“Better Conclusion”

This is just a stunning statement.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor

While I agree that a judge’s experiences shape their decisions, they are sworn to try their best to overcome their own prejudices and rule based on the law.  But Sotomayor goes beyond exploring how personal experiences shape decisions.  She goes to say that her experiences would result in “better” decisions.  She is saying that her experience, as a Latina woman, would lead to better legal decisions than a white man.  Such a statement on her part reeks of racism and sexism. 

1. Because when a white man makes legal decisions based on his own experience, it’s called rational.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 0922 hrs




2. Adding to that, that sort of thinking leads to decisions like Ledbetter v Goodyear, where a woman was denied the ability to sue for back pay because she didn’t know that she was being discriminated against in how she was being compensated.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 0937 hrs




3. Imagine the firestorm if a white male SCOTUS nominee made comments in that regard to the opposite. 

   Again, can someone please explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable for liberals to nominate someone based predominantly on their race and gender?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1013 hrs




4. Wow.  She should be thrown off the bench for that.  Seriously.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1017 hrs




5. I don’t believe she should be “thrown off” any bench; I simply do not believe she should be “thrown on” the highest bench in the land.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1031 hrs




6. Not to be outdone, Obama offered this gem:

   The president said a Hispanic on the court would mark another step toward the goal of “equal justice under law.”

   Okay, now I get it.  SCOTUS is a historically prejudicial and racially biased entity that makes it’s decisions based solely on race and gender.  Got it.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1039 hrs




7. If the Latina woman and the white man are doing what judges are supposed to do - uphold the law, according to the Constitution and the judicial role in the three branches of government - they should come to the same conclusion.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1213 hrs




8. But they often don’t. See Ledbetter v Goodyear.

   Also, see Holmes, Oliver Wendell: http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/collections/special/ online-collections/common_law/index.php

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1224 hrs




9. they should come to the same conclusion

   If that’s really true, why bother with a judicial branch at all? I hope that this is more than just an academic exercise. I would hope that Justices realize that their rulings affect the lives of real people. That admonition clearly applies to both sides of the political spectrum.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1238 hrs




10. If that’s really true, why bother with a judicial branch at all?

    Our entire justice system is set up in a way to provide impartial justice.  That’s why there are appeals and such.  The goal is to make sure the law is correctly applied in every case according to the circumstances of each case.  So yes… they should come to the same conclusion.  They don’t always because they are human, but we should strive for a consistent and predictable application of the law.

    Posted by Owen on May 26, 2009 at 1248 hrs




11. She seems qualified for the bench from an academic and experience standpoint, but her statement that courts make policy should exclude her from consideration.

    Courts are supposed to interpret the law - not make it. If a law is unconstitutional, then it should be removed. Otherwise you deal with the law that is there - not what you wish it to be. If you want to make policy, then run for POTUS, or Congress.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1309 hrs




12. Bill, that’s patently ridiculous. A Supreme Court justice’s job is not simply to rule if a law is unconstitional or not.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1323 hrs




13. Owen, then why should there be more than one justice on the Supreme Court?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1324 hrs




14. Thank you Owen for the civics lesson. What an incredibly naive and simplistic view of life. I’m hoping that after a bit more life experience you will realize that very few things are so black and white, even though I know it’s intellectually easier to think that way. The notion that there is only one “correct” view is the first step to facism.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1330 hrs




15. Steve-O,

    Seriously? 

    
    Charlie,

    Despite your smug response… We all recognize that people are influenced by their biases and prejudices created by their life experiences.  Our justice system is set up to eliminate as much of that as possible from the application of justice.  No, it isn’t always successful, but every judge should strive for impartiality.  For a judge to revel in decisions based on arbitrary things like gender or race is unconscionable.  I agree with #3 above… imagine if Justice Roberts had said, “my experience as a white guy makes it more likely that I will make better decisions than a Hispanic woman.”

    Posted by Owen on May 26, 2009 at 1354 hrs




16. Yeah, seriously.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1408 hrs




17. The Founding Fathers, when crafting the Constitution, knew it would serve as a living, breathing document, subject to change and interpretation, as we as a nation changed.

    That being said, the Judicial branch of government should not be granted carte blanche when interpreting the Constitution and effectively create new law out of whole cloth. 

