The GOP and Sotomayor

The GOP cannot base it’s opposition to Sotomayor based on her record (which, in reality, is quite moderate) or her race and gender, which they are currently doing in a despicable way. So the GOP is up against a wall on this.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Those good ol’ GOP birdies! The qualifications of nominees don’t matter. All we want are our activist judges. They are also wont to see all members of a group alike if it suits them – Thomas is representative of all African-Americans – or not if it doesn’t – Sotomayor is a far left commie.

Yes, because Estrada was exactly the same as Sotomayor: Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada’s lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada’s writings while employed there. Republicans, however, stated that the Democratic concerns were actually just an attempt to deny Estrada a circuit court seat because of his conservatism.

Let’s go back in time.
.
Of all the ugliness churned up by the battle over whether Miguel Estrada deserves a spot on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the fact that it strips us down to our barest racial selves is the ugliest. If the crash of Trent Lott proved that the Old South still lives in the Senate, the battle over Estrada confirms that the race virus plaguing this country isn’t fading with dying senators; it’s just morphing into more and more lethal strains. And it’s not just Congress. You expect them to behave like petulant babies, strutting and fretting their racial outrage before the cameras. But even more depressing than the unfolding filibuster has been watching Hispanic advocacy groups eat each other alive over the nomination, running commercials attempting to influence congressional votes and accusing one another of being “anti-Latino” for disagreeing over the fitness of the nominee. This confirmation has become the affirmative action debate in different packaging: Can we ever get far enough past racism to figure out how to get past race?
.
Full article at the link.
.
http://www.slate.com/id/2079445/

You’re blowing the story, JNS. The GOP is launching a full-on, coordinated attack on Sotomayor. They’re playing for time because they know that attack by swift-boat needs repetition to work. That’s not “walking softly.”
.
Also you blew the bit on Sessions. If you are going to reference his nomination being derailed, you might want to cite to the quotes that actually did the damage.

JNS-just like your little birdie update. There was more to the story than the Dems paid little heed to hispanic voters. You need to start putting this stuff into context instead of just checking a box that you included a quote from people opposing. And why in the name of all that is holy is the birdie annonymous?

From Christy Hardin Smith: By the way, I know I’m breaking the gold rule by actually providing my source’s name. But there you go. I’m a bad boy.
.
“Here we have the very essence, the core if you will, of right wing objections to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination. I give you the intellectual stylings and logical superiority of Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton:
.
David Shuster: “What evidence do you have that she would put her feelings and politics above the rule of law?”
.
Tom Fitton: “Because President Obama chose her.”
.
She was nominated by a Democratic President. Ergo, she must be unacceptable without any factual foundation as to why.
.
Taaaa daaaaaaaaaah.
.
http://christyhardinsmith.firedoglake.com/2009/05/27/scotus-right-wing-objections-to-sotomayor-in-a-nutshell/

.
A GOP birdie reminds me..
.
Did your birdie remind you that Estrada had no judicial experience prior to getting nominated? Or maybe that Estrada’s law firm represented Dubya in front of the Supreme Court in the dispute with Al Gore over the results of the 2000 elections? Maybe birdie mentioned that the Bush Administration and Estrada failed to provide the Senate with the basic information it needed to evaluate and vote on Estrada’s nomination?
.
It’s funny how, in the GOP aviary, the fact that two people with can be classified as a latino or latina means that they are exactly the same…And shame on you, Jay, for passing this bit of false equivalency along uncritically.

Love the GOP Birdie, part. Great Journalism, JNS!

.
Gah. Should read: …two people with different backgrounds and can be classified as a latino or latina means…

JNS continues to push the racist/hate agenda by focussing on Sotomayor’s ethnicity…
_
A GOP birdie reminds me that the Dems paid little heed to Hispanic voters when they filibustered Miguel Estrada’s nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals,
_
Democrats opposed Estrada and two other judges based on their radicalism — one was a white male, one was a white female, and one was a hispanic male. Sonia Sotomayor is a fully qualified jurist who happens to be hispanic, but JNS is advancing the hate agenda of the GOP, that wants to make it appear that Sotomayor was nominated solely because of her gender and ethnicity.

shame on you, Jay, for passing this bit of false equivalency along uncritically.
-
Bears repeating.
-
It’s just a post on a blog, not the end of the world. But it still shouldn’t be done.
-
The distastefulness of the claim (“every brown person is exactly the same!”) was bad enough; the total and complete absence of context that you provided means that this post makes people less well informed for having read it. Advertising is dying, Jay; better work on providing value added with your content.

