Sotomayor is Biased State, National, International, posted by Pat, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 13, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I thought it was strange that some politician expressed reservations that Sotomayor would be 'biased' as a Supreme Court Judge. Name one Supreme Court Judge in the history of the Supreme Court that isn't or hasn't been biased. Does anyone still believe in the myth of neutrality? Until we have computer software instead of humans on the bench, we're going to have biased judges.
Posted by Ken in South Pleasanton, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 8:22 am
And of course, the software vendor will be chosen by whoever the current administration is, and that will be totally unbiased. Good idea...Microsoft Judgement Day version 4.0. Sotomayor should be scrutinized and questioned in the same manner that Bush-era nominees were scrutinized and questioned.
Posted by Michele, a resident of the Las Positas neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 8:35 am
Ken: Sotomayor should be scrutinized and questioned in the same manner that ALL previous nominees were scrutinzed and questioned (not just Bush-era). And she has been. I listened yesterday & I'm listening now. She's getting plenty of scrutiny. The difference is they're constantly bringing up her ethnic background as a negative and that isn't generally an issue because 98% of the other judges have been white males/females.
Posted by Gracie J., a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 9:00 am
Sotomayor has three problems:
1) - Her statements and decisions have shown she is racially biased, and some give pause that she is a racist. The one about a female Hispanic being able to render a better decision than a White male was over the top. If the White male had made a similar statement, his career would be over.
2) - She has had an inordinate number of decisions she made on the Appeals Court overturned by the Supreme Court, mostly for not following the law.
3) - She has said that every move of her career, starting with her getting into college, has been due to affirmative action. That is not the level of talent we need on the Supreme Court.
4) - As she has said, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court are where policy is made (hat's right out of the left-wing loon manifesto)
The difference in the way she is being treated and the way Alberto Gonzalez was treated is striking and shameful. Gonzalez problem was that he was male and he was a conservative. Sotomayor is Hispanic female, and most importantly, a left-wing loon that will, as she says, "set policy" from the bench.
Posted by Michele, a resident of the Las Positas neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 10:03 am
Gracie: WHERE are you getting your "facts"??
1. Her statement was not over the top, but as usual, taken out of context. Yes, she did say that, but before claiming it to be over the top, please read the entire text. No, I will not copy & paste it here.
2. What is "an inordinate number of decisions she made on the Appeals Court overturned by the Supreme Court, mostly for not following the law." I'm sorry, but now you are simply lying & pulling this out of a hat. Out of over 200 cases she's decided, all of 3 have been overturned. So again I ask, what is an "inordinate number"???
3. No where in any of her speeches or statements has she said that "every move of her carreer, including college..." has been because of Affirmative Action. Please, please, please, provide that speech for me. She has said Affirmative Action has had a place, but NEVER said she's been moved up and given opportunities BECAUSE of it.
4. Doesn't justify a comment.
Gonzales fired attorneys because they no longer agreed with the Bush Administration, and when questioned by Congress either lied or could not justify his actions.
You are sorely mistaken on all "points" you've listed. You and anyone who agrees with all you've stated apparently can't read & listen to too much Rush & Savage. Good luck to all of you.
Posted by Staying Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 10:25 am
Just wanted to provide some additional repudiation of the alleged "facts" posted above to show Sotomayor's three or four "problems:"
1.I'd like to provide the following link clarifying how Sotomayor's comment referenced in Gracie's point number one was not only taken out of context, but was also purposely skewed by Fox (I know, that's a shock...)
Posted by Ken in South Pleasanton, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 10:33 am
Reply to Michele...
Wasn't Sotomayor the one who started the whole ethnic thing with her statement about a Latina with her background being wiser than a white male? I agree that the court and the inquisitioners should be color blind. But don't criticize the inquisitioners because they are questioning Sotomayor about a statment she made that introduced the whole ethnic thing. Seems to me that one previous nominee was criticized as not being hispanic enough, and even Condoleza Rice was criticized as not being black enough. Let's get over this whole ethnic thing and start acting like American Citizens, regardless of color, creed, or sexual orientation. If Sotomayor's past statements show her to be biased and puts into question her ability to uphold the constitution in a non-revisionist way, she should not be approved. If shown otherwise, she should be approved. This is regardless of whether she it black, white, hispanic, male, female, etc.
Posted by Michele, a resident of the Las Positas neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 11:18 am
Steve P: A "racist"?? Are you kidding? I won't get into arguments, but calling her a racist is very extreme and no, she's not a racists. Thank you to Stay Cool for providing the link. I hope Steve P & Gracie will read it and educate themselves, just a little bit. I would also like to know what "similar statemens" she's made on numerous occasions. Again, accusations based on assumptions. And what you said about her being enabled by like-minded racists is very extreme. I'm assuming you bringing up "reverse-racism" or something because your accusation has no merit & makes no sense.
Ken: as Stay cool said, please read the link. No, Sotomayor didn't start the whole "ethnic" thing. But when your background is being brought up, a response is justified. Specifically when: specifically "discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases". Wouldn't you agree? She didn't pull her statement out of a hat and say, "I think I'll say this today." In addition, lets face reality. I am a Latina. If asked, I do say that I'm American because I was born, raised here and yes, I'm American. But what do you think people say to me when I say I'm American and they see my BROWN skin? They say, "Yes, but where are you from." No, they aren't asking if I'm from Pleasanton. The racial divide is there. I agree, lets face it and move on. However, it's much easier said than done. I know because I live it. And I'm happy & very proud in and of my own skin. That does NOT however, make ME a racist. Why should it make her? That in fact, makes me American. And I'm proud to be an American, Latina America, whatever you want to call me.
