White House Struggles to Defend Sotomayor’s Race Statement

Then it would seem that you should be concerned that she has been overturned six out of ten at the Supreme Court level.

 

Good point.

But the answer is from the quote I took from Lady Eagle, below or it could be;

"NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- With a single paragraph, Judge Sonia Sotomayor and two colleagues dashed the hopes of firefighters here who believed they'd scored high enough on exams to win a promotion.
The three federal appeals judges said last year the city had the right to reject the results of two tests because no black firefighters scored high enough.

The ruling is now turning into perhaps the most contentious of the 4,000 Judge Sotomayor made in 17 years on the federal bench, and it is likely to come up in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The justices whom she may soon join on the high court are expected to rule within weeks on the case, which they took on an appeal by white firefighters. "

It isn't what one scored on the test but do to the lack of a good score from another group, all scores are done away with. We need the right mix or nothing and I'm sure that is what many are looking at for the the court. My side is right and yours isn't, is the mind set of so many today.

 

Is what she said any more out of line than Alito's statement, "Everytime I see an immigrant in a case before me I see my grandfather."

We all bring our own experiences and our cultures to all aspects of our lives. I think she was being truthful. In the same line she cannot view world in the same way a white man does as she has not lived that life.

While traveling in China by train I tried to imagine what life would be like as we passed peasant villages and I realized there was no way for me to do that. In the same way a peasant in a Chinese village cannot imagine what life was like for me growing up in rural Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley. I cannot really know what it was like to grow up in NYC in the 1950's any more than a kid who grew up in NYC can imagine what my life was like.

We all have our own experiences and those experiences and where we grew up color our view of the world.

 

Yes, there is a world of difference between the two statements.

Alito's statement conveys feelings of fondness for his grandfather and for immigrants in general. He seems to be saying that his pride and affection for his grandfather is extended to others who share the common experience of leaving their homeland to travel to a new country to start a new life.

Sotomayor's statement - “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” - conveys a sense of superiority and that her life is more rich in experience than that of a white male and that natuarally those experiences would lead her to make correct decisions while the supposed lack of rich experiences would lead the white male to make wrong decisions.

To a certain extent - possibly. But not nearly so much as you wish to have us believe. We are all born, we all grow from small children into adults, along the way we share love with our families and friends, we all have hopes and dreams for our futures and the futures of the ones we love, we all suffer when our loved ones suffer. We all eat and sleep. We all get tired, hungry, bored, disappointed, excited.... The list is endless.

Considering that she probably started college at the age of 18 or so - the majority of her experiences probably haven't been all that different than the white males which she compares herself to. An American college - Ivy League law school - worked as a attorney - then a judge. What are all these rich experiences unique to her as a Latina woman?

 

All this discussion shows is the farce of an unbiased judiciary, as well as of a "government of law, not of man." Only a machine could judge without bias. But if we went that route, we would still have to have 9 such artificial intelligence units appointed and approved, only then according to who produced them and the producer's biases.

 

She makes legal decisions based on the color of one's skin.

Are you OK with that?

 

proving that she sin't fit to judge anything.

 

I saw a piece (I believe on CNN) last night refuting this entire idea of her ruling against white folks in discrimination cases. In fact, only one of eight rulings were for the minority. We need to look at her entire base of judiciary rulings, not some out of context quote. It is not fair to paint this woman as a racist. From what I have seen, she is not the prejudiced person the right is trying to paint her as.

 

So what are these rich Latino woman's experience that she is talking about?

If she started college at 18 her life's experiences don't seem to be that different than these inexperienced white guys that she was talking about.

College - Ivy League law school - laywer - judge - with lots of elbow rubbing with the political elites.

 

I agree, I am waiting on the conformation hearings. The comment doesn't bother me since ever justice that has ever sat the bench has used past experience to guide decisions to some degree. I am more wanting to see a clear view of her record and to see the outcome of the case currently before the SCOTUS. If they decide unanimously then I know she did well. If they decide against her then I think Obama should withdraw her name.

 

College at 18 doesn't remove her previous 18 years of life. Also, there was sure to have been a different perspective for a Latina from a poor broken family to go to an ivy league school than for one born with a silver spoon who took an education like that for granted.

No matter how you slice it, ever judge mixes some life experience into their decisions. That is why there is only one righteous judge.

 

Your answer sounds racist to me.

Latino means poor broken family?

White male means born with a silver spoon?

 

She's already lost 6 out of 10 at the Supreme Court level.

What difference does the outcome of this one case make?

You already have her poor record.

 

Do you have a link that supports this?

I heard she had 3 of tons of decisions overruled which of the three only one was unanimous and it was not the decision but the argument that was overruled. When I see the SCOTUS split 5 to 4 it means the case could really have gone either way.

My using the word tons has to do with one figure the GOP is deceptively leaving out, she had a ton of cases sent before the SCOTUS but only a handful was heard. The ones not heard should be a victory in her column.

 

The Supreme Court only accepts cases where there is a serious challenge to the lower court rulings. I am not worried about her record. What her detractors do not say is how many times her rulings were upheld in that the SC let the lower court ruling stand.

It would be interested to see how many rulings the sitting judges had overturned by the SC while they were judges in the lower courts.

 

So it is your belief that the Supreme Court prejudges cases before deciding to accept a case?

That not being heard is actually an unoffical ruling in favor of the case not being heard?

How do you manage to make this stuff up and do you really believe it yourself?

 

If she said Puerto Rican or even Spanish, it wouldn't sound so bad. The fact is she is associated with "La Raza", which when translated means "The Race".

Latina & Hispanic are both along the same lines. Both refer to the race of an individual. I wanted to ask a question according to your logic, Since we know that French people come from France, & Germans come from Germany, where do Latinas come from? Is there a country called Latinar or Latinor?

 

I would not say the prejudge. But the justices do read the briefs and if they feel it is important enough that the case be reviewed they vote to do so. This does not mean at this point they feel the case should be overturned, but that it should be given a review by the full SC. It is accepted or rejected for review by a vote of the justices.

 

Which flies in the face of your previous assertion that "The Supreme Court only accepts cases where there is a serious challenge to the lower court rulings."

The Supreme Court looks to Constitutional questions when selecting cases to hear - not whether they think that a case should be overturned in general.

In that light the number of cases which the Supreme Court did not choose to hear has no bearing on Sotomayor's qualifications to sit on the court.

On the other hand the fact that six of ten of her cases were overturned by the court does speak to her qualifications.