue. Surely this is a major horror, but eight years of calculated crimes have been swept under the rug and forgotten. By the definition of our own FBI, George Bush remains the world’s leading terrorist.
Pfd format available: http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/reggies-commentary/750-why-george-w-bush-isthe-worlds-leading-terrorist.html
May 29th, 2009 at 10:12 am
agree- I am just as concerned, maybe even MORE concerned about the domestic crimes of the Bush administration of which there are many. His numerous violations of constitutional and just about every other law are grounds enough for prosecution. Bush took an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the nations’s laws. He did not. If he and his team anre not held accountable for this we will not be safe from it happening again-especially since all the guilty parties are still very much out there, and from their outspoken arrogance they appear to think they are untouchable. AND I have no doubt that they will not hesitate to make trouble again whenever they get the chance.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Wow, you can break international law and torture, lie to Congress and the American people, and still get away with it, even though Americans turned out in droves to vote “change”. Well I see no change but a whole lot of sucking up to Republican criminals by Obama. It is just baffling, and gets more and more dissapointing as the days roll by.
Somewhere in TX Bush is laughing at us while he counts his money.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Come on, take it easy on Obama, I agree that politics is playing a part. But the guy just got into office, just a little over 100 days. So far, he is not doing a bad job, and remember, we are not going always get what we want, that is what life is all about, give a little and lose a little…we are all subject to this. However, I strongly believe that the entire Bush administration, which includes Bush, should be punished under the law for this whole fiasco
May 29th, 2009 at 10:14 am
It absolutely befuddles me that ALL Americans are not up in arms about this. Torture (Let’s call a spade a spade, not “harsh interrogation methods”) should NEVER, NEVER ever be utilized by the U.S. When one (individual or country) stoops to the level of it’s enemies by employing the same means, all that needs be done to see the “enemy” is look into the mirror. This also goes for “rendering” captives to other countries to do our dirty work. Those officials who back use of torture should be immediately removed from office and barred from ever holding public office. Thes lawyers should be disbarred and possibly tried for crimes against humanity along with their bosses.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am
f nothing is done to bush and co and these criminals walk scott free, we need to vote people in who will abide by the rule of law and the constitution. In America no one should above the law.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Q: I often see non-athletes drinking sports drinks as they would water. Is this advisable?
A: Sports drinks, such as Gatorade and Accelerade, were developed for serious athletes, not for the average person, who has little physiologic need for the extra sugar and electrolytes (minerals, including sodium, potassium, chloride and bicarbonate, that help the muscles, heart and other organs work properly) typically found in such drinks. The amount of sugar found in these drinks (about 4% to 8% concentration) is enough to delay fatigue and increase endurance, and the small amount of sodium enhances taste and improves water absorption. But for the average person, water is the best replacement for fluids lost through normal bodily functions, including urination, breathing and sweating during moderate exercise. However, when you exercise intensely for more than one hour, drinking a sports drink will stimulate you to take in more fluids and help maintain your body’s proper water balance.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Dear MoveOn member,
Remember when Dick Cheney let oil and coal lobbyists craft our nation’s energy policy behind closed doors?
Barack Obama may have thrown them out of the White House—but they’ve relocated to Capitol Hill, with the help of some powerful conservative Democrats in Congress.
In weeks of often secret negotiations over this year’s energy bill, these Democrats managed to not just weaken the legislation, but even to slip in language that would prevent the Obama administration from cleaning up coal plants and oil refineries.
We can’t let a few conservative Democrats get away with undermining Obama’s clean energy jobs plan. So we’re fighting back with a massive campaign to fix the bill and expose members of Congress who are undermining Obama—but we need to know if we have the resources to pull it off.
May 30th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Obama apologizing to the right shows his white blood. How many times do we have to placate white men when they start whining about how they are being treated.
These men who make up 95% of the Senate and part of a race that makes up 99% of the Senate are always screaming reverse racism when they are asked to share the benefits they received by government Affirmative Action when white men made up 100% of the government on all levels of the federal, state, and city government.
This is the difference between an all black man, and a mix like Obama who has evidently had his balls shrunk a bit by that infusion of white blood.
Shame on you Obama. Get a pair.
Ruth
May 30th, 2009 at 3:26 am
I am disappointed in american white women. They never seem to come to the defense of non white women when they are being ravaged by white men.
The reason american white women have never achieved parity with american white men is not because they are selfish and bigoted like their men. They are just too easily manipulated by their men.
I am a white russian who is now an american citizen. I would trust men as we americans say as far as I can throw one.
I find it deplorable that white women are so silent while their male race is so vicious towards Sotomayor.
Shame on you gutless bitches.
May 30th, 2009 at 3:38 am
Interesting isn’t it that Obama caves in to the false indignation of those claiming to speak for white males.
As a white male that is not part of that disgusting display of hypocrisy, I find it even more disgraceful that Obama wouldn’t back Sotomayor more aggressively.
His apology will give more incentive to those bigots to go after her even more viciously. She said noting any of the other white justices hadn’t said.
His attempts to appease them will be seen as the typical weakness that dems often show when the right attacks them. That’s why I am a republican.
Democrats are wimps. They are a non cohesive unit of non white whites, liberal whites and semi bigoted whites.
I am a republican who is not happy with the behavior of his party at the moment.
Jeff
May 30th, 2009 at 3:41 am
Such luminaries as Pat Buchanon, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich say Sotomayor is a racist and they are experts on the subject of bigotry. They have been practicing it for years. They cry racism in those rare and make believe instances when it is supposed to be leveled at white males, which is a common occurence only in their universes.
May 30th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Newsflash, the focus on the right is her ability, her past decisions, her temperment, her previous statements, and whether or not she is the best possible nominee for the position.
