Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2009 - 06:57pm PT
|
Again, she and the other "white" Justices found to uphold the existing law.
They did not see fit to overturn existing legislatively voted on law. Judicially, those three Justices saw their duty as interpreting existing law.
The law was clear, none of them had any problem with upholding it
Had they done so, the charge of "activist" judges might have been believably leveled.
I don't see how upholding existing law can in any way be interpreted by anyone as being in any way "racist".
Conservatives should be strongly supporting Sotomayor for strictly upholding written law, that is their constant mantra.
|
|
froodish
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 06:59pm PT
|
@shutupandclimb:
> The point I was making is that there IS a double standard at play. If
> whitey joins an organization that extols his pride in being white and of
> his Nordic descent, then he is considered and labeled racist by societal
> standards.
Yeah, witness the howls of protest from brown people every year about New York's St Patrick's Day Parade!
And I'm so sick of all the whining about the National Italian American Foundation! And Jeebus, you can't turn on the Tee Vee these days without somebody making a stink about the Highland Games.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 07:14pm PT
|
Norton,
I think your use of "upholding existing law" proves too much. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way in Brown v. Board of Education, they would simply have been in line with Plessy v. Ferguson, and therefore upholding existing law.
I don't want someone who blindly upholds existing law. We've had tragic limits on first amendment rights because too many justices (including some conservative ones) voted to uphold the existing law of McCain-Feingold. Does that make me liberal? I think the sort of activism we oppose is the sort that stretches language or simply ignores that language, becuase the court wishes to enact something that the legislature has not. To put it slightly differently, I want justices with enough humility to uphold laws with which they disagree, unless they can find a principled Constitutional reason to do otherwise.
I happen to disagree with several of Sotomayor's opinions, but I don't find them unprincipled, and I don't see in them the sort of unlimited, absolute, freedom to do anything she wants. That, to me, is the sort of "activism" to which I protest. I think the President should be largely free to choose someone whose judicial philsophy is consonant with his, as long as that person does not lapse into that sort of "activism." That's the criterion that should have been used with nominees of past presidents, and should be used with this one. I just wish the Senate would consistently apply it to both sides.
John
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 07:15pm PT
|
Just a few quick points:
John (JLeaz): thanks for your comments. I think we may agree more than we disagree but it's nice to hear the fleshed out version. BTW, I was at UCLA about 15 yrs. after you (Class of '90). Just writing that makes me feel old.
Re La Raza: I was a member of La Raza Law Students and it was essentially just a group of latino law students who were there to support other latino law students by sharing outlines, some tutoring if need be, simple stuff like that. Nothing about that organization could be construed as racist. Most of us were kids from the suburbs with a latino heritage. Half of us didn't even speak Spanish (I don't) or, except for our surnames, would be easily recognized as latino. We didn't isolate ourselves from other students or faculty. We were just a small group with, once we got to know each other, a pretty similar background and upbringing.
Re the fireman case. Most of this has already been said, but this a was two paragraph unsigned opinion where two other judges (who were white) sided with her. When the drama calms down, it's going to look like a tempest in a teapot.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 07:39pm PT
|
"While you don't need to be a lawyer to have a meaningful opinion on what judge you want to be on the Supreme Court, it helps to have at least a general understanding of the relevant concepts, and the jargon if you're going to use it (such as "judicial activism").
Just look it up on Wikipedia and learn something.
Here's a my one sentence summary--it's on the fly and maybe not the best: judicial activism generally describes the situation where a court prevents another branch of government from doing something because the "something" is found to conflict with another source of law. Most common example: finding a statute (e.g., statute criminalizing abortion) to be unconstitutional."
blahblah, yes, it does help to have a general understanding of the relevant concepts and the jargon. Your understanding is lacking. The phrase is "judicial review," not judicial activism and it's as old as Constitutional law--in fact it is central to the whole idea of Constitutional law and its structure of "checks and balances."