“A GOP birdie reminds me that the Dems paid little heed to Hispanic voters when they filibustered Miguel Estrada’s nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals…”
.
Gosh, I must have missed the clamor from Hispanic voters to see Estrada on the Court of Appeals. Also, it’s possible that Sotomayer’s pick has nothing to do with them either (as I recall, Obama won Hispanics by a rather large margin and Republicans continue to burn down that bridge even as we speak). Perhaps he thought the placement of someone other than another Anglo-Saxon male might be good for the Supreme Court for it’s own sake.
.
You folks never tire of being punked by shallow, lying Republicans, do you?

I do not see all the “fuss” about Sotomayor in the first place. This is not the nomination to pick the “fight” against anyways. She is just replacing one far left liberal jurist with another.
.
Conservatives would better be served in waiting until the next appointment is considered. Justice Stevens will soon be gone, and possibly Ginsberg. Let them have their token Female and Hispanic without a fight. That is what I say.
.
The next two vacancies will be fought and fought against with vigor by anyone who has any semblance of intelligence or integrity. I only hope Obama only has 4 years to mess things up royally as he has already begun as noted previously. Hopefully the two Jurist, Stevens and Ginsberg can last long enough on the bench to wait out his Presidency of 4 years. But, as with Suder, we are only potentially replacing two far left policy making jurists with 2 others. Conservatives have little to loose and everything to gain when those two nutjobs are off the bench.

Yikes, that last sentence reads way meaner than I thought it did; I’m sorry about that. I just meant to say that the “both sides are to blame!”, “take down both sides and call it a day” approach to journalism is not long for this world. It’s just a post on a blog, but it’s still not a great idea.

lose = loose, I still have problems with that spelling.

This has all the real world legal relevance of the Sharks verses the Jets. I like the Jet’s moves but the Sharks had better choreography. I wonder if Roberts can still do a high kick.
-
” … tonight the confirmation goes so slowly
=
The questions are so lowly
=
But still the Court is right

-
The loons take the light,
=
And make this endless process endless blight!
=
Toooooniiiiiiiiiight!”

lose = loose, I still have problems with that spelling.
.
Yeah, well, I’d work on spelling the justices’ names right, first. At least you have the sense to recognize a losing battle for the GOP.

“Let them have their token Female and Hispanic without a fight. That is what I say.”
.
Just curious rusty. Was Sandra Day O’Connor a token white female for Reagan? Was Clarence Thomas a token black for the first Bush? Are they still viewed as only token picks by your side?

Republican talking head Michael Goldfarb: “Does anyone dispute that Sotomayor has been the recipient of preferential treatment for most of her life?”
Republican leader Jamer Imhofe: “In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.”
I guess uninformed, coded hate speech is what they call “walking softly” these days…
It will be wonderful when there are fewer useful idiots spreading nonsense like JNS.

“Just curious rusty. Was Sandra Day O’Connor a token white female for Reagan? Was Clarence Thomas a token black for the first Bush? Are they still viewed as only token picks by your side?”
.
As long as we continue to look at gender and race as the first pre-requisite for any position rather than a person’s qualifications, yes would be my answer to you gysgt.
.
I don’t disagree that a more balanced court would not be beneficial to us all, based on gender and race. However the qualifications should be the first thing we look at, not the second, third or …
.
I have the same opinion on this as I do with affirmative action. We have gone for what 20 years or more now with affirmative action? How has it changed anything?
.
If both potential candidates possess the same qualifications, then we should look at gender and race as the “tie breaker” of sorts, don’t you think?

JNS is advancing the hate agenda of the GOP, that wants to make it appear that Sotomayor was nominated solely because of her gender and ethnicity
.
The best line on that subject so far is here:
.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=oh_no_who_will_represent_white
.
Yes. Because the worldviews of John Roberts, Sam Alito, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia are not impacted at all by their white male identities. White men are raceless and genderless, haven’t you heard?

