Sotomayor’s Controversial 2001 Remarks — and Their Context

I am a white female who has had many life experiences, some quite difficult. However, I have enough common sense to also know I have friends from various ethnic backgrounds that make my life experiences seem mundane.
Sotomayor is talking about life experience. Anyone turning into a racism argument is clearly too shallow to see that the skin color matters only as it relates to how some of her life was experienced as a result of her ethnicity.

This is getting ugly. Conservatives are actually using Sotomayor’s race and gender and weapons against the president’s constitutionally-mandated pick. Do they realize how bad that looks?

Can someone tell me where empathy or rich experiences would come into play on the Supreme Court? I think this is a case of different views of the role of justices. Speaking of justice, isn’t she blind??

The problem with her comment is that a judge is supposed to be completely impartial. Impartiality is born from emotions of past experiences. If a judge was a victim of a violent crime, such as rape, then they would be forbidden from judging rape cases because you could not garantee impartiality.
In my opinion, she is pointing out partiality based on racial experience. Identifying with a plantiff, or a defendant in a case, leaves a high risk of being biased. And as she pointed out, will focus on facts she wants to focus on. Her comments are disturbing for a Supreme Court justice. Based on what her words, if put on the court, she should obstain from racial cases.

Obama said:
“Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice.
“The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them.
“And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 CENTURIES (my emphasis) ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time.”
According to Obama (Constitutional law professor), our Constitution was written around 9 AD. Did the teleprompter punk him?

None of these things should come in to play when fulfilling her charge as a SCJ. If she is unable to judge a case without considering her gender, ethnicity or her personal life experiences, then she should be required to recuse herself on any case that involves females, latinos, and any one else who has a similar “life experience” as she has had. I give her credit for her honesty in this regard, however, her admitting she considers these things when passing legal judgment disqualifies her for the position.

If you want to know why the Republican party has sadly, become a one gender – one race party – just look at some of these comments posted here.
Sotomayor is acknowledging her life experiences and that both her gender and race experiences could potentially impact judging, particularly in cases related to race and gender specifically. This is very basic common sense.
As a result, she vowed “complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives”
If only some of you could do the same….

It is debatable whether anybody really lives a more ‘rich’ [in this case meaning 'diverse' and not wealthy of course] life than anybody else or if one person’s life is only different from another person’s.
If you accept the premise that some people do live richer lives than others than that is the only fault you should find with Sotomayor’s statement. If we assume that the members of any race tend to live as richly as any other and if Sotomayor thinks she has lived more richly than most people as a whole than she would be correct that she therefore probably lived a more rich life than most white males since they are a similarly described subset. If bald accountants live about as richly as everyone else than she would be correct in thinking she has lived a more rich life than most bald accountants. Is she therefore biased against bald accountants?

It is the role of the plantiff or the defendent to present the racial or gender experiences in court, not the Judge.

“…she would be correct that she therefore probably lived a more rich life than most white males since they are a similarly described subset.”
Yet somehow white males get the racist rose pinned on their chest. Skip, you realize what you just wrote? Racism is acceptable against white males. They don’t live as rich of a life because they are all in the same subset, thus she is a great pick. Wow. Gotta love this.

jennifert7:”How should a white male feel about his case, where he is accused of sexual discrimation by a latino woman, being heard and judged by Ms. Sotomayor?”
Well, based on REALITY, like the dissenting opinion Sotomayor wrote in defense of a NYPD employee who was fired for mailing racist materials back in response to junk mail soliciting donations (Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2002)). Sotomayor wrote that his mostly anonymous speech undertaken in his off hours did not have an obvious impact on his job (he did not walk a beat nor make policy) and he should be allowed to bring a first amendment case.
But that is just, you know, actual documented reality. Perhaps your mythical white male cares more about a ten page essay she gave for some Berkeley college seminar.

