conservative talk radio is all bent out of shape about Obama’s pick for new supreme court judge

Every statement about conservative talk radio should begin with either “Predictably,…” or “As if on mindless cue,…”.
I will be watching the hearings for as long as I can stand to hear the senators talk about themselves in the form of long questions.

The left starts to express disappointment with her (or raises the cautionary flag that she might be lock-step with their goals), I start to feel better about her.

Here’s a comment from Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2219251/pagenum/2):

I’m consistently hearing that Sotomayor is forceful and assertive and plays well with her colleagues. After oral argument in a case, she is quick to fax detailed memos, citing details from the record—not every judge looks at this early on—or from her clerks’ legal research. She picks up the phone to call other judges, an unusually direct method in the 2nd Circuit that reportedly works well for her. She directs her clerks to respond to the work of other judges before tending to the work of her own chambers, also not always the norm and an appreciated display of courtesy. She has good relationships with Republican appointees on the court in addition to Judge Walker: When Obama tapped her this week, Judge Richard Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee, called her “an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind.” Jocks v. Tavernier illustrates what a skilled negotioator she is. And it shows, too, that sometimes judges don’t deliver what we expect. For the worse.

Which tells me that she’s probably an excellent choice. Ignore the latina component (“latina woman” is so redundant). Anyone with her resume (prosecutor, corporate lawyer, law review, top of her class, and years of judicial experience) is qualified.

Plus, she’s not afraid to get involved in sports issues…

I just love the fact that Obama supported blocking Bush’s nomination of Judge Alito. Apparently, he’s referring to himself when he mentions discredited politicians who play “the usual political games.”

Sam, you mean like this?

“I would hope that a wise [white man] with the richness of [his] experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a [latina woman] who hasn’t lived that life.”

No problems there?

Nope, provided it was spoken by a white man in a situation where the decisions had been made in the past almost exclusively by Latinas. (On the other hand, if it were a white man saying it about the Supreme Court, I’d have two basic problems: (1) The decisions that have been made have clearly not been made by Latinas, given that there’s never been a Latina on the Court, and (2) the decisions on the Supreme Court have been made entirely by white men, plus two African-American men and two white women. So I take it back; if a white man were to say it in the context Judge Sotomayor said it, I’d have a serious problem, inasmuch as he clearly had less than any understanding of the history of the Supreme Court.)

I’ve said it before–if you look at what she was saying, she was saying that she hoped she could do better than had been done in the past.

Why? You didn’t comprehend that?

“I’m just an ignorant white man”

That may be true, but I am impressed by acute sense of self-awareness.

Aluwid,
I don’t care in the least about your experiences, but if your comprehension of the English language and conversational styles doesn’t let you understand anything except at a basic literal level (and you get the literal level wrong at that), I’m thoroughly uninterested in your analysis of her statements. (Note that I don’t have any idea if I’m talking about you particularly, but any person who objects to Judge Sotomayor because she’s racist based on that statement isn’t worth the discussion.)

Dan, Republicans don’t tend to care about race that way — that’s why Democrats call them racist.

Yeah, Obama voting against Alito (who cited his story and a need for empathy) isn’t looking very good right now…

Look, if she’s an example of tokenism, she’s no worse than Thomas. But I think her credentials are fine.

I´m agree with DKL i hope than the things work for better for all. take care

annegb–I think she sounds fascinating.

I would LOVE an explanation for how a judge CAN judge irrespective of their life experience. A robot could, a human can’t.

I have also been interested in the commentary this week that has noted that the religious breakdown on the court with Sotomayor would be 6 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant. I find that a fascinating representation of our country.

From what I am reading, though, there is equal concern from the left over her pro-prosecution/pro-police leanings. Perhaps her experience as a prosecutor outweighs her experience as a latina?

I was okay with Alito, too. And of course it’s politics as usual. I am sick of that. .

Chris H :). My next gig

Queuno thanks that makes me feel even better about her.

Um, Jana, do other Latinas know that? Because the judge said it first.

You know, somebody honed by life can have more insight and wisdom–be it man or woman.

I would hope I can do better at following my own threads in future.

ESO: I would LOVE an explanation for how a judge CAN judge irrespective of their life experience. A robot could, a human can’t.

I’m always eager and willing to do something that you’d love to see done: Here’s my explanation:

You seem to be basically claiming that “nobody is impartial.” It may not surprise you that I think that this is a rather silly belief, but there are entire schools of philosophy built on the notion that it’s “totalizing” to claim that people are capable of serious detachment or objectivity or impartiality. Indeed, I belong to a mailing list that is somewhat given over to bemoaning the difficulty of avoiding totalizing influences that assume objectivity or impartiality and to cautioning against such influences. I’m a logical positivist, which means that I am other to them.

