Sotomayor nomination

[classicman]

Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama chose federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, praising her as "an inspiring woman" with both the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely.

Obama said Sotomayor has more experience as a judge than any current member of the high court had when nominated, adding she has earned the "respect of colleagues on the bench, the admiration of many lawyers who argue cases in her court and the adoration of her clerks, who look to her as a mentor."

Standing next to Obama at the White House, Sotomayor recalled a childhood spent in a housing project in the Bronx as well as her upper-echelon legal career: "I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government."

She seems like a good fit in what he wants to do and the direction of the court as he sees it.

[piercehawkeye45]

Media is annoying with this. Of course judges with different backgrounds are going to come up with different solutions and viewpoints. The justice system was designed NOT to be objective.

[classicman]

Were you around for the Thomas nomination? I forget how old you are.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Judge Sotomayor

The court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.

Policy is not made in a courtroom.

Originally Posted by Judge Sotomayor

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...

Better for who?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The justice system was designed NOT to be objective.

Not to be objective? Who said that - Karl Marx? On the contrary, it was designed to provide "Equal Justice Under Law" as personified by:

Themis, the Goddess of Justice who since Roman times has reined as the foremost personification of virtue and justice, representing both impartiality and power. Her blindfolding, which dates to the 16th century, shows that her justice is fair and not subject to influence.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Were you around for the Thomas nomination? I forget how old you are.

I was alive but not aware of it.

Originally Posted by Beestie

Better for who?

I don't think this was an meant to be an absolute statement. In certain situations, a rich experienced latina lady can understand motives better then a rich white male who has no experience in certain situations. In other situations, it may be the opposite. That is why I agree that diversity is important in the Supreme Court and believe that law isn't meant to be objective, because it cannot be.

Every person has grown up in different environments and has a different outlook on life meaning they can relate and understand different situations better then others. Having diverse viewpoints is important to create a well rounded view on a topic, instead of specific one that will most likely happen if one demographic group dominates the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by Beestie

Not to be objective? Who said that - Karl Marx?

I haven't read Karl Marx. Whether he said it or not does not matter because interpretation is ALWAYS subjective.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Whether he said it or not does not matter because interpretation is ALWAYS subjective.

While true, it is not a justification of or an endorsement of subjectivity. Subjectivity is a shortcoming that must be overcome in order to provide fairness.

You are equating subjectivity to fairness. Subjectivity is objectivity compromised by bias - any bias - the bias of an ignorant, rich white guy (9 ignorant, rich white guys passed the civil rights act, by the way) ruling on the plight of migrant farm workers or the bias of a Latino woman who may be called upon to rule on an anti-trust case.

I agree that no one on the court is free from bias. I do not agree that subjectivity is a goal of the judicial system. The judicial system strives for the unattainable goal of being free of bias and subjectivity.

Its up to the prosecutor and the defense attorney to make the judges aware of and sympathetic to the unique circumstances of each case. Its up to the judges to apply the law without regard to their personal agendas and beliefs. If the judges are the ones supplying the subjectivity then neither side needs a lawyer.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Beestie

You are equating subjectivity to fairness.

I am not equating subjectivity to fairness. Subjectivity can be fair or unfair, depending on the person and situation. What I am arguing is that since morals are subjective, it is up to the judges to determine which subjective solution should be used.

This is not a great analogy but take this example. Lets say someone wrote a book two hundred years ago arguing why every law should be followed, including slavery. If this book is read today, it could equally be interpreted that slavery is legitimate and illegitimate depending on whether you follow the message of the book that every law should be followed (slavery is illegal today and therefore illegitimate) or follow the direct quotations of the book that slavery benefits society and law (slavery should be legitimate). It is up the lawyers to present both sides and up to the judge to determine which side is "correct".

That is what I mean about interpretation being subjective. A law or moral code cannot absolutely apply to every situation and therefore it is up to the judge to determine where it should and should not apply. It will not and can not be fair.

Originally Posted by Beestie

While true, it is not a justification of or an endorsement of subjectivity. Subjectivity is a shortcoming that must be overcome in order to provide fairness.

I'm assuming you are saying that just because Sotomayor has a different viewpoint it does not justify her being appointed to the Supreme Court? If so, then what should it be based on (besides the obvious qualifications). I'm sure the majority of Supreme Court justices have been put on for some sort of agenda and I don't see how this is any different.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I'm assuming you are saying that just because Sotomayor has a different viewpoint it does not justify her being appointed to the Supreme Court?

