Sonia Sotomayor

DeletedUser

Republican senators are starting to figure out how they will navigate the racial aspects of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, showing Sunday that they won't be tongue-tied when it comes to the politically tricky subject.
Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic on the high court if confirmed, and just the third woman, and Republicans don't want to appear insensitive to this historic significance during summer hearings.
Yet they cannot sidestep the issue. Sotomayor has assured that race will be an unavoidable topic of debate, with her now-infamous 2001 statement that a "wise Latina woman" would often reach a better conclusion than a white male.
Appearing on all five of the Sunday morning news shows, Republican senators followed a pattern in addressing such controversy.
-- They scolded sharp-tongued conservatives, like radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for calling Sotomayor a "racist." The senators said such language is off limits and should not be used to describe an accomplished and respected jurist.
-- The senators nevertheless called Sotomayor's 2001 statement "troubling," and representative of a mindset that should be explored further during hearings. They also criticized her for ruling against a group of white firefighters who claimed the city of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against them by throwing out the results of a promotion exam after minority firefighters didn't score high enough.
-- Guarding against any criticism of racial insensitivity, Republican senators on Sunday tried to turn the table on Democrats. They repeatedly invoked the case of Miguel Estrada, President George W. Bush's 2001 nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who withdrew his name after Democrats filibustered his nomination. Estrada was a Honduran immigrant.
Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued Sunday that Estrada could have made history as the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice if not for Democratic opposition. He suggested that Republicans were treating President Obama's Hispanic nominee far better than Democrats treated Bush's Hispanic nominee.
"What you'll see from our side of the aisle during these hearings is members of the Judiciary Committee and senators who are not willing to prejudge or pre-confirm any nominee. ... I might say that's in stark contrast to the way Miguel Estrada was treated, somebody who was on a path to become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice," Cornyn said. "I mean, Miguel Estrada immigrated from Honduras. He couldn't speak English, when he was 17 years old, came here, graduated from the two top schools in America, and rose to the very top of the legal profession. And yet, he was filibustered by Democrats who denied an up-or-down vote in the United States Senate."
Cornyn also contrasted the way Republicans are treating Sotomayor with the way Democrats treated Justice Clarence Thomas, who is black, during his confirmation. He said Republicans need to give Sotomayor the "fair hearing" that Estrada and Thomas never had.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on CNN's "State of the Union," also accused Democrats of opposing an "outstanding Hispanic-American" with the Estrada filibusters.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who sits on the Judiciary Committee as well, added on "FOX News Sunday" that Estrada was not "very well treated" during his confirmation.
That said, Graham was most vehement in condemning Sotomayor for her 2001 comments on race and called on her to apologize.
Graham said he wasn't buying Obama's attempt to walk back his Supreme Court nominee's controversial statement. Obama said Friday that given the chance Sotomayor would have "restated" that comment, and that she was merely trying to express how her experiences give her perspective on others' hardships.
"She didn't say that at all," Graham countered Sunday, suggesting Sotomayor's statement raises questions about her objectivity.
"What she said is that based on her life experiences is that she thought a Latina woman, somebody with her background would be a better judge than a guy like me -- a white guy from South Carolina," Graham said. "It is troubling, and it's inappropriate and I hope she'll apologize."
Graham said Sotomayor's judicial temperament and philosophy are "in question" and that he's concerned Sotomayor has a record of trying to "get around" laws she doesn't like.
Other Republican senators continued to criticize Sotomayor for those remarks and certain rulings Sunday.
But they assured that Sotomayor would receive a fair hearing, with the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., saying Sotomayor's mix of legal experience is "ideal" for a Supreme Court nominee.
And Sessions and his GOP colleagues made clear that they would not follow Limbaugh and Gingrich in trying to brand her as a racist.
"I don't think that's an appropriate description of her," Sessions said on NBC's "Meet the Press," asking others to refrain from using such "loaded" words as well.
"I don't think she's a racist," Graham said.
Meanwhile, Democrats defended Sotomayor's 2001 remarks, describing them as a simple statement about how life experiences inform decisions.
"As long as you put rule of law first, of course, it's quite natural to understand that our experiences affect us. I don't think anybody wants nine justices on the Supreme Court who have ice water in their veins," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week."
Appearing with Cornyn, he disputed Republicans' charges about Estrada and suggested his case does not make for a fair comparison -- especially since he was not a judge when Bush nominated him.
"Estrada was never a judge, so we had no way to judge what his record would be in the best way to judge it, cases that we had ruled on. And so when we asked him questions, he said absolutely nothing," Schumer said. "In fact, Judge Sotomayor has answered more questions on hearings already, because of her two confirmation hearings, than Estrada."