Yesterday Harriet Miers, today Miguel Estrada. Both preposterous analogies, easily demolished with about a minute of googling. Conservatives don’t really remember actual history, only talking points, and they wrongly assume that everyone else is like them in this regard. Luckily for them, though, the media’s memory is almost as bad as their’s is.

.
Hey, rusty..would you, being far-right conservative and all that, ever consider putting someone who has virtuallv all of the recorded speeches of Malcolm X up for nomination to the Supreme Court?

Rusty-Thanks for your response. But I disagree that any of these appointments have anything to do affirmative action and every thing to do with political gain. Rather they be a minority or a white male its what they can do for the person appointing them.

Guys, do we really want a judge who points to her race and says that she is therefore better than a white male? Come on.
.
And Gibbs is a fool if he takes on this task: http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDM0YWM4ZDI1NGIxNTc2MzhiMmRmZDcyNDFiZWI0YmE=
.
And guys, Estrada is germane. There’s no argument that he wasn’t qualified. None. And if getting Hispanics on courts is so important, then why wasn’t he confirmed. It’s amazing–Dems oppose Hispanic nominee ok, GOP opposes Hispanic nominee, we’re racists. OK. That JNS even parrots the “it could be argued” stuff is ridiculous.

For sheer comedy and intellectual firepower nothing beats the National Review. They are criticizing Sotomayor, but they have a completely novel approach. Unlike Jeffrey Rosen, whose criticism basically boils down to, ‘She is a stupid b!t@h who talks to much and doesn’t know her place.’ Or Michael Goldfarb who alleges that a Latino woman born in to a lower income family in the Bronx and lost her father at age 9 ‘got too many breaks and is an affirmative action baby.’
.
No, the NRO is complaining because of HOW SHE PRONOUNCES HER LAST NAME. This from a guy whose last name is Krikorian. I kid you not. You just can’t make this stuff up: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkwYzY3ZTc4NTkwZjRiMjM3OGVlMzlmNTZjYmY2ZDI=
.
“Deferring to people’s own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent’s simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn’t be giving in to.”

Guys, do we really want a judge who points to her race and says that she is therefore better than a white male
.
No.
.
But since that isn’t remotely close to what actually happened, we’ll be forced to conclude that your own honesty is in doubt and have to consider any other opinion you may offer in light of that particular problem.

PD, she explicitly referred to race and the quality of judging. How in the world can you say that what she said was OK?
.
And as for the firefighter case, guys, they non-pubbed a very weighty case. How does that get explained? Clearly the case had precedential value.

PD, let’s refresh memories here:
.
This is what she said: “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.”
.
Is this what judges should be saying? Explicitly linking the race of the judge to the quality of the decisions? Can anyone defend this?

.
Estrada is germane. There’s no argument that he wasn’t qualified. None.
.
This is a lie. One of the issues raised about Estrada was that he lacked prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level…This, combined with his and the Bush administration’s unwillingness to provide detail about his work as a lawyer, made for a legitimate argument that Estrada wasn’t qualified.
.
Now, I will grant that wasn’t the only argument concerning Estrada at the time.

In the Ricci case she was one of three judges who voted unanimously to affirm the city’s decision to throw out the results of the test. At the Appellate Court level their job is to review the decisions made by the District Court and rule on the law as it is written. In its opinion the Court said they weren’t unsympathetic to the claims of Ricci, but they were bound by the law.
.
Now, you conservatives need to decide what you want. Either you want a judge who will legislate from the bench and rule on cases in a way that you like, or you want a judge who follows the law. Please pick one.
.
Happily for you, you’ll get what you want in the Ricci case when Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas get together, hold a seance to decide “original intent of the Founders” and then overturn years of Congressional and State legislation to get the result that make them happy.
.
The following is a summary from the Scotus blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
.
“Perhaps the highest-profile discrimination case in which Sotomayor has participated (though she did not write a signed opinion) is Ricci v. DeStefano, a challenge by a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut to the city’s decision not to certify an employment test for use in promotions when the use of the test results would have made a disproportionate number of white applicants eligible for promotions than minority applicants. The city defended its conduct on the ground that it feared that certifying the results of the test would expose it to a discrimination suit by minority applicants. Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that initially affirmed the district court’s judgment in the city’s favor with a summary order that described the district court’s decision as a “thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion.” The order noted that the judges were “not unsympathetic to the plaintiff’s expression of frustration,” but it explained that “it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim.” The panel eventually replaced the summary order with a per curiam opinion that was otherwise virtually identical to the order. 530 F.3d 87 (2008). Sotomayor was one of seven judges of the Second Circuit to vote to deny rehearing en banc; six other judges dissented from the denial. In January 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and it heard oral argument in April 2009. A decision in the case is expected by late June, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will reverse.”

