Ana Birchall şi Sonia Sotomayor

CELE MAI CITITE

Razboiul Săbiilor de Fier

Vasile Bănescu: Avortul este și va rămâne în esență un act irațional, dictat în primul rând de un tip de ignoranță antropologică și spirituală

27 May 2009

Conceptul Empatiei în Justiţie

Este de înţeles bucuria Anei Birchall la nominalizarea de către Barack Obama a Soniei Sotomayor pentru postul din Curtea Supremă a Statelor Unite. Ambele au obţinut doctoratul la Yale Law School şi păstrează această solidaritate a absolvenţilor, pe urmă o legătură există prin oraşul New York City, unde Sotomayor lucrează ca judecătoare iar Ana Birchall a fost avocat. Ana Birchall este purtător de cuvânt al PSD Bucureşti iar de aici se deduce o solidaritate mai profundă determinată de idealizarea de către stânga de pretutindeni a Preşedintelui Barack Obama şi a părerilor sale. Iată ce spune Ana Birchall despre impresiile produse de discursul pe care l-a rostit judecătoarea Sotomayor cu ocazia nominalizării:

„Citind discursul Soniei de astăzi mi-am adus aminte de pasiunea cu care vorbea despre onoarea de aţi servi ţara veghind la aplicarea legilor dar şi de şansa pe care a avut-o de a ajunge la Yale Law deşi familia sa era din Bronx, unul dintre cele mai sărace cartiere ale New York-ului”.

Revăzând acele remarci la nominalizare ale Soniei Sotomayor trebuie subliniat accentul pe care l-a pus pe principiul „domniei legii ca fundament al tuturor drepturilor noastre de bază” şi pe faptul că se simte inspirată de „realizarile părinţilor noştri fondatori”, deci părinţii fondatori ai Constituţiei Statelor Unite.

Şi totuşi judecătoarea Sotomayor este un subiect fierbinte pentru media şi blogosfera conservatoare de peste ocean şi nu fără motiv. Iată ce spunea judecătoarea Sotomayor în 2001, la Berkeley School of Law, ca un comentariu la părerea judecătoarelor Ruth Bader Ginsburg şi Sandra Day O’Connor, pentru care un bărbat bătrân înţelept şi o femeie bătrână înţeleaptă vor ajunge la aceeaşi concluzie când dezbat cazurile:

„Am încredere că o femeie latino-americană cu o bogăţie a experienţelor personale va reuşi mai des să ajungă la o concluzie mai bună (ca judecător) decât un bărbat alb care nu a trăit acea viaţă”.

Deci aici este vorba despre un avantaj, mai exact o superioritate pe care o are o femeie latino-americană faţă de un bărbat alb când judecă diverse cazuri. Acest discurs al superiorităţii şi avantajului pe care îl produce etnicitatea şi genul este mereu prezent la Sonia Sotomayor. Într-un articol intitulat “O voce a unei Judecătoare latino-americane” scris pentru ediţia de primăvară a revistei de limba spaniolă La Raza Journal, se afirmă:

”Totuşi, deoarece accept propoziţia că, aşa cum o spune judecătoarea Resnik, „a judeca este un exerciţiu al puterii” şi pentru că, după cum declară profesoara Martha Minnow de la Harvard Law School că „nu există un punct de vedere obiectiv ci numai o serie de perspective – fără neutralitate, fără ieşire din alegere în actul judecării”, accept pe mai departe că experienţele noastre ca femei şi oameni de culoare ne afectează deciziile”.

Perfect adevărat în cazul Ricci vs DeStefano, cel mai controversat din întreaga sa carieră de judecător la Curtea de Apel din New York, în care a făcut parte din completul de judecată care a respins acţiunea unui grup de pompieri albi din New Haven, Connecticut. Ei obiectaseră la decizia primăriei de a nu respectă rezultatele unui test de promovare pentru motivul că erau prea mulţi pompieri albi care obţinuseră punctaje ridicate faţă de cei de culoare.

De altfel, nu mai puţin de 5 decizii la care a fost parte şi Sonia Sotomayor au fost respinse de Curtea Supremă a Statelor Unite, iar în cea de-a şasea poziţia judecătoarei nu a fost aprobată. Dar Preşedintele Obama o consideră o alegere inspirată poate pentru că genul şi culoarea sunt factorii de bază ai deciziilor judecătoarei Sotomayor. Dacă este aşa, de unde vine apelul la părinţii fondatori ai naţiunii americane, unde vorbesc ei de gen şi de culoare? Există o dorinţă imensă a Administraţiei Obama de a schimba din temelii o naţiune, sub sloganul câştigător Change we can believe in. Schimbarea poate începe în modul în care se face politică, sau din modul în care judecătorii pot face politicile, aşa cum afirmă judecătoarea Sotomayor în următorul clip foarte scurt:

Clar: “Curtea de Apel este locul unde se face politica”!

