You guys are disappointing me

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think how the network handled her criticism of the harassment problem at Fox actually had a lot to do with it.

I thought they countered to try and keep her. regardless, it had zip to do with Trump.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

, lawyers with no experience for judgeships, etc. .

Having judicial experience didn't stop Sonia Sotomayor from saying this, which should prevent her form ever serving on a jury, let along on the Supreme Court...

"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,”

You cannot get more bigoted than that, you simply cannot, and she will be on that bench for the rest of my life. White men, by virtue of their skin pigmentation and genitals, make inferior judges. That's super.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

leftists aren't smarter than everyone else but it appears Fox news viewers know less about current events than people who don't watch the news.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#42b2643112ab

such an odd FOX obsession....

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

such an odd FOX obsession....

The article?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The article?

you...I didn't bother with the article

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Having judicial experience didn't stop Sonia Sotomayor from saying this, which should prevent her form ever serving on a jury, let along on the Supreme Court...

"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,”

You cannot get more bigoted than that, you simply cannot, and she will be on that bench for the rest of my life. White men, by virtue of their skin pigmentation and genitals, make inferior judges. That's super.

It wasn't bigoted at all in context. Just a little clumsy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Having judicial experience didn't stop Sonia Sotomayor from saying this, which should prevent her form ever serving on a jury, let along on the Supreme Court...

"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,”

You cannot get more bigoted than that, you simply cannot, and she will be on that bench for the rest of my life. White men, by virtue of their skin pigmentation and genitals, make inferior judges. That's super.

And she said that 8 years before she was appointed and she made it through confirmation. Just like Gorsuch did, that is the way the game works.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And she said that 8 years before she was appointed and she made it through confirmation. Just like Gorsuch did, that is the way the game works.

Oh, so what's the statute of limitations, exactly, for when your bigotry expires and you are fit for the Supreme Court?

I am aware she got confirmed. That doesn't mean she's not a maniac and a bigot.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It wasn't bigoted at all in context. Just a little clumsy.

You love saying that criticism of the left are taken out of context, yet I have never seen you once, put it in the correct context. Could you tell us what the correct context is, please?

She also authored 5 majority opinions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court (when she was in the lower court), 3 were overturned. She was found to have been wrong, 60% of the time. Now from what I understand, the SCOTUS overturns a high % of cases, because there is usually a reason why a case gets to them.

[scottw]

democrats can't be bigots...it's a rule

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

democrats can't be bigots...it's a rule

They're called Allies...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

you...I didn't bother with the article

I don't think I have posted very many items concerning Fox news. Any you want to discuss?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You love saying that criticism of the left are taken out of context, yet I have never seen you once, put it in the correct context. Could you tell us what the correct context is, please?

She also authored 5 majority opinions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court (when she was in the lower court), 3 were overturned. She was found to have been wrong, 60% of the time. Now from what I understand, the SCOTUS overturns a high % of cases, because there is usually a reason why a case gets to them.

The reason I said just like Gorsuch is because both parties get their turn and both whine about the others choice.
Laura Gomez said:
"I was a speaker at the conference Sotomayor's speech kicked off, and I would like to put her comment in context.

Entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," the conference brought together -- for the first time, to my knowledge -- judges, lawyers, scholars and law students to consider the state of Latinos in the judiciary.

By 2050, Hispanics will be 30 percent of the U.S. population, and yet the number of Latino judges remains tiny. The number of female Hispanic judges is even smaller; Sotomayor is one of two Hispanic women among federal appellate judges, and there are not much more than that among the hundreds of federal district judges.

Part of the impetus for the conference was to signal the potential crisis for our courts in the 21st century if we do not get more Latino lawyers interested in becoming judges and more appointed to the bench.

In this context, I did not find Sotomayor's comment controversial. As I look at the speech eight years later, I'm struck by how measured and careful she was in making the claim.

First, the sentence I have quoted here followed Sotomayor's acknowledgement that there is no universal definition of "wise."


Second, she presented the statement as aspirational by using the phrase "I would hope"; she was talking as much about the ideal of diversity as its reality.

Third, she specified that she was talking not about all Latinas and all white men but about ideal types; she invoked a "wise" Hispanic woman who has had a particular set of life experiences and white male judges who have not "lived that life" (suggesting that some white males could, in fact, bring a similar empathy and/or life experience to the bench).

Fourth, she went out of her way to say that she thought this would be the case "more often than not," rather than all the time.

Finally, in the next sentence of her speech, Sotomayor went on to specify that she was addressing the dynamics of an appellate court with multiple judges (such as the three-judge and en banc panels on which she sits as an appeals court judge and the Supreme Court), rather than talking about a trial court context in which a single judge presides.