Source

What's your opinion? Personally, I am a bit worried about that statement, but I do believe it will pass with time.

Quote in question:

“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.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Well she won't be the only one deciding cases. There are 7 justices, not just one. To be honest, I think the comments she made sums up how a significant portion of the population feels. If that is the case then why not let her be on the Supreme Court. I am sure there are justices on the Supreme Court that are bigots and racists, probably far more than what Sotomayor's comments make her out to be.
 

DeletedUser

Is it racist if what she said is true? I do believe that a Latina woman with her experiences and background would make a better judge than that guy from South Carolina.
 

DeletedUser

Assuming that she has a firm grasp on law, sure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Then if she does then that should be the only thing we are looking at. In context, her statements don't seem overly racist. Certainly not enough to disqualify her from the position if she meets all other requirements.
 

DeletedUser

Hmm, I just read the actual quote and it is not what is in that article....give me a sec to find it and post.


Here it is:"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"


That is not racist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Classic media frenzy, nothing to see here. I just wish everyone would stop agreeing on everything. :(
 

DeletedUser

Iggy, I've updated the first post with the quote just to make it more easily accessible. I suppose I should have done that in the first place.
 

DeletedUser

Yeah, it is bogus political posturing. She is awesomely qualified for the position. I just hope she doesn't get scared off.
 

DeletedUser

If she does then she's really not the kind of person I would want as Supreme Court Justice anyways, so it makes no difference to me. Not to mention, it would be highly hypocritical considering her woman of latina strength position.

The thing that I don't get is why she had to bring race into it. The older I get, the more I realize that race is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. I mean, sure, there's racism, but aside from racism, race should have very little affect on much of anything. Is she saying that there's no way a white or black nominee could have possibly understood or grasp her experiences or wisdom, simply because they're not latina (or latino, for that matter)? I'm willing to accept that her experiences may make her a better judge, absolutely, but being latina should have little or nothing to do with that.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman INDIVIDUAL with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than an INDIVIDUAL white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Fixed. But you must see where I'm coming from and why it's a bit unsettling.
 

DeletedUser

Well, what was the question she was replying to? It is possible the context of this statement has been skewed to make her look bad to begin with.

What if the question specifically asked about a Latina Woman vs an Anglo male?

And you are right, she does need to be able to stand up to scrutiny, but there is a limit that she should have to.
 

DeletedUser

Suprised we haven't heard from Gizmo on this one (she ruled in the Appeal of the New Haven Firefighter case). Over all this one statement removed from the context it was given in has been all the attack dogs have been able to seize upon. The only real issue here is the assumption that all white males are privileged (though society has favored them) and for a vast majority that would make it to the federal bench would have been children of privilege
 

DeletedUser

Suprised we haven't heard from Gizmo on this one
this might explan it. Divest Today, 01:54 AM
David Crocket Today, 04:11 AM
"I enjoy my sleep"

(she ruled in the Appeal of the New Haven Firefighter case).
just resently I have found that that test is only a few years old (2000ish). but this is completly another subject and I will not go into detail on it.


Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza. which is like the KKK for Hispanics. anything that is the KKK or eqivalant (black Panthers, La Raza) I can not support.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

If a white man were to say the reverse, people would be furious.

Denisero, if you agree with the statement, you are a sick person. Many people in our country have tried to eradicate racism. Martin Luther King Jr. told us to judge by character. The comment was very racist, but in our country it's o.k. to be racist against whites.

The majority of American's do not agree with that comment.

There have been many cases that come before the Supreme Court in which one judge cast the deciding vote. These positions are very important and should not be looked upon as jobs to give away in political favor.
 

