Supreme Court decides Ricci Case

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Do you take the same issue with the fact that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg feels (and states) that women are more often likely to judge more favorably in woman's issues because of their experiences as women?

I am not aware of every judge and their stances on certain issues, I'll take your word that Ginsburg said the statement and yes it is just as wrong to say that women are more often likely to judge favorably in women's issues just because of their experiences as women. I think people are people whether men or women and react differently (or have different ideological and/or philosophical beliefs) even given the same background or experiences. In other words I agree with the judge (or whoever first said it) that a wise old man and a wise old women can come to the same wise old decision. (or words thereabouts) I think there should be diversity in the courts and elsewhere merely because it is fair, not because one group is likely to be more humane than another group. What is next, are we going to confirm a gay judge merely because he/she would more than likely judge more favorable in gays issues? I a not saying we shouldn't confirm a gay judge just because he/she is gay but neither should we confirm a gay judge because he/she is gay. I am also not saying that Sotomayer is trying to be confirmed based on the fact that she is a minority, I was merely taking issue with her beliefs concerning the fairness (or more humane judging) of minorities in civil issues in the courts under a minority judge verses a white male judge.

1 Reply

@revel,

Revel,

Are you really arguing that having a Supreme Court that is exclusively made of white men doesn't limit its ability to serve a diverse nation?

It seems obvious the diversity-- having more than one background and more than a single perspective on our highest court-- is essential to justice. Judges are human beings who judge and reason based on their experience and understanding. If we select judges from a limited part of society (i.e. white men) we will get a more limited perspective (not a better one).

You are neglecting the great contributions of Thurgood Marshall, Louis Brandeis, Sandra Day O'connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (and I suppose I have to include Clarence Thomas). These were the only justices in the history of our country that weren't white christian men. That they weren't white Christian men... and that they had experiences and understanding that were both completely American, but different than the white male experience and perspective, greatly benefited the court and the country.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Ebrown, you are pretty good at putting words in my post i never typed or attributing meanings that I never intended or even alluded to.

I never said it is not good to have a diverse court and that a person's back ground can not contribute to their overall effectiveness as judges . I merely said because a person is a minority does not mean they would be more fair towards minorities in those issues that come before them in courts than would a white male judge. After all as in the link I left, Sotoymayer acknowledges:

Quote:

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.

As you brought out Clarence Thomas he is a perfect example of why it is not always a guarantee that a person with similar experiences and/or backgrounds be so quick to be empathic towards others of the same. After all he benefited from affirmative action, he even gave a speech about it in a

Quote:

November 1983 speech to his staff at the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Thomas called affirmative action ''critical to minorities and women in this society.''

http://www.jeffcohen.org/docs/mbeat19950621.html

And as is in the link above, he turned around and went against it after having benefited from it.

I am not saying all minorities would do the same as is obviously not the case at all, I am just saying being a minority is not a guarantee of a more humane judge and therefore should not be the sole criteria when considering judges, but rather who is best qualified for the role based on their past court cases and their personal philosophies which being human they can't just hang up at the door coat rack before going into the court room.

To repeat; I do think minorities and women (of which we are considered a minority in the work force) should be in the courts both for their experiences and their personal qualifications for the job and because it is just fair, I just don't think it should be the only consideration nor do I think the mere fact they are a minority would mean we would have a more humane court. I think judges are people and move along with the times and awareness of the people of the times. If the people elect a liberal president who nominate the judge, then we are naturally are going to have a more liberal judge up for confirmation regardless of color, race or gender and visa versa when we had Bush...

All in all if Sotomayer gets confirmed, I think she will be a good judge, as far as I know (which I admitted to is nex to nothing other than the one article which struck so strongly), I just didn't agree with her philosophy of which i already stated it seems a million times. I don't know if that philosophy would effect her judging or not.

1 Reply

@revel,

Eugene Robison made my point quite well in this Op-Ed.

Quote:

Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.

