arnee, if you bothered to read the link you provided the 2nd paragrapg on page 5 says it all. She disagrees that a man and a women would arrive at the same conclusion. And the most quoted “I would hope that a wise Latina would with the richness of her experiences would more often reach a conclusion that would be more inclusive than ......
If your unable to see and comprehend the racism than you must be a racist as well

mandinka, oh mandinka, where have you gone?

You were about to detail the findings of that speech and enlighten us all as to its racist content, were you not?

Mommy call you in to dinner?

mandinka, May 31 at 8:48 pm #

As I am rather familiar with your politics and your posting style I expected no less than this from you.

Perhaps you might enlighten this forum as to the specific comments within that speech you find so objectionable…...

Ardee you asked me to read her speech and I did. There is no incosistancy in what I said and her speech. It was without question racist, as a matter of fact her ENTIRE sppech was laced with racist terms and inuendo. Even Obama has said her speech was intemperant.
Look she is a racist and should be help to a higher standard than Imus, Rush.

For those who have not read this now “infamous” speech

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’

  *
  *
Published: May 14, 2009

The following is the text of the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, by appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor. It was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, a symposium issue entitled “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation,” and it is reproduced here with permission from the journal.
...........

I would warn those who have not had the privilege of eating Puerto Rican food the descriptions are a bit offputting. For those who have eaten such, the descriptions will make you drool and hunger.

The speech itself was given in honor of Judge Mario Olmos, an annual event I believe and thus the content is obviously about Latino culture and progress in society.

I would ask Marshall one more question, though I have little hope of an honest or unagendized answer:

Chief Justice Roberts has a remarkable track record in his somewhat brief tenure on the Court. His every single decision has favored the corporate over labor, the government over the governed, the wealthy over the poor, the powerful over the weak…every single decision.

I wonder if one might fairly note that this statistical anomaly points to a bias in Roberts interpretation of the law, a use of his own perspectives in interpreting the Constitutional merits of all those cases?

But Roberts is your guy, right Marshall, thus his decisions are above reproach, while the future decisions of the product of public housing and ethnic diversity are doomed already.

By ardee, May 30 at 1:52 pm #

Ardee - most of us are aware that there’s a speech attached to that quote and for many, a read of the entire speech serves to reinforce the curious nature of the sound bite.  Her speech seems to indicate that she not only acknowledges the problem (of personal identify affecting judicial decisions), but accepts the problem as solution.  This is what’s disturbing to those (on the right AND the left i might add) that are eagerly awaiting her congressional examination so that she can clarify her true beliefs on this subject and explain some of her statements that cause reasonable people to question her suitability.

Marshall, May 30 at 1:39 pm

I guess this bears repetition…..

As you well know, oh font of right wing ideology,the remark was one sentence in a longish speech. This is so typical of right wing propagandists that it cannot gain any traction whatever.

The simple fact is that, as Sotomayor is what she is, her expertise in certain matters will certainly be more first hand than that of those whose life experiences differ.

I would, yet again, note that no one, not you, not I , not Scalia, not Sotomayor, makes decisions not tied to experiential datum. To preach other wise is simply foolish.

Odd that you use ad hominem to condemn me for ad hominem. Not so odd, given your history here and on other forii, that you espouse the propaganda of the right while claiming immunity and the high road.

I once again insist that anyone reading the entirety of her remarks understands fully the cupidity of your position. To take one sentence and make an entire body of court decisions bend to that one sentence is reprehensible…typical too.

By ardee, May 30 at 9:19 am #

“her expertise in certain matters will certainly be more first hand than that of those whose life experiences differ.”

Which matters?  And by first hand, do you mean “better”?  And if so then shouldn’t we replace all justices with people of her experience?  You’ve offered a vague and evasive reinterpretation of what she actually said.

Her job is to interpret the law as written, not to use her racial/minority experience to color the law in one direction or another.

“It is ridiculous and absurd to take this right wing position, an intellectual travesty in fact and one that will further decimate the support of the electorate, such as it is, for the fanatical right.”

