Sotomayor walks back her "wise Latina" comment

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...ing/index.html

Quote:

---

"I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," Sotomayor said on the second day of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination by President Obama to be the first Hispanic justice on the the nation's highest court.

---

Later in the article, she also admits she chose her words poorly.

So, given this statement, I'm guessing most board Republicans will still dislike her due to her ruling on Ricci? I know WC still will disagree with her confirmation due to her not being against affirmative action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...ing/index.html



Later in the article, she also admits she chose her words poorly.

So, given this statement, I'm guessing most board Republicans will still dislike her due to her ruling on Ricci? I know WC still will disagree with her confirmation due to her not being against affirmative action.

---

according to limbaugh she's lying.

Whatev.... that comment was taken out of context from the word go.

Just proof as to how sound bites and snippets drive the news.

Republicans put on their mandatory charade of calling her out on it. Sotomayor put on her mandatory charade of context/backtracking/poor choice of words. With all the actors now having read their scripts we can move on.

Some nut job just had a rant.

:lmao @ Grassley's comment after that nut job interrupted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

:lmao @ Grassley's comment after that nut job interrupted.

---

That was great. :lol

Democrats are just using this as a stage to bash Bush policies and Republicans are using it as a stage to ask questions they have no ability to comprehend the answers to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Democrats are just using this as a stage to bash Bush policies and Republicans are using it as a stage to ask questions they have no ability to comprehend the answers to.

---

Or in other words, the whole event is just a choreographed circus put on for the sole purpose of creating soundbites to be used in future elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Democrats are just using this as a stage to bash Bush policies and Republicans are using it as a stage to ask questions they have no ability to comprehend the answers to.

---

:lol 3 1/2 more years of this shit! I have never heard more bullshit then in the past 9 -10 months. Bash Bush, republicans are stupid and "change". Atleast the change signs have been taken down and forgotten about. Soon the other two will as well. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...ing/index.html

Quote:

---

"I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," Sotomayor said on the second day of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination by President Obama to be the first Hispanic justice on the the nation's highest court.

---

Later in the article, she also admits she chose her words poorly.

So, given this statement, I'm guessing most board Republicans will still dislike her due to her ruling on Ricci? I know WC still will disagree with her confirmation due to her not being against affirmative action.

---

I am absolutely appalled by her ruling. I saw part of the testimony this morning. I was looked up some specific quotes. I saw some or must of senator Session's questioning. I would think he effectively showed she was not qualified as an unbiased jurist. He specifically pointed out what she failed to consider, what precident mandated. Here are two parts that are now transcripted to the web:

Part 1 Some quotes from part 1:

Quote:

---

SESSIONS:

And I would suggest that the quotation he gave was not exactly right of the wise Latina comment that you made. You've said, I think six different times, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion." So that's a matter that I think we'll talk about as we go forward.

---

Six times. This is scary because it is a repeating theme.

Quote:

---

SESSIONS: Judge...

SOTOMAYOR: I do not permit my sympathies, personal views, or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases.

SESSIONS: Well, you -- you -- you said something similar to that yesterday, that in each case I applied the law to the facts at hand, but you've repeatedly made this statement: Quote, I "accept the proposition" -- I "accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench, and that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see as a judge."

First, that's troubling to me as a lawyer. When I present evidence, I expect the judge to hear and see all the evidence that gets presented. How is it appropriate for a judge ever to say that they will choose to see some facts and not others?

---

Quote:

---

SESSIONS:

In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny," close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court's binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.

In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it's not acceptable.

After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: "In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny -- strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the constitutionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race," close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.

You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words "Adarand," "Equal protection" and "Strict scrutiny" are completely missing from any of your panel's discussion of this decision?

---

This was after he earlier raised a concern that the opinion provided very little supporting reason for their decisions that were recently overturned. I suggest everyone read the entire exchange. Take off the blinders. Anyone who isn't making a partisan choice would never vote for her.

Part 2

Here is yesterday's opening statement, just because I came across it:

LOL...

There's a part 3 indexed on their server. It currently just opens a blank page:

Part 3

she says she'll be open minded about gun rights...

However, the vehemently anti-gun Brady group endorses her....

so gun owners are probably in trouble.

i think i can work up a morning dump with more integrity than this "hearing".

I'm not sure Sessions should be leading the charge on being 'open-minded' as it were.