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 08:11pm PT
|
graniteclimber--uhhh, I read your post, but in what sense is my understanding lacking? You are right that there is a concept called "judicial review"; I don't think that's presently under discussion. My point was merely to explain that not every judge is a "judicial activist" even in the eyes of his/her detractors: judicial activism means something other than being "wrong." I attempted to explain that (rather quickly, as I said at the time)--and I think I did a passable job. If you disagree, can you explain why, rather than going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything that anyone has written?
To spell it out a bit more: consider the recent Heller case (striking DC gun laws)--it was described by its detractors as judicial activism. See http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-discussion-board-clarityis-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ (one of the more widely read blogs relating to Supreme Court jurisprudence). The conservative majority was criticized for engaging in judicial activism. I don't think anyone was saying the USSC didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case!!
Judical activism is a slur--but it's not a catch all slur, and it is not generally used just to describe decisions you don't like.
JL--thanks for your expanded points regarding old, white, men--at least as I read your later post, it didn't have the same level of contempt for that group as I read in your earlier one. Interesting that in things like science and math we don't have a separate body of knowledge based on age, sex, skin color. I suppose it's debatable whether law is or should be similar in that regard.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 08:40pm PT
|
^ ^ ^ ^
Howweird--it's going to be more and more of a problem and that's not going to change. The shoe is going to be on the other foot for a good long while.
You'll have to adopt the old saying that women and minorities used to use: to get the promotion, we have to be twice as good as the white man. Fortunately, that isn't hard!
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 08:56pm PT
|
"If you disagree, can you explain why, rather than going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything that anyone has written?"
blahblah, if you really believe that then you are not just ignorant, you are stupid. Re-read your "one sentence summary" of your definition of judicial activism and then look up judicial review. While you're at it, also look up Marbury v. Madison and read about the first time the Supreme Court overruled a legislative body.
Take some of your own advice:
"it helps to have at least a general understanding of the relevant concepts, and the jargon if you're going to use it "
"Just look it up on Wikipedia and learn something."
Look up the definition of judicial activism and you'll see it's quite different from your's.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 09:01pm PT
|
What I love most I think is that racial groups in this country have historically had to band together to support each other against a majority that uniformly scorned their arrival in the New World. Now that people from those racial groups are starting to "come up" the same majority labels them "racist" for being eager to see people from their racial groups succeed.
I'm just another race traitor I guess.
|
|
Wack
climber
Dazevue
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 09:07pm PT
|
"What I love most I think is that racial groups in this country have historically had to band together to support each other against a majority that uniformly scorned their arrival in the New World."
Kind of like Cortez when he landed in Mexico.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 09:30pm PT
|
You would be hard pressed to find nominees more radically activist than Roberts and Alito.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 09:31pm PT
|
At Yale, Sotomayor won apology from law firm
In 1978, she complained of bias during her job interview process. And a university panel backed her stance.
By James Oliphant and Andrew Zajac
May 28, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The early White House story line on Sonia Sotomayor emphasizes her pragmatism and a cautious, measured approach to the law developed over a years-long climb from exceedingly modest circumstances to becoming the first Latino nominee to the Supreme Court.
But an incident in the fall of 1978 illustrates another side of Sotomayor. Then a daring and assertive Yale University law student, she took a stand against a white-shoe Washington law firm that could have jeopardized her career.
While interviewing for jobs during her final year of school, she accused the firm, then known as Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, of discriminating against her by asking questions about the qualifications of Puerto Ricans and other minorities.
Sotomayor's complaint caused a campus furor. A student-faculty panel found the complaint warranted and ordered Shaw Pittman to write her a letter of apology.
The complaint resulted from a dinner conversation between Sotomayor and a Shaw Pittman partner, Martin Krall. According to news reports at the time, Krall asked her whether she would have been admitted to law school if she were not Puerto Rican and whether law firms did a disservice by hiring minority students with inferior credentials and then firing them a few years later.
