Sotomayor Nominated for Supreme Court

Remove all ads!

Conservatives complain about being told they are right?

 

Not that I'm aware of. The only complaint I hear from them is that the courts are "too liberal." They would merely replace "liberalism" with conservative doctrine. This goes along way in explaining why they cannot reconcile their Federalist tendencies, with their "supposed" notions of Jeffersonian Democratic ideas on smaller government. A good example is Justice Saclia who rejects Jeffersonian principles on smaller govenment and is more in favor of Hamiltonian notions of a stonger, more centralized, particularly the executive wing, federal government.

 

I don't know what the Supreme Court in the US has done on this, but here's what gives me the shakes:

It is my understanding that the Judicial branch of government interprets and enforces the laws that were made by the Legislative branch and implemented by the Executive branch. In the US, and to a lesser extent Canada, all laws must pass a litmus test -- does the law conform to the Constitution (of said country)? If it doesn't, the Judicial branch has the authority to strike down that law. it is my understanding that that is the only thing they are authorized to do by the Constitution (at least in the US).

But here in Canadaland, I believe there have been instances where the Judicial branch not only struck down a law, but proceeded to direct the Legislative branch of government to write a new law. That effing well disturbs me. When people talk about Judicial activism, it's ka ka like that that I'm thinking about.

 

Notice the dates and how, as NOG mentioned, the Court granted itself its own powers. The oirginal Constitution of 1787, and ratified in 1789, never crafted a strong federal court, at least nothing like what it has become. John Marshall was a poltical hack, who saw himself as the last protector of the dying Federalist Party, and a bulwark against the forward progression of the very powerful Jeffersonian Democrats of 1801. For Further reading, checkout this good and balanced book on the subject:

http://www.sorcerers.net/shop/1_100...-Epic-Struggle-to-Create-a-United-States.html

I have not read this one but it looks intriguing as well.

http://www.sorcerers.net/shop/1_100...all-and-the-Battle-for-the-Supreme-Court.html

One interesting fact is that Roberts, the Bush appointee and new Chief Justice is an admirer of Marshall. He has close ties to the Conservative Federalist Society, which wants a revival of Federalist ideals based in part on the Federalist Papers and some of the ideas of the old Federalist Party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

Nice point, DMC. Now a days, presidents issue signing statements, which in part, exempts them from judicial or congressional over-site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements

 

I think you're crediting Jackson with more, mmm, civic mindedness than I would. But then, I'm a member of the Facebook group 'andrew jackson was an indian killer', so...

 

Here's a few interesting factoids: If Sotomayor is confirmed, five of the nine SC Justices will be Catholic (the others are Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and - quite surprisingly - Thomas). There have been a grand total of 110 SC Justices in the history of the US, and Sotomayor would be just the 11th Catholic overall. I find it quite surprising that nearly half of all Catholic Justices ever to serve on the SC are current members.

 

Here in USland, some courts have gone one step further, and effectively written their own laws through very "creative reinterpretations" of existing law and setting precidents. That's what the right typically means when they talk about "judicial activism".

 

Yes, and besides talking about it they are quite good at it as well.

 

Isn't that what politics is all about, Chandos? Complaining about the opponent breaking the rules while you yourself break the same rules?

 

Of course. This is all politics, but Sotomayor is going to be confirmed, because she is well qualified. She has served as a federal judge for a longer duration than any of the other sitting members of the SC were at the time of their nomination. We all knew that whomever Obama selected would not be acceptable to the GOP (which should change it's name to the Grand Obsolete Party (TM by Keith Olbermann). We all knew there would be cries of activist judge. But the fact is she's very qualified.

 

There were some members of the GOP that were going to cry foul at any first nominee unless that nominee had a pro-life track record. It's just the whole 'rattling the sabres' kind of thing that's done in politics so if the judge makes a "bad call" the opposition can say "I told you so."

Both sides have done this for as long as I remember.

 

My biggest problem with her is her arrogance. Anyone cocky enough to describe themselves as "wise" most assuredly is not.