However, to try and argue that everyone will see things in the same light is ridiculous. Do experts agree on the 'right' economic plan? How about philosophy? Or religion? Maybe politics?

Of course not. That doesn't mean one person is WRONG, necessarily. Or that two people are seeing different facts. It's a matter of interpreting them differently.

Do you think that a poor black person would look at a situation and immediately come to the same judicial decision as a white person raised in affluence? The cases that come before the SCOTUS are not black and white decisions.

And the idea that she's some far-out activist is a bit strained. Was she not on a panel? Was that panel not unanimous? Was not the SCOTUS decision 5-4?

She already stated how she felt the city might be sued for disparate impact, and so ruled for the city. Are you saying that there's no possibility the city might have been sued for disparate impact in that case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I'm not sure Sessions should be leading the charge on being 'open-minded' as it were.

---

Does that matter? Does it invalidate the very good points he made?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

However, to try and argue that everyone will see things in the same light is ridiculous. Do experts agree on the 'right' economic plan? How about philosophy? Or religion? Maybe politics?

---

He specifically pointed out a case that he asked her in the prior confirmation hearing that she said she would uphold, and she obviously disregarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Of course not. That doesn't mean one person is WRONG, necessarily. Or that two people are seeing different facts. It's a matter of interpreting them differently.

---

It seems the law was already very clear to me. Precedent was clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Do you think that a poor black person would look at a situation and immediately come to the same judicial decision as a white person raised in affluence? The cases that come before the SCOTUS are not black and white decisions.

---

No. However, when the facts are carefully scrutinized, shouldn't the law and established precedent be followed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

And the idea that she's some far-out activist is a bit strained. Was she not on a panel? Was that panel not unanimous? Was not the SCOTUS decision 5-4?

---

Remember how the decision was worded? They were 9-0 on parts, just not the whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

She already stated how she felt the city might be sued for disparate impact, and so ruled for the city. Are you saying that there's no possibility the city might have been sued for disparate impact in that case?

---

Do you buy that? No way with existing law. There was no case because of the precautions they took. They used that as an excuse because the outcome of the test was not what they wanted. That is clearly obvious to me.

Accept the fact that she is going to be confirmed. Stop bitching like a little girl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It seems the law was already very clear to me. Precedent was clear.

---

And it seems clear to me that Chrono Trigger was the best Role Playing Game ever created. However, some people disagree. Should I automatically assume I am correct?


[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No. However, when the facts are carefully scrutinized, shouldn't the law and established precedent be followed?

---

You make it seem as if the law is clear in all cases. It is not. And personal experience can shade how one sees things.

Established precedent CAN be useful, but there are times when the morals of society have changed, such as Brown v Board of Education. Do you think that was a bad court decision?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Do you buy that? No way with existing law. There was no case because of the precautions they took. They used that as an excuse because the outcome of the test was not what they wanted. That is clearly obvious to me.

---

So, it's your opinion that you, WC, with your vast judicial knowledge and experience, are able to clearly answer that question, over the opinion of both the lower court and the 3 judges that were on Sotomayor's panel that upheld it?

Humility, thy name is not WC.

Oh, and that 9-0 thing is a poor reading. Here's what they were arguing about...

Quote:

---

Huh? Today’s ruling, as I noted before, was 5-4. Five justices voted to require the city to present more evidence — what the Supreme Court calls “a strong basis in evidence” — that if the city had not thrown out the results of a promotional exam that had a disparate impact on minorities, then it would have been legally liable to any racial minorities denied promotions who sued under the civil rights law.
Setting aside, for a moment, whether that evidentiary burden makes sense, there’s no question that only five of the nine justices supported it. The other four were just fine with the law the way it was, and believed that the city had presented sufficient evidence to satisfy its decision.

---

http://washingtonindependent.com/490...inst-sotomayor


Or maybe you'd prefer this explanation?

Quote:

---

Whether you agree with Justice Kennedy or the Second Circuit/District Court on this issue (we think the lower courts had the better of this argument), it is very difficult to criticize the District Court or Judge Sotomayor on appeal for following prior rulings of her circuit. And we note that Justice Kennedy was far more pointed in his criticism of the Petitioners in Ricci, who proposed a standard that Kennedy called "broad and inflexible" and threatened to render the disparate impact standard of Title VII a dead letter.

