Some of this has been covered. When not even twenty hours have passed since the name was offered as a nomination, it seems early to panic.

Besides, she might even have tax problems like everybody else. Or nanny problems... Heh. Haha, for that last part.

OK, it wasn't funny

"This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments."

The job of a judge is not representation. It's regulation: to see that the law is fairly applied. But this is turning into a popularity contest, and it shouldn't be.

The quote above, although it has precedent in the awful Morton Grove v. Quilici in establishing that localities are not subject to the restrictions of the Federal Constitution w/r/t firearm laws, illustrates a willingness to do what is possible with government powers rather than to exercise restraint.

I am sick of hearing about race and gender from people to whom "diversity" means nothing else. Where is the judge with any experience at all in other fields than arguing about other people vs. the law?

Sotomayor reminds me of a hispanic woman I studied with, in an engineering program that was (as usual) mostly male and white/asian. She said that she knew she had only been admitted because she was a hispanic female and she intended to exploit the situation further: the school wouldn't dare fail her, and she was sure that she could parley her gender and ethnicity into a job afterwards.

Other women in the program felt that her attitude reflected badly on all of them. They worried that people would consider them unqualified, because this one woman was so brazen about it. A good example of why affirmative action is counterproductive.

The flip side of affirmative action is that a genuinely talented black man is looked down upon as having had it "handed to him".

I went to school with a black guy in the EE program. He studied his ass off and carried a 4.0. I asked him what he hoped to gain from that instead of taking it easy and getting a 3.8 or something. He said "I have to be twice as good as you to be though half as good as you."

I thought that was bullshit until the term "affirmative action hire" flew past my eyes. I don't think it's bullshit any more.

I think I'm going to do some research on this Cabranes fellow. He looks like he just might have his head screwed on straight.

Which would answer one of yesterday's questions in the affirmative if that's the case.

Oh, and it's so nice of Ms. Sotomayor to perpetuate the "not authentically black" bullshit about Justice Thomas. I'm still pissed at Bush for not elevating him to Chief Justice.

Justice is supposed to be blind, not cater to special interests groups.

It means every person REGARDLESS of gender, color or creed gets the same justice, and is judged in the exact same manner.

Judges are also not supposed to make the law by legislating from the bench. They are supposed to enforce the laws that are written.

I have no problem if a judge's ethnicity or gender causes them ask -- Was the defendant/ plaintiff/ prosecutor was adversely effected by how a law is written? (The one that comes to mind is the mandatory minimums between crack and cocaine.)

But to throw out the tests because the small percent of minorities didn't make the cut on the same test -- that is backward racism.

OMG! Political considerations come in to play in picking Supreme Court justices? I'm stunned that Obama might take the opportunity to further cement his party's electoral dominance of a rapidly growing minority with this pick.

OK, it wasn't funny

Not true. That would be hilarious. But she's childless, so no dice.

There was a thread a couple of weeks ago where someone asked about the ethnicity or gender of your doctor, dentist, etc.

If I had a choice, I would be happy with a doctor who was a 50 year old female minority. I expect that she had to be as good or better that anyone else to make it 25 years ago.

I would be much less confortable with a 25 year old fresh out of medical school if that person was a female and/or a minority. There would be a question in my mind about whether he/she met the qualifications or got the place in medical school through affirmative action and wasn't failed because it would look bad.

It's unfortunate that the "affirmative action hires" reflect badly on qualified women/minorities.

"If I had a choice, I would be happy with a doctor who was a 50 year old female minority. "

Not me. I'm a [gay] white male. I might as well be talking to a veterinarian [who was a horse] - in a third language neither of us speaks well. She wouldn't have a clue.

Steamer, interesting point. My current dentist is a woman in her 50s, and she is by far the best dentist I've ever had.