She was referencing the group dynamics on a U.S. Supreme Court of nine justices who converse publicly during oral arguments and privately during conferences over cases. In these settings, who a judge is, in all the ways that matter, undoubtedly affects his or her own thinking about cases as well as that of the other justices.

Does anyone that doubt that Justice Thurgood Marshall's identity as an African-American male or his experience as a civil rights lawyer shaped his judicial philosophy and influence his fellow justices some of the time? Most watchers of the Supreme Court have similarly concluded that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had a great impact on their colleagues in cases of particular interest to women, such as abortion and sex discrimination.

Ultimately, whether, holding other things constant, women of color make "better" judges than white men is an empirical question that we are unable to answer definitively any time soon, given the small numbers of minority judges.

That inquiry itself begs the question of quality explicit in Judge Sotomayor's comment: What makes one judge better than another? Better for whom? Some political scientists have argued that the appropriate measure is essentially political: Is the judge better for those who elected the president who nominated the Supreme Court justice?

At the end of the day, a judge's race and gender may have less impact on how she decides a particular case than how the larger public perceives the court on which she sits. In a society in which African-Americans and Hispanics, in particular, report high rates of dissatisfaction and lack of faith in the courts and other criminal justice institutions, the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary has greater relevance.

Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."
Laura Gómez is professor of law and American studies at the University of New Mexico. Gómez, who has a Ph.D. in sociology and a law degree from Stanford University, is the author of "Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race.

[scottw]

so you got to meet Justice Sotomayor?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

so you got to meet Justice Sotomayor?

Hey, I'm at work and busy. You want perfection on a political BS forum?
I added the author.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hey, I'm at work and busy. clearly You want perfection on a political BS forum?
I added the author.

not perfection...I'm disappointed..

I was excited for you..it would be more interesting if you'd attended and wrote it rather than something you found and pasted after scouring the internets ...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."

we should settle on 9 ethnicities and then fill the supremes seats based on that..to look more like the nation....though...not sure about how you settle guy/girl...gay/straight...religious/secular....rich/poor...conservative/communist...in each ethnic category....it's not like they rotate very often...this could actually get complicated

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The reason I said just like Gorsuch is because both parties get their turn and both whine about the others choice.
Laura Gomez said:
"I was a speaker at the conference Sotomayor's speech kicked off, and I would like to put her comment in context.

Entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," the conference brought together -- for the first time, to my knowledge -- judges, lawyers, scholars and law students to consider the state of Latinos in the judiciary.

By 2050, Hispanics will be 30 percent of the U.S. population, and yet the number of Latino judges remains tiny. The number of female Hispanic judges is even smaller; Sotomayor is one of two Hispanic women among federal appellate judges, and there are not much more than that among the hundreds of federal district judges.

Part of the impetus for the conference was to signal the potential crisis for our courts in the 21st century if we do not get more Latino lawyers interested in becoming judges and more appointed to the bench.

In this context, I did not find Sotomayor's comment controversial. As I look at the speech eight years later, I'm struck by how measured and careful she was in making the claim.

First, the sentence I have quoted here followed Sotomayor's acknowledgement that there is no universal definition of "wise."


Second, she presented the statement as aspirational by using the phrase "I would hope"; she was talking as much about the ideal of diversity as its reality.

Third, she specified that she was talking not about all Latinas and all white men but about ideal types; she invoked a "wise" Hispanic woman who has had a particular set of life experiences and white male judges who have not "lived that life" (suggesting that some white males could, in fact, bring a similar empathy and/or life experience to the bench).

Fourth, she went out of her way to say that she thought this would be the case "more often than not," rather than all the time.

Finally, in the next sentence of her speech, Sotomayor went on to specify that she was addressing the dynamics of an appellate court with multiple judges (such as the three-judge and en banc panels on which she sits as an appeals court judge and the Supreme Court), rather than talking about a trial court context in which a single judge presides.

She was referencing the group dynamics on a U.S. Supreme Court of nine justices who converse publicly during oral arguments and privately during conferences over cases. In these settings, who a judge is, in all the ways that matter, undoubtedly affects his or her own thinking about cases as well as that of the other justices.

Does anyone that doubt that Justice Thurgood Marshall's identity as an African-American male or his experience as a civil rights lawyer shaped his judicial philosophy and influence his fellow justices some of the time? Most watchers of the Supreme Court have similarly concluded that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had a great impact on their colleagues in cases of particular interest to women, such as abortion and sex discrimination.

Ultimately, whether, holding other things constant, women of color make "better" judges than white men is an empirical question that we are unable to answer definitively any time soon, given the small numbers of minority judges.

That inquiry itself begs the question of quality explicit in Judge Sotomayor's comment: What makes one judge better than another? Better for whom? Some political scientists have argued that the appropriate measure is essentially political: Is the judge better for those who elected the president who nominated the Supreme Court justice?