“We have gone for what 20 years or more now with affirmative action? How has it changed anything?”
.
Um, President Barack Obama announces next Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Other than that…

You’re all jumping to conclusions if you think the GOP is going to launch a full-scale attack. Sotomayor is fully qualified and while liberal, she does not have the type of abortion record that would anger the religious right. You won’t see a repeat of the Democrats’ rabid attacks against Estrada or Thomas. Hate to burst your bubble.

Can’t help but notice that the ‘a’ in your quote is uncapitalized. That’s because it’s not the beginning of the sentence. It’s also not the beginning of the paragraph. It would almost seem that the entire quote was specifically sliced out of its context in order to alter its meaning.
.
Textbook dishonesty.

“Is this what judges should be saying? Explicitly linking the race of the judge to the quality of the decisions? Can anyone defend this?”
.
Yes, quite easily. Though some people can do it much better than others.
.
Perhaps if you read something other than right-wing, racist propaganda.

grape–Estrada is one of the finest appellate lawyers in this nation. He’s qualified.
.
choska, the issue is really not the panel affirming the decision, but rather the short shrift it gave. The appeal presented (obviously, given that the Supreme Court has granted cert.) weighty issues, yet was summarily disposed of. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. And Sotomayor went along with it. Couple that with her wise-Latinas-are-better-than-white-males comments about judging, and we have real problems here. I don’t think she’s evenhanded on race, and that’s a problem if you are a judge.

Full context of comment.
.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, 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 Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also 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.
.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care.

.
To take that quote and twist it into some kind of racist statement takes a lot of effort or willful ignorance. The words “I would hope” are obviously not a statement nor declaration of fact. I don’t know if people actually need to go back to school and learn ot read or what but nothing about what Judge Sotomayor said in 2001 was controversial unless you don’t like to deal with facts.

For anyone who’s interested, here’s the whole transcript from which the line spob thinks is so fatal has been culled.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
.
Feel free to read the whole thing and form your own conclusions.

This is the complete text of what she said: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=5
.
If you bother to read it you might come to understand that she is saying that when viewing cases related to gender and race that she might have a better opinion of what that means since she is female and Latina. But she also say:
.
“Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
.
spob, you need to stop getting your talking points from Rush and start reading the actual words they woman has written. If you find something real there that doesn’t comfort you, let us know. As a liberal, I’m troubled that she seems more than willing to disregard anti-trust cases and vote in favor of corporations. The more I read the more I think she is more likely to be a ‘reverse-Souter.’

newliberty
.
Yeah no chance conservatives will launch attacks on Sotomayor.
.

.
I mean as you said she is fully qualified.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/rncs-new-media-director-re-tweets-claim-that-sotomayor-is-racist/
.
Surely no conservatives would want to pick that fight, especially tinged with racism and sexism.
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/27/rove-ivy-league-smart/

You won’t see a repeat of the Democrats’ rabid attacks against Estrada or Thomas. Hate to burst your bubble.
.
I don’t recall a rabid attack on Estrada. I recall people pointing out his lack of experience and asking for relevant documents that were not provided, likely because they would not put Estrada in a good light.
.
Similarly, I don’t recall rabid attacks on Thomas. I recall a former subordinate coming forward and, at great personal expense, recalling what she believed were disqualifying character flaws in the nominee. Unless you believed — without any evidence — that Anita Hill was flatly lying, then it would be impossible for Senators to dismiss her accusations out of hand. My problem with the GOP wasn’t that they believed Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill. It was that they clearly didn’t care whether she was telling the truth.

Maybe it will make spob feel better if I show him what real anti-white discrimination looks like.
.
http://www.onepaper.com/stthomasvi/?v=d&i=&s=News:Local&p=1223618959

sg, you wanna get clowned again?

