It looks like she is cruising for confirmation with not much more than the usual little bumps and curves that the opposition usually throws at at nominees to drum up fundraising. Most of the criticism focuses on her famous "Wise Latina Woman" remark. What about the following quote that has received much less attention?
"But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, 'You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.' . . . When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."
Should this not give us pause about her ability to put aside her feelings and judge based on the law? Is she going to favor certain groups in cases that come before the Supreme Court? Can we allow her to be confirmed?
Okay, you can bring the blood pressure back down. Sotomayor did not really say that. That was said by Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearings. You can find it on liberal blog sites using it to defend Sotomayor and conservative sites where they defend Alito citing his other statements about how he would be a fair judge, similar to those made by Sotomayor (and I read several conservative blog posts on this to see if they could convince me it was as different as they claimed). We are supposed to believe Alito but be suspect of Sotomayor. Alito ruled in the famous New Jersey firefighters case in which the Supreme Court overturned a case Sotomayor voted the other way on the appeals court...could his Italian American background have influenced his vote since the firefighters were predominantly Italian American? People ask about how Sotomayor's race influenced her vote, so it seems that questioning Alito's vote is no worse than questioning her vote.
My point isn't that Sotomayor is all good or that Alito is all evil. In this respect, they are closer to each other than either conservatives or liberals would care to admit. The differences in the way the MSM have handled each case is striking...the assumption that a white male would never be influenced by his background versus the assumption that a Hispanic woman can't resist the influence of her background.
There is a good chance we are not finished with this issue. If Obama gets to nominate another Supreme Court justice, we could go through this again. And I will again probably be shaking my head at the media coverage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Hale,
I was more concerned over how many cases she had overturned than the wise latina remark. This justice dosent scare me, as she replaces what is to me basically a liberal justice. It's the next one that scares me.
Stu, in all her years on the bench, she had four cases overturned by the Supreme Court out of hundreds (the White House said 380) giving her a reversal rate of about 1%. Alito had two overturned and he spent much less time on the bench so he had a smaller number to review.
As for the next justice, well, conservatives have had the Supreme Court for a while, the pendulum swings, might be our turn for a little while then I will get scared years from now when we have a conservative president swing it back to your way.
The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in seven instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation. In one case, the Supreme Court vacated a judgment Judge Sotomayor made and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit in which the Second Circuit issued a reversal on its original ruling. I dont want to fight Hale I just want to get the facts right. I hope she stays true to her word and does not legislate from the bench like some district and appellate judges do. I think she will do fine. She had principles even though I disagree with some of her stances.
Ah, we're not fighting yet Stu! Just a good little discussion.
And part is my bad. I was looking at Politifact.com's story. They did it before the Ricci case. That gets me to five (my bad for not catching that). Politifact didn't count the vacated judgement (I can see where some would argue it should be counted and others might not). Not sure which case you are counting that Politifact didn't but we aren't that far off.
"You know, I actually agree that your judicial record strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream. What is creating this cognitive dissonance for many of us is that you appear to be a different person, almost, in your speeches and in some of the comments that you've made." --Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX, to Judge Sotomayor, July 16.
And isn't that what Republicans say they want? Judges who decide cases upon the facts at hand, disregarding their personal beliefs?
Post a Comment