Also her assertion(view) that a "wise latino woman" would make a better decision than a "white male". WTF??
If this statement had been reversed & made by a "white man" his chances of being appointed to the court would be about 0.000000000000000000000001%

 

Martaug, you missed a few zeros

But you're right, her statement is just as racist and unacceptable as if a white person had said it, but of course nobody ever seriously brings minorities to book.

 

Oh, no. No ONE has said a word about her comments. In fact, the shrill accusastions from the conservative media talking heads have been so intense that even Republican Senators have told them to basically shut-up about it already. Here you have the "book:"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...ionator-sotomayor-race-and-the-right/?apage=3

Supreme Court Justice Alito:

I believe that she was trying to make the a similar statement only in a less tactful manner. Her statement was awkward, but hardly "racist."

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001783/

 

I just find it funny that if a White conservative had said it, the liberals would have had him tarred & feathered and run out of town, no matter what kind of apologies he tried to make.
You know it's true Chandos.

 

Could a possible explanation of that be because whites have been in a dominant position in this country since its inception, and that people of non-white races have been discriminated against? I've never heard about Latinas keeping white men down...

 

If a Latina -- or any woman, for that matter -- is really pretty she's welcome to . . . ahh, I'd better quit while I'm ahead.

But seriously, saying something like "My experiences as a Latina woman will allow me to make good judgements" would be fair -- a reference to an aspect of her life that she feels has shaped her in positive ways, just as if a Christian were to say "my experiences as a person of faith will allow me to make good judgements" I think that would be fair. But that's not how she said it. She said “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.”

In my examples, the speaker didn't insinuate that the elements under discussion made them superior to other people who lack those elements. They just acknowledged that those elements were positive influences. Her quote implies that her Latina heritage makes her superior to white men. Any way you cut it, that's racist.

Now, was it probably just a slip of the tongue? Of course. We all say stupid things. But as Martaug mentioned, if Edward T. Jamieson* were to say

"I would hope that an intelligent white man with all of his experience would
more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black woman who hasn't lived that life"

There would be no "let him explain what he meant!" or "it's not a big deal." The NAACP, ACLU, NOW, and about 450 other alphabet soup groups would sink his ass in a heartbeat. Oprah would have a "very special show" and torpedo old Eddie so hard he wouldn't be able to run for mayor of the hamlet of Lower Butthole (pop. 43)

Should this end her career or chances of getting into the SC? Of course not. I just want people to recognize and acknowledge the double standard.

*a totally made up person, I sincerely hope that there is no Edward T. Jamieson in the spotlight as we speak.

 

The key difference, though, that both you and Martaug are missing, is that the echelons of power in this country (and specifically, the judiciary) have not been dominated for pretty much our nation's entire history by black women. They've historically been the exclusive province of white men.

In such a situation, a white man highlighting that he has a unique point of view from that of the typical holder of the position he seeks (in this case, a never-ending series of black women) would not be a racist at all - he would simply be highlighting a unique qualification that sets him apart from his contemporaries.

Perhaps the manner in which Sotomayor highlighted this point was indelicate (indicating that she would reach "a better conclusion" was her big mistake, imo). But still, it doesn't change two very important facts: she's hardly a racist, and she has a point. The perspective of a projects-raised Latina woman differs significantly from that of a privileged white male on most issues, and justices in the US have typically been privileged white males. All judiciary bodies benefit greatly from a variety of viewpoints and thought processes, especially the Supreme Court. If I had my way, I'd see to it that no two SCOTUS justices had a single thing in common - but realistically that's a luxury I'm just going to have to live without. As it is, striving to make the judiciary as diverse as possible (in every respect, not just ethnicity) stands to benefit us all and ensure the highest degree of fairness.

So there really is no double standard, just racists trying their best to tar an opponent as a racist because they have no legitimate problem with her other than that she's a liberal. It's also pointless; she'll be confirmed, and all the GoP will have succeeded in doing is further alienating Latino voters, most of whom are eager to finally see one of their own in high office. That's the part I find funny.