It’s always ridiculous to take any position on the right as far as you’re concerned.  Funny, cause I thought the process was exactly as the founders envisioned: those in support and those in against, publicly debating the appropriateness of a candidate to the supreme court.  Or is it only appropriate when it agrees with you?

You might also notice that i don’t lapse into ad hominem here simply because you disagree with me.  I respect your opinion, but i don’t respect your knee-jerk partisanship.

@Blackspeare:

Hispanic
adj.
1. Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America.
2. Of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.

The Portuguese have their own country which is not Spain (or a former Spanish colony) and their own language which is not Spanish, and are therefore not Hispanic.

Marshall, May 30 at 12:13 am #

As you well know, oh font of right wing ideology,the remark was one sentence in a longish speech. This is so typical of right wing propagandists that it cannot gain any traction whatever.

The simple fact is that, as Sotomayor is what she is, her expertise in certain matters will certainly be more first hand than that of those whose life experiences differ.

Further , to believe that the vetting process would allow a racist ( as your fount of all knowledge and Oxycontin spouts endlessly) to pas is absurdity of the lowest order and shows blatantly the emptiness of the right wing for all to see.

I have purposely avoided a link to the content of the remarks referred to in this hate fest of yours, do your own research, I did mine. It is ridiculous and absurd to take this right wing position, an intellectual travesty in fact and one that will further decimate the support of the electorate, such as it is, for the fanatical right.

The left and the right continue to fight the same old ideological battles that in many cases have become irrelevant, to working people.

Because the people’s real interests are in unifying against the political parties, that seem to think that symbolism matters more than substance.

Walter Ruther is probably rolling in his grave, to know that under a Democratic party and a Democratic president, the struggles of decades of union members, have become a footnote, for the good of the country. As GM goes so goes the nation. 

America’s manufacturing base has all but disapeared along with countless manufacturing jobs, and America’s corporate revenue stream, continues to head overseas without missing a beat, these economic realities are only icing on the corporate cake.

It matters very little who gets appointed to the supreme court or where they come from, because legal rights no longer matter as much as corporate rights, and no amount of symbolic political gesture’s are going to make one iota of difference.

By ardee, May 29 at 6:33 am #

<<Rather one might explain to you how the distortion of what was said and what was meant leads to unnecessary confusion and the propagandizing of the actual stance of the folks who made th ecomments.>>

And is that “one”, “you”?  Since you claim to know what she actually meant, be my guest at explaining… here’s the quote for reference:  “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,”

Additional Note: she’s since apologized for that comment.

mandinka, May 29 at 5:27 pm

It is so very easy to abstract one sentence from a statement and have a field day turning it into something it wasnt..enjoy yourself.

But understand that those who read the entirety of those remarks understand your position to be contrived, false and possibly intentionally so….

Its unfortunate that in 2009 that racist statements made by someone nominated to be a judge are overlooked . Her 1 statement should have been enough to have permanently disqualified.
Just look at the sports commentators who have lost their jobs for just the same comments. One only has to look back 2 years ago to Don Imus who was removed for a single comment and he was only a shock jock

I do believe I heard Carl Sagan say “I’ve been blessed.”  It’s an expression that has come to mean one has had inordinately good luck. Some may think God is the deliverer of all luck, but just because you say you’ve been blessed doesn’t mean that you think you are God-chosen.

Man, there are some mighty touchy athiests in these parts.

Marshall, May 29 at 1:47 am #

I wish someone would explain to me how someone’s experience as a latina leads to better decisions than a white man.
.............................

Rather one might explain to you how the distortion of what was said and what was meant leads to unnecessary confusion and the propagandizing of the actual stance of the folks who made th ecomments.

I wish someone would explain to me how someone’s experience as a latina leads to better decisions than a white man.  Seriously - this comment really makes me question her motivations.

And I agree with David on the “blessed” reference: the arrogance of those who think they are blessed while so many others are just left to suffer.