First of all, this is a problem for a judge. Judges are supposed to be impartial and fair and linking race to the quality of judging, as she has done here, is wrong on so many levels. (And no, the “I would hope” doesn’t really get the job done as a fig leaf.)

Second of all, she subtly talks in terms of group needs and values and the impact on the law. That’s pretty bad. And let’s look at that when it comes to the firefighters in New Haven. Did the group needs get a thumb on the scale? And what group needs? I don’t think you want to go there.

PD, the point is not whether Sotomayor is a racist, but whether her views on race color her ability to apply the law in an impartial manner. As soon as we start heading down the road to racialism in judging, it’s a problem, and Sotomayor has done so.
.
But I’ll ask the question I asked before–was the treatment of the firefighters in New Haven consonant with Obama’s ballyhooed speech on race.

Flashback: Democrats plan filibuster of Estrada nomination. http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/1189630396.html
.
The mob I now faced carried no ropes or guns. Its weapons were smooth-tongued lies spoken into microphones and printed on the front pages of America’s newspapers…. But it was a mob all the same, and its purpose — to keep the black man in his place — was unchanged. — Clarence Thomas
.
Joe Scarborough: Clarence Thomas Not Black Enough. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sargent/2009/05/01/joe-scarborough-clarence-thomas-not-black-enough

sg:
A Fox News commentator (who isn’t Republican by the way) does not reflect the actions of the GOP.

The other two weren’t attacks on her nomination…but nice try.

.
Estrada is one of the finest appellate lawyers in this nation. He’s qualified.
.
As a lawyer, yes. But putting a person with no judicial experience into the DC Court of Appeals does make for a legitimate argument that Estrada wasn’t qualified.
.
What actually happened, spob, was that the Bush Administration was trying to put a right-wing conservative lawyer who helped Dubya get into to White House a position on the DC Court of Appeals. This was 1) a reward for service and 2) a means of having influence in that court…what you would call ‘judicial activism’. The fact that Estrada is of latino heritage is irrelevant to me, but would have provide good optics for the GOP’s outreach to the US latin community.

What Blue Texan said:
*
Republicans: Gender, Ethnicity and Empathy Shouldn’t Matter for Judges, Unless They’re Conservatives
*
Since the GOP pushback on Sonia Sotomayor consists mainly of screaming “identity politics!” and “empathy!”, it’s worth remembering — yet again — how both are totally OKIYAR.

Sandra Day O’Connor, chick vote bait.

According to Ronald Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, during the 1980 presidential race between Reagan, the Republican nominee, and Democratic President Jimmy Carter running for re-election, Reagan had a small lead over Carter as of mid-October. But Reagan’s political strategist Stuart K. Spenser, concerned that support from female voters was slipping, wanted to close the perceived gender gap. The strategist and his boss discussed ways to win back women and the idea of naming a woman to the Supreme Court was born.

Before any public announcement was made, some Reagan staffers questioned the decision. If the court’s first vacancy was the position of chief justice, his pledge to nominate a woman would be controversial. Reagan hedged his bets; on October 14 in Los Angeles, he promised to appoint a woman to “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration.”

Antonin Scalia, Italian-American proof of the American dream.

STROM THURMOND: Judge Scalia is now cast in the role of a symbol. Certainly, he creates great pride by being the first Italian-American who will sit on the Court. However, he also serves as a symbol in an even larger context. Judge Scalia, a first-generation American and the son of an immigrant, has been chosen by the President to be a member of the Supreme Court. By dedication and hard work, Judge Scalia has reached the apex of his chosen profession and stands as proof of the vitality of the American dream.

Clarence Thomas, paragon of empathy.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I have followed this man’s career for some time, and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor.

Clarance Thomas, inspirational African-American.

