Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
~John Adams
SESSIONS: “Do you stand by your statement that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see? Well, …you said something similar to that yesterday, that in each case I applied the law to the facts at hand, but you've repeatedly made this statement: Quote, I ‘accept the proposition’ –‘‘I accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench, and that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see as a judge.’ First, that's troubling to me as a lawyer. When I present evidence, I expect the judge to hear and see all the evidence that gets presented. How is it appropriate for a judge ever to say that they will choose to see some facts and not others? “
SOTOMAYOR: “No, sir. I don't stand by the understanding of that statement that I will ignore other facts or other experiences because I haven't had them. I do believe that life experiences are important to the process of judging. They help you to understand and listen but that the law requires a result. And it would command you to the facts that are relevant to the disposition of the case.”
SESSIONS: “Well, I will just note you made that statement in individual speeches about seven times over a number of years span. And it's concerning to me. So I would just say to you I believe in Judge Seiderbaum's (ph) formulation. She said -- and you disagreed. And this was really the context of your speech. And you used her -- her statement as sort of a beginning of your discussion. And you said she believes that a judge, no matter what their gender or background, should strive to reach the same conclusion. And she believes that's possible. You then argued that you don't think it's possible in all, maybe even most, cases. You deal with the famous quote of Justice O'Connor in which she says a wise old man should reach the same decision as a wise old woman. And you pushed backed from that. You say you don't think that's necessarily accurate. And you doubt the ability to be objective in your analysis.”
“So how can you reconcile your speeches which repeatedly assert that impartiality is a near aspiration which may not be possible in all or even most cases with your oath that you've taken twice which requires impartiality?”
SOTOMAYOR:”I also, as I explained, was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. I knew that Justice O'Connor couldn't have meant that if judges reached different conclusions -- legal conclusions -- that one of them wasn't wise. That couldn't have been her meaning, because reasonable judges disagree on legal conclusions in some cases. So I was trying to play on her words. My play was -- fell flat.”
SESSIONS: “Well, yesterday, you also said that your decisions have always been made to serve the larger interest of impartial justice, a good -- good aspiration, I agree. But in the past, you've repeatedly said this: ‘I wonder whether achieving the goal of impartiality is possible at all in even most cases and I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women, men or people of color we do a disservice to both the law and society.’ Aren't you saying there that you expect your background and -- and heritage to influence your decision-making?”
So did the James Madison mean what he said in the Constitution?
Another mealy mouthed Justice? I hope not.
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has so far been schooled by Sotomayor. He is an ignorant and seemingly unashamed racist. Ironically, rejected as a federal judge, he is the GOP's ranking member on the same committee that shot him down.
For him, white maleness is the only objective standard against what all others must be measured. The man is a disgrace.
Zeit: What impact do you think the Ricci testimony will have on the confirmation hearings?
It will just increase the polarization of the hard-liners like the remarks from SK in CV who continues to use the racist default setting of those too limited to use facts: ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule. When you have nothing, throw down the racist flag. Why look at her record or testimony? This is not really about Soto, it's about the Libs doing what they believe is best for the country. They are the real elitists. You voters and taxpayers have no idea what's important. Let the omnipotent all knowing, all seeing liberal members of Congress decide how you spend your money. The framers of the Constituition, those white, all male losers who were slave owning, landed gentry should not be the rule of the land. It should be those dumbed down public school educated turkeys who voted Obama into the office because they wanted to make history. Justice Sotomayor will represent them and the rest of the unwashed masses who represent this amalgamation from Hell. She is their puppet. Is that enough red meat, Allan?
Wow. Just wow. Do you really support governance by only the white male landed gentry? (I'll presume for the sake of argument that you're ok with the end of that whole slavery thing.) Do you really believe that the only alternative to white male landed gentry is "dumbed down public school turkeys"? That would be all women. All people of color. All renters? I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it was purely rhetorical.
This morning, Sessions said:
"himself of Puerto Rican acestry". That should make a difference? I'm a bit surprised he didn't mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.
I think a presumption is the same as an assumption and you just made an ass out of yourself. You have a very low opinion of women I might add. I suppose some of your best friends are women...
Huh? You obviously read something incorrectly. Try again.
SK Try looking in the mirror and being honest about your latent male chauvinism. Meanwhile, read on.
SESSIONS: "In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny," close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court's binding decision in Adarand v. Pena."
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it's not acceptable."
"After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: 'In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny -- strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race,' close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven."
"You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words 'Adarand," 'Equal protection' and 'Strict scrutiny' are completely missing from any of your panel's discussion of this decision?"
She either has a faulty memory or she says what she thinks she needs to say at the time. How very convenient.
"himself of Puerto Rican acestry". That should make a difference? I'm a bit surprised he didn't mention his Puerto Rican housekeeper and ask of Sotomayor knew her. Both being Puero Rican and all.
