Sotomayor is a racist

[nerd137 0]

Quote

Because the law shouldn't be analyzed through any particular lens. The law is the law regardless of your life experiences.

Oh yeah. The law is TOTALLY black and white with no room for interpretation. Right.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Now back on topic. Sotomayor is on record as saying:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

OK, she said this one thing that might be racist. Reading it in context, I'm not sure exactly what she meant, so I'm not sure whether it is racist or not. But let's just assume that it is.

So now we've got one piece of evidence to back up the title of this thread. What else have we got?

[wmw999 2,589]

Actually, I think we've got someone who is careless in what she says and brilliant in what she does. Whether what she says really colors what she does has to be verified by looking at her rulings as judge.

I rather doubt she's a racist. Just as I rather doubt that all of the people whining about the poor put-upon white man really, really think that their position in society is inferior. Just as I rather doubt that some SC folks really see things as being as entirely black and white and they paint it in here.

Based on what she says (including the other offhand comment about judicial activism that's received publicity) I'm concerned that she might be more activist. I haven't invested enough time in looking at her track record in actually doing things to know if that concern is borne out in actions.

The law is black and white. The problem is that humans and the situations they get themselves into aren't, and the overlay isn't always pretty.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Now back on topic. Sotomayor is on record as saying:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

OK, she said this one thing that might be racist. Reading it in context, I'm not sure exactly what she meant, so I'm not sure whether it is racist or not. But let's just assume that it is.

So now we've got one piece of evidence to back up the title of this thread. What else have we got?

That comment stands on it's own. I'm not sure what context it could have been in that wouldn't have been racist. But since you ask, she made the comment in a speech at a symposium called “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.” The speech was regarding how issues of gender and race can be addressed by judges.

As for other evidence of her racism, I suggest you read about her decision in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she threw out a promotions exam of firefighters when no blacks scored high enough to be promoted - even though the exam had already been modified to be "minority friendly".

This case is now on the docket at the Supreme Court and - according to every legal scholar I've read from - it will likely get overturned because she wrongfully used race as the basis for her decision.

Off topic, but important as it relates to her past decisions, is the fact that the Supreme Court has overturned her decisions in 60% of her cases brought before it. Not a very good track record of making constitutionally sound decisions for someone nominated for a seat on the high court.

By the way, she is also a "proud member" of La Raza. Do some research and you'll find strong ties between La Raza and numerous anti-white, anti-American organizations. "La Raza", after all, means "THE Race". Sounds pretty racist to me.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Off topic, but important as it relates to her past decisions, is the fact that the Supreme Court has overturned her decisions in 60% of her cases brought before it. Not a very good track record of making constitutionally sound decisions for someone nominated for a seat on the high court.

The SC doesn't hear cases it doesn't have a possible interest in changing. So that 60% needs to be measured against peers, not our notion of what a proper percentage should be.

[BikerBabe 0]

I would also be curious to know the division of the SC in those 60% of overturned cases. A lot of 5-4 decisions wouldn't surprise me, given the current ideological make-up of the USSC...

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Shotgun 1]

Thanks, Chuck. Five pages into the thread, and finally someone is explaining _why_ he thinks she is a racist (other than that one quote, which I think is open to interpretation).

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

As for other evidence of her racism, I suggest you read about her decision in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she threw out a promotions exam of firefighters when no blacks scored high enough to be promoted - even though the exam had already been modified to be "minority friendly".

This case is now on the docket at the Supreme Court and - according to every legal scholar I've read from - it will likely get overturned because she wrongfully used race as the basis for her decision.

Maybe you should read some more about the case. She didn't throw out the result of the promotions exam. The New Haven Fire Dept. threw them out because they were afraid of being sued based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The question before the three judge panel was whether or not New Haven had to comply with the Federal Statute. And while Ricci's story was very sad and had the court's sympathy, they ruled 3-0 that New Haven acted appropriately based on its obligation to protect itself from lawsuits pertaining title VII.
So, in essence, you have provided an example of a judge NOT legislating from the bench and not allowing personal feelings to influence her decision. She upheld the letter of the law despite her empathy. Isn't that the sort of Judge you'd like to see on the SC?


Link to the decision

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

By the way, she is also a "proud member" of La Raza. Do some research and you'll find strong ties between La Raza and numerous anti-white, anti-American organizations. "La Raza", after all, means "THE Race". Sounds pretty racist to me.