Before attending Yale, Sotomayor graduated summa c#m laude from Princeton University and won that school's highest academic honor for an undergraduate.
She served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and was one of just a handful of Latinos in her class.
Reached by telephone Wednesday at his home in Florida, Krall said only, "I've got nothing to say. That was 30 years ago."
Shaw Pittman, which merged with Pillsbury Winthrop to form Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in 2005, had much to lose from the episode.
The law school threatened to bar the firm from recruiting from its talent-rich pool of students, an associate dean at the school, James W. Zirkle, said then.
Zirkle went on to become a lawyer for the CIA and a professor at Georgetown University. He declined to comment Wednesday, as did Yale Law School. Classmates recalled the incident and said it was natural for Sotomayor to assert herself. She was known for taking on her professors -- some of the preeminent legal scholars of the time -- in class.
Martha Minow, a classmate at Yale and now a professor at Harvard Law School, called Sotomayor's stand "very courageous."
That was Sotomayor, she said: "Be your own person, and stand up for what you believe in."
Pillsbury spokeswoman Sandi Sonnenfeld declined to comment but issued this statement on behalf of firm Chairman Jim Rishwain:
"Pillsbury is committed to diversity of all kinds, and we are proud of our record in attracting and retaining minority lawyers. Having attorneys from diverse backgrounds and experiences is fundamental to our business and beneficial to both clients and us."
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2009 - 09:38pm PT
|
Fattrad, you still don't get it do you?
Only when minorities are represented on the courts and in ALL of the various levels of government AND employment can you say that
the barriers have been lifted.
Your examples are lame and work to NOT prove your point because the proportionality of representation to population is NOT.
You are in typical affluent right wing white guy denial if you really believe that minorities in 2009 do NOT still face "barriers".
Or maybe your mother dropped you on your head as a baby?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 09:40pm PT
|
"Black President, Black SCOTUS, Black & Hispanic Senators/Congressman, Black/Hispanic CEO's, where is that barrier?"
How many black Presidents have we had? One?
How many black justices are there on the Supreme Court? One?
How many black sentators/congressmen are there? Obama was the only black Senator during his term. How many Fortune 500 CEO's are black?
The numbers for Hispanics are even worse.
When racism first became an issue of public awareness a lot of companies hired a black receptionist to sit at their front desk. He or she would often be the only black employee in the whole building. The message was, "See, we don't discriminate against blacks!" but it was just tokenism. Most companies have moved past that but not much has changed at the top levels.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 01:17am PT
|
its a silver bullet, isn't it? Nominate whatever candidate you want regardless of what they have done or what their beliefs are. Anyone that disagrees with you is a racist. Brilliant, actually. McCain should have put Hiram L. Fong on his ticket instead of the milf. Would have one-upped ya!
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 01:48am PT
|
One of the top Republicans in the Senate, John Cornyn, is repudiating recent comments by Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich which claimed that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a racist.
Cornyn, the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR's "All Things Considered":
"I think it's terrible... This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent."
Cornyn dismissed Limbaugh and Gingrich, adding: "Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don't think it's appropriate. I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 02:09am PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anglo, male, older, hetero, conservative/GOP
Just in case you were wondering. See the pattern?
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2009 - 02:16am PT
|
Yup just a bunch of racists.
The racists are the idiots that are willing to put anyone in an extremely delicate position just to send a message. Personally I would be offended if someone gave me a job just because I was white, or hispanic, or a man/woman. Long before she was nominated all the pundits and drive by's were commenting on who was going to be elected and most agreed, months ago, that it would be a latino, probably a female. Go ahead and say that she got in because of her qualifications. I'm sure she's qualified. But thats not why she's there ;)
edit to answer johns question
Probably the 52 million people that voted for McCain. Whatever their race/ethnicity/sex/affiliation is. Despite what you see in Apple commercials and at your local starbucks the democratic party does not own every single ethnic person in our country :)
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2009 - 08:18am PT
|
just 65% of Hispanics and 92% of blacks, thats all
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!