tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post4627127323350729325..comments2024-03-02T02:26:00.928-05:00Comments on bleakonomy: Sotomayor: Sex, Justice and the Full Court Presstetracontadigonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04604381739383227553noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-32358267690670558622009-05-28T12:59:18.405-04:002009-05-28T12:59:18.405-04:00what country are you living in? There are probably...what country are you living in? There are probably a few hundred eminently well qualified individuals on the left for the seat, so how then do you choose? Draw a name out of that hat? It is when you get to that point that you can take other considerations into account, such as sex and ethnicity. But we are starting with the presumption that these candidates are eminently well qualified, if you think she is not make that argument, you can't because it is not true.<br />Are you implying she can't reason? As to impartial there is no such thing, we can not divorce ourselves from ourselves and our experiences, at best we can be mindful of their impact on our lives.<br /><br />And what is this nonsense about being overturned more than half the time? Do you even have a clue about how few cases the Supreme Court even takes? In point of fact, her circuit court is average in cases heard and overturned, which considering it is a more liberal circuit and the Supreme Court is more Conservative something the right would take some heart in. But, of course, we all know facts are not your strong suit.<br /><br />As to Catholics, they are the single largest religious bloc in America, and the most diverse, at some point you run up against hard demographics, in any event I doubt her Catholicism was a consideration. If she were chosen because and only because she were a Catholic even as a Catholic I would be against that, but since that is not the case (and you know it is not, you are reaching)<br /><br />As to you not quoting her directly, you referenced her statement and in referencing it you misconstrued its intent. It would have been more intellectually honest had you quoted her, but we know intelligence and honesty aren't your strong suits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-24492250362011427282009-05-28T11:35:42.529-04:002009-05-28T11:35:42.529-04:00Hi, charo. I'm sorry, but could you point out whe...Hi, charo. I'm sorry, but could you point out where I quoted Ms. Sotomayor. I'm not sure how I can get a quote correct if I don't actually quote someone.<br /><br />You do seem to get the gist, namely, that it doesn't make any difference if one has a Y or X chromosome when reaching a legal conclusion. It doesn't matter if one's DNA codes for more or less melatonin in the skin either. What matters is a rational legal argument, not "life experiences."<br /><br />But, in the case that you think life experience ought to be a serious consideration, we now have 5 of 9 Supremes who are Catholic. Adding a 6th, Ms. Sotomayor, would result in insufficient diversity of life experience, so she should be rejected to keep the Court from being unrepresentative of America's religious diversity. Wouldn't a different religious choice add more "style", more "intangibles" to the Court? I doubt you will see my argument as persuasive, and why should you? Who gives a tinker's damn about the religious affiliation of a judge? What matters is legal reasoning and impartiality, not childhood experience or ethnic origin.<br /><br />p.s., if we had Vulcans raised in a box who would not be overturned more than half the time by the Supremes, but rather used reason to persuade higher courts of the rightness of their decisions, I would say put them on the Court.Johnv2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-47196440636320339352009-05-28T11:02:20.504-04:002009-05-28T11:02:20.504-04:00pointy, it would be nice if you got her quote corr...pointy, it would be nice if you got her quote correct. 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.<br /><br />“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"<br /><br />Yep, God forbid that she (a woman and a latina) hope to reach a better conclusion than others, nope it should be of the same value as everyone else. How dare anyone hope to be better, and if they are better we should all pretend they are sexless and raceless, and raised in a box on the planet Vulcan.<br /><br />Even on basketball teams they will take a player from Europe who doesn't have the stats of an American player because of his style, because of how he will add to the team, because of the intangibles. But such a concept is utterly beyond you, it is easy to see how confused you can be.<br /><br />charoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-51500648987965161112009-05-27T13:46:25.536-04:002009-05-27T13:46:25.536-04:00Hi charo. Can you post a point in Mr. Limbaugh's ...Hi charo. Can you post a point in Mr. Limbaugh's transcript where I got the "regurgitation" from? No? Odd, isn't it, especially since I never listen to Mr. Limbaugh. Oh well, pesky details. What matters is that your heart knows I'm wrong.<br /><br />Reagrding empathy, the question asked of Ms. Sotomayor ought to be along the lines of "where do you draw the line between following the law and following your heart?" One might also inquire as to what rich experience white men lack that a wise Latina possesses, and if white, non-Catholic men possess any useful experiences missing from wise Latinas. It is hard enough to understand the reams of regulations that flow forth from the Congress, but to be handicapped by trying to understand how the Supremes might choose to reinterpret the regulations... well, that's a recipe for confusion. My heart tells me so, therefore it must be true.Johnv2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-20563963900589060622009-05-27T13:06:24.559-04:002009-05-27T13:06:24.559-04:00of course John has a point, it is the one on top o...of course John has a point, it is the one on top of his head. Sad little man that he is, he probably thinks what he wrote above is witty, when all it is is regurgitated Limbaughian nincompoopery.<br /><br />A couple of comments, the recent abominable Court decision regarding the young girl who was forcibly strip searched while looking for something as innocuous as an over the counter pain med (which she didn't have) shows the necessity of empathy, which means nothing more than the identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.<br />Cops can't question children without a guardian present, but schools can strip search them, with far, far less probable cause than exists outside the school?<br /><br />Of course empathy is a critical faculty, who truly wants a cold, unfeeling individual. Certainly one can be empathetic without losing ones reasoning ability. Parents do it all the time.<br /><br />A few other points dear Doctor<br /><br />He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur<br /><br />What the heck does making treaties have to do with Senate confirmation of judges?<br /><br />The Tamil tigers did not invent suicide bombing, have you never heard of Kamikazes?<br /><br />Finally, I don't expect any bloodbath. The Republicans have already spent the past 5 months shrieking at the top of their lungs, I doubt people will pay much attention, barring any unforeseen calamity (she is a meth addict, she hasn't paid her taxes since 1980, etc.) I think it will be about as meaningful to the average American as the confirmation that Alito was, ie. not much.<br /><br />charoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-83367328917286027162009-05-26T17:05:47.851-04:002009-05-26T17:05:47.851-04:00John, is there a point in there, or are you just c...John, is there a point in there, or are you just casting aspersions?Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-73792399898432704362009-05-26T13:44:35.520-04:002009-05-26T13:44:35.520-04:00Yes, empathy will be a huge issue, because everyon...Yes, empathy will be a huge issue, because everyone knows that the best decisions come when the Supremes ignore law and simply pick the outcome that makes them feel all warm and squishy inside. Time to rip that blindfold off the lady with the scales! To help the Court in the empathy portion of the process, just have applicants fill out this simple questionaire:<br /><br />1. Have you given the maximum to the Democratic Party and its candidates over the last 5 years?<br />2. If the answer to 1 is "no", there's still time! Just enter your CC number here _________.<br />3. If your answer is still "no", do you prefer prison clothes in orange, vertical stripes, or horizontal stripes?Johnv2noreply@blogger.com