When I was in college, our campus chapter of La Raza made up shirts with a picture of the current governor of the state (a guy named Pete Wilson) viewed through a rifle scope reticle, with his head in the crosshairs and the caption "Enemy of the Race" (it was actually in Spanish, not English).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

As for other evidence of her racism, I suggest you read about her decision in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she threw out a promotions exam of firefighters when no blacks scored high enough to be promoted - even though the exam had already been modified to be "minority friendly".

This case is now on the docket at the Supreme Court and - according to every legal scholar I've read from - it will likely get overturned because she wrongfully used race as the basis for her decision.

Maybe you should read some more about the case. She didn't throw out the result of the promotions exam. The New Haven Fire Dept. threw them out because they were afraid of being sued based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The question before the three judge panel was whether or not New Haven had to comply with the Federal Statute. And while Ricci's story was very sad and had the court's sympathy, they ruled 3-0 that New Haven acted appropriately based on its obligation to protect itself from lawsuits pertaining title VII.
So, in essence, you have provided an example of a judge NOT legislating from the bench and not allowing personal feelings to influence her decision. She upheld the letter of the law despite her empathy. Isn't that the sort of Judge you'd like to see on the SC?


Link to the decision

I am fully aware of the case as it was presented. I was too simplistic in my post for the sake of brevity - my bad. Nonetheless, the decision on the part of the city to throw out the tests was constitutionally wrong and her decision to let it stand was equally wrong.

I didn't say she legislated from the bench. I believe she simply ruled unconstitutionally. The threat of a lawsuit is not a valid reason to discriminate against the firefighters who passed that test, and I would be willing to wager that the Supreme Court will agree with me.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

By the way, she is also a "proud member" of La Raza. Do some research and you'll find strong ties between La Raza and numerous anti-white, anti-American organizations. "La Raza", after all, means "THE Race". Sounds pretty racist to me.

When I was in college, our campus chapter of La Raza made up shirts with a picture of the current governor of the state (a guy named Pete Wilson) viewed through a rifle scope reticle, with his head in the crosshairs and the caption "Enemy of the Race" (it was actually in Spanish, not English).

One fine example among many. When will people wake up, eh?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Off topic, but important as it relates to her past decisions, is the fact that the Supreme Court has overturned her decisions in 60% of her cases brought before it. Not a very good track record of making constitutionally sound decisions for someone nominated for a seat on the high court.

The SC doesn't hear cases it doesn't have a possible interest in changing. So that 60% needs to be measured against peers, not our notion of what a proper percentage should be.

If you'd like to check her stats against her peers, I think you will find 60% is quite high.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I don't know about racist but I do not like this.....

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718

Why?

Isn’t that an example of States rights?
States getting to decide for themselves what laws they want, and what they deem reasonable laws?

advocate>


From the CNSNews.com article:

“The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

“The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”

A number of States have tried, thus far with mixed results, to restrict incorporation of the Ninth Amendment, particularly w/r/t a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body. Lots of folks have argued that States should be able to limit that right. I don’t want to have *any* of the basic Constitutional rights limited. Any. Don’t trade one for another.



A little more on the case, Maloney v. Cuomo, than was written about in the CNSNews.com article.

One summary and analysis:

“Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion [i.e., group opinion, not any single individual’s opinion - nerdgirl] in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year [Fall 2009 - nerdgirl]. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was ‘settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose’ on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.’ [I don’t know Plesser v Illinois … may be an interesting example of expansion of 2nd amendment rights from what the SCOTUS decided in 1886 to 2008 Heller decision … & that’s not a bad thing, imo – nerdgirl] And while acknowledging the possibility that ‘Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,’ the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it ‘directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’ Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.”

That seems to suggest that the appellate decision chose *not* to make new policy or legislate from the bench. Rather they chose to look to the settled law at the time, acknowledging that the case may need to go to the SCOTUS to reconcile Presser v. Illinois, with District of Columbia v. Heller. As a non-lawyer, that sounds pretty reasonable. The per curium, of which Judge Sotomayor was a part, position was anti-activist.


Another summary (written, at times, in a biting acerbic tone … a long-lost Speakers Corner cousin, eh? ):

“Sotomayor sat on a 2nd Circuit panel that issued a ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo that touched on a number of sensitive issues. Because it’s a per curiam opinion (which is sort of like a group project) it’s unclear how much of it can be attributed to Sotomayor.