---

Didn't you guys like justices that follow precedent? Would you rather rule for the firefighters and be an activist judge?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-k..._b_222606.html

Feel free to provide your non-biased source to support your 9-0 contention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Accept the fact that she is going to be confirmed. Stop bitching like a little girl.

---

You're the one that is always acting like a little girl.

Actually, I think she will confirmed. Not because I think she's an acceptable pick, but because I think if she isn't picked, a worse one will be! I'll bet the republicans realize this too, and won't give much of a fight. They should still point out the problems.

I do fear her less than other potential activist judges. At least racial issues do not go to the SC very often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Feel free to provide your non-biased source to support your 9-0 contention.

---

I was thinking of something else. An earlier summary judgment that went 5-4, and all nine said the firefighters deserved to be heard in the higher court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I was thinking of something else. An earlier summary judgment that went 5-4, and all nine said the firefighters deserved to be heard in the higher court.

---

Yes, the court did say that the court should have looked at it closer. I don't see the point of the court doing that though, as they would've originally came up with the same answer: that precedent would seem to rule with New Haven.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-part-two.html

Quote:

---

SOTOMAYOR: Again, regardless of what the challenge is about, what test is at issue, the core holding of that precedent was that, if an employee could show a disparate impact from a particular practice or test or activity by a employer, then that employee had a prima facie case of liability under Title VII.

So the question is, was the city subject to potential liability because the employees -- the city of New Haven -- because the employees could bring a suit under established law challenging that the city of New Haven had violated Title VII?

---

Quote:

---

SOTOMAYOR: Well, the district court noted that it was a different scenario, but it evaluated its decision -- it evaluated the case in a 78-page decision and gave a full explanation, one which the panel agreed with by adopting the opinion of the district court.
Those questions, as I indicated, are always whether -- given the risk the city was facing, the fact that it could face a law school -- lawsuit and its conclusion that perhaps a better test could be devised, that would not have a disparate impact, whether it was liable for discrimination -- disparate -- not disparate -- different treatment under the law, the Supreme Court came back and said "New standard."
SOTOMAYOR: As I understood the dissenters in that case, what they were saying is, to the majority, if you're going to apply a new standard, then give the Second Circuit a chance to look at the record and apply that standard. It wasn't disagreeing that the circuit wasn't applying the law as it was understood at the time. If the circuit -- the dissenters, as I read what they were doing, was saying send it back to the circuit and let them look at this in the first instance.

---

And for some context:

Quote:

---

LEAHY: Senator Hatch, thank you. I would also put in record because race-related cases come up, an independent study Supreme Court expert, Tom Goldstein, found of the 97 race-related cases which Judge Sotomayor participated in the Second Circuit, she and the rest of her panel rejected discrimination claims (inaudible) 80 times, agreed them 10 times, rejecting discrimination claims by a margin of 8 to 1.
Mr. Goldstein found that in 10 cases favoring discrimination, nine of those were unanimous. And of those, nine in seven, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. And he said is seems absurd to say Judge Sotomayor allows race to affect her decision making. And without objection, that report will be part of the record. I yield now to Senator Feinstein, the chair of the U.S. Senate...

---

More context:

Quote:

---

FEINSTEIN: Now, it was just said that all nine justices disagreed with you in the Ricci case, but I want to point out that Justice Ginsburg and three other justices stated in the dissent that the Second Circuit decision should have been affirmed. Is that correct?
SOTOMAYOR: Yes.
FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. Also, a senator made a comment about the Second Circuit not being bound in the Ricci case that I wanted to follow up on, because I think what he said was not correct. You made the point that the unanimous Ricci panel was bound by Second Circuit precedent, as we've said. The senator said that you easily could have overruled that precedent by voting for the case to be heard en banc. First, my understanding is that a majority of the Second Circuit voted not to re-hear the case. Is that correct?
SOTOMAYOR: That's correct.
FEINSTEIN: Secondly, it took a significant change in disparate law -- in disparate impact law to change the result of the Second Circuit reached in this case. And the Supreme Court itself in Ricci recognized that it was creating a new standard. Is my understanding correct?
SOTOMAYOR: Yes, Senator.

---

LnGrrrR, the lawsuit argument just doesn't fly in this case. The facts were clearly on the firefighters side, except in the eyes of liberal activists.

