Sotomayor Isn't the Worst He Could Do

What I don't understand is why people are all in a tizzy over a quote that was taken out of context. You so kindly (ha!) give her the benefit of the doubt on being a racist, but the statement wasn't illogical or, worse, an emotional appeal. It's a logical argument, one anyone is free to disagree with, sure, but not an incompetent one.

For the record, I completely disagree with the commenter that said that the argument is moot because of white privilege. That phrase makes me cringe. The argument is moot because it is an illogical reaction to a sentence taken out of context -- and I'm not attacking you, Dana, it's the MSM that CONTINUES to take the quote out of context. Why? In Sotomayor's own words from the same speech:

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give.

Here is an extended quote:

"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."

Read the complete speech here ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15ju... ).

I am so pleased with President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court and it has nothing to do with my gender or race.

This is a woman who made the best of her situation and rose up out of the Bronx to achieve great success. That is a testament to her character and it is that kind of experience I want in the highest court of the land. 

Life can be tough. Take advantage of the solutions at hand. 

-Rachel "PPCF ( http://www.thepayperclickformula.com )" Reyes

I'm not sure how you can say that unless there's a different measure for qualifications I don't know about. She has 18 years judicial experience, more than any other SCOTUS nominee in decades and WAY more than Clarence Thomas. Not to mention her academic credentials.

I'm having a really hard time with the right's attempt to inaccurately portray her and create a picture of her for the public that is blatantly false.

If conservatives disagree with her rulings, that's legit (though she's WAY more moderate than some of the ones you are claiming are more "qualified") -- but it would be refreshing to talk about Democratic appointees in the same way Republicans demanded their appointees be treated.

Joanne Bamberger ( http://www.mediabistro.com/joannebamberger )
aka PunditMom ( http://punditmom1.blogspot.com )
BlogHer Politics & News Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/punditmom )

...the argument that a white man saying what she said would be hung out to dry...

Uh, of course he would.

White privilege. History. Etc. etc. etc. is why any sort of apple and orange comparison here just makes for an unrealistic argument.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Surely you can do better than echoing the extreme right's talking points. Her record of reversals is no better or worse than other Supreme Court justices. Actually, that's not quite right. Her record *is* better than most. I appreciate her ability to speak the truth as it stands rather than playing the politically correct game.

 I'm all for skepticism, but the accusations of racism and a poor reversal record just go beyond the pale. 

karoli

odd time signatures ( http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ ) (life)

( http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/ )

The reversal rate thing is a total non-starter.  As an appellate court judge, Justice Alito was reversed every time the Supreme Court reviewed one of his written opinions.  Most appellate judges would have similar reversal rates simply because the Supreme Court reverses around 75% of the cases it chooses.  Keep in mind that the court only hears about 80 cases a year.  In her 11 year career, though, Sotomayor has authored about 380 opinions.  Even great judges are bound to issue a clunker once in a while.

As for the policy comment, Judge Sotomayor actually spoke a truth there that most judges are afraid to utter, but would have to agree with.  She was clearly being a little humorous about it, but it's the reality that courts do have an affect on policy.  The way legislation is written always leaves so much room for interpretation.  The legislation that passes is generally broad-stroke wording that leaves most of the nuts and bolts up to the next body that gets it, meaning the administrative agencies and the courts.  In addressing the litigation that is brought before them, then, there is no way around it: the courts have to fill in the gaps.  They do that through a series of canons of statutory interpretation, looking to do their best to discern the legislature's intent.  Sometimes, courts are left with little more to go on then their own judgment.  Hence, the policy comment.  And of course she should make law from the bench.  That's what judges do.  It's called case law for a reason.

As for whether Judge Sotomayor is an "activist" judge, I find that term to be the emptiest, most worthless term in judging judges.  Judges act.  They're all activists.  Just this week, Justice Scalia issued an opinion overruling a 20 year-old Supreme Court decision.  To a lot of minds, that's activist judging (not following stare decisis).  I think "activist judging" is best defined as "making decisions I don't agree with."  From what I have read about Sotomayor's record, she seems like an extraordinarily cautious judge who answers the question before her as narrowly as possible, which really cannot be considered activist judging in any way.

Finally, I am really tired of the whole attack on judicial empathy.  Empathy, at heart, means being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes or see a situation from someone else's perspective.  Any judge needs to be able to do that.  If for no other reason then so they can realize how their own experiences and perspectives might be coloring their view of the law.  The law isn't all cold, clear logic with one absolute right answer.  Rather, the law is filled with balancing tests and reasonable man tests and questions of whether the state has a rational basis for its actions.  So if a judge is only able to consider what a reasonable man would do or what is rational from a wealthy, white male perspective, he isn't going to create a standard that really fairly applies across the board.  To best reach the broadest, most neutral decision, a judge needs to be empathetic to positions beyond his/her own.

Preaching to the Choir ( http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/ )

Good post.  I'd say what needs to happen is the GOP needs to use this as a chance to demonstrate who Obama really is.  Sotomayor WILL be confirmed and unless something we don't already about comes out, the GOP shouldn't try to block her.  But they should thoroughly go through her record and make it clear that Obama has apoointed someone with an activist bent, his comments to the contrary not withstanding.