SK: If I were guessing, I'd say that Sessions remarks need to be contextualized and laid alongside Sotomayor's comments regarding her "rich Hispanic heritage" and how that heritage informs not only her views, but her views as opposed to an older, white judge who may not have the same "richness" of experience and therefore not be as able as she when adjudicating. She has offered this viewpoint on more than one occasion, so that door is clearly open in terms of taking issue with the comment(s) and making an issue of them.
Given that Justice and justices (of the Supreme Court) are supposed to be impartial, it's a fair line of questioning.
Further, she does have credibility issues as far as impartiality and racial/ethnic policies go, as illustrated by the "Ricci v. New Haven" decision. Hence my question on the impact of the Ricci testimony.
Who are the elitists? The "landed gentry" or the "dumbed down public school educated turkeys"?
I see nothing wrong with being elitist in intellect, education, upbringing or manners. If one is better than the preponderance of the population then one is in the elite rank.
Kind of like a commissioned officer from a top university vs. an elisted high school drop-out working on his GED in the military
Seriously, find my words you have a problem with. I have no idea what you're talking about. You have misread what I wrote.
And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court's decision that created new precedent. I haven't seen a single one of her appellate court's findings in opposition to stare decisis.
(I didn't see the exchange, so I have no idea how Sotomayor responded.)
Allan,
You are 100% correct. Credibility is a key characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice. As I said above, whether her opinion(s) are opportunistically provided to different audiences with different outlooks or it is faulty, neither is conducive to a fair and impartial justice. There has to be a better candidate available. I am starting to get cynical about this country. Is she really the best we can do?
Sk,
Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.
Further, she does have credibility issues as far as impartiality and racial/ethnic policies go, as illustrated by the "Ricci v. New Haven" decision. Hence my question on the impact of the Ricci testimony.
It may be a fair line of questioning. If it came from anyone other than Sessions. (A man who "had no problem with the KKK" until he found out they smoked dope.)
On her numerous allusions to her heritage, both Roberts and Alito said very similar things during their hearings. Alito said:
Neither were criticized for it, nor if I recall correctly, even questioned about it.
See above for my response re: Ricci. She made the only correct decision she could. In overturning her court's decision, the Roberts court reset the law.
And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court's decision that created new precedent.
I agree with this.
Sk,
Your words mirror the content of your heart. It is up to you to examine those thoughts. You already know the answer.
Put up, or shut up.
KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.
The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I'd like to ask you -- would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans -- term limits for Supreme Court justices?
SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it'd have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress'.
I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the -- by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that -- their objectivity and their impartiality over time.
And on Ricci, Sotomayor DID follow precedent. Had her court found other than the way it did, she would have been disregarding precedent. It was the SCOTUS, in overturning her court's decision that created new precedent.
I agree with this.
I also agree with this.
And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.
So... if she's such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males - regardless of the law... why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who'd passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don't you think?
So... if she's such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males - regardless of the law... why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who'd passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don't you think?
UCGal: You're parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.
If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you'd have a good case for 'ol Jim Crow there.
Allan,
Good points above and don't leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.
So... if she's such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males - regardless of the law... why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who'd passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don't you think?
UCGal: You're parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.
If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you'd have a good case for 'ol Jim Crow there.
I've heard so many people talk about how she's a racist and La Raza is the equivalent of the KKK. Extending that idea that she'd favor hispanics over others in her rulings, you'd think she would have ruled to favor the hispanic job candidate. Instead she favored blacks (not her racial group). That was my point.
Oh wait... Perhaps all non-whites are lumped together.
Good points above and don't leave out the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. Judges are very fallible. That is why confirmation demands due diligence and not just a rubber stamp because she is a double minority. That is a pathetic way to pick a justice.
I agree that confirmation demands due diligence. But are you suggesting that her nomination was solely because she is female and latina? She has more bench experience than any nominee in the last 50 years.
"Ever since Robert Bork, nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, answered questions directly and spoke honestly about his approach to the U.S. Constitution, causing him to be rejected, every nominee to the Supreme Court has said nothing as impressively as possible. It’s likely Sonia Sotomayor will follow suit. She’s even been practicing. She’s well aware that no nominee since Bork has been rejected after confirmation hearings – because he or she has said nothing so well."
"There was a time when Supreme Court nominees didn’t even appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions in advance of a full vote by the Senate. No one really knew what the nominee would do if confirmed."
"In a way, we’ve come full circle. The nominee appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A lot of speeches are made and questions asked. Once that’s done, no one really knows what the nominee will do if confirmed."
"Today, the dance between Sotomayor and the Senate begins. It’ll be an interesting process. Sotomayor will say nothing in an artful way. She’ll become another post-Bork nominee to be confirmed."