Did you read all the precautions they took in designing the test? They invalidated the test because they didn't like the outcome!

Quote:

---

SESSIONS:

And I would suggest that the quotation he gave was not exactly right of the wise Latina comment that you made. You've said, I think six different times, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion." So that's a matter that I think we'll talk about as we go forward.

---

Let's put it this way. Wild Cobra would hope that he comes of on the board as something other than a creepy dullard on the internets, just as Yoni would hope to be considered an intelligent, original thinker who isn't a thief and a liar -- but reality is much different.

Sotomayor has accepted reality -- have the others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Wild Cobra would hope that he comes of on the board as something other than a creepy dullard on the internets, just as Yoni would hope to be considered an intelligent, original thinker who isn't a thief and a liar

---

God you are a drama queen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LnGrrrR, the lawsuit argument just doesn't fly in this case. The facts were clearly on the firefighters side, except in the eyes of liberal activists.

Did you read all the precautions they took in designing the test? They invalidated the test because they didn't like the outcome!

---

It was not, as your simplistic reading would have, because they disliked the outcome. It's because they were afraid of a lawsuit due to disparate impact. Sotomayor specifically stated that above.

Additionally, Sotomayor was bound by precedent.

Is it your contention that EVERY judge, both in the lower courts AND Sotomayor's panel, was a liberal? What about the 5-4 decision? Are you saying that 4 of the SCOTUS Justices are wrong for disagreeing that the case should be awarded to Ricci?

It's one thing to differ on opinion. It's another to denigrate. You castigate liberals all the time for being partisan and one-sided. Can you not see the same behavior in your own actions?

The irony of the complaints about the opinion in Ricci is that by deciding the issues put before her by the parties and refusing to reach for issues that might have been implicated but were not raised Judge Sotomayor exercised restraint. By deciding the issues presented in accordance with existing circuit precedent (and in many courts, procedural rules prohibit 3 judge panels from changing the broader court's precedent) Judge Sotomayor did exactly what conservatives want her to do. But because she did reach for issues, because she didn't unilaterally change precedent (which had found support in the precedent of another federal circuit), and because she did nothing other than apply the applicable and governing law to the specific and narrow issues raised by the parties, her decision in Ricci is somehow activist.

Charges of activism really strike me as ludicrously unprincipled and the fact that so many continue to buy into it's use as little other than a political buzzword is both frightening and sad.

You guys are refusing to address the strick scrutiny precedent not being adhered to. I highlighted this concern of Sessons'.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña

Quote:

---

2. All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. Pp. 212-231; 235-239.

(a) In Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, a majority of the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires strict scrutiny of all race-based action by state and local governments. While Croson did not consider what standard of review the Fifth Amendment requires for such action taken by the Federal Government, the Court's cases through Croson had established three general propositions with respect to governmental racial classifications. First, skepticism: "'Any preference based on racial or ethnic criteria must necessarily receive a most searching examination,'" Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 273-274. Second, consistency: "[T]he standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification," Croson, supra, at 494. And third, congruence: "Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment," Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 93. Taken together, these propositions lead to the conclusion that any person, of whatever race, has the right to demand that any governmental actor subject to the Constitution justify any racial classification subjecting that person to unequal treatment under the strictest judicial scrutiny. pp. 212-225.

(b) However, a year after Croson, the Court, in Metro Broadcasting, upheld two federal race-based policies against a Fifth Amendment challenge. The Court repudiated the long-held notion that "it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government" than it does on a State to afford equal protection of the laws, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500, by holding that congressionally mandated "benign" racial classifications need only satisfy intermediate scrutiny. By adopting that standard, Metro Broadcasting departed from prior cases in two significant respects. First, it turned its back on Croson's explanation that strict scrutiny of governmental racial classifications is essential because it may not always be clear that a so-called preference is in fact benign. Second, it squarely rejected one of the three propositions established by this Court's earlier cases, namely, congruence between the standards applicable to federal and state race-based action, and in doing so also undermined the other two. Pp. 225-227.

(c) The propositions undermined by Metro Broadcasting all derive from the basic principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect persons, not groups. It follows from that principle that all governmental action based on race-a group classification long recognized as in most circumstances irrelevant and therefore prohibited-should be subjected to detailed judicial inquiry to ensure that the personal right to equal protection has not been infringed. Thus, strict scrutiny is the proper standard for analysis of all racial classifications, whether imposed by a federal, state, or local actor. To the extent that Metro Broadcasting is inconsistent with that holding, it is overruled. Pp. 227-231.