How should a white male feel about his case, where he is accused of sexual discrimation by a latino woman, being heard and judged by Ms. Sotomayor? Is he not allowed fair and equal process under the constitution now simply because he is a white male?
Posted by: jennifert7 | May 27, 2009 10:37:46 AM
Wow! This is useless and baseless nonsense that will keep the Republican party in the minority if you extremist keep these radical characterizations up. What a disgrace.

They may be human, but they are expected to not be. Her words explain plainly that she this will impact her judging, when it is her duty to not allow that to happen. That is the difference.
Posted by: KR | May 27, 2009 10:47:21 AM
What part of this did you miss?
Sotomayor vowed “complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives”
We would be so lucky if all Justices met her standard.
It sounds like you are looking for something that doesn’t exist. We don’t put robots on the bench.

Reeba – Do you really want to hold the firefighter’s case up as an example? That is a bit scary for right-wingers who use this as their mantra against her. Who better to defend the white male than the party that’s only got those members remaining?
The appeals courts agree with her on scrapping the test. Do you want a firefighter who can write down what he is supposed to do or one who can actually perform those abilities in the field?

“Sotomayor vowed “complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives”
There is only one perspective a judge should be viewing from and that is of the law, not life experiences. She mentioned to the contrary, thus the beef people have. Look, it is a legit argument against her.
But since you assume I am a “right winger”, let me share my personal opinion. I don’t believe that she will any worse, or better, than the judge she is replacing so it is a wash to me. I have to accept that certain judges out there are activist judges and we are stuck with it. But pointing out the errors in them, either way left or right, is the American way. I find it a little funny, and sad, that by pointing out an error in her words gets the immediate lashing out by lefties as a “right winger”. Well, if pointing out an error in what she said in terms of being a judge makes me a “right winger” then sign me up, cause it won’t deter me one bit.

KR:”Skip, putting herself in a group as being superior in judgement to another group is racism, or bigotry, or facism. You can play with the semantics all you want, it doesn’t change it.”
You can redefine words all you want, it just makes you look like you have no argument.

Padma, you keep wanting to make this a Repubican/Democrat issue. It’s not.
************************
Do not mistake my responding to right-wingers turning this into a political issue by twisting her words, calling her a racist, liberal judge, etc. as my making this a political issue.
You all turned this accomplished, qualified Judge into a political football. It started with with the RNC “accidental” release of their talking points yesterday, Limbaugh calling her a racist and just look at the post here.

“It started with with the RNC “accidental” release of their talking points yesterday, Limbaugh calling her a racist and just look at the post here.”
Yes no one can read her words and judge for ourselves. We patiently wait for an RNC email to make up our minds. Yup, you cracked the code alright.

You all turned this accomplished, qualified Judge into a political football. It started with with the RNC “accidental” release of their talking points yesterday, Limbaugh calling her a racist and just look at the post here.
============
You think calling accomplished, qualified judges who are nominated for the Supreme Court “racist” started yesterday?

“What you view as an “error”, most view as an invaluable strength. I have found right-wing extremist are the ones choosing to attack her on her upbringing and comments related to her life experiences as a result of that upbringing.”
NEVER did I attack her upbringing. You have a knack for creating things that don’t exist. I believe it to be an error to say that her upbringing or “life experiences” effect her judgment, when their oath of the bench is to do the exact opposite. That is an error.
“Sotomayor was appointed by Bush 41 and confirmed to the 2nd circuit by some of the most far-right Senators in Congress.”
I was well aware of this and probably points to my criticism not being based on a political view. It’s very simple, your life experiences, my life experiences are a source of knowledge for decision making in my life. I draw on them for that. But a judge is required to disregard life experiences when ruling from the bench, especially if that person identifies that life experience based on race and gender. That is a legitimate criticism and if it was the left levying this criticism for a judge appointed by the right, I would agree with them. You wrongly assume I walk in lockstep with some political thinking. I don’t. This issue is very simple. Her comments do not assist her in presenting her as a good judge for the SC.
I readily admit she has a lot of good things going for her. She has a lot of experience, has shown she can uphold the law. None of which I have issue with. I do have issue with what she said only in context that once a Supreme Court Justice, she is untouchable. It makes me question if she will change and be less disciplined once confirmed. It is only that, a worry. So please stop slopping up the political rhetoric and take the criticism for what it is.

