Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Report: CCDC Split From UDC Is "Critical To Success"
D.C. United Icon Ben Olsen To Retire
Increased Urban Walkability For The Win
The Manhattan Project
Obama is set to nominate appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court seat vacated by David Souter at press conference this a.m. Sotomayor has been a front-runner for several weeks and received some, er, enthusiastic critiques from legal observers, like TNR's Jeffrey Rosen, who quoted anonymous law clerks to portray the Yale and Princeton grad as "not that smart." Sotomayor made her way to the Ivies after growing up in a housing project in the Bronx. Should make for interesting confirmation hearings. If she makes it, Sotomayor will be the third woman in the history of the court, the second on the current bench, and the first Latina.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Does anyone know about the armed robbery on 13th NW last night in Columbia Heights? The helicopters
[more]
I've been a Dem my whole life but Obama really screwed the pooch here...
"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" - Sotomayor.
This quote might help explain her overtly racist ruling in the case of the NH firefighters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano
At some point Obama needs to put campaign strategy aside and being more presidential - not focusing on New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Florida and Texas in 2012.
The context of the quote was discrimination cases. And I wonder why you didn't paste the second piece of the quote...
Next, please explain how the ruling -- to affirm the district court's ruling -- was "overtly racist".Not so fast. According to the NYT...
"In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor"
It seems like we're saying the same thing. Was 'not so fast' meant for me?
I think that was directed at fatkidspecial, or perhaps both to point out that the specific context from which that quote was taken out of was the end of the sentence "...who hasn’t lived that life", which followed "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"
Had fatkidspecial's excerpt included "..." then it would have been only intentionally manipulative and false, instead of intentionally manipulative, false, and incorrectly punctuated, which isn't to say that fatkidspecial wasen't him/herself the victim of reading an intentional misquote.
With that said, I totally agree with Sotomayor's complete sentence, and I'm a middle of the road white male.
So how many illegal aliens did she hire and "forget" to pay Social Security taxes on?
Incidentally, my favorite Puerto Rican restaurant is in San Rafael, CA. The fried plantains are truly outstanding.
okay... What if Chief Justice Roberts had said something like "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman."
even with "who hasn't lived that life," it comes off extremely racist.
And as far as the Ricci case. Ricci was denied a promotion based solely upon his race.
She reaffirmed that decision.
I'm not going to pretend that the quote isn't awkward, or that the Republicans aren't going to use both it and the Ricci decision in an attempt to derail this nomination, but you don't have to help them with the derailment, do you?
From what I've read, you're drastically oversimplifying the Ricci decision. Ricci wasn't "denied a promotion because of his race," the fire department decided that the tool they were using to decide promotions was a flawed tool, and that using it would potentially put the department in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws. Maybe those laws are flawed, but they are on the books. That decision was upheld by both of the courts that have reviewed it so far, and may well be upheld by the Supremes. Whether or not Ricci worked really hard to pass the existing test, or overcame obstacles of his own (dyslexia) in doing so, is irrelevant to the legal question being considered.
Well, some have questioned her conduct in the Ricci case, including one of her colleagues on the 2nd Circuit. It seems Sotomayor tried to "hide the football" by affirming the lower court decision in a terse one-paragraph order, in an attempt to ward off an en banc 2nd Circuit or SCOTUS review of the Ricci's substantive claims. Of course, it should be stated if that's the case, that strategy failed spectacularly.
How many months of over-pronunciation of her name by the TV networks will we have to suffer through?
I'm not going to get too excited about her yet. She is obviously the "starter nominee." A good sop to the liberal Dems who have been feeling a little ignored by Obama lately. The real nominee is waiting in the wings.
She is going to get knocked around by the Republicants for the Latina quote and her recent rulings on gun control.
This is totally Emanuel's strategy: Put out a latina woman (it would be better if she is gay), with a clear history of liberal rulings. If she passes, then great. If not, have plan B in the wings-who will be someone with the same liberal view of the law, but not as obvious about it.