RUSH: And your grandfather, with the rules and his high expectations of you, all of this is profoundly inspiring, which is exactly why I’m happy you’re here today, because these are the things that people don’t know about you. All of this sounds like a pure recipe, Mr. Justice Thomas, of being really devoted to yourself. You had some great role models, your grandfather especially. You came from a background that was…Well, I use the word “unfair.” It was just unfortunate, but you don’t seem to have allowed any of it to be an excuse for not being the best you could be. …

In a segregated part of the country, then, how did he deal with you and your brothers in teaching you or informing you about race and what you faced in your future as a result of being African-American? …

They’re seeing you exactly as the civil rights coalition feared from the first day of your nomination that you would be seen: a genuine, humble human being who has become, in their fearful view, the way they look at you is, you are now the most powerful African-American man in the country, and you have shown that it can be done without them.

Miguel Estrada, shiny Hispanic example of what’s possible in America.

Republicans prefer to portray Mr. Estrada principally as an inspiring example of an immigrant reaping the rewards of America. Mr. Estrada came to the United States from Honduras when he was 17 and spoke little English.

…

”Here’s a kid who comes to our country, works hard, learns the language. He’s a brilliant jurist,” President Bush told a gathering of Hispanic civic leaders at the White House in one of the many events held by the administration to promote Mr. Estrada’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ”I want this man to serve as a bright example of what is possible in America.”

Such crass identity politics!

Don’t these Republicans understand that the only quality that matters in a judge is his ability to side with the powerful impartially call balls and strikes?
*
http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/27/republicans-gender-ethnicity-and-empathy-shouldn%e2%80%99t-matter-for-judges-unless-they%e2%80%99re-conservatives/

newliberty
.
I see you dismiss facts when presented like most other trolls. Duly noted.

The treatment of the firefighters was dictated by the facts of the case and the relevant case law. Again your allowing your own notion of how it <should have been decided blind you to the circumstances the panel faced. Pretty much a working defenition of bias if you ask me.

spob: the Ricci decision was not given short shrift. The District Court had a weighty opinion. The Appellate Court agreed that they had decided the case based on the law as it was written and interpreted through the years. There isn’t much more they can say. It isn’t the Appellate Court’s job to go around tossing out precedent. THAT, is the job of the conservatives on the Supreme Court who are more than happy to legislate from the bench.
.
As for the “Latina” thing, all she did in her speech was acknowledge that she comes from a certain background and that gives her a perspective that a white guy from a completely different background doesn’t have.
.
BTW, Thomas said the same thing in his confirmation hearing. And Scalia has arrived at his theory of original intent in part because he is a highly conservative Catholic who grew up in an atmosphere of giving supreme deference to Catholic teachings and doctrine.
.
Your assertion that you want judges to be BOTH impartial AND fair is full of contradictions. Who is to say what is “fair.” And why does “fair” even matter.
.
You seem to think that the firefighters in New Haven got screwed and treated unfairly. The City of New Haven thought that the test they administered treated minorities unfairly and, following the law, moved to throw out the results of the test. The District and Appellate Court agreed that the City had the right to do that according to impartial reading of the law. You might not think that was fair, but it WAS impartial.
.
The Appellate Court didn’t rule in favor of the City because they were trying to be fair. The ruled that way because they were following the law as it is written. You need to decide what you want. Either you want judges who follow the law and precedent. Or do you want people to be “fair.” I don’t want fair. I want impartial. If anyone here seems to be crying about group privilege and wanting judges to legislate from the bench in favor of one group over another, it is you.

LOL you have to really love the fact that conservatives are now championing judicial activism in the case of the New Haven firefighters but what you won’t hear many of them talk about is that it wasn’t just white men who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit but also Hispanic men who similarly theoretically were passed over because of racial considerations.
.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomayors-record-the-ricci-effect/
.

As Tom discussed, much attention will now turn to Judge Sotomayor’s record as a judge on the Second Circuit, and in particular on the decision she joined in Ricci v. New Haven, the case involving a suit by white and Hispanic firefighters passed over for promotion when the City declined to implement the results of a promotion test upon which black firefighters performed disproportionately poorly.

.
So you see what our trolls and many conservatives would have you believe is that Sotomayor is not only racist against white men, but also men who share her ethnicity. If you notice they NEVER bring up the Hispanic men who were also passed over for promotion. Probably because it wouldn’t help their “she is a racist” meme. But I will leave it up to you to come to a conclusion about their motives. One thing is clear, if they are saying she ruled in the case due to racism then they are also saying she holds member of her own race in contempt. Care to actually try to make that case?

sgwhite, once again, prepare to be clowned.
.
If you go back and read my posts, SFB, you’ll note that I never said white firefighters (and if I did, it was an oversight) as I know full well that there is a Hispanic plaintiff (although big majority of the named plaintiffs are white).
.
Second, moron, how in the world is enforcing the Equal Protection Clause “judicial activism”? The use of race in decisionmaking by a state actor is presumptively illegal, and in this case it seems painfully obvious that race was an elephant in the room.