At the end of the day, a judge's race and gender may have less impact on how she decides a particular case than how the larger public perceives the court on which she sits. In a society in which African-Americans and Hispanics, in particular, report high rates of dissatisfaction and lack of faith in the courts and other criminal justice institutions, the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary has greater relevance.

Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."
Laura Gómez is professor of law and American studies at the University of New Mexico. Gómez, who has a Ph.D. in sociology and a law degree from Stanford University, is the author of "Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race.

I read that diatribe three times. Three. I still cannot fathom (even based on this desperate attempt to whitewash what she said), that Sotomayor doesn't have a problem with gringos who have wee wees. There is no other way to interpret what she said. Whether she said white men actually make inferior judges, or she's just hoping they do, it's equally bigoted. Like most hard core liberals, all she sees is racial and gender identity.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

we should settle on 9 ethnicities and then fill the supremes seats based on that..to look more like the nation....though...not sure about how you settle guy/girl...gay/straight...religious/secular....rich/poor...conservative/communist...in each ethnic category....it's not like they rotate very often...this could actually get complicated

All fun and games until you piss off the Irish justice and all hell breaks loose.....end up looking Boondock Saints
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I read that diatribe three times. Three. I still cannot fathom (even based on this desperate attempt to whitewash what she said), that Sotomayor doesn't have a problem with gringos who have small wee wees. There is no other way to interpret what she said. Whether she said white men actually make inferior judges, or she's just hoping they do, it's equally bigoted. Like most hard core liberals, all she sees is racial and gender identity.

This is a little different now, dont forget this is the USA and we should celebrate our differences, not just have a fit when your political opponent succeeds and then have a fit about your opponent having a fit when yours s...., oops succeeds.
"Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

All fun and games until you piss off the Irish justice and all hell breaks loose.....end up looking Boondock Saints
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

probably need a child justice or two as well...I mean who is there ...among all of those old farts...to represent their views ???...maybe that kid leading the repeal the 2nd amendment movement....he seems "balanced"..."Of 111 Supreme Court justices none have been children"...wassup with that?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

...maybe that kid leading the repeal the 2nd amendment movement....he seems "balanced"..."Of 111 Supreme Court justices none have been children"...wassup with that?

So now your approach is to disparage kids who just suffered a school shooting? Are you OK?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The reason I said just like Gorsuch is because both parties get their turn and both whine about the others choice.
Laura Gomez said:
"I was a speaker at the conference Sotomayor's speech kicked off, and I would like to put her comment in context.

Entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," the conference brought together -- for the first time, to my knowledge -- judges, lawyers, scholars and law students to consider the state of Latinos in the judiciary.

This shows how far we have come from interpreting the Law to interpreting by personal opinions. The blindfolded symbol of lady justice holding a scale no longer applies. The "presence" in the judiciary no longer must be those steeped in the law, who represent the specifically defined Constitution, but those who represent various factions, ethnicity, race, gender, and such things that have no defined or universal perspective.

By 2050, Hispanics will be 30 percent of the U.S. population, and yet the number of Latino judges remains tiny. The number of female Hispanic judges is even smaller; Sotomayor is one of two Hispanic women among federal appellate judges, and there are not much more than that among the hundreds of federal district judges.

The Constitution limits government. It does not limit Hispanics. Interpreting constitutional law protects the rights of everybody. Interpreting by personal ethnicity protects that ethnicity at the expense of others.

Part of the impetus for the conference was to signal the potential crisis for our courts in the 21st century if we do not get more Latino lawyers interested in becoming judges and more appointed to the bench.

The potential crisis being manufactured here is further erosion of the Constitution into unlimited, irrelevant, and divisive points of view that lead to chaotic, unpredictable government which has no basis or principle for being.

In this context, I did not find Sotomayor's comment controversial. As I look at the speech eight years later, I'm struck by how measured and careful she was in making the claim.

First, the sentence I have quoted here followed Sotomayor's acknowledgement that there is no universal definition of "wise."

A defining mark of a Judge is the use of precise, unambiguous language.

Second, she presented the statement as aspirational by using the phrase "I would hope"; she was talking as much about the ideal of diversity as its reality.

Diversity of meaning in law is not law. It is chaos.

Third, she specified that she was talking not about all Latinas and all white men but about ideal types; she invoked a "wise" Hispanic woman who has had a particular set of life experiences and white male judges who have not "lived that life" (suggesting that some white males could, in fact, bring a similar empathy and/or life experience to the bench).

None of us has lived the life of anybody else. This is stupid gibberish. It is not the life you have lived that must be brought to the court of justice. It is your knowledge of the law. Legal, constitutional justice cannot be just if it is based on one personal life experience. It must encompass all lives alike in the interface with government.

Fourth, she went out of her way to say that she thought this would be the case "more often than not," rather than all the time.

More often than not cannot be a just way to interpret the law. Justice requires boring, predictable, disinterested impartial certainty.

