‘No’ to Sotomayor

Jonah Goldberg (5/28, Opinion, “Empathy, impartiality on judicial collision course”) gave the greatest disqualifying factor for Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court. President Obama has vowed to appoint a justice who would break her own oath of office to “administer justice without respect to persons” by appointing someone with “empathy” toward people’s “struggles.” Obama wants a social worker rather than a judge. Sotomayor fits the bill, saying her “Latina” heritage means she would make better decisions than a white male.

We need judges who will do their job and uphold the law, not make decisions based on “empathy.”

I commend Goldberg for pointing out something that should be obvious: Sotomayor is unqualified. But I doubt the Senate has the spine to do the right thing. As usual, they will do what is politically expedient and punish the country with another federal judge who will thumb her nose at American law.

 Shane Kastler 
Pleasanton, Kan.

Thank you, Sen. Pat Roberts, for showing leadership and good judgment in your decision to vote against the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope many more of your colleagues in Washington will follow your lead.

You continue to represent your constituents well.

Bridget Brill
Mission Hills

Comments

[solomon]

I'll play your game here so you'll see your hypocrisy....

"and if you don't, without any proof other than what I believe and contrary to any rational eveidence, agree with me that Jesus is god manifested on earth, you're either uncultivated, uncultured, brainless, dumb, imbecilic, moronic witless, foolish, senseless, silly or a liar...and let me add you will burn in hell for rejecting my gods love"-GCYL

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Uh Jim, those aren't lies. You can ascertain CHIP with earning up to $82,600 and yes it will cover "children" over the age of 18 which are not children but adults.
It is pathetic that marital status changes whether you are deemed an adult or not. Sounds more like revenue and power mongering scheme to me. Funny, we still do not qualify for any socialist benefits but have to pay more into the system.

[GCYL]

Entry Word: ignorant
Function: adjective
Related Wordslowbrow, uncultivated, uncultured; callow, green, inexperienced, innocent, naive (or naïve); unsophisticated; raw, untrained; brainless, dumb, IDIOTIC, imbecilic, moronic, STUPID, witless; foolish, senseless, silly

“We've been in this circle long enough for you to recognize that I relish using the words "idiot", "stupid" and "moron" as signs of contempt. I do not use the word "ignorant" here as an insult.” - Solomon

Good because I didn’t realize how ignorant you are until this stupid effort to differentiate related words.

According to Solomon’s logic the following directed at him is not an insult.

...and if you don't agree with me, you're either uncultivated, uncultured, brainless, dumb, imbecilic, moronic, witless; foolish, senseless, silly or a liar.

[Marctnts]

K-Dog,

I had the same thoughts. I know the battle lines have already been drawn, but seriously.

[Jim]

"Roberts is a worthless party hack that has always deferred his opinion to what ever the most conservative elements of the Republican party tells him his opinion is."

While I agree that he's inappropriately pre-judging Sotomayor, Roberts shows occasional flashes of independence. When Republicans were spewing lies about SCHIP (it's for people making $80,000 a year, it's for illegals, it's for "kids" up to 25 years old, etc), Roberts was very vocal in debunking and countering them with the facts.

[Wild Man]

"Is anyone else bothered with the fact that Sen. Roberts has made his decision before any of the hearings have commenced? I know that he has voted against her before, but can't he at least go through the motions of listening to the hearings? After all, that is his job." - K. Dog

Roberts is a worthless party hack that has always deferred his opinion to what ever the most conservative elements of the Republican party tells him his opinion is. This is not a surprise.

[solomon]

Marctnts,

We've been in this circle long enough for you to recognize that I relish using the words "idiot", "stupid" and "moron" as signs of contempt. I do not use the word "ignorant" here as an insult. I use it as a point of fact. There's a reason I don't enter discussions about energy costs and plants, tax codes or the history of the economic development of Finland. The reason I wouldn't participate is that I'm ignorant concerning those things. Anyone who believes that a judge, every judge, is not influenced by their background is "ignorant" of basic human nature. Anyone who understands that but would say that background has not influenced decisions from previous judges, a pompous Christian, exclusive, socially superior, white affluent boys club for the most part, is in my opinion ignoring what they know to be true and are not being honest about it, which is what constitutes a "lie".

BTW, I have no problem with the fact that it use to be an exclusive boys club when the only diversity would be where in Europe the members family was from. That's how it was. But, there is no reason to suggest that people have to live up to the standards that one might imagine they held.