(d) The decision here makes explicit that federal racial classifications, like those of a State, must serve a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest. Thus, to the extent that Fullilove held federal racial classifications to be subject to a less rigorous standard, it is no longer controlling. Requiring strict scrutiny is the best way to ensure that courts will consistently give racial classifications a detailed examination, as to both ends and means. It is not true that strict scrutiny is strict in theory, but fatal in fact. Government is not disqualified from acting in response to the unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country. When race-based action is necessary to further a compelling interest, such action is within constitutional constraints if it satisfies the "narrow tailoring" test set out in this Court's previous cases. Pp. 235-237.

---

Strict scrutiny was not mentioned in the opinion in the Riici case that Sotamayor voted on, nor considered.

A take from wiki:

Quote:

---

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local government actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under a standard of "strict scrutiny," the highest level of Supreme Court review (such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion of the Court, which effectively overturned Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990), in which the Court had created a two tiered system for analyzing racial classifications.

---

Another take on Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña:

Quote:

---

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

Facts: Adarand Constructors (P) submitted the lowest bid to general contractor Mountain Gravel on a subcontracting job for a government highway project. The general contractor awarded the job to Gonzales Construction, a small business controlled by a “socially and economically disadvantaged” person, in order to take advantage of financial incentives for hiring such companies.

P filed suit against the Department of Transportation (D), arguing that the financial incentive for hiring such companies was unconstitutional. The federal district court and Tenth Circuit found in favor of D and P appealed.

Issue: On what basis will the court determine if the provision of additional compensation for companies that award subcontracting jobs to minority owned businesses is unconstitutional, in light of the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause?

Holding and Rule: Racial classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny standard – such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that advance compelling governmental interests.

The applicable standard of review is not determined based on which party is discriminated, but on the basis of whether there is discrimination at all. All racial classifications under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment are analyzed under strict scrutiny; and a Fifth Amendment classification encompasses the same analysis as Fourteenth Amendment cases.

The court held that good intentions alone are insufficient to sustain a supposedly benign racial classification. A statute of this kind inevitably is perceived to rest on the assumption that those who benefit from such a special preference are somehow less qualified purely by virtue of race. Such practices hinder rather then help race based issues. The court held that Congress must provide a reason for implementing such a spending act.

The court held that all governmental action based on race should be subject to detailed judicial scrutiny to ensure that the personal right to equal protection has not been infringed. In order to not violate the Constitution, there must be a compelling government interest.

Dissenting (Stevens, Ginsburg): This is not a bad law – the government is trying to make right on past and current discrimination by benefiting minority-owned businesses. Such consistency, as stated in the dissent, does not help laws such as these, as all statutes, even if benign in nature, stand to fall by the wayside under strict scrutiny.

Concurring (Scalia): The government can never take a compelling interest in discriminating on the basis of race in order to make up for past discrimination.

Concurring (Thomas): These programs undermine the moral basis of equal protection.

---

Sotomayor Hearing, part 3

Sotomayor Hearing, part 4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...ing/index.html



Later in the article, she also admits she chose her words poorly.

So, given this statement, I'm guessing most board Republicans will still dislike her due to her ruling on Ricci? I know WC still will disagree with her confirmation due to her not being against affirmative action.

---

roflrofl
you didn't even listen or watch the full hearings

She in no way "walked back" on shit. She just clarified, and stood by the basis of what she said. Only retards took the quote at face value minus the two or three words after the term "white male".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Strict scrutiny was not mentioned in the opinion in the Riici case that Sotamayor voted on, nor considered.

---

Curiously, your Adarand hobby-horse also wasn't mentioned in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ricci.

Justice Scalia's concurring opinion cites Adarand in passing ("And of course the purportedly benign motive for the disparate-impact provisions cannot save the statute. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 227 (1995)."); Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion also mentions Adarand ("By instructing employers to avoid needlessly exclusionary selection processes, Title VII’s disparate-impact provision calls for a 'race-neutral means to increase minority . . . participation' -- something this Court’s equal protection precedents also encourage. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 238 (1995) (quoting Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 507 (1989)).").