The irony here is that she's spewing all this prattle about Latina judging as a way of showing how progressive, modern & liberal she is. But there is progressive, modern or liberal about putting tribal & ethnic loyalties ahead of loyalties to your Constitution & country. In fact, it's a primitive, backwards mentality straight from the Stone Age. If there's any doubt, just look at countries where people & their leaders put ethnic/tribal loyalties first - Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Bosnia, Rwanda...Shitholes, wretched, war-torn, poverty-stricken shitholes, every one of them. How on earth can anyone with 2 brain cells in the 21st century say that tribalism should be at the forefront on the Supreme Court, and feel proud & progressive about it?

OMG! Political considerations come in to play in picking Supreme Court justices? I'm stunned that Obama might take the opportunity to further cement his party's electoral dominance of a rapidly growing minority with this pick.

I am shocked, SHOCKED to find politics going on here.

However, there's a difference between politics and ideology. And Obama is setting up not for political considerations, but ideological ones.

And his ideology is strikingly anti-Constitutional. It could be uncharitably called "un-American" by virtue of the fact that his ultimate goal is the elimination of everything that makes America what it is.

Trying to put judges in place who will codify equality of outcome while eliminating equality of opportunity is an inherently wrong thing to do.

But that is precisely what we will get with Sotomayor, and probably anyone else Obama nominates.

Elections have consequences. I wonder if the Obama voters (especially the white ones) realize yet what the consequences will be for them?

Oops, meant to say "But there is NOTHING progressive, modern, or liberal about..."

Nothing yet to see here. Don't we expect speech-making to include liberal platitudes and ethnic niceties? I'm more concerned about the pro-Kelo decision in her background and her current Supreme Court reversal rate. But (according to Volokh), even those give us little to go on.

A liberal President nominates a liberal Judge. Ho hum. What can you do?

-- that is backward racism.

Posted by: Jim P

No that is just plain racism - there is no such thing as reverse or backwards racism

snakeman - I hadn't looked into her Kelo position yet. If she's on the wrong side of that, then she's unacceptable - period.

There are some dipshits on the right who think that any judge that won't work toward reversing Roe is unacceptable. They will be waiting until the Sun goes cold.

I'm a little more pragmatic. I'm only looking for justices who aren't going to further erode individual liberty in the name of collective good.

Given her position on Ricci, she's already got one foot on a banana peel.

Briefly, I hope, because I need to get back to work.

I disagree strongly with you regarding her statements about bias and life experience.

I agree with you that her decision regarding Ricci is problematic and I hope she is grilled robustly for that.

Regarding our disagreement, I think everyone is biased. Period. Journalists and judges make these bizarre claims that they can be objective and neutral, but they can't. Bias (and life experience) always sneaks in, consciously or not. With judges its often the most laughable, because these clowns will have spent their college and the first part of their career learning how to be as adversarial as possible.

And many cases are not over black and white issues where two outside observers will agree on all of the facts and reach the same conclusion.

There are constitutional tests and guarantees that use vague words like "reasonable" and "shadow" and "ordinary" (vs) "strict scrutiny". And there are "community standards" that rule over pornography.

In cases like these, contrary to Sandra Day O'Connor, I think that two judges, one woman, one man, or one east coast man vs. one west coast man, can reasonably differ on judgment and conclusions, and that will be due to their biases and life experiences.

It's one reason why we have 9 judges and not just 1 very wise judge.

My reading in this post of Sotomayor's statements is just a pretty innocuous description of this bias that all judges will have regardless of how wise and how objective they really want to be.

Another article I read yesterday spoke about how similar most of the current scotus judges were in one very critical way: almost all are products of east coast private top tier colleges.

Do you think that an east coast male will understand the land issues of the west (oil, cattle, water, farms, cities) that come up in lower west coast courts? Would you be okay with a statement regarding issues of water/land use/development/ecology like:

"..I would hope that a wise west coast rancher with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than an east coast yalie working in government who hasn't lived that life."

Because since the context of "that life" has not yet been well defined in any of the posts I have seen about her quote, I just cannot tell that what she is saying is much to be worried about.

But Ricci is problematic and I think that's where the heat should be directed.

Ah, so I read the whole paragraph with that quote, and I do find it arrogant, but not much more than that.