DeletedUser

Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza. which is like the KKK for Hispanics. anything that is the KKK or eqivalant (black Panthers, La Raza) I can not support.
I had never heard of the National Council of La Raza, but it took me 3 seconds with google to learn that once again gizmo you are proudly displaying a gross level of ignorance. It is nothing like the kkk or the black panthers. It is a non-profit human rights advocacy group intended to fight poverty and racism, which sounds quite laudable to me!
 

DeletedUser

The comment was not racist it was speaking to experience and privilege.
JM I didn't realize how much I missed your ignorance till it showed up again.

From the La Raza Website

"NCLR traces its origins to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as well as to previous efforts that preceded World War II, such as those related to early school and housing desegregation. Although Hispanics, especially Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans, participated in both movements, they did not gain widespread media coverage or national visibility for their efforts. Without such recognition, legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, while creating enormous change in other areas of the country, had relatively little impact on the Hispanic community.

In large part, the invisibility that plagued the Mexican American civil rights movement was a result of the movement’s geographic isolation, which caused it to be overshadowed by the more highly visible national movements. Additionally, Mexican Americans lacked the kinds of institutions that were critical to the success of the Black civil rights movement, and around which they could rally, unify, and organize. As Helen Rowan explained in a paper prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1968:

There was no Mexican American organization equivalent of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) or the National Urban League; no Mexican American colleges; and virtually no financial or other help from outside the community itself. It has thus been extremely difficult for the leadership to develop and pursue strategies which would force public agencies and institutions to pay greater and more intelligent attention to Mexican American needs and to make changes, where necessary, to meet them.
Recognizing that these hurdles imposed a critical barrier to the mobilization of an effective civil rights movement, a group of young Mexican Americans in Washington, DC decided to form a coordinating body that could provide technical assistance to existing Hispanic groups and bring them together into a single united front. In the early 1960s, this organization, called NOMAS (National Organization for Mexican American Services), met with the Ford Foundation to present a funding proposal. The meeting was one of several factors that contributed to a Ford decision to finance a major study of Mexican Americans by scholars at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), the first grant of its kind in the United States.

Like other philanthropic and government entities, the Ford Foundation was concerned about the paucity of information on, and its own lack of expertise regarding, Mexican Americans. In this context, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights began to hold a series of important and influential hearings on the status of Mexican Americans, and later other Latino groups, in the U.S. At the same time, the Ford Foundation decided to conduct a second, less academic and formal investigation, and subsequently hired three highly-respected Mexican Americans, Herman Gallegos, Dr. Julian Samora, and Dr. Ernesto Galarza, to travel throughout the Southwest and consult with other activists and leaders about what else might be done to help the Mexican American community.

The findings of these three leaders, published in two reports, revealed that Mexican Americans faced numerous obstacles, especially with respect to poverty. They also illustrated a clear need for more local, grassroots programmatic and advocacy organizations, for a source of ongoing technical assistance to help coordinate and strengthen the work of these local groups, and for national advocacy on behalf of Mexican Americans."

This bears no resemblance to the KKK at all. While "La Raza" means "The Race" it is not a Eugenic phrase for "hispanic" is a pan racial term that spans many ethnicities. You should really do research before vomiting up right wing extremist "talking points"
 

DeletedUser

If a white man were to say the reverse, people would be furious.

Denisero, if you agree with the statement, you are a sick person. Many people in our country have tried to eradicate racism. Martin Luther King Jr. told us to judge by character. The comment was very racist, but in our country it's o.k. to be racist against whites.
Says the hate monger. Do we really need to start linking your pro Hitler posts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

“I would hope that a wise White Man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black woman who hasn’t lived that life.”

Is that racist?
 

DeletedUser

I had never heard of the National Council of La Raza, but it took me 3 seconds with google to learn that once again gizmo you are proudly displaying a gross level of ignorance. It is nothing like the kkk or the black panthers. It is a non-profit human rights advocacy group intended to fight poverty and racism, which sounds quite laudable to me!

La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America. -Joe Kovacs

La Raza was condemned in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

does this explain it to you how La Raza is a rasict orginization

Source



try this one

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top