    In fact, no branch of government should be granted such latitude, which is they created three branches of government to effectively watch each other.

    And, to reply to #13, it is the same reason why there are nine justices, and not one.  Check and balance.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1415 hrs




18. But why is a check and balance needed among justices?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1438 hrs




19. PP, show me, in the writings of any of the Founders, where they indicated the Constitution meant anything other than what it says?  The words speak for themselves.  If there is a change desired to the words and inherent meaning of the Constitution, there’s this little tool called an"amendment”.  Laws are subject to interpretation under the Constitution, the Constitution itself should not be.

    Posted by Steve on May 26, 2009 at 1440 hrs




20. Steve-O - I’m not sure where you learned your civics from, but judges are there to interpret the law. They don’t make laws. That is Congress’ job. The President’s job is to enforce the law.

    I did not say that SCOTUS was there only to determine if something unconstitutional (although that is part of their function) - read the entire post.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1453 hrs




21. Wow, Bill! I never heard of that before. Thanks!

    Seriously though, think about what a justice does. When SCOTUS rules and clarifies how a law should or shouldn’t apply, that defines a law further. It “makes” law. And virtually every decision has policy implications, so they all make policy, too. It’s really not that complicated.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1506 hrs




22. I said “subject to change” meaning the amendment for which you referenced, and “interpretation”, meaning the Framers had foresight and vision that certain words within the Constitution might be interpreted throughout time. 

    For example, taken literally, the phrase “freedom of speech” might apply only to a person writing or speaking.  But in Buckley v. Valeo, the Courts interpreted campaign contributions to be protected free speech. 

    In that case, and in many others like it, the Constitution - or the words therein - are interpreted by the Courts and a decision is rendered.  I hold that the Framers knew such challenges would arise throughout time and created a document that allowed for such interpretations from time to time.

    That being said, and as I already said, I do not believe any single Justice should be given free reign to act unilaterally to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, render decisions based on that single-minded interpretation, and effectively craft law from whole cloth; which again, is why there are nine of them, and not one.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 1508 hrs




23. Once again, Owen, I bow to your ability to even acknowledge these idiots.

    Steve-O, to answer your question, it is because Congress stopped FDR from making it 15 while he was trying to stack the Court.  It could also be said that there are nine because there are not ten.  Or five.  Or 16.  See, we understand your M.O. - smugly reply with an ambiguous rhetorical question and then you can use anyone’s answer to try to beat them up.  If you weren’t an idiot, you might sometimes succeed with the latter.

    Posted by Mike Gallo on May 26, 2009 at 1636 hrs




24. Anyone see the full text of the speech in which she made those comments?  I’ve been looking for it, but I haven’t found it. However, I did see snippets from other articles that indicate that she is arguing something much different than the way this quote is portrayed here and on other right leaning blogs and Fox News. The fact that this sentence starts with the phrase “I would hope…” should give pause to others before they assign her motivations. If I find the full text I will post it for honest discussion, leaving my mind open to the possibility that it means what people seem to think it says. If anyone else finds it first, please link it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2009 at 2214 hrs




25. I did see a piece where much more of it was quoted, but not the full transcript.  I’ll see if I can find it again.

    Posted by Owen on May 26, 2009 at 2226 hrs




26. Here’s more of it:

    “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 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 experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.res ume/?iref=hpmostpop

    Posted by Owen on May 26, 2009 at 2229 hrs




27. If you read the entire speech or at least the portions leading up to the qoute you will understand that she is saying a woman or person of color should have a better understanding of the issues of race and gender and be better at ruling in cases concerning those issues. As much as we want to believe race gender ect. shouldn’t influence how people are tereated it does. If every case was decided based on the rule of law alone every decision should be unanimous, there shouldn’t be any split decisions. In her speech she mentions a case where 3 female justices agreed, while two male judges dissented, to give a protective order against a father who abused his child. Is one side right and the other wrong? Did gender play a role in the decision? As a white male I find nothing offensive or disturbing about her statements.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 at 1518 hrs




28. White “Liberal” Male.  Be clear about it.  that’s why you find nothing disturbing about her comments.

    Posted by Steve on May 27, 2009 at 1726 hrs