There’s a pattern of arrogance with this woman that’s bothersome.

She’ll fit right in so don’t bother keeping hope alive—bury that dead dog before its fleas spread more plague. We haven’t paid as much attention to the courts, but Tuesday Californians paid a high price for a Rethuglican Supreme Court CYA decision. Like several million others, I was voted into a second-class. The State has said we are inferior persons who must be denied equal rights.

I feel like it’s 1953 and McCarthy is roaming the streets, frothing at the mouth, looking to kick ass - “oh look, there’s a sissy boy over there! Get your truncheons and stun guns ready! Don’t confuse them with your glocks…”

And then younger people tell me that they don’t think gay is bad or inferior, and not to worry. The old will die off and all will be better. But I fear medicine will keep those ba*t*rds alive forever, and I’ll die before achieving equality. And I could move back to Europe and have full equality there, but that is also not an easy task & Europe has its own problems.

There isn’t a court in this country where I could get a fair trial. This is a fact, and the “jury system” is sickening. Your fate could be decided by a half-braindead senior who listens to Limbaugh and the other morons on talk radio. Frankly, we have little to no legal recourse if somebody rips us off. The system’s rigged not to address ordinary concerns of regular people but to legitimize the capital thefts committed by the Reich. As a secondary preoccupation the Court likes to keep the People oppressed and downtrodden. It has been so since the inception of this American Nightmare and continues under Obama and his Cheerleaders, all for the American Plutocracy, so they can cant to the rest of the world that we are the greatest blah blah blah of democracy blah blah.

The rest of the world sees them for exactly what they are. I salute my French brothers and sisters.

A stooge of predatory capitalism, Obama, is NOT going to appoint someone on the side of We the People.  Count on it.

Contrary to popular belief, Sotomayor will not be the first justice of Hispanic heritage.  Benjamin Cardozo was of Portuguese descent.

“Sonia Sotomayor, a woman and a proud Puerto Rican, is going to be a Supreme Court justice for the majority of us.”  Just like Obama was going to bring “change we can all believe in”.  Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me twice shame on me.  BOHICA

Peace

Can someone remain “a regular person” after going to Ivy League college and law school?  My first question was “She went to parochial schools.  How is she on abortion and reproductive rights?.”.  I’m happy for Latina/Latino kids. 

Her record is centrist.  With some judges, many predicted and were correct: Clarence Thomas, Roberts and Alito, to name a few.

DemocracyNow had a good “round table” this week on Sotomayor.  http://www.democracynow.org

And Glenn Greenwald has had some good columns about her and coverage of the nomination.  http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald (You have to click through an ad, but the link gets you right to his latest on Sotomayor)

As a woman, I am delighted.  Since she grew up near Yankee Stadium, I won’t fault her for being a fan of that team.

Ardee’s point about you never know what a person might do until they are seated, is well taken. I wonder if the so-called progressives now working themselves up into a lather, would have thought when President Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to the bench. Although famous for his work in Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Marshall comported himself in a conservative manner, preferring to leave other organizers to do their work in the streets. He instead chose to do his work for justice where it really counted: the law.
If the political ideologues can not see the significance of this appointment, they are blinded by their own cynical bitterness. This is just as outrageous as right wing blow hards who barely conceal their xenophobic misogyny.
And as the waste their time arguing over a qualified candidate for the court (who I probably would not agree with), meanwhile the largest robbery in world history continues unabated.
http://www.alternet.org/politics/140291/10_sleazy_ways_that_goldman_sachs_distracted_us_while_pocketing_billions_from_the_treasury?

“You cant always get what you want,
but if you try sometimes you just might find
you get what you need.”

Just like in real life this nominee will not satisfy the left, nor will she satisfy the right, but I guess she satisfied the president.

One might note that a persons past is no guarrantee of how she will rule once appointed to the court. We see such all the time. Earl Warren was called Eisenhower’s most bitter disappointment, Souter, the guy Sotomayor will replace was supposed to be a staunch conservative Justice…..