In the context of Ricci, Adarand strikes me as a red herring. That probably explains its limited mention in the discussion of the issues presented in that case.

Nevertheless, congratulations on biting hook, line, and sinker on Senator Sessions obfuscation. You should probably send a note to his office to let him know that he's reached his target audience.

I don't get it. Is WC arguing about the outcome of the case now? Or just that Sotomayor's panel didn't show 'strict scrutiny' in reviewing the case?

Does he know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

roflrofl
you didn't even listen or watch the full hearings

She in no way "walked back" on shit. She just clarified, and stood by the basis of what she said. Only retards took the quote at face value minus the two or three words after the term "white male".

---

Read the context of my post. She walked it back, in the sense that she didn't stand up and defend it. She says she failed at conveying her message properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Nevertheless, congratulations on biting hook, line, and sinker on Senator Sessions obfuscation. You should probably send a note to his office to let him know that he's reached his target audience.

---

If you followed the exchange, Sessons points out that he asked her about that precedent when she was being considered for her current position, and points out that she did not do as she said she would.

Was that too hard to follow?

He clearly pointed out her lack of integrity, at a minimum.

Oh Wait... Excuse me... You liberals haven't a clue of what integrity is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If you followed the exchange, Sessons points out that he asked her about that precedent when she was being considered for her current position, and points out that she did not do as she said she would.

Was that too hard to follow?

He clearly pointed out her lack of integrity, at a minimum.

Oh Wait... Excuse me... You liberals haven't a clue of what integrity is!

---

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

Sessions asked her during her confirmation hearings if she would apply Adarand when the decision in Adarand was controlling in the case presented.

As the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Ricci readily demonstrates -- and as the mere passing mentions of Adarand in the separate opinions amplifies -- Adarand was NOT controlling law in any sense in Ricci.

That wasn't true in the Supreme Court, and it wasn't true in the Court of Appeals where the issues were far more straightforward.

So, in essence, you and Sessions are arguing that she lacks integrity because she didn't manufacture some reason to apply Adarand to a case in which it was (according to a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States) not relevant.

I swear that if there were some objective definition of "judicial activism" that meant something other than "I didn't like the result in that case," I'd think that you were pissed that Judge Sotomayor showed restraint and refused to manufacture some basis to apply an irrelevant decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FWD

So, in essence, you and Sessions are arguing that she lacks integrity because she didn't manufacture some reason to apply Adarand to a case in which it was (according to a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States) not relevant.

---

I think you're giving Sen. Sessions and WC too much credit. They work backward from a result they don't like to an irrelevancy they consider authoritative because it seems to conduce to the desired result. Calling it an argument is too deferential. It's a form of question begging -- a logical fallacy. They begin with Sotomayor's lack of integrity. The argument as such never gets off the ground. Indeed, it is not even grounded, but brusquely educed from thin air, to support a foregone conclusion.

The novel test in Ricci underscores the activism of the majority.

Correct me if I'm wrong, FWD, but isn't vacatur the custom when the SC makes a new rule? Justice Ginzberg said so anyway. Was she right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If you followed the exchange, Sessons points out that he asked her about that precedent when she was being considered for her current position, and points out that she did not do as she said she would.

Was that too hard to follow?

He clearly pointed out her lack of integrity, at a minimum.

Oh Wait... Excuse me... You liberals haven't a clue of what integrity is!

---

So, do you agree with the ruling of Sotomayor? That was your big complaint.

Sessions was complaining about a lack of diligence. Are you complaining about that too, as well as the case outcome? I think it'd be best if you tried to stick to one argument at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Oh Wait... Excuse me... You liberals haven't a clue of what integrity is!

---

Really WC? You're going to pull THIS card?

Don't ever bitch when I call Republicans stupid, or in-the-closet, or any number of derogatory terms then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Oh Wait... Excuse me... You liberals haven't a clue of what integrity is!

---

:cheer Republicans good, Democrats bad :cheer

Its funny to watch my senator try to get her in a gotcha moment and fail so miserably at it this morning. These things are such shams.

Did you hear about this Manny?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...McLuhan-Moment

Pretty funny.

Both sides say they want diversity in the Supreme Court yet they expect all judges to think the same way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

Sessions asked her during her confirmation hearings if she would apply Adarand when the decision in Adarand was controlling in the case presented.