Finally, in the next sentence of her speech, Sotomayor went on to specify that she was addressing the dynamics of an appellate court with multiple judges (such as the three-judge and en banc panels on which she sits as an appeals court judge and the Supreme Court), rather than talking about a trial court context in which a single judge presides.

She was referencing the group dynamics on a U.S. Supreme Court of nine justices who converse publicly during oral arguments and privately during conferences over cases. In these settings, who a judge is, in all the ways that matter, undoubtedly affects his or her own thinking about cases as well as that of the other justices.

The "thinking" about Constitutional cases should not be clouded by racial or ethnic or gender points of view. Of course, Progressives elevate those points of view above actual law. It is exactly the type of "interpretation" which makes the Constitution irrelevant.

Does anyone that doubt that Justice Thurgood Marshall's identity as an African-American male or his experience as a civil rights lawyer shaped his judicial philosophy and influence his fellow justices some of the time? Most watchers of the Supreme Court have similarly concluded that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had a great impact on their colleagues in cases of particular interest to women, such as abortion and sex discrimination.

Insofar as Marshall's and O'Connor's, or Ginsberg's impact on their colleagues was shaped by the law, their race or gender would be unimportant. But when their impact was fueled by their personal "identity," then constitutional justice was not served, it was transformed into identity politics--and the Constitution was rendered moot.

Ultimately, whether, holding other things constant, women of color make "better" judges than white men is an empirical question that we are unable to answer definitively any time soon, given the small numbers of minority judges.

It is the type of question that relies on the opinion of what is "better." It is the type of question a progressive would ask. It is the type of question that makes the Constitution a matter of opinion.

That inquiry itself begs the question of quality explicit in Judge Sotomayor's comment: What makes one judge better than another? Better for whom? Some political scientists have argued that the appropriate measure is essentially political: Is the judge better for those who elected the president who nominated the Supreme Court justice?

That begging of the question is a progressive inquiry. It depends, again, not on law, but on opinion. And on politics not justice or law. Better for whom? The Constitution, as written and adjudicated, would yield the better for all. Interpretation based on identity or politics, would supposedly make it "better" for limited identities or for political agendas.

At the end of the day, a judge's race and gender may have less impact on how she decides a particular case than how the larger public perceives the court on which she sits. In a society in which African-Americans and Hispanics, in particular, report high rates of dissatisfaction and lack of faith in the courts and other criminal justice institutions, the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary has greater relevance.

Progressive Courts have been trying to satisfy the high rates of dissatisfaction of minority identities for many decades, and the dissatisfaction grows. No wonder. When law is not universal, it will not satisfy. And the more it is tailored to various identities, the more that the dissatisfactions and lack of faith will grow. Making identitarianism more relevant in the makeup of the Court, rather than insisting that the law is uniformly judged, will only lead to erosion of law with the ensuing dissatisfaction with it.

Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."
Laura Gómez is professor of law and American studies at the University of New Mexico. Gómez, who has a Ph.D. in sociology and a law degree from Stanford University, is the author of "Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race.

When a nation is divided, what will the law that looks like it . . . look like?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

So now your approach is to disparage kids who just suffered a school shooting? Are you OK?

how did I disparage him?...I nominated him for the supreme court..and what "kids"...I mentioned 1....are you ok?...or just swinging for the nuts as usual?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This is a little different now, dont forget this is the USA and we should celebrate our differences, not just have a fit when your political opponent succeeds and then have a fit about your opponent having a fit when yours s...., oops succeeds.
"Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It's past time the nation's highest court looked more like the nation."

She bashed white men. How is rooting against white men, celebrating our differences?

How about we pay absolutely zero attention to gender and skin color when picking supreme court justices?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So now your approach is to disparage kids who just suffered a school shooting? Are you OK?

I'll let the kids say their peace, When David Hogg uses nothing but f-words to describe everyone who disagrees with him, he deserves a whole lot of pushback.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So now your approach is to disparage kids who just suffered a school shooting? Are you OK?

One of those kids, a quite in-you-face-girl, admitted to actively ostracizing the shooter since middle school. But it's all the gun's fault.

This is why we don't let kids, especially traumatized kids, make public policy unilaterally. She sure isn't acting as if she wants to hear that being ostracized might have contributed to this.

[scottw]

sometimes...when people want to talk or yell...you run to get them a soapbox to stand on...then just stand back and let em' go for it

was that disparaging?....maybe a little snarky...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

She bashed white men. How is rooting against white men, celebrating our differences?

it's all the rage....I've been identifying as other ethnicities lately...it helps with the guilt

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

She bashed white men. How is rooting against white men, celebrating our differences?

How about we pay absolutely zero attention to gender and skin color when picking supreme court justices?

maybe you should take your own advice ... seems anything about gender or skin color gets you fired up ... in general