I'm debating the merits of objectivity over subjectivity.

My problem isn't Sotomayer. Its the ridiculous reasons being offered for her nomination. For all I know she'll be a fantastic judge - or a lousy one - who knows.

The idea that a judge should be nominated because she is presumed to be subjective is nuts. Why don't we nominate an Islamic judge - they would surely bring a unique subjectivity to the court. Why not a Russian judge - or a Chinese judge - or an African judge; not an African American - an actual African.

On second thought, let's nominate a judge who represents the fastest growing segment of the voting public and cash in our chips in November. Then let's pretend that's not why we nominated her.

Since it was pre-ordained that we were going to get a female Latino judge shoved down our throat regardless of her qualifications, I'm actually kind of relieved that they seem to have found one who, by sheer coincidence, seems pretty qualified.

[piercehawkeye45]

To answer your question, yes, the reasoning is bullshit. Of course Obama picked her because of political reasons but that does not make the diversity argument obsolete. If someone is going to be picked on political reasons, I would rather see different logical viewpoints represented instead of the same privileged ones.

But you did not answer my question. What should the selection be based on? There are more than enough qualified people to become Supreme Court Justices so the selection has to be based on an aspect other than qualifications. What makes the section of Sotomayor any different then Bush's conservative picks? I am guessing a bullshit reasoning can be found for just about every pick.


I haven't followed this real closely but what I also want to know is why is Sotomayor's appointment so controversial when I have never heard anything from any other appointees in the past?



Edit - This is just another example of political slander. Obama is attempting to deceive people with the reasoning for his picks because of politics and Sotomayor is being attacked for poltical reasons by attempting to make her seem racist and sexist by taking quotes out of context to make a non-absolute statement seem absolute.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Beestie

On second thought, let's nominate a judge who represents the fastest growing segment of the voting public and cash in our chips in November. Then let's pretend that's not why we nominated her.

Yup - I think she will do just fine, thankfully. Then again she is only 54 and could potentially be there for 30 years....

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

yes, the reasoning is bullshit. Of course Obama picked her because of political reasons

What makes the section of Sotomayor any different then Bush's conservative picks?
why is Sotomayor's appointment so controversial when I have never heard anything from any other appointees in the past?

This is not a very controversial situation. In fact she should cruise right through the process.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Edit - This is just another example of political slander. Obama is attempting to deceive people with the reasoning for his picks because of politics and Sotomayor is being attacked for political reasons by attempting to make her seem racist and sexist by taking quotes out of context to make a non-absolute statement seem absolute.

Nah - she hasn't been attacked that much. This is nothing. Thomas and Anita Hill and the Coke can...
thats a whole nother story.

Here too

[morethanpretty]

Her nomination interrupted my stories. I don't like her.

Ignore me, i'm bored at work.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Her nomination interrupted my stories. I don't like her.

I hated Nixon for the same reason. He'd always come on tv when my shows were scheduled to be on.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

This is not a very controversial situation. In fact she should cruise right through the process.

Oh, I have just heard a lot of complaining about it recently so I assumed it was pretty controversial.

[classicman]

Complaining? heck that was simple discussion - nah, not at all. I don't think so anyway. Maybe Rushbo will say something stupid (how typical) and rile up a few radicals on either or both sides - thats about it though.
All in all she seems like an equal replacement ideologically speaking. It will keep the court about where it was. Its not like a die-hard conservative is leaving and a hardcore liberal is replacing them - ya know?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Complaining? heck that was simple discussion - nah, not at all. I don't think so anyway. Maybe Rushbo will say something stupid (how typical) and rile up a few radicals on either or both sides - thats about it though.
All in all she seems like an equal replacement ideologically speaking. It will keep the court about where it was. Its not like a die-hard conservative is leaving and a hardcore liberal is replacing them - ya know?

Oh yea. He has already said, again, he hopes Obama fails, and he hopes this nomination fails. He is a tool.

She votes with republicans 95% of the time, according to what I heard last night on the news. Granted it is a NY court, still... She is a moderate, not a liberal. I wish he had selected someone more liberal, because the court is swayed far more to the right than the left. It needs to balance out. Hopefully she will turn out to be like Souter. You never can tell though.

About Thomas, there was a huge controversy there because he was accused of sexual harrassment, and I'm still not convinced he was completely innocent.