"It’s perhaps not the best example of democracy at work or the best way to pick a liftime jurist who arguably will have more power and influence on our nation for decades than just about any other government official. But it’s the way our republic works now when a Supreme Court nominee is chosen."
http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/200...
I find it troubling that her score on the LSAT was lower than the admission standard. She considers herself a product of affirmative action:
"In video clips dating back 25 years, and now provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor, according to the Times, even calls herself an 'affirmative action product.' The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an 'affirmative action baby,' whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstance."
I do not like the double standard, either the one that the women of the 1950's had to endure or the one the men in the 2000's are now undergoing. Both are equally ignoble.
The democratic party has definitely won the politics of the "Browning of America".Or as Allan likes to say, "Look at the new boss. Same as the old boss".
There was always a buddy system and other perversions of access to opportunity.People of color will learn not to make mistakes like Obama did with belonging to Reverend Wright's church. The Sotamayors of the world will realize they no longer have to play a race card now and then(if she ever did). Civil Rights and Feminism were not mistakes.Gays, People of color and women, became to the Democratic party what evangelicals and Billy Bobs came to be to the Republicans.That might sound like a terrible insult to a lot of people and it is not meant to be. Just to say, in the game of "how do you get more tickets punched" the Republicans have lost. Look for the Republicans to start kissing up to a different bases, like the democrats did with the evangelicals after Bush won. Don't look for a return of some noble republican old school camp, that's bullshit.
IF we are seeing more instances of favoritism to people who happen to be of different pigment than before,or non-european ancestry or of roots based in multiple continents, who also are Democrats and they are taking slots the Bushes,Palins, Grahams and Robertsons of the world, maybe it is not that significant of a change given the demographic shifts.
The backlash against white males was obvious for all to see. Maybe in some ways it's day had come.
People who want to maintain the fantasy that this country was run on a merit system before it started going brown and hope for a return to that glorious day, need to wake up. Ideas like that might actually be based in racial preference. I am actually afraid that instead of evolving and truly contributing to the greatness of this now darker country, the old school is trying to get all it can before they end up victim of a "level playing field" (sic),at least in America). I am afraid that these wars(and profits, Commodity and, fiancial bubbles, and outrageous executive salaries and other financial scandals are part of it. The greed was always there but it went into overdrive in face of these threatening shifts.
I could not resist posting this and before you all go off on me, note that this is classified as gossip, not gospel:
Second Circuit gossip: Sotomayor "deeply-closeted" lesbian/cougar
Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin on the "Secret Life of Sonia Sotomayor"
http://www.contrariancommentary.com/comm...
At the Appellate Court level, in the Ricci case, the primary issue was whether cities could throw out tests if they believed those tests weren't in compliance with Title VII.
The firefighters claimed that throwing out the test disadvantaged White and Hispanic firefighters and therefore was discrimination.
The Trial Court found no discrimination.
The Appellate Court does not hear evidence to determine facts but is limited to considering whether the District Court made the right legal decision based on the law and the facts determined at the Trial Court level.
The Supreme Court has the power to review everything. The Supreme Court was "legislating from the bench" here. It went further and found that the City of New Haven engaged in discrimination and created a new precedent (policy) for the whole country.
If the conservatives want to blame anyone, they should fault the Trial Court judge, not Sotomayor.
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. But vilifying Sotomoyor in this case simply isn't appropriate.
The Ricci case has become a cause célèbre for "a dwindling white nonurban America that is aflame with grievances and awash in self-pity as the country hurtles into the 21st century and leaves it behind."
I think that just like Black America, the non-urban White America needs to "get over" it and concentrate on building its intellectual capital rather than dwelling on its grievances.
I do not think that it is just non-urban White America that is affected. Discrimination is unacceptable, period. Although a meritocracy may well be a lofty pipe dream, I believe in striving for an ideal, not simply accepting mediocrity for the sake of compromise.
That's fine and I am with you 100%. People are getting to have their say one way or the other. I'd love to get beyond "what's in it for the in crowd" style politics.Seems to be basic to human nature though.
I am pretty certain her work with "La Raza" - that is the "Race" qualifies Sotomayor as a racist and an activist judge. But that is not the issue here. The issue is Obama's intent on legalizing 12 million illegals, which will require the complicity of the supreme court to pull off. With 12 million new democratic voters Obama is a shoe in for a second term.
I'm pretty sure that your fear (or maybe it's just simple ignorance) drives your own racism. "La Raza" is not the "Race". It's "the people". Your irrational fear of the "legalizing 12 million illegals" with the "complicity of the supreme court" is further proof of that racism.
Brown people don't bite. Cowboy up.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Einstein
Web definitions for La Raza
La Raza (literally "The Race") is sometimes used to denote people of Chicano (i.e. Mexican American) and Mexican descent and the Hispanic world, as well by mestizos who share Native American or national Hispanic heritage.
While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings.
I guess they want it both ways.