You can also garantee this. Cases brought before the SC that involve race or gender discrimination will have motions for her to obstain based on what she has said. That is unfortunate but it is also reality.

“Discriminating based on superiority in judgment, like discriminating based on any ability, is necessary for qualification”
I don’t think I need to respond to this, your words say more than I need to say.

Judges are required to make many arbitrary decisions….
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh my. My, my, my…..

Oh my. My, my, my…..
Posted by: jennifert7 | May 27, 2009 12:45:59 PM
****************
uh jennifer – do you have any clue what your are posting?
If Judges did not make arbitrary or discretionary decisions – you would not have split court decisions or any decisions for that matter. How can you explain conflicting rulings from the same court if they do not draw on their on judgments and interpretations of the law?

WHere’s a tip: We’re talking about the Supreme Court here.
Posted by: jennifert7 | May 27, 2009 1:22:29 PM
*************************
I’m well aware of that, are you? How do you think the courts, US Supreme Court included, have split decisions on cases where they see and hear all the same evidence? Explain that.
It lies in their discretionary (or arbitrary) power to interpret the law.
“Split decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court attract special attention, particularly when the vote is 5-4. At such times, and especially in the face of controversial cases that are accompanied by sharply worded dissents, the Court is described as “deeply divided.” Not surprisingly, since the Court is the final arbiter of U.S. law, a split decision is often seen as an indication of the justices’ divergent legal and political ideologies. Legal scholars and reporters, who traditionally assess the justices’ political leanings, frequently pay special attention to split decisions when analyzing the Court’s decisions for a given term.”

You can’t tell me that if there were 9 Black Justices in the 1870s, we’d have gotten Jim Crow laws and grandfather clauses to voting rights, right?
Same as if there were 9 women justices, you can’t tell him it would have taken until 1920 for women to be refused the right to vote, right?
In both these hypothetical situations, the laws are exactly the same, just different experiences of the Justices’ identity.

“Same as if there were 9 women justices, you can’t tell him it would have taken until 1920 for women to be refused the right to vote, right?”
Those things happened without Women as judges. There is no doubt that our laws, and our constitution, were not fully realized until the 20th century. It took society to change that, and society is the motivating factor in all of that.
And the more important point is this, those judges back then did not interpret the law for what it says, but instead used their personal experiences. It is the flaw of the courts as a final authority on those matters. This is why we, as a people, have to demand that SCJs are not those people. That they apply the law as it reads, not some lavish extrapolation of the law. Intent of the laws are always clear, it is muddied by lawyers who also become Judges, another flaw in the system.
The problem is we allow, and have allowed the courts to become this way. The constitution is clear, and its intent is clear. All judges have to do is apply it to cases brought before the court. But they don’t, they become representatives of emotions and opinions, they essentially become the most powerful politicians in the country. We should hold them to a higher standard than that.

“There is no doubt that our laws, and our constitution, were not fully realized until the 20th century.”
How incredibly past tense, as if they actually have been realized.

“How incredibly past tense, as if they actually have been realized.”
I believe it has. If anything, its begun to go the other way. I’ve heard you say in the past about Bush how he was “usurping the Constitution” or something of the like. Wouldn’t that imply that it’s been realized and then usurped? I heard the left complain how Bush was taking our rights away, for years, yet, that would also imply that the Constitution was in effect and then taken away. So explain what you mean as it has “not been realized”.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You intentionally left out the part of the sentence before the comma, you know, the part about the ‘well regulated militia’. Sure, if you just describe the last half it’s easy.