I do think that in the next paragraph where she reminds us that Holmes and Cardozo voted to uphold racial discrimination, that she encourages the fallacy that a woman, or a minority person would never, could never, do something similar, which I think her own position in Ricci contradicts.

But all in all, I think as Kerry Howley states, "I doubt Sotomayor and I agree on much, but this is a good speech. She aspires to impartiality but isn't deluded enough to pretend that the totality of her life experience will have no bearing on the act of judging. There is nothing remotely unlibertarian about any of this; it's common sense in the face of blinkered, pseudo-religious romanticism about objectivity. And I'd rather not cede common sense to the left."

Jerry -

I disagree with Howley. There is no evidence whatsoever that Sotomayor has or will attempt impartiality. Worse, she will almost certainly put the race and class of the litigants ahead of actual legal concern as she did in Ricci.

Again, her stance on Kelo should illuminate.

But Republicans are not going to offer any strong opposition because they do not wish to be called racist and sexist, which they certainly will given the leftist bent of the media. And they won't even mention that the same media and Democrats that destroyed a Republican Hispanic nominee to a circuit court solely because he was Hispanic.

To clarify:

On Kelo, she was part of a majority in a 2-1 opinion that resulted in a Kelo-type outcome. I haven't read the case, but it is my understanding that the petitioner's claim was procedurally deficient and suffered other fatal defects that took disposition mostly outside the ambit of Kelo. Still, I'd be more favorably inclined towards Sotomayor had there been an effort (even in non-binding dicta) to chip away at Kelo in the decision.

On Ricci, the more alarming fact is that the opinion attributed to her and her colleagues was unsigned, unpublished, and almost totally without regard to any of the weighty issues presented. If this was a stealthy attempt to avoid Supreme Court review, she should be called to the carpet for this bit of intellectual cowardice.

Well, Cabranes certainly thought that was her intent in Ricci.

And her worldview (liberal) is certainly likely to favor statism over non-statism, so it's highly likely she would have voted to sustain Kelo.

There have been a number of wrongly decided cases on the Supreme Court of late. Putting another "creative" justice in there is precisely NOT what America needs.

It is, however, what the progressives need.

A white, male judge would be excoriated and automatically disqualified for daring to suggest some superior ability in reaching conclusions based on his sex, race, or "life experience."

A good judge fights hard to be neutral and NOT to let personal experience and outlook color decisions. But no matter what, you must avoid the APPEARANCE of bias. Sotomayor seems proud to publically proclaim and embrace her bias. Like she farts perfume, or something.

From what I've seen of her she believes that colored skin is better than white skin, that women are better than men, and (as shown by the New Haven case), that "equality" means equality of RESULT, not equality of OPPORTUNITY.

If she wants to always be known as the latina chick affirmative action hire, she is well on her way.

You guys realize that the Ricci case is not an opinion she wrote, and the fact that it was handled in a dismissive per curiam opinion suggests that Sotomayor and the rest of the judges on that case thought the law was clearly settled? It appears that 2nd circuit court precedent required that outcome.

She's been a judge for a long time - she was appointed by the competent President Bush - and was a prosecutor before that. There's a long history for people to go through. If the Ricci case is the worst decision she's been a part of, she's going to sail through confirmation.

It is impossible to be upset about Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case unless you are an advocate of judges legislating from the bench. (Well, I suppose one could say that it deserved a more detailed opinion, but the outcome itself can't be disputed.) The law was clear, and the city was trying to abide by that law. One can certainly argue that the disparate impact standard in Title VII is highly problematic - I think it is - but Sotomayor did her job and applied federal law.

She's been a judge for a long time - she was appointed by the competent President Bush - cheezburg

I was flipping thru the radio yesterday and heard that her appointment was a result of a deal with congress where senate democrates got to pick a few district court appointees

Anyone know if thats true?

One can certainly argue that the disparate impact standard in Title VII is highly problematic - I think it is - but Sotomayor did her job and applied federal law.

Posted by: CB

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[21]).

Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage

The city hired a firm to create a non discrimitory test, seems to me the city violated title VII by discriminating against the white fire fighters based on the color of their skin.

After all the test everyone took was a reflection of skill and ability not skin color, therefore to deny skilled employees promotions based on their ENTIRELY on their race is a violation of the statue.

Under Title VII, the city can still be in violation of the law if the test results produced disparate racial effects even if their intent was to create a non-discriminatory test.

Good piece explaining the issues in this case here: http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/

God you're stupid

Title VII prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin

How hard is that wording, really?

The city gave a skills test specifically desgined to be non discriminatory by a firm approved by minority race baiters.

A test designed to not be racist was passed by white people who were then denied promotions BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN - they were discriminated against because of their race, seriously are you fucking retarded?

And how in the fuck can a test on fire fighting procedures, and solutions to fire senarios be racist?

Has anyone even seen the test?

And that article didnt explain shit it was a fucking puff peice that talked alot with out saying anything - I can see why some one of you limited mental capacity would find it illuminating

Allow me to repeat myself: Under Title VII, the city can still be in violation of the law if the test results produced disparate racial effects even if their intent was to create a non-discriminatory test.

They can try to make the test non-discriminatory, but if no black or hispanic people pass and end up getting promoted, the test can be considered de-facto discriminatory.

You're a fucking asshole. And a moron to boot. Go eat a dick.

Allow me to reitereate you are a fucking moron. Just because people of one group fail at a tst does not make the entity administering that test discriminatory.

Suppose I asked 100 white people and 100 black people what 9x9 is, and more white people got it right.

Are you really so fucking thick as to belive the question "What does nine multiplied by nine equal?" is a racist question?

How about what is the best substance to use when putting out a fire at an automotive parts store? Given the high concentration of magnesium in car parts and the metals properties you wouldnt want anyone answering water to be in charge of shit no matter what their race.

Actually, CB, the law was NOT applied. New Haven tried an end-run around the law because they didn't want to have to deal with black victim groups. You'll note that the one Hispanic that took the test passed it. Michigan Law tried an end-run like that and they got called on it.

New Haven had a desired outcome - which was to show they were "diverse" by having more black officers. When the test they had specially designed (a factoid I was unaware of, and I live here!) didn't produce the desired result, they punted and hoped that nobody would notice.

You cannot put people through that kind of stress and then say "Oops, Do Over" when you don't get the outcome you wanted.

They can try to make the test non-discriminatory, but if no black or hispanic people pass and end up getting promoted, the test can be considered de-facto discriminatory.

This is bullshit on stilts. It's also the conventional wisdom.

It needs to stop.

Allow me to reitereate you are a fucking moron

Unintentional irony!

Under the law, the test can be discriminatory simply because no black or hispanic people pass it. This has nothing to do with whether questions in the test were actually set up so as to disadvantage people from minority groups. It will greatly impair your journey through this life if you can't understand that the law quite frequently produces results that do not reflect the underlying reality of things.

But baby steps. For now, just practice breathing with your mouth closed.

Please note: Nothing I have written should be construed as indicating that I think the law is right.

Poor interpritation of the law, is just that.

You want to say the test was racist? Fine. Prove it. Show us some of the questions from the test and then explain in detail how the question are inherently unfair to people with dark skin.

Put up or hut up

Poor interpritation of the law, is just that.

You want to say the test was racist? Fine. Prove it. Show us some of the questions from the test and then explain in detail how the question are inherently unfair to people with dark skin.

Put up or shut up

I'm not saying the test was racist. I've never said that. I'm saying that under the law, the test would have qualified as discriminatory because of the way that minorities performed on it. Hence why the city undid the results. Because if they didn't, they would have been sued for discriminating against minorities. Who would have won.

Get some remedial reading comprehension instruction, STAT.

So what your saying is the test isnt racist, but since black people didnt pass it, it quailified as racist.

Thats SO much clearer

Actually, Cheez, the law doesn't say that. Please show me where it does.

