How about Sotomayor

[dsm2925]

what do think about her

[Wagner]

hmm

She also once said, "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."

Perhaps Sotomayor's most controversial decision was in Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she was part of a panel ruling against a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. -- they objected after the city threw out the results of a promotion test because too many white firefighters, and not enough minority firefighters, scored high.

That sounds like the words of someone who is suppose to simply represent the constitution and nothing else. Doesn't seem like she has a chip at all.

[Krimson X]

.

Originally Posted by Wagner

hmm


Quote:
She also once said, "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."
Place the above quote in context, please. Or is that too much to ask? Nevermind, I'll do it for you.

From Sotomayor's 2001 speech, in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] 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 not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. 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 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 [Benjamin] 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. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

Quote:
Perhaps Sotomayor's most controversial decision was in Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she was part of a panel ruling against a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. -- they objected after the city threw out the results of a promotion test because too many white firefighters, and not enough minority firefighters, scored high.
I've attached the Ricci v. DeStefano case from Westlaw for your own personal review. Even here, Sotomayor was part of a three judge panel who came away with this holding. Others must have (and did agree with her). Otherwise, she would have been the dissenting opinion. Sotomayor didn't even write the opinion.

Here is what the 2nd Circuit had to say in affirming the District Court's ruling:

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.


The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.


That sounds like the words of someone who is suppose to simply represent the constitution and nothing else. Doesn't seem like she has a chip at all.

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by dsm2925

what do think about her

I don't know what to think, yet. Even her harshest critics do understand that she has the most judicial experience than anyone ever nominated for the S.Ct. bench, and that her record is beyond reproach.

It will be interesting to see how the Republicans will approach her nomination given that her first judicial appointment was from H.W. Bush.

I think one needs to look at her record first, before passing criticism.

[chile1]

Originally Posted by Krimson X

hmm

Quote:
She also once said, "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."

Place the above quote in context, please. Or is that too much to ask?

Krimson X, looks like the partisan spinner (a.k.a. banned) is at it again..........

[MrLabGuy]

Let's see...Of her case decisions reviewed by the High Court 60% were overturned.

Sounds like Judicial Activism to me...

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Let's see...Of her case decisions reviewed by the High Court 60% were overturned.

Sounds like Judicial Activism to me...

Are you talking about the 3 out of 5 cases already heard by the S.Ct. that were reversed? That number is laughable in itself. The S.Ct. usually reverses 75% of the cases it reviews. At 60%, she is well ahead of the curve. Out of the thousands of cases she has ruled on, only 7 went to the S.Ct.? Of those that were reversed most were 5-4 6-3 decisions (2 have yet to be taken up by the Court). Only one was reversed unanimously. That is a pretty good track record, IMO, and is not indicative of a judge who is practicing judicial activism. If she were, I would expect that the number of her rulings taken up by the S.Ct. to be much greater than 7, and her reversal to be much greater than 3.

[MrLabGuy]

Originally Posted by Krimson X

Are you talking about the 3 out of 5 cases already heard by the S.Ct. that were reversed? That number is laffable in itself. The S.Ct. usually reverses 75% of the cases it reviews. At 60%, she is well ahead of the curve. Out of the thousands of cases she has ruled on, only 7 went to the S.Ct.? Of those that were reversed most were 5-4 6-3 decisions (2 have yet to be taken up by the Court). Only one was reversed unanimously. That is a pretty good track record, IMO, and is not indicative of a judge who is practicing judicial activism. If she were, I would expect that the number of her rulings taken up by the S.Ct. to be much greater than 7, and her reversal to be much greater than 3.

LOL...I figured that would be your response. Let's see...

Let's say I'm an employee looking for a promotion to a senior position which requires me to review others. The CEO or our company tells me that I'm not being considered because three of the five times I was reviewed they found that my decisions were out of line and were overturned. My argument...Which you are using is that I had 300+ other decisions that were not scrutinized so the sum total of my errors were minimal. On top of that everyone in my department only has a 25% success rate so you should consider me for the job because I'm an exemplary candidate. That argument is laughable.

RIGHT!

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

LOL...I figured that would be your response. Let's see...

Let's say I'm an employee looking for a promotion to a senior position which requires me to review others. The CEO or our company tells me that I'm not being considered because three of the five times I was reviewed they found that my decisions were out of line and were overturned. My argument...Which you are using is that I had 300+ other decisions that were not scrutinized so the sum total of my errors were minimal. On top of that everyone in my department only has a 25% success rate so you should consider me for the job because I'm an exemplary candidate. That argument is laughable.

RIGHT!

WRONG. I am glad that I amuse you, though. The majority of the cases that come to the S.Ct. are novel issues that require the Court's oversight...grey areas of the law (as evidenced by 6-3 and 5-4 decisions...the justices themselves rarely agree). You have to understand, once a case finally gets to the S.Ct., that same case has been litigated in 2 to 3 other courts before the S.Ct. decides whether it will take up the issue. Sometimes the holdings during the course of litigation are reversed, but the majority are affirmed. The Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction (except in limited circumstances i.e cases between the states, cases involving diplomats and ambassadors), therefore the only way The S.Ct. hears a case is if someone applies for a supervisory writ or other legal vehicle.

Believe me, if there were reasons for her other decisions to be scrutinized and brought before the S.Ct., they would have. Otherwise, the attorney who failed to appeal to the Court is asking for a malpractice suit.

I'd figure you'd come harder than throwing out a hypothet to support your argument. It's like answering a question with a question. Give me some facts. Enough of the partisan talking points.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Krimson X

.

what was you point in the litany of text and time you spent responding to my two quotes and less than two sentences?

And Chile, do you need another time out? Spin, what are you talking about Not sure you know the definition of the word you're using. Unless in your world partisan equals logic.