“You intentionally left out the part of the sentence before the comma, you know, the part about the ‘well regulated militia’. Sure, if you just describe the last half it’s easy.”
Because that was talking about MILITIA, the second half, AFTER THE COMMA, says PEOPLE in plain and simple language. It does not say the MILITIA has the RIGHT, it says the PEOPLE. That is very clear.

Sheesh. This woman is a racist. I wonder if Obama knew this when she nominated her. I think the Repubs must have set Obama up and he nominated her without knowing that she said statements like this, in order to embarrass him when he has to pull her nomination. What a mess.

“Sheesh. This woman is a racist.”
Try reading the full context of Judge Sotomayor’s remarks as described immediately ABOVE here on this page. Judge Sotomayor’s remarks are balanced and insightful, and while they address the possible role of race (and gender) in decision making, they are certainly not racist.

Just lower your expectations.. no matter who he nominated, they would be biased.. it’s human nature..
Momma said that ‘Life’s not fair’.. she probably knew what she was talking about…

“The primary purpose of the Constitution is to protect people, even from unfair laws.”
Agreed. And it is societies role to dictate government, not government dictate the people, the very basis of the consitution is the governing empowered by the governed, not the other way around.

“yeah, sort of like the struggle for racial equality and women’s rights… ”
How you could ever equate racial equality and womans rights with gay marriage is pathetic and only harms your argument. Society is not forcing gays to not be gay. They are not forcing them into anything. They can live how they wish, they can have civil unions that gives them all the legal entitlements. What they want is a label that society does not want to give them. They don’t have a right to that.

“next you’ll be telling me that society didn’t force ‘black’ americans to be ‘black’…”
Did you even READ what I said? I said to NOT BE gay, so you have to put in to NOT BE BLACK. Even blacks get offended when people equate gay marriage to the civil rights struggle, its not even remotely similar.
“back in your good old days, slaves wanted to be equal and free, … status and label society didn’t want to give them.”
Again, equating black civil rights to gay marriage is foolish and hurts your position being for gay marriage. When are you going to learn?
Answer this, do gays get all of the legal entitlements of marriage through civil unions? Yes or no.
Can gays live together and live how they please (freedom)? Yes or no?
What is the difference between civil unions and marriage, as recognized by the government?
We know the answer to these questions, the only difference is one is called marriage, the other civil union. Why is that not good enough? Is it just to take a jab at society for spite? Explain why the people have to explain themselves, yet the gay movement doesn’t have to explain themselves? So the LABEL is different, who cares? They are treated the same under the law, VERY VERY DIFFFERENT THAN SLAVERY OR WOMEN RIGHTS!

KR
btw: ‘So the LABEL is different, who cares? They are treated the same under the law, ‘
if ‘they’ were treated the same under the law they would have the right to be married the same way heterosexuals are.

“if ‘they’ were treated the same under the law they would have the right to be married the same way heterosexuals are.”
Your impossible.
Explain the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage, and how the law treats them differently? Just answer this simple question.

POTUS and Judge Sotomayor discussion of “empathy” as a desirable quality in a Supreme Court appointment is a complete straw dog. This is an act of raw, boldface political gamesmanship. “Oppose THIS, all you Republicans.” (All that’s missing is “make my day.”)
She points out that Holmes and Cardozo voted on cases upholding sex and race discrimination and that the Court until the 70s ever found for a woman in a gender discrimination case. Well, none of the nine guys on the Court in the 1970s had uteruses and THEY still found a woman’s right to an abortion somewhere in the Constitution. None were “Hispanic” in the 1960s, and yet somehow Ernesto Miranda was overturned by those same guys (8 white & 1 black). How does she explain that?
Next, as Cal Thomas says in his column today, if pulling oneself up from bootstraps biographies could guarantee smooth sailing through the process, Clarence Thomas should have been granted an express ticket to the bench instead of the trip to hell & back that was his confirmation hearing.
If one must have a physical “representative” on the Court in order to somehow come nearer to “justice,” then what about a second generation descendent of coal-mining, deer-hunting, Eastern European Slavs? Who represents me?