And please remember, one minority DID pass the test. Therefore, the test could not be said to be discriminatory.

At the very least, Sotomayor was lazy and couldn't be bothered to write a decent opinion.

Lazy is not a good attribute in a Supreme Court justice.

Thats SO much clearer

Glad to help. I didn't make the law. I'm just telling you how it works, since you clearly didn't get it.

Actually, Cheez, the law doesn't say that. Please show me where it does.

Title VII allows legal remedies for practices that have a discriminatory effect. Discriminatory intent is not a requirement.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

At the very least, Sotomayor was lazy and couldn't be bothered to write a decent opinion..

As I wrote above, she did not write this opinion. She joined in a per curiam optrion with a majority other members of the court, which was following clearly established precedent within the Second Circuit. The law may be wrong, and I'm pretty sure that the Roberts court, which is pretty hostile to affirmative action, will reverse this decision and limit the impact of Title VII. But it says nothing meaningful about Sotomayor.

Cheezburg has done a fine job explaining the issue, but let me go into a bit more detail since it seems like a few things are still unclear:

Laws are MADE by Congress and INTERPRETED by the courts. The Supreme Court, as its name indicates, issues interpretations of the law that must be followed by lower courts, such as the ones that Sotomayor has served on to date. Title VII has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean, among other things, that hiring tests that have a disparate impact on racial groups (if the test cannot be justified as "reasonably related" to the job for which the test is required, of course) may be considered to be racial discrimination and in violation of federal law. See the line of cases starting with Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Many people, including Cheezburg and myself, think that broadly applying the theory of disparate impact is of highly questionable value in today's judicial system. However, it is important to remember that at that time and until recently, there was a great deal more overt discrimination in the workplace than there is now. I think the best way to deal with this is issue is to recognize that such a broad standard for catching racial discrimination is no longer necessary, due to its success, not to froth at the mouth and act as though it is the biggest affront to civil rights ever committed.

Anyway, that's how laws are interpreted - the Supreme Court issues final rulings that the lower courts are then bound to follow as precedent. Sotomayor was bound by the Supreme Court's decision regarding disparate impact as a way of determining whether a violation of Title VII has occurred, not by the ranting of a bunch of commenters on a blog. It would be interesting and productive to have a discussion about the continued value, or lack thereof, of the disparate impact theory, but my original point still stands: Sotomayor applied the law as it was interpreted by binding Supreme Court precedent. If you think she should have done otherwise, you are admitting that you want an activist judge.

I'm going to have to read more on the original decision that went to the second circuit then.

But regardless, her statements are still enough to disqualify her as they represent a blatant admission that she is not neutral.

In other words, she's the kind of judge that would have found against Flynt because she found him personally repugnant, rather than for him on account of he was right.

And that is precisely the wrong attitude for a Justice to have.

Her apparent actions in Ricci seemed to crystallize that point.

And even if she was a perfect Justice candidate, I'd think that she'd refuse on principle since she was chosen strictly on account of race.

"And even if she was a perfect Justice candidate, I'd think that she'd refuse on principle since she was chosen strictly on account of race." - brian

That is ridiculous. I challenge you to name the white male judicial superstars who were "passed over" - i.e., more qualified than Sotomayor for the position. Posner and Garland are the only two who come to mind for me, and they're both too old. You can only make the "she was chosen strictly on account of race" if you can point to the superior candidates who weren't chosen.

Oops, that should be:

You can only make the "she was chosen strictly on account of race" ARGUMENT if you can point to the superior candidates who weren't chosen.

Brian, was Alito chosen just because he was an Italian Catholic? Their backgrounds - school, work experience, etc. - are basically identical.

