Yeah, I did read it. Also read the New Haven firefighter article that Taylor wrote as well.

To me this was the most interesting sentence from the first article (which you also highlighted), just because I have no idea what I think about it:

I also share Sotomayor's view that presidents should seek more ethnic and gender diversity on the bench, so that members of historically excluded groups can see people like themselves in important positions and because collegial bodies tend to act more wisely when informed by a diversity of experiences.

I'm strongly against preferences based on race, don't get me started on quotas, I'm not all that enthused by the argument that justices need to have lived the experiences in order to successfully rule on the cases, but I am sympathetic to the idea that "members of historically excluded groups can see people like themselves in important positions" is a good thing. I guess at the end of the day, there are supposed to be nine justices on the Supreme Court, and I don't think it is like there are 9 lawyers who stand out clearly from the hundreds of appeals court judges, top notch law professors and others who would be under consideration for appointment. And among the dozens who stand out and could ably serve in the capacity, I'm sure there are African Americans, Hispanics, women. I imagine looking at Sotomayer's resume she's in that group. So while I don't really like the idea of appointing her because of her life experiences or whatever the hell she said in that abortion of a quote I had up above, the idea that a poor Hispanic girl from the Bronx can make it in America all the way up to the Supreme Court is pretty cool.

Like I said I have no idea what I think about this.

I'm annoyed at reading what she said for 2 reasons. One, that she may believe that certain races and backgrounds make one more qualified to make sound judgments. I don't agree with this version of merit, which is how I interpret her comments, that some people "deserve" certain positions because they have had a diverse background. This bothers me because Constitutional issues concern interpreting the law within a framework of past precedent and legal history. The personal "feelings" of justice should have a minimal role. However, it's obvious that personal values and principles have a strong impact on SC findings. It's unavoidable. But I am very suspicious of an appointee who prides herself on her superior judgment, because it seems as though such pride may produce a willingness go beyond precedents. The Supreme Court should not aim, in my opinion, to make sure all cases are "fair" and just to all parties. It's role is to make sure the body of laws is consistent with the ideals and rules of Constitutional law. The rule of law is tantamount, and personal judgments should be suppressed as much as possible in such a role. And someone who prides themselves on superior judgment is less likely to suppress those judgments about "right and wrong."

The second reason I cringed at the reading of her quotations concerns the general state of race relations in this country. Now, it is politically correct and popular to support diversity, minority culture, and those who are different. But it's also politically unpopular for a white male to celebrate those same things in himself. It's a very mild frustration indeed, but it's magnified every time a read a quote like that. A white person would be reviled, as Taylor articulated in that article, if he said: "I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" -- and had proceeded to speak of "inherent physiological or cultural differences." And yet, I'm sure the people at that diversity conference were nodding their heads as Sotomayor said those very same things about her own race and traditions. The hypocrisy is maddening. The decline in the percentage of black Americans in the MLB is cause for action, yet the rise in the percentage of black Americans in the NBA (with a corresponding fall in white NBA-ers) is hardly noteworthy, let alone deserving of action.

There's no way, especially given the kinds of cases the Supreme Court takes, that experience doesn't matter and isn't relevant. The law is not an empty formula, and attempts to devise such formulas rarely works. Legislators simply cannot anticipate every circumstance that may emerge, which is why judgment needs to be reached. And there are human being involved in these cases, and human lives matter more than abstract empty formulas. I'm not saying empathy should be decisive in such cases, but there's a long and respectable (and more or less conservative tradition with roots in Hume and Burke) that strongly argues that judgment is a sentiment.

I think the reason the New Haven decision rankles so many people--including me, though I haven't looked at it in so much detail that I'd feel particularly confident expressing a strong opinion--is because it hints at a preference beyond "if all else is equal, we will nod toward greater diversity/inclusiveness/righting past wrongs." My understanding is that Sotomayor cast a vote with the majority but wasn't anything like a crusader on the question.

jerseyhoya wrote:I guess at the end of the day, there are supposed to be nine justices on the Supreme Court, and I don't think it is like there are 9 lawyers who stand out clearly from the hundreds of appeals court judges, top notch law professors and others who would be under consideration for appointment. And among the dozens who stand out and could ably serve in the capacity, I'm sure there are African Americans, Hispanics, women. I imagine looking at Sotomayer's resume she's in that group.

Right. I read something recently, by I think Ezra Klein, that sort of made this point in a different way: it's never the case that the president tries to pick the single most qualified person to serve on the Court, and even were it possible to identify that person, the president probably wouldn't go that route. Beyond a certain standard of competence, inevitably it's going to be a political/philosophical choice.

This is why, for instance, the prospect of Justice Miers bugged the hell out of me, while the idea of Justice Alito (Phillies love aside) didn't, even given that he was likely a much more committed conservative. My sense was he deserved to be there, and as McCain evidently said today in reference to Sotomayor, "elections have consequences."

Werthless wrote:I'm annoyed at reading what she said for 2 reasons. One, that she may believe that certain races and backgrounds make one more qualified to make sound judgments. I don't agree with this version of merit, which is how I interpret her comments, that some people "deserve" certain positions because they have had a diverse background.

So you're strongly disagreeing with a possible interpretation of a position that Sotomayor may or may not actually hold.