Posted by Michele, a resident of the Las Positas neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I would love to be just called a person. Thank you! I would love to be just called an American. I'm simply stating that it's not always that simple, and not everyone thinks that way, especially when you are face to face with someone who doesn't just see me or someone like me as just that - a person. I like your thinking, I understand what you're saying, and I agree with what you're saying. Completely! :-)
Posted by Senior Resident, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I watched the TV coverage of Sotomayor's remarks and wanted to gag. She completely denied her whole track record. Some have reported that her grades in school didn't justify her awards (no I'm not going to get into a stupid "where did you get your facts" argument.) The fact that she is a Latina is completely irrelevant. Her bias has been well documented in cases such as the one where she supported throwing out the tests where black firefighters flunked but but white firefighters passed. Rather than let the qualified be promoted, she thought no one should be. This is not an isolated example. I also disagree with her stupid comment that the court should pay attention to foreign law. Foreign policy isn't the business of the Supreme Court. Their job is to judge whether a law squares with the constitution, not whether it wins friends in foreign countries.
Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 3:47 pm Parent of Two is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Are you saying that Sotomayor is the BEST and MOST QUALIFIED candidate for the Supreme Court? Better than any white male judge? More qualified than any white male judge? If she isn't more qualified in terms of years on the bench, judicial review, etc., then why is she even the candidate?
Because the SCOTUS is a bad place to start lowering the bar in order to meet racial quotas or affirmative action.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I don't think there is *one* best or most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. You actually said that she should be more qualified than any white male judge in terms of years on the bench, judicial review, etc.? Wow. So you are actually using white males as the standard. You are so entrenched in your concept of "qualifications" that you don't even see the way the system of privelege would be perpetuated.
She is the candidate because not only does she bring a strong education, a wealth of judicial experience, and proven understanding of the law, but also a life experience that can contribute to rounding out the analysis provided by the court. ALL of these things are important in selecting a candidate.
Judge Sotomayor does not represent a "lowering of the bar."
Posted by here we go again, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Read the facts, don't watch so much FUAX News. Alito said the same thing about his immigrant parents and empathy, and Bush said that Thomas would bring empathy to the court. If you look at her record, she is more conservative than most liberals would like, especially on economics and business related issues. She is fit to serve, and that is all she needs to be under the Constitution.
Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 4:33 pm Parent of Two is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Stay Cool, congratulations on either misinterpreting or deliberately misstating what I said.
My point was that the SCOTUS should get the BEST, MOST QUALIFIED judge. Not because they're white or not white, not because they're male or female, but because they're the BEST at interpreting the law without bias.
And I've ripped conservatives in the past (see Miers, Harriet) for their treatment of SCOTUS candidates. But Sotomayor is clearly NOT unbiased, her self-characterizations show that she is an activist judge, her reviewed decisions show that she misinterprets laws. The fact is that she isn't even a good judge, and not remotely close to being the best.
Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I don't think your congratulations are sincere.
However, I'm glad that I apparently misunderstood what you said("Better than any white male judge? More qualified than any white male judge? If she isn't more qualified in terms of years on the bench, judicial review, etc., then why is she even the candidate?"),
because if you really meant what you had written, that would be very scary (as I pointed out).
"My point was that the SCOTUS should get the BEST, MOST QUALIFIED judge. Not because they're white or not white, not because they're male or female, but because they're the BEST at interpreting the law without bias." How can there be one best, most qualified judge? There are a number of factors involved when selecting a candidate. Even if interpreting the law without bias is your ONLY requirement, I would encourage you to review Sotomayor's record before implying she cannot do so.
"But Sotomayor is clearly NOT unbiased, her self-characterizations show that she is an activist judge, her reviewed decisions show that she misinterprets laws." I would love to see some information to back up your accusations. I actually posted two links when I first posted on this thread that help to clear up some of the misconceptions regarding her self-characterizations, if you care to review them.
"The fact is that she isn't even a good judge, and not remotely close to being the best." You must know a lot about constitutional law, and the current pool of potential candidates, to make such statements. I would be interested to know what in your background leads you to be so confident in your assertions.
Posted by Let's Have a New Bias, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Anyone on the bench is going to be influenced by their personal life history. They are all biased. I'm for letting someone with a new bias in. I'd like to mix it up. I'm white by the way. I agree with the poster who said Sotomayer is denying her whole track record. They ALL do that, they ALL say whatever they have to say to get in. Is this the first Supreme Court interview process you've observed? It sounds like it, because otherwise it would be too familiar to you to bother gagging over.
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Jul 14, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Correction: ...root for...an experienced Judge...
I am so excited...perhaps all the jealous bugs will find some peace in personal conflict (s)...hahahahahahahahahahahha...a WISE LATINA...I LOVE THE SOUND OF WISE LATINA...YUP, SONIA SOTOMAYOR IS A WISE LATINA! VIVA!