As far as her statements that some people are finding issue with, you might wish get some additional context. Larison, certainly nobody's liberal, does a good job with it here: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/05/26/thoughts-on-sotomayor/

Here's a well expressed bit:

Of course, the first quote expresses at most an aspiration or desire that her kind of experience would make her a better judge. Suppose for a moment that a conservative Catholic man in a similar position said that he hoped that the richness of his religious tradition would inform and shape his judgments that would more often than not help him to make better judgments than someone without that background. Such a person might reasonably and legitimately claim this. No doubt there would be a comparable freak-out in certain circles on the left that theocracy was on the march, while conservatives would declare it outrageous (indeed, the imposition of a religious test!) that anyone would object to a statement about the importance of the man’s faith to his formation and thinking. She is not asserting that Latinas are naturally superior judges, nor is she even saying that they are necessarily better on account of their experiences, but that she hopes that they would be. One might almost think that her recognition that impartiality is something to be pursued, but that it is never fully achievable, would be considered a refreshingly honest admission that judges have biases and are shaped by their past experiences. For a moment, imagine a pious Christian who expressed a similar hope that his faith would make him a better judge than an unbeliever. No doubt this would raise the hackles of all kinds of people, but it would no more make him a religious fanatic than Sotomayor’s rather mild comments make her a “racialist.”

Glad to help. - Cheezburg

Dumbass you just said the test wasnt racist but since black people didnt pass it, it was racist.

Tell me genius how can it be unbiased and biased at the same time?

Is it really so hard? Really?

Again, prove the test was biased against minorites, give us some of the questions.

Because other wise EVERY question, test, or contest is inherently racist based soley on the skin color of those who do better.

Suppose cheezburg that 100 blacks and white were to take a test, write out the multiplication tabe 1x1 thru 10x10.

Now suppose white people did better, are you really saying that simple math is inherently racist when minorites dont do as well?

You know I remember a short story and a movie from when I was younger, I always thought it was a good example of imagination, but whith crap like this I cant help but think its where we're heading

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

lujlp,

cheezburg isn't saying the law is right. He is merely saying what the law says. And that's what the law says. The law says that any test, ANY test that comes out with the "wrong" outcome is by definition racist.

So you can take a test like the one given to the firefighters that was devised NOT to be racist, and that was created and approved by all sorts of diverse folks and absolutely intended and designed not to be racist, but if that test results in no blacks getting a passing grade, than the law says, by definition that test IS racist.

I think Jerry and Cheesburg are pretty much right. The law has been interpretted to say that even a test was not designed to be racist it can be ruled to be racist if it primarily affects a dis-advantaged group. There is also check about how it relates to a job.

So the test might not be discrimintory in content but might be ruled to be in court.

So the multiplication test might be discrimintory for say a ---uh--- a bus boy (assuming there is not something I not realizing where they need to be good at multiplication).

The quote I heard on the radio scared me. Something about how the judges make the policies...oh no they don't (wink wink). Obvious not the exact quote, but that is how it sounded to me.

CB:

You can only make the "she was chosen strictly on account of race" ARGUMENT if you can point to the superior candidates who weren't chosen.

There were only women candidates considered (Obama was "urged" to place a woman on the court). Two of the three that were interviewed were considered by people who know more than I do to be more impressive.

Sotomayor also seems far less impressive than Diane Wood and Elena Kagan, reputedly her top rivals for this nomination.

Cheezburg: (are you two the same person?)

Brian, was Alito chosen just because he was an Italian Catholic? Their backgrounds - school, work experience, etc. - are basically identical.

No, he was chosen because he was a conservative. Bush tried that whole "identity politics pick" with Miers and got his ass handed to him.

Obama all but admitted that Sotomayor's major qualification to the bench is that she is to be the "first Hispanic Justice".

The law has been interpretted to say that even a test was not designed to be racist it can be ruled to be racist if it primarily affects a dis-advantaged group. There is also check about how it relates to a job.

OK, you tell me what the law has been interpreted as, but not what it actually says.

It seems counterintuitive to me that the proper interpretation of the statute is to declare something racist on the basis of outcome when all else is equal.

I think what primarily rankles me on this is that she was chosen for her race. Bush tried the same thing with a circuit court judge who was blocked by Democrats solely because he was a conservative Hispanic, and they didn't want to risk his being fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.