Bio
Articole Recente

Daniel Francesco

Articol anterior Provocările nord-coreene şi Globalistanul

Articol următor Elegii conservatoare la Radio France International

41 Comments

Manjusri
27 May 2009
Francesco, felicitari pentru articol si pentru ca ai adus in discutie aceasta problema, a numirii unui judecator la Curtea Suprema a Statelor Unite.
Este evidenta tendinta lui Barack Obama de a numi in diverse posturi oameni care corespund grilei ideologice a corectitutinii politice: membri ai „grupurilor defavorizate”, activisti ai diverselor cauze etc. Nu este o problema ca numeste femei, afro-americani, hispanici in diverse posturi. Problema e ca ii numeste doar pentru ca sunt membri ai „grupurilor defavorizate” si sunt adepti ai ideologiei „corecte”. „Meritele” lor sunt legate de apartenenta la rasa si gen si nu neaparat de cariera si valoare profesionala.
Citeam recent ca exista persoane care o considera pe dna Sotomayor drept cea mai importanta numire la Curtea Suprema, din ultimii 70 de ani. Argumentul este ca ar avea cea mai mare experienta dintre toti judecatorii numiti la Curtea Suprema in ultimii 70 de ani. Pe langa ridicolul afirmatiei, putem constata ca, iarasi, entuziasmul ideologic ne intuneca ratiunea! De ce ar fi aceasta doamna cel mai important membru al Curtii Supreme? Pentru a raspunde nu vom face apel la performanta profesionala, importanta e orientarea ideologica. Citatele evocate de tine in articol ne arata clar ca dna Sotomayor e adepta corectitudinii politice, deci e cea mai valoroasa numire din ultimii 70 de ani. Antonin Scalia nu poate face parte din clubul „select” din care face parte dna Sotomayor. De ce? Pentru ca nu e adept al corectitudinii politice, al stangii relativisme si ii sustine pe „bigoti” si „reactionari”.

Reply
emil
27 May 2009
Obama si-a expus recent filozofia in materie de interpretare a legii: empatia. Cu cit un judecator e mai empatic, cu atit e mai simpatic. Cu alte cuvinte, pe Obama il intereseaza activisti juridici, nu judecatori impartiali si integri profesional.

Reply
Manjusri
27 May 2009
@emil:
I-ai numit foarte bine: activisti juridici. In viziunea lui Obama, acesti oameni nu trebuie sa aplice legea in mod egal pentru toti justitiabilii, ci sa o interpreteze si sa o aplice conform unei grile ideologice. Dna Sotomayor ne spune clar cum stau lucrurile: „Am încredere că o femeie latino-americană cu o bogăţie a experienţelor personale va reuşi mai des să ajungă la o concluzie mai bună (ca judecător) decât un bărbat alb care nu a trăit acea viaţă”.

Reply
rodica
27 May 2009
Argumentul cu bogatia perspectivelor este impaiat. Mort si impaiat ca un exemplar pretios ce ar fi putut fi. « Corectitudinea politica » l-a ucis si impaiat si scos la promenada. Sigur bogatia perspectivelor trebuie sa conteze si ar fi usor de sortat daca toate cartile puse pe masa ar avea valoare egala. Daca ar putea sa aibe valoare egala.
Dar cand ambii jucatorii scot cate o pereche
unul scoate : batran si alb, adeversarul scoate femeie si hispanica
pentru ca sa avem un singur castigator
pica trebuie sa fie mai valoroasa decat carourile,
una din combinatii trebuie sa fie mai valoroasa decat cealalta
si „corectitudinea politica” a stabilit fara drept de apel care pereche este mai valoaroasa:
femeie hispanica bate barbat alb et on n’en parle plus
ori mai discutam dar atunci nu mai este poker curat, este misoginism si este rasism

si felul in care induc rationamente viciate cu afirmatiile de genul „bărbat alb care nu a trăit acea viaţă”… ca si cum ea in schimb ar fi trait viata lui de barbat alb
cum ar veni ea este om ca si el dar IN PLUS femeie
si traieste ca si el in societatea lui „alba”, este insider in societetea lui alba
dar este in plus insider si in cea hispanica.
In fine, Conceptul Perspectivei dupa Obama… ti s-ar fi potrivit a subtitlu Francesco.

Reply
Francesco
27 May 2009
Da, e o idee. Dar mai bine ar fi Conceptul Empatiei in Justitie. Obama a vorbit despre empatie drept criteriu de alegere a inlocuitorului judecatorului Souter.

Folosind un link dat de Transsylvania Phoenix sa retinem si ingrijorarea Casei Albe referitoare la procentul ridicat de respingeri ale deciziilor Soniei Sotomayor de catre Curtea Suprema a Statelor Unite.

