Although you wrote this reply to Maat222, here is what Sotomayor actually said in full and in context without partial quotings that are being put out:

"All of the legal defence funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."

http://realserver.law.duke.edu/ramge...252005clerk.rm

She doesn't advocate making her own law as a judge and repudiates that directly. She is just stating the true fact that appeals courts are where most legal interpretation of law are made and that is why so many litigants and interested people put their focus there.

Her own opinions confirm her deference to the law and that she refuses to substitute her own 'law' when the law compels a different result, even in cases where the personal sympathies for those being denied relief are apparent. An example of an event of which all are familiar is her dissenting opinion in the well known TWA Flight 800 crash off Long Island, where she dissented as follows:

and she goes into category by category of breaking down the law on all those points like a surgeon....

and then concludes as follows:

(bolding added)

In Re: Air Crash Off Long Island, New York, on July 17, 1996, 209 F.3d 200 (2nd Cir. 2000).

Case link:

209 F.3d 200

__________________

That's the whole problem. She went to Yale, she's very much an insider. Her birthplace, race and gender do not make her an outsider.

Why not pick somebody that didn't go to a freaking Ivy league school?

because people who don't go to the ivy league don't make it to federal courts, and that is almost a requirement to be a scotus justice.

i agree its not exactly right, and this does jeopardize her status as an 'outsider.'

its more her socio-economic background that makes her an outsider.

and contrary to popular belief, the ivy league is not some cult of rich insiders. It is a system of universities that have yes historically represented white insider elitism, but however in this day in age they are schools that are simply hard to get into. BHO and sotomayor got into these schools and paid for them on loans.

__________________

Emphasis mine

After she states the indefensible she remembers that she is being taped and offers her "clarification". I would call that backpedaling and nothing less. The fact that she acknowledges she should never say it (on tape) doesn't mean she doesn't believe it. She believes it or she wouldn't say it. Nothing is being parced.

Her dissension on the TWA flight? There probably weren't any hispanic women on that flight so she couldn't relate.

I still consider her other remarks (hispanic woman thing) to be racist and wonder if anyone can reasonably defend them.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

Nah, her comments speak for themselves. She made sure to emphasise the right context, knowing that conservative ideologues use that line of attack. She put it directly in the context of explaining the reality of how the appeals process works and why so many take it seriously. Those already predisposed to oppose her for political purposes are trying to hustle that spin on her comment, but that's all it is and transparently so.

It was the law why she held so. But remarks like that will continue to erode the GOP relationship with Hispanics. It's exactly the kind of thing I'm sure Obama calculated upon with the help of the GOP membership once again. I'm already hearing the Hispanic-related sideswipes on conservative AM radio and Obama and the Dems would gladly pay for the airtime to beam it into every Hispanic home and others put off by it.

I agree with you on this one...her remark was chauvinistic.

It does contain and was intended to express the truth that as a Hispanic female that came up from poverty in the Bronx in NY to where she is now that it does give her insights and empathies that most white males don't have. Even poor white males have a different experience...and I'm not saying better or more privileged, but it's different. And women experience things differently than men, and Hispanic women experience different things than white women, etc.

In short, people are a product of their experiences and bring them to the table. But they are not the same experiences. That's why it's wise to have diverse experiences so people who aren't experienced in certain aspects make the decisions regarding those aspects when it would be better to have a voice and input from those who are experienced in them.

But if she is anti-white male, I'm sure the evidence will be forthcoming given there is more to a racist than one non-PC comment that is common for everyone. She will also surely be asked to clarify and/or offer explanations on that comment when she appears at the confirmation hearing.

__________________

It appears we are falling into a straight out debate on racism, its effects etc., for those wish to argue that, please, start another thread.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Board Members:

This thread has been copied in this same subforum for discussing the diversity aspect and discussion regarding Sotomayor. Please respond in the following thread if you wish to post on it or in response to any past posts in this thread upon it:

Sotomayor and diversity (social dimension)

This thread will now be focused on her academic aspects and other issues regarding her nomination.

ADMINISTRATION

__________________

cool thx.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Okay, so let me try this one counselor. You have a police officer client who said this..."That woman that was beaten by her husband probably deserved it. I know, I know, I should never say that. I know, I know, I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it...I'm...ya know....." What are your chances of making people believe he didn't mean it. While that may be a crude analogy, the jist is the same and the underlying belief is obvious. There is no hustle or spin here. You trying to dismiss it as such is the hustle and spin. I have not said that any of her rulings were wrong. I don't know enough about each of them to make that judgement and even if I did, it doesn't make them wrong just because they differ from my opinion. Her comments, IMHO, make her illsuited to be a good SC justice. If the appearance of inpropriety is there, it is not worth risking the mistake. There are too many others that are as equally qualified.

Whatever. When Democrats do it it's okay, right? First, it was a crude joke. Second, as long as Democrats keep pandering to the hispanic vote offering the "leg up" that will ultimately keep them down, they will never move toward the GOP. They may move to the GOP a)when the GOP gets back to being conservative and 2)when they discover that social welfare programs and poor education will only keep them down. They may change when they realize the democrats are more than willing to continue with failed policies that do not improve their quality of life. But that is something they need to discover on their own and opposing a hispanic on ideological grounds is not going to drive them away if they are intellectually honest.

True, except it wasn't just chauvanistic. It was racist but we all know the double standard there so I don't expect an honest opinion. But sure, we need a diverse SC. No arguement there. Just not this one. Kind of like Hillary. I believe we are ready for a female President, but Hillary is not the one.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

Right..........

I don't believe that his only historical ethnicity is from Portugal. Can you say with 100% certainty that he had no Hispanic blood whatsoever?