[Kansasdog]

Is anyone else bothered with the fact that Sen. Roberts has made his decision before any of the hearings have commenced? I know that he has voted against her before, but can't he at least go through the motions of listening to the hearings? After all, that is his job.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

A fair majority of social workers are deadbeats that coach women to cheat and perjure to retain benefits.
Social workers do not rend to have a sense of humor and they do not posses empathy rather entitlement thinking.
Again, YOU NEED TO READ the US Constitution, it does not stipulate any qualifications, the Prez has full authority to appoint, Since when does actual experience mean anything. The person with the most proven expereince was deemed the least wualified and the one holding none is running the circus.

[Marctnts]

...

[Marctnts]

Sol,

"To think these people beyond reproach, when you consider the race, sex and class distinct differences between them and the majority of this nation on specific issues the concept is inconceivable."

Again, if you'll read my post a little more carefully, you'll see that I'm not claiming that past (or current for that matter) justices are beyond reproach. Nor am I claiming that their "personal experiences" don't end up influencing their decisions. Maybe it's just me, but I took Sotomayor's comments as a step beyond this, not only recognizing the difficulty of independent judgement but relishing the fact that she wasn't there.

...and if you don't agree with me, you're either ignorant or a liar.

Jim,

Thoughtful article. Reading the prior context makes it seem less like she's flippantly ignoring her responsibility and more like she's wrestling with its practical application. I'm ready to here her expound on these thoughts during the confirmation.

"Her judicial record, which is what really matters after all, does not bear out what you and others have said about her."

I've simply presented questions and my own opinion (without claiming everyone else is ignorant or lying, I might add). I don't have a staff of clerks ready and willing to dig through her judicial history, so I'm waiting to hear more at the conformation to make up my mind (not that it matters).

I think this bears repeating. Until the process has progressed further, wholesale claims against her "fitness" seem to be just as invalid as adding "extras" into the responsibility of judges in order to justify her confirmation.

[Jim]

Marctnts,

Conservative blogger Rod Dreher had the same initial reaction as yours, but thinks that the context proves what she's saying isn't nearly as controversial as it would seem. He makes this point in a much more eloquent way than I can:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/05/i-was-wrong-about-sotomayor-sp.html

[Wild Man]

"We need judges who will do their job and uphold the law, not make decisions based on “empathy.”" - Shane Kastler
Has anyone actually read any of her cases or are radical fringe neocon media talking points all that is required to make a decision about who should be the next Supreme Court Justice. All of the justices on the Supreme Court came from the Federal Appellate Courts, but none of them have as many decisions on record. Her record is a record of moderation. Her record is readily available. Make the decision after you have the facts.
On the quote that the Limbough's and Fox News keep throwing out. Does anyone know what the context of the statement was about, or have you even read the whole statement? The statement was discussing the role of diversity in dealing with race and gender relation cases. It starts out by saying, "In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males." "I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women." She goes on to say, "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both race and sex discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in 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."
She concludes, "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. Others 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."
This is not the whole statement, but it is a broader look at what she was saying which was that judges make decisions on which facts are important when ruling on cases. If any of you have ever been in court, you know this statement to be true. It is her opinion that all groups need advocates on the bench so that the judges can make better decisions in cases involving race and gender discrimination. Is that statement all that different from two heads are better than one. It must be noted that her vote is one of nine votes on the court, and it will not even be a swing vote.
May also point out that GHW Bush appointed Clearance Thomas one of his Justice Department Lawyers , John Yoo, who was guiding Thomas through the process made the statement that Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experiences than most upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and continued the argument by saying that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience. It appears that we are applying a double standard. But then again I forgot, that wasn't one of the talking points that the neocon media has given in order to shape your thoughts.

[Jim]

That should have read "17 years worth of case law which disproves your point."

[Jim]

"Sotomayor appears to, in her quote, not only acknowledge this basic human tendency but relish in using it to make "better" decisions, which in my mind would be a violation of judicial responsibility."

Marctnts,

As we discussed yesterday, I think that is a willful misreading of what she said. When you base your opinion of her on one line (or a few lines before), but disregard the rest of what she said, you're not being intellectually honest. She clearly expressed a sentiment that is the opposite of what you say in the above quote.

If you truly thinks that this is the way she approaches the cases that come before her, you have 17 years worth of case law to prove your point. Her judicial record, which is what really matters after all, does not bear out what you and others have said about her.

