Sotomayor

[noonereal]

I think the nomination of a minority women is long over do.
In her own words:
“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.”

I agree.

Thoughts?

[Sandy G]

Why don't we ever worry about what kind of legal INTELLECT a person has than focusing so damn much about how many blacks, whites, womens, Klingons, Aardvarks, et al, ad nauseum, on the court ?

[noonereal]

I believe the though on a court appointees now is that they need to be more than a one dimensional academic scholar.
A women like Sotomayor will not be questioned as to her legal intellect as that is clear from her resume. The added dimension she will bring is an understanding of life in the United States from a different perspective which is very representative of a large segment of the population.

Great choice, IMO.

[RedwoodGuy]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

Why don't we ever worry about what kind of legal INTELLECT a person has than focusing so damn much about how many blacks, whites, womens, Klingons, Aardvarks, et al, ad nauseum, on the court ?

Because all dominant cultures have an Establishment that enforces the culture. That Establishment naturally attempts to be uniform "like me" if you will. They each seek their own identity in the other. This creates monoculture. That can be fine if the culture is actually so uniform, but what happens in a culture like the USA which is designed as a democratic immigrant culture?

The only way to prevent a monoculture from riding roughshed over a democracy is to take specific action and intention to disburse Establishment power into more hands than it would naturally choose to do on its own.

If you want a vibrant democracy, and it's ok if you don't, you have to make intentional moves to preserve it. You can't put it on autopilot. This is just like in marriage - you have to WORK at it.

[Charles]

I believe it was her statement that "the court of appeals is where policy is made." While this quote is taken out of context, the rest of her statement did sound as though she felt that rulings from the appeals courts, and the USSC reach beyond the letter of the law, and thought should be given as to how these rulings will affect the existing law. Or just possibly her explanation of how things work.

I'd hook up a link to U-Tube were I capable, so that you could draw your own conclusions.

Her other statement about a "wise latina woman" was simply to make a point, I suppose.

To be fair, she does appear to have excellent credentials, and may not be a bad choice at all. I would like to think that there will be a "vetting" process, but I've become so jaded that I expect nothing more than smash mouth politics at it's worst. Just another dog and pony show.

Chas

[noonereal]

here ya' go Chas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

[wajobu]

I'm ready, unless the "party of no" blocks it. Then the Court can focus on straightening the Prop 8 mess in CA, amongst the many other injustices out there.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by wajobu

I'm ready, unless the "party of no" blocks it. Then the Court can focus on straightening the Prop 8 mess in CA, amongst the many other injustices out there.

think I'll spin a cd,

how about some Was (Not Was) ?

Semi-interesting Week from Boo?

I think that would be considered political.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I think the nomination of a minority women is long over do.
In her own words:
“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.”

I agree.

Thoughts?

As someone who has indicated that she will legislate from the bench, suggesting that she will use her personal experiences as precedent, I can't say that I'm in favor of her. Certainly not on the USSC.

Whatever happened to justice is blind and the letter of the law? I always thought that a good judge was one who could leave his personal feelings outside of the courtroom, especially when serving on the USSC.

Chas

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

As someone who has indicated that she will legislate from the bench, suggesting that she will use her personal experiences as precedent, I can't say that I'm in favor of her. Certainly not on the USSC.

Whatever happened to justice is blind and the letter of the law? I always thought that a good judge was one who could leave his personal feelings outside of the courtroom, especially when serving on the USSC.

Chas

I have not heard her say that she would legislate from the bench. If she indeed had I am sure it would have been the top news story today. What I understand is that she has said that her experience will bring a different perspective.
If you are correct and she does indeed believe she is a legislator, I will not support her.
I am also concerned about the employment discrimination case brought by firefighters in New Haven. The unsigned decision by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges, affirmed the dismissal of the claims from 18 white firefighters. How her decision was made needs to be explained and I am sure she will be questioned extensively on this.
I withhold my final judgment on her until this and anything else that may come forward is explained.