judge sonia sotomayor

Home » judge sonia sotomayor

What would you say if you were being pressed by Republicans?

I found this on BnB and it is very funny:

This being said, she was cool under fire today. Still, I marveled at her ability to remain on point and pleasant throughout the day’s proceedings. I posted over at Jack & Jill politics that I kept waiting for her to jump up, put her hand on her hip and say, “Look here, papi. Whatchu see is whatchu get, right?” In my soap opera, she goes all Rosie Perez a la Do the Right Thing with Sessions as Mookie. Much as I would have enjoyed that, that’s exactly what they want to see. They want to see a loud, gum-smacking, neck-rolling, “spicy Latina” breaking them off a piece of her mind. Not gonna happen.

Today they re-dredged the “wise Latina” question and tried to get her to say that she was an abortion-loving rabble-rousing radical terrorist. Um yeah, it didn’t work. She stuck to the jurisprudence and referenced logical standards of impartiality for every wackadoodle scenario they threw at her. It was so off the wall at one point that I expected Jack Lemon and Walter Mathau to come out and announce that this was all a gag promoting Grumpy Old Men 3 – They’re back and elected to public office!

Let the record reflect that had it been OneChele in front of them today, the conversation would’ve gone a little differently:

“Ms. Chele, thank you for appearing in front of us today.”

I smile. “Umm-hmm, no problem. Anything for Barry, so what’s on your mind?”

“Ms. Chele, can you share with us your opinions on abortion?”

Frowning, I answer. “That seems rather personal. I think we should let grown folks handle grown folks’ business.”

“So you refuse to answer?” (more…)

By |2009-07-16T21:48:44-04:00July 16th, 2009|Fun, Obama administration, Supreme court|Comments Off on What would you say if you were being pressed by Republicans?

Another Blow to Affirmative Action (Updated)

Conservatives have been attacking affirmative action and the 1964 Civil Rights Law since the Reagan administration.  The Supreme Court has reversed the lower court (Second Circuit Court of Appeals with Sotomayor).  More later…

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

From AP:

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (more…)

Update: One thing is clear. The Supreme Court did nothing to clarify the situation, but instead muddied the waters. The Supreme Court seems to be saying that if you did not intentionally discriminate, then no discrimination exists. This must be just my overly simplistic way of reading this decision. This is obviously a false hypothesis. It’s clearly possible to discriminate against blacks, women and other minorities without doing it “intentionally.” Proving intent would be nearly impossible in most discrimination cases.

This case also points out some of the problems I have with some conservatives who say that judges need to “interpret the law.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly states that you cannot discriminate based on race but then it goes on to say when an employer can discriminate based on a “protected trait.” So how do you balance these things? The mantra, “interpret the law,” rings hollow.

The Supreme Court focused on a test that was given to these firefighters. Now we know from years of testing students that some tests can reveal racial bias. We know from an elegant study by Stanford researcher that minorities will perform worse a particular test if they are told that this is a test of intelligence. If minority students are told that this is a problem-solving test these students do perfectly well. Their scores are as good as their White counterparts. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s arguments seem to be solid when she states, “In so holding, the Court pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension, essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes.”

Finally, the Supreme Court has breathed just a flicker of hope into the anti-Sotomayor crowd. Over the next 24-48 hours, some conservatives will try to move quickly to capitalize on this momentum. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, they’ll say, is somehow unfit for the Supreme Court because she has a ruling that’s been overturned. This, of course, is a ridiculous statement. Nonetheless, I suspect conservatives will try to push this and get as much mileage out of this is possible. As Glenn puts itIn light of today’s ruling, it’s a bit difficult — actually, impossible — for a rational person to argue that Sotomayor’s Ricci decision places her outside the judicial mainstream when: (a) she was affirming the decision of the federal district court judge; (b) she was joined in her decision by the two other Second Circuit judges who, along with her, comprised a unanimous panel; (c) a majority of Second Circuit judges refused to reverse that panel’s ruling; and now: (d) four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices — including the ones she is to replace — agree with her.

Put another way, 11 out of the 21 federal judges to rule on Ricci ruled as Sotomayor did. It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that she ruled erroneously, but it’s definitively unreasonable to claim that her Ricci ruling places her on some sort of judicial fringe.

Update II: Balkination has more technical questions about this Ricci decision and how will it affect the Voting Rights Act.

By |2009-06-29T10:28:08-04:00June 29th, 2009|Civil Rights, Supreme court|Comments Off on Another Blow to Affirmative Action (Updated)

Grab Bag – Sunday Afternoon News Roundup

It appears that Gov. Mark Sanford’s mission to Argentina was contraindicated. Then again, his extracurricular activity was also contraindicated. Maureen Dowd from the New York Times has some interesting comments on the governor’s split personality.

California approaches a July second deadline without a budget. The state comptroller is going to be forced to hand out IOUs. I thought Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in order to fix California’s budgetary woes. The last governor who was running record deficits, shortly after being reelected, was ousted on a special election. So what has “the Terminator” done to fix the budgetary problems?  I thought that he said that he knew how to fix this.

I spoke yesterday at a rally for universal healthcare. I keep reading the stuff coming out of Washington and it seems like universal confusion. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stated, “I think we’re in good shape.” Maybe he’s looking at a different healthcare plan. What I see formulating in Washington looks like that amorphous hybrid like that thing in the movie, The Blob.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press. He was talking about healthcare and healthcare reform. He stated that the Republican Party believes in giving Americans a choice in healthcare.I guess he meant a choice among insurance companies since he does not support a public option.

We’ve been assured that Iraqis are ready to handle their own security.

House minority leader John Boehner is not happy with the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This is a good thing. This means is might not be simply a corporate giveaway.

62% of Americans believe that Judge Sonia Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

TMZ reports that Billy Mays, longtime pitchman for OxyClean, was found dead this morning. The night before he had a “hard landing” at Tampa’s airport. There is some question of whether he was wearing a seat belt or not, since he hit his head.

By |2009-06-28T15:48:11-04:00June 28th, 2009|Healthcare, House of Representatives, Obama administration, Party Politics, State and Local Politics, Supreme court|Comments Off on Grab Bag – Sunday Afternoon News Roundup
Go to Top