Thus it is irrelevant if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talks about the impact of his background as the son of Italian immigrants on his rulings -- as he did at his confirmation hearings -- but unforgivable for Sotomayor to mention that her Puerto Rican family history might be relevant to her work. Thus it is possible for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to say with a straight face that heritage and experience can have no bearing on a judge's work, as he posited in his opening remarks yesterday, apparently believing that the white male justices he has voted to confirm were somehow devoid of heritage and bereft of experience.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html

3 Replies

@ebrown p,

that's wise

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Makes it all that much easier to see how Ican, Foxy, Okie and the like can clench those bones [memes] with such ferocity.

0 Replies

I know this is insulting as hell but has anyone else noticed the resemblance of Judge Sottomire to Rose Ann Barr.

3 Replies

@rabel22,

No.

0 Replies

@rabel22,

rabel22 wrote:

I know this is insulting as hell but has anyone else noticed the resemblance of Judge Sottomire to Rose Ann Barr.

Her name is Judge Sotomayor. I did not notice any "resemblance" whatsoever to Roseanne.

0 Replies

@rabel22,

rabel22 wrote:

has anyone else noticed the resemblance of Judge Sottomire to Rose Ann Barr.

Rose Ann Barr is better looking and she definitely has more life experience than SS.

0 Replies

I did notice that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) resembles Jay Thomas (of Murphy Brown and Cheers fame):

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:k0RxgMEpVcZ3KM:http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2008/10/23-End/Jay_Thomas-was-reunited-with-his-biological-son-john-harding-after-28-years.jpg

http://www.sportshollywood.com/images/jaythomas.jpg

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Ebrown, for the last time I will state my only issue with Sotoymayer is not that she feels her background will have an impact on her judging in a good way. What I have issue is her belief that other judges because they do not have a minority background would not be as empathetic towards minorities when minority issues come before the court because they don't have those same experiences in their backgrounds.

2 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

Ebrown, for the last time I will state my only issue with Sotoymayer is not that she feels her background will have an impact on her judging in a good way. What I have issue is her belief that other judges because they do not have a minority background would not be as empathetic towards minorities when minority issues come before the court because they don't have those same experiences in their backgrounds.

Her name is Judge Sotomayor.

Unfortunately, you have already judged this nominee based on conservative talking points. If you reviewed her opinions, you would appreciate her for the thorough, articulate, mainstream judge that she is.

2 Replies

Regarding the Ricci case, you have to understand that a court of appeals may not go against established law, which says that that Ricci had no case. Since the district court judge issued a lengthy and complete opinion, a court of appeals hearing was not needed, and that a per curiam decision would be appropriate. The judges knew that the Supreme Court, which has the power to go against case law, could use the district court judge's opinion to review the facts and law. This is standard procedure in a court of appeals.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Absolutely. The 2nd Circuit applied the law as written (by Congress) and as "informed" by prior precedent. I find it odd that the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee has invited Ricci (the plaintiff) to testify at Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

..........
Her name is Judge Sotomayor.

Dammit - all this time I thought her first name was Sonia; thanks for letting us know she was baptized "Judge" Sotomayor, so that's part of her name legally.

Amazing what you can learn on the internet <G>

0 Replies

@revel,

Nah, Revel, this alleged academic star only got admitted to graduate school because of affirmative action (counted 3 times, as a female, as a hispanic, and as a person of color) so naturally she'll peddle some bastardization of the 14th Amendment - what did you expect her to say, "kill whitey"?

4 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas, running her KKK mouth again...

0 Replies

@High Seas,

OK - add "KKK" to the brilliant sequence of search terms on that latest dimwit's profile page, which ends with:

Quote:

...Stupid, Anal Bleaching, Claims To Be Aged 10, Jackwad, Foolish, Cant Spell Weimar, Gwdenier, Troll, Gungatard, Bleach My Anus

(sic)

Bleach the brain first, it might disinfect it Smile

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Since i have never listened to a conservative talking point in my life; you are incorrect in your assumptions. I merely read the article from the New York times which had the transcript for a speech she gave in the late 90's. I disagreed with statements she made in her speech of which i already stated and have no desire to repeat and also I have seen nothing to rebut anything i have stated so I have not changed my mind. I am not saying she won't be a good judge, she very well might be a good judge. I just think she showed a biased in favor of her own race concerning judges.

1 Reply

Supreme Court decides Ricci Case

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know