And choska, perhaps you got dropped on your head as a child. I NEVER EVER EVER said in here that the result was really the issue (although I think it plain that people who talk in terms of “group needs” etc. and who link racialism to the quality of judging really should recuse themselves from deciding issues which pit groups against each other). My main complaint is that the Second Circuit panel when looking at this case decided to summarily affirm instead of giving these weighty issues the examination they deserved. That looks like a crass attempt to “bury” this case. It’s highly unusual to deem a case like this NOT FOR PUBLICATION. I therefore call into question Sotomayor’s impartiality. (And fair, genius, in the context of judging means impartial.)

As for your view that the case was correctly decided, that seems unlikely. The Supreme Court has taken the case, and Obama’s DOJ is urging reversal.

.
A Fox News commentator (who isn’t Republican by the way) does not reflect the actions of the GOP.
.
Correct. The GOP reflects the actions of Fox News commentators…And follows the lead of an drug-addled gasbag radio talkshow ‘entertainer’.
.
Face it; in order to stay in power when US demographics are turning against them, the GOP has let the inmates take over the asylum. The Repub base won’t let the party ‘embiggen’ it’s tent, and the party has little chance of getting elected without the base.

By the way, guys, just curious, can anyone answer my question as to whether the treatment of the New Haven firefighters is consonant with Obama’s ballyhooed speech on race?

“As soon as we start heading down the road to racialism in judging, it’s a problem, and Sotomayor has done so.”
.
“By the way, guys, just curious, can anyone answer my question as to whether the treatment of the New Haven firefighters is consonant with Obama’s ballyhooed speech on race?”
.
Affirmative action, “racialism in judging” is part of US law. It’s a remedy to past and present racial injustice. Frightened little white racists ought to appreciate why people might want remedies for being treated unfairly because of their race.

am I the only lurker who feels completely manipulated by spob´s constant “guys” lately? it´s almost as persistent as mcain´s “my friends”

shepherdwong, your post is so stupid it hardly needs commentary. You mix up two independent ideas. Are you competing with sgwhite to be the biggest idiot on the board. First of all, the question had NOTHING to do with the law, but rather whether Obama’s speech contemplated a situation where the racial optics of test results meant that people wouldn’t be getting advanced. Second of all, dummy, your “it’s a remedy” argument completely obscures the fact that this remedy may wind up harming completely innocent people on the basis of their race (which is why, dummy, courts typically give lip service to the injustice suffered by the innocent parties). Third of all, you stupid f’in moron, my criticism of Sotomayor HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Rather it has to do with her comment linking race to the quality of one’s judicial output. That’s racialism, and it has nothing to do with dealing with what we all have a problem with–invidious racial discrimination.
.
God you’re dumb.

and by the way, shepherd, to the extent your “frightened little white racists” is meant to apply to me, I’d put my raw physical courage up against yours any day of the week.
.
And my question still stands, is the treatment of the firefighters consistent with the principles espoused in Obama’s race speech. Come on guys, it’s not that hard.

“Second of all, dummy, your “it’s a remedy” argument completely obscures the fact that this remedy may wind up harming completely innocent people on the basis of their race…”
.
You mean white people, right? Frightened little white racist.

mckay9
.
I wouldn’t say “manipulated”, more like disgusted. But I do like your analogy. lol

You see, idiots, I name call–so what. But I have more than that. That’s all you guys have. I’m clowning you. Come on you stupid morons, can you answer an easy question? How consistent is the treatment of the firefighters with Barack’s race speech? Is it? Come on. But you can’t. You can call me names until youre blue in the face, but I got you here.
.
pwned

[...] demographic Hispanic boomlet that imperils the party, have been extremely cautious. They are, in the words of Jay Newton-Small, walking softly and carrying a big magnifying glass. Ideological activists, on [...]