“Mr. Maloney was Long Island resident with a dark secret: he owned a set of nunchucks. And, apparently in fit of anti-ninja zeal, New York had outlawed nunchucks. Mr. Maloney was arrested and charged with possession of nunchucks. The nunchucks were destroyed. (I don’t know why they were destroyed—but I guessing they got tired of the new guys on the squad trying to play Ninja Turtles and hurting themselves.)

“It didn’t end there. Mr. Maloney had another dark secret: he was a lawyer. [he may have an even darker secret … see below – nerdgirl] A crime-fighting, nunchuck toting lawyer. Or, maybe he just owned a pair of nunchucks. I don’t know. The point is, he sued, claiming that New Yorks nunchucks ban violated his second amendment right to bear arms.

“This is a tough case for the conservatives—because it involves three cherished conservative principles. The right to bear arms, federalism, and nunchucks. On one hand, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. On the other hand, an 1886 case clearly stated that this applied only to Federal actions. Of course, a lot has changed since 1886—particularly when it comes to incorporating the 14th amendment against the states. So there’s some wiggle room in there if you want it.
“The judges determined that they were bound by the 1886 ruling that explicitly said the 2nd amendment did not apply to the states unless the Supreme Court revisited the issue. Since a ninth circuit case came to an opposite conclusion, this case or one similar to it is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Maloney’s site on the court battle, which interestingly is hosted by NYU, with which he is affiliated in an unspecified way – my guess is he’s working on a PhD in law, i.e., his darker secret – he’s an academic.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

When I was in college, our campus chapter of La Raza made up shirts with a picture of the current governor of the state (a guy named Pete Wilson) viewed through a rifle scope reticle, with his head in the crosshairs and the caption "Enemy of the Race" (it was actually in Spanish, not English).

When I was in college, Robbie Conal did a poster of then-Gov Pete Wilson with mickey mouse ears.

La Raza at my undergrad did volunteer work representing low-wage workers on claims for unpaid wages and unsafe working conditions. They represented not only Latin American and Mexican but also Asians, blacks, and lower class whites. They were involved in a successful claims against a number of downtown LA sweatshops in the garment district, including a couple of wrongful death suits for which the owners were found liable.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Off topic, but important as it relates to her past decisions, is the fact that the Supreme Court has overturned her decisions in 60% of her cases brought before it. Not a very good track record of making constitutionally sound decisions for someone nominated for a seat on the high court.

The SC doesn't hear cases it doesn't have a possible interest in changing. So that 60% needs to be measured against peers, not our notion of what a proper percentage should be.

If you'd like to check her stats against her peers, I think you will find 60% is quite high.

Actually she's below the average
From Factcheck.org:

In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term.

[TomAiello 26]

Well, in fairness, they viewed their Pete Wilson crosshairs shirt as representing the oppressed. This was at a time when UC fees were climbing for the first time in years, and La Raza felt this was an attempt by the governor to keep them down.

You should have seen their Ward Connerly shirts. They likened him to a popular Nabisco product in a rather graphic and tasteless fashion.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Off topic, but important as it relates to her past decisions, is the fact that the Supreme Court has overturned her decisions in 60% of her cases brought before it. Not a very good track record of making constitutionally sound decisions for someone nominated for a seat on the high court.

The SC doesn't hear cases it doesn't have a possible interest in changing. So that 60% needs to be measured against peers, not our notion of what a proper percentage should be.

If you'd like to check her stats against her peers, I think you will find 60% is quite high.

Actually she's below the average
From Factcheck.org:

In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term.

The question wasn't how many of her cases have been overturned relative to the courts overall percentage. The question posed was how many of her cases have been overturned vs her peers. Those are two entirely different questions.

By the way, factcheck.org has lost a lot of credibility with real fact checkers due to their ongoing liberal slant on statistics. Using their "facts" doesn't make for a good argument. Don't be fooled by the domain name...unless you just like using stats that say what you want them to without respect to reality.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

When I was in college, our campus chapter of La Raza made up shirts with a picture of the current governor of the state (a guy named Pete Wilson) viewed through a rifle scope reticle, with his head in the crosshairs and the caption "Enemy of the Race" (it was actually in Spanish, not English).

When I was in college, Robbie Conal did a poster of then-Gov Pete Wilson with mickey mouse ears.