So for both parties, this is about votes, not justice. And that's wholly inappropriate in any case.

Brian, it's meaningless to say "only women were considered" (with the concomitant implication that the process was biased from the start) if you can't name a single white male who was clearly more qualified. As for Eugene Volokh, he's a very smart guy, but you should probably check the updates to the post you quoted:

"I reiterate my view that Sotomayor's credentials are good enough that she should not be rejected on qualifications grounds. The real objection to her is based on judicial philosophy."

"As I stated in the original post, my reservations about Sotomayor are primarily focused on her judicial philosophy and decisions rather than on competence."

This comes after his statements regarding her record and credentials relative to current members of the Court were entirely disproved by the analysis of another legal writer, Eric Posner. Volokh provided no analysis whatsoever for his claim about Wood and Kagan "seem"ing more "impressive" - hardly a strong, evidence-based claim.

So I'll reiterate my challenge, brian. Name the person or people who should have been chosen instead of Sotomayor and who weren't, because of their race. Otherwise, it's really quite inaccurate to attempt to tear her down on those grounds - after all, impugning someone's qualifications solely on the basis of her race is just plain racist.

"OK, you tell me what the law has been interpreted as, but not what it actually says." - brian

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that neither brian nor lujlp has attended law school. Final interpretive authority of the law rests with the Supreme Court, not with every average Joe on the street who has an opinion on how Congress's language should be construed. When Cheezburg tells you that the law has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean something, s/he IS telling you "what it actually says," for almost all relevant intents and purposes.

This is a shit hot thread.
Really first rate.

(Nosegays from the gallery!)

So I'll reiterate my challenge, brian. Name the person or people who should have been chosen instead of Sotomayor and who weren't, because of their race.

First, you're asking me to prove a negative. It's been discussed to death in the various media outlets how Obama was only looking at female candidates. That does not mean that there was a lack of qualified men. It means that his entire point was to cynically pander to women in his first Supreme Court nomination. That the woman he chose out of three was the only Hispanic, and the press releases were all "Obama selects first Hispanic to Supreme Court", well, you do the math.

Otherwise, it's really quite inaccurate to attempt to tear her down on those grounds - after all, impugning someone's qualifications solely on the basis of her race is just plain racist.

Show me where I've done that, you lying crapweasel. Call me a racist again, and you'll get my boot up your ass.

My objections to her were immediately based upon the very first quote of hers I heard, and the qualifications that Obama himself set. I don't need some elitist bitch on the Supreme Court for the next 20-40 years making decisions based upon how she "empathizes" with the petitioner. And I don't need someone who thinks that there is a legitimate argument that life experience changes how one will interpret the plain letter of the Constitution.

Either she's an originalist, or she ain't. And if she ain't, then I'm not going to support her.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that neither brian nor lujlp has attended law school.

You would be correct in that guess. I'm an engineer.

Final interpretive authority of the law rests with the Supreme Court, not with every average Joe on the street who has an opinion on how Congress's language should be construed. When Cheezburg tells you that the law has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean something, s/he IS telling you "what it actually says," for almost all relevant intents and purposes.

That's certainly true, however, I'm not finding any evidence that the court actually SAID that Title VII prohibits "disparate impact" to the point that what happened in New Haven is allowed or required. All I'm seeing so far is New Haven doing what they did because they were afraid that someone might be able to bring a Title VII action against them.

Finally, even though the Supreme Court has ruled issue is not necessarily settled. They've been wrong before, and they've even gone back and corrected themselves.

From what I've read on Title VII, it places contradictory requirements that cannot be met, and requires a burden of proof that no animus is present that also cannot be met.

And I, for one, would like to know how a written exam can be racist. The only example that comes to mind is this:

Q: You've entered a burning room where there are three people. You can carry only one. Whom do you save?
A:

• The black one


• The chinese one


• The puerto-rican one


• Myself

THAT would be a racist question. Somehow, I doubt it appeared on the test in New Haven.