To be fair, I find it an objectionable view as well. I just don't think it's an accurate characterization of her mindset. But if there's more stuff out there suggesting that it is, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:I'm annoyed at reading what she said for 2 reasons. One, that she may believe that certain races and backgrounds make one more qualified to make sound judgments. I don't agree with this version of merit, which is how I interpret her comments, that some people "deserve" certain positions because they have had a diverse background.

So you're strongly disagreeing with a possible interpretation of a position that Sotomayor may or may not actually hold.

To be fair, I find it an objectionable view as well. I just don't think it's an accurate characterization of her mindset. But if there's more stuff out there suggesting that it is, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

Haha, yeah. This was a visceral reaction to the quotation that I read, and I was withholding a categorical statement of Sotomayer until I am certain of what she believes.

Something I didn't learn in government class in h.s.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q[/youtube]

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I keep thinking about that "Why Democrats can't govern" piece Paul pointed out a couple months back. Obama really has more trouble with his former Senate colleagues than any other group. Part of that is probably Reid's weakness as a leader,...

The Senate (and House Dems) don't owe him anything, either. It's not like they rode in on his coat-tails, they got their majority power without him. I think the folks who pointed out that Democrats would be a bigger problem for Obama than Republicans were right.

In terms of the senate, they may recognize him as one of their fraternity, but I really really doubt he's thought of as a capital F "Former Senator", even in his own party.

This logic really worked well for Congressional Dems during the Carter administration.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:I'm annoyed at reading what she said for 2 reasons. One, that she may believe that certain races and backgrounds make one more qualified to make sound judgments. I don't agree with this version of merit, which is how I interpret her comments, that some people "deserve" certain positions because they have had a diverse background.

So you're strongly disagreeing with a possible interpretation of a position that Sotomayor may or may not actually hold.

To be fair, I find it an objectionable view as well. I just don't think it's an accurate characterization of her mindset. But if there's more stuff out there suggesting that it is, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

Haha, yeah. This was a visceral reaction to the quotation that I read, and I was withholding a categorical statement of Sotomayer until I am certain of what she believes.

Something I didn't learn in government class in h.s.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch.v=OfC99LrrM2Q[/youtube]

I'd read that quote but hadn't seen the clip. I think it's pretty clear--in fact she says as much--that this is offered as an observation, not a normative point; insomuch as she's saying that the interpretations of statutes made by appellate judges are determinative, I'm not even sure what is controversial.

So this would make 6 roman catholics on the court. Anyone bothered by that?

I get the impression she's about as Catholic as I am.

Edit: Which is to say not really much at all/by birth/baptism

Does it bother you that every president has been Christian?

dajafi wrote:I'd read that quote but hadn't seen the clip. I think it's pretty clear--in fact she says as much--that this is offered as an observation, not a normative point; insomuch as she's saying that the interpretations of statutes made by appellate judges are determinative, I'm not even sure what is controversial.

I agree. I just thought it was amusing and inflammatory. Although it doesn't bother me, in context.

Does it bother you that every president has been a Free Mason?

Werthless wrote:I'm annoyed at reading what she said for 2 reasons. .

You must love Roberts observatiom that the contending attorneys serve mainly as "backboards" for the Soops' jousts in many if not most cases they hear. No tone of assumed superiority in that remark.

Unless he was making a racial pun with backboards (are they usually white?), I don't have a problem with it. The SCOTUS judges have very little time for each case's oral arguments, as I understand it, so they pepper the lawyers with questions and cut them off when they have their answer. Why would I be bothered by it?

Barry Jive wrote:Does it bother you that every president has been Christian?

Yes.


But I wasn't saying it bothered me. I was wondering if it bothered anyone else or if anyone thought it was odd.

Monkeyboy wrote:So this would make 6 roman catholics on the court. Anyone bothered by that?

Probably a joke to be made about avoiding literalism....

Monkeyboy wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:Does it bother you that every president has been Christian?

Yes.


But I wasn't saying it bothered me. I was wondering if it bothered anyone else or if anyone thought it was odd.

Yeah, I'd prefer that there were a bit more diversity in our government, but I don't think it matters much since there are presidents and justices whose policy and interpretation I've liked and whose policy and interpretation I haven't liked.

It is very odd to see so many Catholics since they're not nearly as prominent in the other branches. But I can tell you from experience that no one judges quite like a Catholic.

Werthless wrote:Unless he was making a racial pun with backboards (are they usually white?), I don't have a problem with it. The SCOTUS judges have very little time for each case's oral arguments, as I understand it, so they pepper the lawyers with questions and cut them off when they have their answer. Why would I be bothered by it?

I think in 95% of the cases, the Justices have made up their minds by the time the oral arguments are even made, just based on the briefs and their (clerks') research. This was true when I was clerking (for a non-federal intermediate appellate court, so not even close to the US Supreme Court).

The study above might even be a result of majority Justices asking more questions to find more support against the weaker position or the minority to find more support that they can use in a dissent. That's my personal experience, again, in a different, much lower court.

Barry Jive wrote:Does it bother you that every president has been Christian?

Define "Christian." I can think of at least one US president who was pretty clearly a Deist, but not a practicing Christian in the usual sense of the word. Of course, he was a rather obscure president...