As the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Ricci readily demonstrates -- and as the mere passing mentions of Adarand in the separate opinions amplifies -- Adarand was NOT controlling law in any sense in Ricci.

That wasn't true in the Supreme Court, and it wasn't true in the Court of Appeals where the issues were far more straightforward.

So, in essence, you and Sessions are arguing that she lacks integrity because she didn't manufacture some reason to apply Adarand to a case in which it was (according to a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States) not relevant.

I swear that if there were some objective definition of "judicial activism" that meant something other than "I didn't like the result in that case," I'd think that you were pissed that Judge Sotomayor showed restraint and refused to manufacture some basis to apply an irrelevant decision.

---

and wild cobra sulked away into the darkness of the night...:lmao

Yeah... it's not exactly the most intelligent thing to try to argue law with a lawyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Yeah... it's not exactly the most intelligent thing to try to argue law with a lawyer.

---

Especially when your using someone else's argument.. and a wrong one at that...

nice job wc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Whatev.... that comment was taken out of context from the word go.

Just proof as to how sound bites and snippets drive the news.

---

Any objective analysis of her actual judicial record, of which there is a lot of data, has shown a very even tempered thoughful record.

We all know the Republicans and their proxies in talk radio are simply playing this up for infotainment value, as pablum for the converted.

There were a couple of fair criticisms of her remarks, and the rest was simply grandstanding.

WC thinks he knows economics/finance, and argues poorly with accoutants, thinks he knows the law and argues poorly about the law, always based on what the talking point of the moment for the GOP tells him to think/say.

He demonstrates a pattern of arguing things based on little more than his preconceived notions, an inability to think critically about data, and a constant display of intellectual dishonesty.

I used to be willing to give him some small credibility when it came to his pet cause, Global Warming Denial, but that long since evaporated. I have come to the conclusion that a great deal of the people who are so vociferous about the "Global Warming Scam" have a lot in common intellectually and integrity-wise with Holocaust deniers.

To be clear: having honest doubts about global warming/climate change whatever is not the equivalent of being anti-semetic.

I just find that the two groups display the same set of illogical failings coupled with intellectual dishonesty, and critical thinking failings.

In that WC falls readily into place with his intellectual peers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

WC thinks he knows economics/finance, and argues poorly with accoutants, thinks he knows the law and argues poorly about the law, always based on what the talking point of the moment for the GOP tells him to think/say.

He demonstrates a pattern of arguing things based on little more than his preconceived notions, an inability to think critically about data, and a constant display of intellectual dishonesty.

I used to be willing to give him some small credibility when it came to his pet cause, Global Warming Denial, but that long since evaporated. I have come to the conclusion that a great deal of the people who are so vociferous about the "Global Warming Scam" have a lot in common intellectually and integrity-wise with Holocaust deniers.

To be clear: having honest doubts about global warming/climate change whatever is not the equivalent of being anti-semetic.

I just find that the two groups display the same set of illogical failings coupled with intellectual dishonesty, and critical thinking failings.

In that WC falls readily into place with his intellectual peers.

---

With respect to the equating people who doubt that "global warming" is a catastrophic problem and those who are Holocaust deniers -- FUCK OFF. No, really, fuck off.


With respect to Sonia Sotomayor, I think that one of the privileges of being POTUS is the ability to nominate the person of your choosing to SCOTUS. So, while I may not agree with her ideology, I don't think anyone has the right to block her nomination, unless she is found incompetent.

Darrin once again proves reading is hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

With respect to Sonia Sotomayor, I think that one of the privileges of being POTUS is the ability to nominate the person of your choosing to SCOTUS. So, while I may not agree with her ideology, I don't think anyone has the right to block her nomination, unless she is found incompetent.

---

I think you've misunderstood RG on his comparison. But I agree with your point about SCOTUS nominees. I might not like the judicial philosophies of jurists like Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, or Justice Scalia, but I cannot quarrel with their qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court and, accordingly, see no principled basis to argue against their confirmations. Judge Sotomayor is obviously well qualified despite the contentions about her judicial philosophy and will almost certainly be confirmed despite the fact that she's not the consevative thinker the GOP wishes her to be. These hearings should be about fleshing out qualifications and not about the partisan grandstanding that now seems to be part and parcel of such proceedings, which is mostly (I think) an effort to placate partisan hacks.