Robert Gibbs, purtatorul de cuvant al Casei Albe a declarat adresandu-se unui grup de ziaristi:

„Presedintele este foarte convins ca oamenii vor privi intregul context si nu se vor baza, asa cum am spus, pe mici, scurte, clipuri YouTube in-afara-contextulu si vor gasi mai important sa priveasca la baza intregii sale experiente. Eu cred ca veti ajunge la o intelegere mai cuprinzatoare asupra a ceea ce ea este si ce a vrut sa spuna”.

Newt Gingrich, republican, fost Speaker al Camerei Reprezentantilor a scris pe blogul personal:

„Sa ne inchipuim ca un nominalizat ar fi spus ‘experienta mea de barbat alb ma face mai bun decat o femeie latino-americana’. Nu ar fi trebuit ca ei (Obama si Administratia, n.t.) sa se retraga? Noul rasism nu este mai bun ca vechiul rasism. Un nominalizat alb rasist ar fi fortat sa se retraga. O latino-americanca rasista trebuie si ea sa se retraga”.

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Cateva clipuri din emisiunea lui O’Reilly despre Sotomayor.

O’Reilly are momente in care chiar e pe langa subiect. Exista cateva idei tare tampite care tot sunt vehiculate intr-o anumita zona traditionalista de peste ocean: Partidul Republican trebuie sa devina mai cuprinzator si sa se miste spre centru. Poftim? John McCain a fost probabil cel mai centrist candidat republican din istorie si a pierdut. GOP nu trebuie sa devina Partidul Democrat 2, ci sa raman fidel principiilor sale. Daca madam Sotomayor promoveaza politice rasiste, de ce sa te abtii de la critica ei? Pentru ca poate ai castiga votul hispanicilor? E stupid.

Urmeaza partea cea mai aiuritoare.

Hai sa pescuim comentarii si sa batem capii.

P.S. Cica trebuie apreciata pentru pozitia fata de avort.

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Barack Obama SUPERSTAR. „You ain’t seen nothing yet!”.

Reply
Transsylvania Phoenix
27 May 2009
Sotomayor’s Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash

„Earlier this year, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states”.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..-backlash/

Aplicand aceeasi logica de liberal idiot a alesei lui Obama, dreptul Federal de a nu fi discriminat in functie de culoarea pielii nu se aplica in cazul Statelor.

Reply
Francesco
27 May 2009
Republicanii incepusera sa incline pentru aprobarea nominalizarii, acum chestiunea va fi mai atent examinata. Inclusiv de unii senatori democrati, cei care provin din Midwest, stim noi de ce…

Pe blogul Jumping in Pools se afla o lista de teze ale studentei Sotomayor: Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American „Exceptionalism” and Permanent Bigotry, si Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture.

Daca este adevarat, atunci chiar are dreptate purtatorul de cuvant al Casei Albe Robert Gibbs cand sustine ca Obama este „foarte confortabil cu interpretarea ei asupra Constitutiei ce este similara cu a sa”.

Reply
Cosmin
27 May 2009
Intr-o postare sumara pe blogul sau, Paul Krugman spune „I got into economics because I wanted to be Hari Seldon. Sonia Sotomayor went into the law because she wanted to be Perry Mason.” Sau poate Nancy Drew…

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009

PARIS — President Barack Obama remains by far the most popular world leader among people in major Western nations and is the one political figure on whom people consistently pin their hopes in the economic crisis, according to new polls conducted for the International Herald Tribune.

About 80 percent of people in France, Germany, Italy and Spain have a positive view of Mr. Obama, a ratio that declines only slightly, to about 70 percent, in the other two countries surveyed, Britain and the United States. The only politician who comes close is Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who gets a positive rating from two-thirds of those in Continental Europe but from only one-third of Britons and Americans.

Rau e sa traiesti pe alta lume.

Reply
panseluta
27 May 2009
Francesco:

Grozava postare (mai e nevoie sa adaug mantra „ca de obicei”??)
N-aveam habar de Ana Birchall pina acum. I-am citit profilul pe blogul personal, unde se identifica drept de „centru-stinga”, „femeie” si „mama”, blog alftfel total neintersant ca idei si inecat in siropoasa adoratie de sine („puiutzul ei” a implinuit nu stiu citi anisori, e o „comoara” de copil; sunt multe poze de la nunti, ospaturi si functii cu protipendada securisto-comunista transformata in „capitalisti moderni”. Asa se face ca sotul ei, Martyn Birchall, e bancher de investitii in „emerging markets”, adica tarile din lumea a treia, cu „Danubius Securities”.
Pe blogroll-ul ei figureaza Adrian Nastase, Adrian Paunescu, si Ion Iliescu. Eu nu mai am ce comenta la faza asta, si nici nu ma mai intereseaza ce are de spus Birchill, vreodata.