Incidentally, that’s exactly what the focus is supposed to be, according to the long history of senate review of judicial appointees.
The focus of the left is to, as you say, “shift the focus” to her race and sex and her compelling personal story in order to pre-brand the right as racist sexists and therefore avoid a fair and diligent review of her qualifications. Identity politics at is absolute worse.
You can twist yourself into knots trying to parse her comment to take it out of the category of racial superiority “more often than not”, but the fact is, on its face, its a racist comment, if we are to believe websters definition of racism….”a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
I can make better decisions than a white man most of the time because I am a latina woman with a richness of experiences he doesn’t have.
Your comment of shifting the debate is tragic, but typical, to those who seem to value form (or identity group) over substance.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:41 am
I think you misinterpreted Sotomayor’s comment regarding differences between her decisions and those of white men. As a Latina growing up amidst poverty in the Bronx, Sotomayor simply sees the world from a perspective quite distinct from that of a white male who has lived in de facto, “whites only” communities for the duration of his existence on this earth. Sotomayor’s encounters with racism have likely been countless, while no white male is required to experience it. And if you were required to experience it in the same ways blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans do, you’d change your tune in a heart beat.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:41 am
The focus of the right is to say that she is a racist which is indicative of their typical hysteria and their inability to seee racism except where it is supposedly and fictionally confronted by white males.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Judge Sotomayor may put Republicans on trial during her confirmation hearings, but both Democrat & Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have a clear duty to analyze her significantly unclear positions on the First Amendment’s “establishment clause” & the separation of church & state. Past nominees to the Supreme Court, notoriously Roberts & Alito, were deceitful re: “stare decisis” & the Roe v. Wade
precedent. Whether religion should or should not enter confirmation hearings is debatable, since it clearly has influenced decisions of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Kennedy and it should not be disregarded in analyzing Sotomayor’s position(s) on democracy’s most commendable traits — freedom of conscience and the separation of religion from the legal machinery of the state.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I’m white and I am speaking up for a my sex the republican men have been so nasty. I believe it shows how they really feel about women whether or not they are white.
But is is so true that women in this country have sat on their hands and allowed them to get away with it.
Why white women allow the most privileged group in the country to complain about not getting more is pathetic. We live with, are married to and birth the children of these hypocrites.
Linda
May 30th, 2009 at 8:23 am
What part of saying “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.” isn’t racist or sexist?
Try it this way ” I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn”t lived that life.”
Racist and sexist, no?
May 30th, 2009 at 8:53 am
If the decision was about where to put the new practice green at the country club it would be legit.
Seriously though, your argument doesn’t hold. The person making that statement could very well be considered racist/sexist IF race/sex have nothing to do with decision-making (hint: they do) and the group the judge is joining wasn’t almost entirely white, while making decisions for a country that is NOT entirely white.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:53 am
She said….
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences…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 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.”
May 30th, 2009 at 8:54 am
“…equal right to the poor and to the rich…”. It is hardly possible to do equal right to the rich and the poor unless you understand something about the rich and the poor, just as it is hardly possible to understand racism unless you understand something about the white and the not-white people in this country and the differences in what can be achieved simply by accident of birth. Privileged, white men that have NEVER personally lived any of these disparities will be severely handicapped from understanding how to administer the kind of justice that a diverse country like America has needed almost since it’s inception. Any mention of background in reference to future judgement isn’t intended to illustrate a bias, just an awareness and understanding of a larger truth about this country that has been somewhat ignored on our Federal Supreme Court.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:58 am
This link contains summaries of many of the 150 civil opinions that Sonia Sotomayor has written.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
May 30th, 2009 at 8:59 am
She will be confirmed, and everyone knows it. All this GOP caterwauling and posturing is just a way for the failed, disastrous Republican Party to raise money from the racist loons — the last solid base it has left.
May 30th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Carl Rove has repeatedly stated that Judge Sonia Sotomayor lacks the intellectual ability to sit on the Supreme Court. What makes Carl Rove (high school graduate and Bush”s minion/hand puppet) competent to critique Judge Sotomayor”s intellectual attributes? Let”s review the facts. After graduating valedictorian from New York”s prestigious Cardinal Spellman High School, Judge Sotomayor went on to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton, and later received a law degree from Yale, where she was also elected Editor of the influential Yale Law Journal. In comparison, Bush was a legacy admission to Yale and graduated “thank-you-laude” with a paltry C average. Why is it that every minority candidate (Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor) nominated to the Supreme Court has been criticized by White (male) pundits as being intellectually incompetent? Even though Judge Alito was affiliated with a racist organization (he denied knowing the group was racist) while at Princeton and had an unremarkable tenure as a student while attending law school at Yale, no one ever questioned his intellectual ability before and during his confirmation hearing.
May 30th, 2009 at 9:08 am
I am happy for the Ms Sotomayor but unfortunately some individuals are labeling her an Affirmative Action pick. I think that its sad that in 2009 we still have people who will question someone’s intellect and qualifications based on their ethnic background or gender. The fact that she came from the school of hard knocks and she has been able to accomplish more than all of our current Supreme Court justices when they started makes her one of the most qualified people ever.
Some people are born on 3rd base, but think they have hit a home run. But she has proven that she is not one of those people.
May 30th, 2009 at 9:09 am
For hispanics of this nation it is a very proud moment … and, we should all celebrate & welcome more fairness and diversity … ALAS !!
May 30th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I’m really starting to feel sorry for repubs … most seem to be suffering from this very awful, incurable disease … it’s really badddd ! They “publicly” question the IQ of a woman clearly worthy of any HIGH position in the world !!! These (repubs) are very ill people !!!