Hispanic, Female, Catholic...don't get me wrong I'm Catholic, but that would mean 6 Catholics on the bench...and usually that means pro-life...which I am not, so I'm a tad worried.
I'm not too worried about Obama putting a pro-lifer on the Supreme Court, given his own views on the subject. She seems like a reasonable candidate, if perhaps a little less than politically savvy when it comes to certain public statements about ethnic perspectives.
I agree, she's said some dumbass shit in the past from what I have read, however also from what I have read she's very much well qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
She's definitely got the qualifications and experience, though I am leery of what her views really are. She's starting to come across as a bit racist, but I'm willing to chalk that up to selective media soundbites. We'll have the confirmation hearings in order to hear the rest of the story.
If you look at ALL the federal circuit courts, a majority of their decisions get overturned if appealed to the Suopreme court...I read that the average for all the circuit courts was about 77%
So 3 of her appellate opinions have been overturned...which only represents 1.3% of all her opinions and only 60% of those that have actually been reviewed by the high court..so in 11 years as a sitting federal judge she's had 3 opinions returned? I bet a lot more state and county judges wishes they had that sort of reversal record
Yes...latin people's rich heritage makes them far more qualified to be a jurist than a white man of equal qualifications.
It's not really that she said it that bothers me. Whatever. Caliente latina personality. But had a white candidate said the exact same thing but reversed, it would have been the end of their career. It's just the double standard that gets old.
Are you saying that there shouldn't be anyone BUT white males on the high court? Since even though there might be someone of a different race or gender of equal qualifications, it should just go to the white male? I don't think race plays any influence, however I am happy another female is getting the nod....but you know me, I'm a feminist bitch ;)
Of course it was a stupid and racist thing to say, but claiming she's not qualified for the job because she said something stupid would put most of us here out on our asses at our respective jobs. I'd be more than a little shocked to discover that someone here had never said anything even moderately racist or sexist in his or her life, seems a little hypocritical to write off a pretty impressive legal career based on one stupid thing she said.
As for her Latin heritage making her more qualified than an old white guy, there may be a point to that. There are cultural contexts to consider in many cases the Supremes review, and having a monocultural bench can miss that. Ethnic diversity does actually bring a tangible benefit to the court, a different point of view that can provide a different perspective and added depth to a ruling. Of course, that's not to say the other views on the bench are any less valid, but can it do anything but help to look at an issue from more than one point of view?
Personally, I'm more worried about her judgement on the firefighter descrimination case than I am her statement about latina women having better judgement than white males. She decided that it was ok to descriminate against qualified white and hispanic men and women even if a qualified black candidate could not be found. I look forward to her having a chance to explain herself.
It's been the focus of a lot of discussion in the Blogs, but not so much in the MSM. The case is Ricci vs. DeStefano. The basic gist of the case is that there were promotions available in the city of New Haven to the position of lieutenant firefighter. Twenty men and women qualified, but none of those who passed the exam were African-American. Since no African-Americans were eligible for promotion, the city decided to promote nobody. The twenty people who passed the exam sued. Sotomayor was part of a federal judiciary panel that found in favor of the city.
Ironically, this case is now going to the Supreme Court, where it is expected to be overturned.
The "Latina women over older white male" statement is questionable, and probably taken out of context. This is a public court ruling, and I personally find it to be racist. Like I said before, I look forward to her getting a chance to explain herself.
well, from reading further on the case, it isn't that the city promoted nobody just because no black people passed it, they held off promoting anyone until it could be determined if the test itself was discriminatory, which could have led to a similar lawsuit from the African American firefighters who all failed the test. I agree with the court, there were "no good alternatives" in this case, New Haven was going to get hit with a lawsuit either way they went.
Gotta love race "policies" in this country. However, I completely disagree with your opinion (respectfully).
The problem is that the federal policy is, in itself, racist. It states under these circumstances, the city must assume that the African Americans didn't pass BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRICAN-AMERICAN, and essentially forces the city to redo the tests until an African-American can pass it. Note that this is a POLICY, not a LAW. Nobody ever voted on this. The city of New Haven tried to circumvent this but having a consultant help in formulating the test, and that consultant advised the city to promote the qualified candidates.
I'm not a firefighter, but my understanding is that their work knowledge is heavy on technical and medical knowlege. A lieutenant's exam might have some managerial and leadership areas, as well. There should be no correlation between a candidate's race and their aptitude in these areas. I work in a highly technical field, and I can assure you that race does not affect technical performance.
Sotomayer should have recognized this. These candidates all lost out on a promotion that would have improved their families' financial well being. Instead, they were kept from advancing due to a policy that does so based on the color of their skin. If this is not a violation of their 14th amendment rights, then it's just plain sickening, I say.
from the board's perspective, they were damned if they did, damned if they didn't, and they decided to err on the side of caution. From what I was able to glean, there were plans to re-do the tests if they were found to have a racial bias; the promotions were still going to happen, they were just going to be postponed.
Yes, it was the wrong decision, but from their perspective, there really wasn't a "right" option to choose instead.
Also, if I were to pledge undying love for the Republican party and all that it stands for, maybe offered to be Rush Limbaugh's Narcotics Anonymous sponsor, would that slow down the flow of reply-less neg mods every time I post in this forum?
Unfortunately not. In the US, you can't have a differing political opinion without being labeled or called names. Did you know that one party has cornered the market on Christians and Patriots while another can claim all fascist and communists?
Also, if I were to pledge undying love for the Republican party and all that it stands for, maybe offered to be Rush Limbaugh's Narcotics Anonymous sponsor, would that slow down the flow of reply-less neg mods every time I post in this forum?
That did get a +1 funny from me. Now bow down at the altar of Limbaugh!
i think that she is a good judge, just dont think she is supreme court material. she has made some publicly stupid remarks, but in her committe confirmation hearings she has completely reversed her opinions on the same subjects she had stood her ground on before. i do believe she will get confirmed, but i do believe ther are alot of other justices out there with better qualifications and without her political baggage. she has some sketchy affiliations.
You must be a member of the group to post in this thread.
