For the vast majority of cases, no. In some cases, yes.Is it to much to ask for a judge that just interprets the law by what is there and not by what should be there?
The issue for me is not her liberal views, but the fact she has been an activist judge. When a judge makes comments such as, "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," how fair and impartial can she be? As long as she interprets what the Constitution says and not what she wants it to say, I will have no issue with her confirmation, should it happen.
Sotomayor said:America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud…Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.
Sotomayor said:While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.
Sotomayor said:Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. ... I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.
It seems to me that she's talking about how America often celebrates its cultural diversity and then immediately tries to turn a blind eye to any and all issues of race. And the Supreme Court has traditionally been all white, all male. Sotomayor makes the third woman and the first latino to sit on the bench in the institution's history, and Clarence Thomas is only the second black man, coming in after Thurgood Marshall. Given that a sizable number of cases that are brought before the SC deal with discrimination and other diversity issues, both racial and otherwise, I think it's fair to take her words in the context of saying that it is to the benefit of society that the last word on the constitutionality of laws in this nation include more than just the dominant majority in representation.
There are cases where a white male simply does not possess the experiences necessary to pass a fair judgement, and there needs to be some tempering of those opinions by those of people with different backgrounds
She's saying that there exist cases where a white male will look at a situation and come to a conclusion without considering other factors that may be relevant, and would be part of the decision-making process of a non-white female.
Isn't that a big part of why we have a body of nine justices instead of one?See... why does the sex or race matter? Giving someone credit simply because of their heritage is equally as bad as implying that it's a deficit....
So then the opposite must be true? There are cases where a non-white female will look at a situation and come to a conclusion without considering other factors that may be relevant, and would be part of the decision-making process of a white male?
For the vast majority of cases, no. In some cases, yes.
So then the opposite must be true? There are cases where a non-white female will look at a situation and come to a conclusion without considering other factors that may be relevant, and would be part of the decision-making process of a white male?
Oh boy... where does it end?
Larkin said:This entire representing minority thing is retarded.
Isn't that a big part of why we have a body of nine justices instead of one?
Again, because this keeps getting de-railed into "OMGZ CAN'T HAVE EVERYONE BE A JUSTICE": I am providing context for her controversial statement. People are saying the statement was out of line, I'm saying it's not considering the circumstances and the history of the court.
Lol. Just lol.
Why are people so hung up on having someone they can identify with in race, gender or even life experiences represent them? Why does the court "need" to be made up of persons from different races, genders, political affiliations, etc? Why can we not just appoint justices who are capable of doing the job? Does a life experience trump one's knowledge of the laws of the land or the intent of the Constitution?The context of that soundbyte is that she was philosophizing on whether full impartiality was even possible, or desirable. I'm having difficulty finding the complete, unaltered text of her speech because it was published in a periodical and thus reproducing it in full is legally messy. But this site gives a pretty big chunk of it. Emphasis mine.
It seems to me that she's talking about how America often celebrates its cultural diversity and then immediately tries to turn a blind eye to any and all issues of race. And the Supreme Court has traditionally been all white, all male. Sotomayor makes the third woman and the first latino to sit on the bench in the institution's history, and Clarence Thomas is only the second black man, coming in after Thurgood Marshall. Given that a sizable number of cases that are brought before the SC deal with discrimination and other diversity issues, both racial and otherwise, I think it's fair to take her words in the context of saying that it is to the benefit of society that the last word on the constitutionality of laws in this nation include more than just the dominant majority in representation. There are cases where a white male simply does not possess the experiences necessary to pass a fair judgement, and there needs to be some tempering of those opinions by those of people with different backgrounds.
Well the Utopia would be that there is no such thing as a minority and that everyone is treated equally because "minority" or "majority" is just an artificial construct anyway... a construct that someone from every race in the world is guilty of in different ways... but artificial none-the-less.This entire representing minority thing is retarded.
Well the Utopia would be that there is no such thing as a minority and that everyone is treated equally because "minority" or "majority" is just an artificial construct anyway... a construct that someone from every race in the world is guilty of in different ways... but artificial none-the-less.
We're not there yet... and we're not even at your point yet. Sure it'd be nice... but not possible.
Not enough boobs in this thread.