Since when is "it's been discussed to death in various media outlets" a substitute for answering a question? If there were qualified men for the position, name them. This isn't a hard question, at least for someone who is willing to accept the fact that the slate of most qualified candidates happened to consist largely of women, and that the selection happened to be a qualified and competent Hispanic woman.

It is not entirely unreasonable to think that there is a possibility that a president might nominate someone for the Supreme Court solely on the basis of race. I find that as repellent as any other thinking person would. However, if you're going to make this highly incendiary claim, you have to be able to back it up. That requires providing evidence, which means naming the more qualified candidates who were passed over. You haven't been able to do this, therefore it seems that your claim that Sotomayor was "chosen on account of her race" is based on nothing more than the fact that she is non-white. That, at least to a 'lying crapweasel' like me (really? do we really need to get into internet tough guy territory here?), is the definition of racism - judging someone's qualifications solely on the basis of race.

On a somewhat separate note: things have gotten very contentious here, which is easy to do in internet arguments. Out of frustration, I've said some things that have probably come across as condescending, and I apologize to anyone who was offended. I enjoy the opportunity to engage with people whose opinions are so different from mine.

Thanks for sharing your profession, brian. And as a lawyer dating an engineer, one thing I've learned is that those two particular ways of thinking end up clashing quite a bit - which is entirely natural when you have one person trained in a system meant to govern people (who are irrational) and one trained in systems that govern the physical world (which is rational). One can certainly argue that perhaps the legal system should incorporate more engineer-style thinking, but engineers should also remember that people don't behave like packets or steel beams or energy.

CB - I interpreted your statement as calling ME a racist. If that was not your intention, then no offense taken.

I can't provide a list of "qualified" male candidates that were passed over. Not because they do not exist, but because they were intentionally left out of the initial interview process. Your challenge remains invalid.

Obama interviewed four women for the job. Jennifer Granholm (whom nobody considered a real candidate), Sonia Sotomayor, Diane Wood, and Elena Kagan.

Your hypothetical does not apply, because there are no men who were passed over for this position.

However, on the very same court, you had Jose Cabranes, who's been there four more years. He's a Clinton appointee, so presumably liberal. He's Hispanic. He graduated from Columbia and Yale Law. Taught at Rutgers and Yale. He's got the same qualifications and credentials as Sotomayor.

If all Obama wanted was to say "I put a Hispanic on the court", he could have chosen to elevate Judge Cabranes.

The fact that there were no men in the initial selection pool does not indicate a dearth of fine legal minds in male bodies. It means that the gender of the nominee was the most important qualification.

The fact that Obama chose the only Hispanic woman leads the cynics among us to conclude that this is a pander to the Hispanic community. It's been theorized by pundits left and right that this is some kind of sop to comfort the Hispanic bloc over the fact that comprehensive amnesty isn't going to happen like Obama promised.

In the final analysis, Sotomayor's temperament does not appear sufficiently mature to be on the Supreme Court. The few decisions that have come out do not show her in a favorable light. Quotations from the judge herself show potential bias.

But even if she was the perfect candidate for Justice of the Supreme Court, her nomination will be forever tainted by the race and gender issue that Obama so clearly made front and center.

And yes, Obama and his staff all said outright that their intention was to nominate a woman. There was persistent talk during the election that the first SC nominee should be a woman because O'Connor was not replaced by a woman.

And if lawyers thought more like engineers, we'd have much simpler laws.

udge Sotomayor began her legal career in 1979 as an Assistant District Attorney in New York County. In 1984 and until her first judicial appointment, she practiced with the law firm of Pavia & Harcourt as an associate and later partner.

OK, I want anyone to read this excerpt from her official bio at the Second Circuit's web site and tell me how she's been the victim of discrimination.

Glass ceiling my ass.

You've entered a burning room where there are three people. You can carry only one. Whom do you save?

When asked what one thing he would take from his house if it was on fire, Jean Cocteau replied, "the fire."

I wonder how he would have done on that test.

Ahh, I love that shit. It reminds me of Gladwell's suicidal attack boats.