I guess someone with a Hispanic name has absolutely no Hispanic roots.

Nice try though.



But really, this is not worth arguing.


The Democrats in Washington love to make history. They claim this woman will be the first Hispanic nominated.

After the way they treated Miguel Estrada when he was nominated by Bush I can't see how they can feel they're standing up for Hispanics. But by gosh we'd better not criticize this woman. Because of her ethnicity............you're a racist if you are critical of her..........as much as you're a racist if you are critical of Obama.

__________________
It's hard to stay mad at someone who makes you laugh - Jay Leno

not really. sotomayor made here statement with a bit of sarcasm, although she was confessing that while not officially the source of policy, appeals courts do in fact dictate de facto policy.

the notion that a court objectively and simply applies a bunch of one liners from 1789 is intellectually retarded. by defining what the vague one liners mean 200 years later, the courts are drawing lines around potential policy, and in many case draw the lines so closely due to circumstance that only one policy remains. say what you will, but that is what judicial review is.

__________________

As far as diversity goes, the Supreme Court could use a few more women, 2 in 220 years comes up a little short of balanced.
And a Latina makes sense in that hispanics are a large segment of the population and rapidly growing.
Of course if you are making diversity your goal, you pretty much eliminate white males from consideration, sorry OSB, you can give up any aspirations you have for that, because with Democrats going for diversity, you are out, and even if the Republicans get back in, you fall more than a little short on the conservative checklist.

I would think that if any Democrat had the ability to skip "diversity" as a criteria, it would be Barack Obama, he's a whole lot of diversity in one big package.

She seems to be about as uncontroversial as you can get with her history on the bench, just routine cases decided by the book. Evidence of that is all the focus on 2 remarks that when viewed in their entirety just aren't that controversial, but when taken out of context appear to be the tip of an iceberg. But there is no iceberg, and repetition of the same two talking points is going to rob them of any power they have.

There is a buzz on far right wackjob blogs that she is a lesbian, since she was divorced in 1983 and never remarried.
But where can they go with that? That she'll probably hear an appeal of Prop 8?
That's just another trap for the right to fall into.

I don't see anything yet that comes close to controversial.

The diversity thing is a little sketchy when you are talking about just 9 jobs, and just one job opening.
But politics is politics, and there has been nothing so far that comes close to disqualifying her.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

It's not an analogy because you are altering and omitting the express explanation that condemns and repudiates what exactly you infer she means and her stating what exactly she does mean. I'm hustling nothing; just telling it as it really is by her own statement.

Democrats do crude jokes because they are people and they are just as quick to play the 'false outrage' or hypocritical outrage like GOPers depending on the political capital and advantages they seek. Nor do I have any 'false outrage' for you with what I said. I was just saying it's what they are looking for you and others to do so it helps them politically. It's just as much the games of politics as much as the pre-canned attacks on her.

But what exactly are those panderings that the Dems are doing and you are inferring what the Hispanics want that is so bad for them? For someone so offended by her 'racist' remark it does seem you're quick to dump a boatload of stereotypes on Hispanics. And that's precisely how Dems want GOPers opposing her to expose and shoot themselves.

Ah, only you offer honest opinions because you say so....please. I'm working no campaign angles here which is a pointless exercise on a board like this, just rapping about how I see the world of politics, the point of the place.

People generalise, they stereotype, they are chauvinistic about things, etc. It's a human trait. I plead guilty to it myself at times and on things. To deny that is like people claiming they never jerk off. Everyone does it but it's bad for publicity when caught and called out for it. And when it happens in politics, political opponent spindoctors seek to hype, distort and/or exaggerate them for political purposes and goals.

If you don't believe she should be there because she is politically undesireable as a predicted or proven left leaning judge and/or Democrat, then I understand that. But why not just stick to that? It has nothing to do with her personality, ethnicity, sex, or any other thing the Dems are hoping GOPers do to injure themselves.

IMO, the GOP ought to just stick with that and say no more, which is hard for people like the Good Ole Boy network of Limbaugh and his dittoheads and that ilk who love dishing it about other ethnic groups and/or ethnicities but become so startlingly fragile china about anyone saying anything about whites. For all the shit they talk about others, they are the last ones to talk and yet those kinds of crews whinge and play false outrage better than Al Sharpton does, whom of course is their poster boy excuse to rip out the stereotypes and the same with others that they use for openings to do so.

The GOP is going to hurt themselves by making their objections to her anything other than philosophical. If they are smart and gracious about the rest, they can actually work that angle favourably in image appeal and outreach. But, it's up to the GOP and its base whether it wants to help or hurt itself. It's not like there is a chance she won't get nominated anyway unless they find something truly scandalous about her.

__________________

Is there any topic that liberal folks won't boil down to race and gender?

My previous comments were not about her life experience, it was about her attitude as spoken with her own mouth about how here experience as a female Latina was somehow superior to the experience of a white male, as if gender and ethnicity were relevant to judicial jurisprudence. I understand, there are vast numbers of people one party can lead around by the nose by playing this gender/ethnicity card, but surely there are people left who are capable of critical thinking rather than labeling? I'm am I far too naive still?

No, the majority of poor people in America are white. White males work as car mechanics and auto workers struggling to hold on to their jobs and all sorts of other things. This prejudicial notion that white men are all born with silver spoons in their mouths comes from the rhetoric of racial division and class warfare. It has been propogated by the Jeremiah Wrights and Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons for so long that some actually have absorbed it as the truth. My father was a coal miner, and my grandfather was killed in a mine. There are countless stuggling white males, more in fact than there are of any other male ethnicity.