La Raza at my undergrad did volunteer work representing low-wage workers on claims for unpaid wages and unsafe working conditions. They represented not only Latin American and Mexican but also Asians, blacks, and lower class whites. They were involved in a successful claims against a number of downtown LA sweatshops in the garment district, including a couple of wrongful death suits for which the owners were found liable.

/Marg

Recruiting efforts under the guise of community volunteering for the underclass is one of La Raza's tactics. "Gee, how could these guys be bad? Look at l the good they do!".

Enron gave tens of millions of dollars to charities around the world. Does that excuse their criminal activity? Sure La Raza does things to "help" the community - or at least the poor within the community. That doesn't excuse - only mask - their real underlying goals.

Read up on La Raza and its offshoot, MEChA, in places other than their own propaganda laden websites. You will be surprised what kind of things these folks are into. Maybe.....just maybe.....you'll come away with the other side of their story.

But then again, maybe you won't.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The question wasn't how many of her cases have been overturned relative to the courts overall percentage. The question posed was how many of her cases have been overturned vs her peers. Those are two entirely different questions.

They are? Aren't her peers the ones who on whom that average is based?
Now admittedly, averages can be deceiving. If she had only had one case reviewed by the SC, and it was reversed, then she'd have a 100% SC reversal score. I think that the 1.3% average based on her total number of cases would be a better indicator.

[Shotgun 1]

You should see the shirts that La Raza members are wearing now! (pic attached)

[Remster 30]

Quote

You should see the shirts that La Raza members are wearing now! (pic attached)

Remster

[wmw999 2,589]

You just don't like that picture because you think you look better in yours

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

[I don’t know Plesser v Illinois … may be an interesting example of expansion of 2nd amendment rights from what the SCOTUS decided in 1886 to 2008 Heller decision … & that’s not a bad thing, imo – nerdgirl] And while acknowledging the possibility that ‘Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,’ the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it ‘directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’

You brought up "incorporation," which is important. Notably, "incorporation" is a fairly new doctrine. For example, not until 1964 was the privilege against self-incrimination incorporated to the states.

The issue of "incorporation" had not been brought up in the Presser case. If the issue has not been addressed previously by a court, it is not activist for a court to address it. The court in Heller addressed it somewhat.

However, the 9th Circuit - just last month - explicitly incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states in the Nordyke case. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/...09/04/20/0715763.pdf

So it is not outside of the scope of inquiry or ruling. Said the 9th:

Quote

First, we noted that Cruikshank and Presser held that “the Second Amendment constrains only the actions of Congress, not the states,” a proposition that merely follows from Barron. Id. at 729. Moving from direct application of the Bill of Rights to incorporation, we then concluded that Cruikshank and Presser foreclosed the argument of the plaintiffs that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second. Id.6 As discussed above, Cruikshank and Presser involved direct application and incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but not incorporation through the Due Process Clause. This suggests we referred to those cases as shorthand to reject the first two theories, but not the third—selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause. (p. 12-13)
...
Perhaps because neither party raised the predicate arguments, we certainly “did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by [the Supreme Court’s] later cases.” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23. (fn.8)

fn.8 - Other circuits have similarly relied on Presser to reject arguments for direct application or total incorporation, without addressing selective incorporation. See, e.g., Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56, 58-59 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (rejecting direct application) (p.14)

So the 9th Circuit addressed the Maloney v. Cuomo case. The Maloney Case basically said we've got Presser v. Heller. Heller did not specifically incorporate to the states because D.C. is not a state. Therefore, Presser controls.

Which, actually, is okay. However, not seeing the briefings and only the opinion in Maloney http://www.nysrpa.org/files/maloney_v_cuomo.pdf I can only surmise. First, Maloney argued that there was no "rational basis" for the law banning nunchaku, which to me indicates that he did not argue that it was a fundamental right to bear arms.

So in that sense, perhaps the 2d Circuit was essentially precluded from finding it because it wasn't even argued.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the additional links & analysis.

Point of clarification:

Quote

You brought up "incorporation," which is important. Notably, "incorporation" is a fairly new doctrine.

Incorporation was part of the critique of the Maloney v Cuomo decision in the CNSNews.com article:

Quote

“The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

“The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”

cited as something negative regarding Judge Sotomayer: "I do not like this....." in the post to which I replied.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Remster 30]

Quote

You just don't like that picture because you think you look better in yours

Wendy P.

Hey. Don't gang up on me with Keely. This aint a 3some.

Remster