[KC Educator]

Presidential comparison quiz???? Kee

Yah, I heard Limbough's rant on the those issues yesterday also. It's so good to know what the next day's talking points are going to be on this board.

[solomon]

Marctnts,

Why do people see comments as a game? I am stating an opinion, one that you really don't dispute in any way.

As I said, you are attributing superhuman powers to everyone who has gone before this nominee. To think these people beyond reproach, when you consider the race, sex and class distinct differences between them and the majority of this nation on specific issues the concept is inconceivable.

[Marctnts]

Sol,

"Excusable if you're ignorant, otherwise denial of something one realizes is a lie."

Again, that's contingent upon everyone in the conversation "realizing" the same thing. Face it, you played the "agree with me or you're a ..." game and got called out on it.

"Let's get personal, when you make a decision how much of who you are comes into play?"

Probably a lot, but then again, I'm not making judgements on the rule of law on a daily basis either.

You appear to be ignoring the point. It's not that we all allow some level of "personal experience" to jade our views, it's that as a judge (and especially a Supreme Court Justice), your responsibility and oath is to try your best to move past this natural tendency and make decisions on the rule of law OUTSIDE of your experiences. Sotomayor appears to, in her quote, not only acknowledge this basic human tendency but relish in using it to make "better" decisions, which in my mind would be a violation of judicial responsibility.

Like I've said, I'm not sure about the wholesale claims of Sotomayor, from either side of the debate. What I am sure of is that the confirmation process is just beginning, and until it's further along, these games by either side are nothing more than just that, ideological games.

[Kee]

By the way, this is just for Horsey.

Presidential comparison quiz????

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Tony Blair a set of inexpensive and useless (to Tony Blair's UK video formatting) DVDs, when Tony Blair had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 weeks -- so you'll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.

[Kee]

Sotomayor is a racist pure and simple. She has by her rulings said that individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms. Unforunately she will be confirmed. This is what happens when left wing fruitcakes are elected to office.

[solomon]

Marctnts,

Excusable if you're ignorant, otherwise denial of something one realizes is a lie. Are we to believe the long list of Supreme court justices were not influenced by their upbringing? What human in any walk of life is not influenced in their decisions by their upbringing? By saying that they haven't been you'd be attributing to them superhuman infallible Godlike powers, as in each one of our lives our experiences determine our decisions.

Maybe you see them as perfect, but they've made decisions based on gender, race, country of origin, in favor of the rich in opposition to the working class many times in the history of the Court. Are you going to say none of these decisions were based on who made the decision?

Let's get personal, when you make a decision how much of who you are comes into play?

She'll be like any other Justice(if confirmed), she'll make the judgment's she see's fit. Until the court is replaced by a computer program that runs a trillion possibilities of the interpretation of the Constitution and comes up with a flawless ruling we'll have plain folks and their foibles.

[Marctnts]

"Anyone who says who you are and where you come from does not and has not always come into play when a person makes a decision is either ignorant or a liar."

Wow, decided to play the "if you don't agree with me, then you're a ...." game, have you? Such statements work to invalidate your argument, not support it. And if you don't agree with me on this, you're either ignorant or a liar.

"The ability to judge comes from ones life experiences,..."

Not according to the practice of our judicial system or the oaths taken. The ability to judge the rule of law comes from the ability to PUT ASIDE personal prejudice (which is what personal experience boils down to, isn't it?) and make judgement based upon law, constitutionality, precedent, and the merits (based upon these three) of the case at hand. It's this ability to "set aside" personal experience, not use it, that equates to judicial excellence.

I'm not sure that Sotomayor is the "activist" judge some are claiming, and I'm not sure she really believes that her "life experiences" are part of the process. I find her comments somewhat troubling in this regard, but they could also be nothing more than indicative of someone who is intelligently wrestling with the concepts of proper jurisprudence. That's what the confirmation process is about, learning more.

Until the process has progressed further, wholesale claims against her "fitness" seem to be just as invalid as adding "extras" into the responsibility of judges in order to justify her confirmation.

[solomon]

Anyone who says who you are and where you come from does not and has not always come into play when a person makes a decision is either ignorant or a liar. The ability to judge comes from ones life experiences, the knowledge of law comes from books and documents.

[JoCo]

In that case, pack away Obama. As we've learned recently, presidential powers in the hands of INFINITE experience is infinite.

Really like to see a return to self-imposed separation of power. Seems to be the only legal kind

[whispering_to_kc]

Jonah Goldberg: neocon, chickenhawk.