In any case, there is a certain trivial sense in which everybody has their own point of view — I can’t feel your feelings or cry your tears. It should be emphasized that this is fairly trivial. I also cannot cough your coughs or sneeze your sneezes or belch your burps or get your bug bites. Any sort of relativism that attempts to take such matters much further than face value quickly runs into all the problems of solipsism.

For example, if someone says to me, “You can’t possibly know what it’s like to be hispanic,” they’ve created a double standard. They are saying that they have access to my thought processes in a way that I do not have access to theirs. I’m justified in replying, “You can’t possible know what it’s like for me to be unable to know what it’s like to be hispanic.” And if this is true, then they can’t possibly know whether I can possibly understand what it’s like to be hispanic. Thus we have a reductio of the premises upon which statements like “You can’t possibly know what it’s like to be hispanic” is based.

Furthermore, one can insist that nobody is ever “impartial,” but all this really does is define the term “impartial” in such a way that the function “x is impartial” is never satisfied. And there’s no reason to define a term of regular usage such that it cannot possibly apply to anything. This is like defining the term “triangular” such that no written or printed image satisfies the function “x is triangular.” It allows for trivial instances of truth within the narrow constraints of the hypotheses bound to that definition, but it has no meaningful bearing on the common and proper usage of the term.

One of the oaths that a federal judge takes is as follows;

I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

And the phrases “without respect to persons” and “faithfully and impartially” are meaningful here — meaningful enough to dictate that judges should recuse themselves when they feel that there are circumstances that prevent their ability to view a case “without respect to persons” and “faithfully and impartially.” A well publicized example is Judge Clarence Thomas’s recusal of himself from the sex discrimination case against VMI because his son attended VMI (Judge Thomas sits on the US Supreme Court and is bound by a different oath of impartiality.)

Indeed, our entire legal system in the Unites States is premised on a kind of metaphysical realism (i.e., there is a reality that words can and do describe), and the epistemic premise that people are capable of making impartial judgments about what that reality is — judges and jurors across this great land take oaths to be impartial every day. The test of any set of premises is the results to which they give rise, and the fact that the operation of our courts is generally orderly and effective is good evidence in favor of these premises — and I say that as someone who has been substantially burned by lousy judges making terrible rulings. Seriously, one law suit that I lost in the early 90s (someone sued me and won) was written up in a law journal as an example of miscarried judicial procedure, but the basis for appeals in that state were too slim to afford any relief other than finding out years later about the article.

At any rate, to claim that some ethnicity, be it black, white, hispanic, oriental, or indian, has some inherent systematic advantage as a judge or juror is to repudiate both the oath of office and a basic premise upon which our legal system is based. That’s why it’s troubling in this day and age to see a federal judge — well schooled in everything I’ve written here and under oath to be impartial — make such a statement.

I honestly don’t know enough about her record to speak to that. Since I see her appointment as a fate accompli, I don’t care much to argue that she’s a bad choice.

queuno–”Don’t we look for judges who can balance justice and mercy?”–no, that’s what we look for in Gods. In judges, we want them to interpret law (regardless of whether the law is just or merciful).

DKL–I knew you’d come through for me. You have some facinating hobbies (“I belong to a mailing list that is somewhat given over to bemoaning the difficulty of avoiding totalizing influences that assume objectivity or impartiality and to cautioning against such influences.”)

I am no philosopher, so I can’t argue on those points. I do believe, however, that people bring all sorts of baggage with them. You and I, for example, read Christs’ message in the Bible very differently. I think that is just dandy.

You are saying that impartiality is required and don’t like my suggestion that it might be impossible. It might be useful for a judge to be omniscient, too, but it doesn’t make it any more likely that they actually ARE. I believe that all judges do their best to be objective, but I think it would be more honest for them (and us) to admit that their experiences color them, no mater how much they try to rise above.

I find many things troubling. There are plenty of statements that conservative judges have made both in and out of court that I find troubling. I don’t think any person need be judged on the strength or weakness of a single statement.

I think you are right that the nomination is likely to be confirmed, and I think Sotomayor is likely to be a fantastic jurist. We’ll see.

queuno–yeah, I am pro-mercy; I just thought it was a funny line.

Andrew Sullivan posts a reader email about Sotomayor arguing that white racist views are still supported by free speech: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/sotomayors-defense-of-a-white-bigot.html

Charlie, I suspect that’s why the GOP seems to be backing off. Jeff Sessions is even backing off.

This guy argues that the program with Sotomayor isn’t that she’s a Latina, but that’s she just another Ivy Leaguer and that we need more educational diversity: http://open.salon.com/blog/michael_hebert/2009/06/11/does_sotomayor_really_make_the_supreme_court_diverse

I think you are very good in this, So I will like to follow.