A te indentifica, politic si intelectual, cu atributele tale sexuale, cum fac Sotomayor (care a invocat fiziologia feminina in cuvintarea de la Berkeley, adica ovarele, uterul, hormonii, etc.) si admiratoarea ei, Birchall, deasupra capacitatii mintii, a cunoasterii cucerite prin studiu si efort, a dragostei de cunoastere si adevar, merge impotriva principiilor feminismului clasic. Birchall pare sa aiba si ea povestea ei de extractie din grupuri triplu defavorizate, ca femeie, ca fiica de tarani din Prahova, Romania, adica din lumea a treia. Ar fi fost interesanta o competitie intre un mascul din acelasi mediu si Birchall.

Asaltul impotriva „masculului alb” ca sursa a tuturor ororilor din lume continua neabatut, chiar daca masculii astia au creat fundamentul la care aspira non-masculii/masculii/transgenderii de toate culorile acum, inclusiv corectiile greselilor trecutului.

Masculi albi, bucurati-va ca sunteti inca buni de casatorie si prasila, si aveti un excelent instinct de afaceri. Sotul lui Birchall, Martyn Birchall, e bancher de investitii in „emerging markets”, adica tarile din lumea a treia, cu „Danubius Securities”.

Reply
panseluta
27 May 2009
Scuze. Ultimul paragraf repeta, din greseala, unul anterior, dar probabil ca merita repetat.

Reply
panseluta
27 May 2009
rodica:

Foarte interesanta postare. Ai mai scris la noi? Daca nu, bine ai venit!
Jurisprudenta americana recunoaste, de la inceput, faptul ca legile sunt interpretabile, supuse schimbarii si diversitatii de opinii. Altfel n-ar exista 9 magistrati in Curtea Suprema, si o varietate de alte numere in curtile inferioare. Nu exista un Judecator Suprem care interpreteaza si aplica legea perfect, robotic.
Masculii albi acum demonizati s-au contrazis permanent in istoria jurisprudentei americane. N-au fost niciodata un bloc compact de interese de rasa si de clasa. Ei au facut legile in Congres, bune si rele, pe care le-au rafinat, revizuit, anulat sau imbunatatit, legi care au fost interpretate, disecate, intoarse pe toate fetele, ratificate sau nulificate de Curti dominate tot de masculi albi.
„Demonii albi” ca Washington si Jefferson si Madison, „sexisti”, „rasisti”, „sclavagisti”, etc., au fost in conflict cu ideile lor si ale colegilor toata viata, si-au revizuit constant, metodic, principiile, teoretic si in practica politica.
Rezultatul luptei lor cu ei insisi e vizibil acum. Obama e mostenitorul direct al dramei shakespeariene care e evolutia constiintei si statului American.
Cele mai progresiste legi din ultimile secole au fost create si ratificate tot de scrirbosii mascului albi, care, conform lui Sotomayor si lui Obama, nu pot din principiu „empatiza” cu populatia cu ovare si uter si de alta culoare decit ei.
Uite ca au putut, si pot, slava Domnului. Nu-mi pasa ce rasa sau etnie sau constructie genital/hormonala interpreteaza jurisprudenta precedentului legal, sau a „impactului disparat”, sau a aplicabilitatii Titului VII al Actului Drepturilor Civile din 1964 fata de cerintele Amendamentului IV („equal protection under the law”)la Constitutie, care par sa fie in conflict–probleme care stau la baza cazului pompierilor din New Haven, Ricci v. DeStefano.
Ce conteaza e sa ai mintea sa te descurci printre itele celei mai complexe si profunde jurisprudente create de umanitate, sa ai cunostintele sa discerni intre calitatea probelor, taria argumentelor de o parte si de alta, probitatea procesului si a persoanelor implicate…
In Ricci, Sotomayor, judecatoare la Curtea de Apel, a refuzat sa recunoasca implicatiile constitutionale ale cazului, si a pus stampila pe decizia curtii inferioare de a refuza promovarea pompierilor albi pe motiv ca Primaria ar fi fost expusa darii in judecata de minoritatile care nu reusisera la examen.

„Empatia”–care e de fapt „simpatie”, in intelegerea lui Obama, adica inclinatia fata de un anumit grup–e legitima, dar are locul ei, acolo unde se fac legile, in Congres, nu in justitie. Congresul e locul unde se lupta mii de grupuri de interese pentru acces la resurse si la o felie de putere in stat. Valuri de empatie si simpatie curg zilnic in Congres, ca si banii aferenti lor, si nimeni nu le opreste sa se exprime. Fiecare grup sau grupuscul are un reprezentant in Congres sau un lobbyist, de la marile corporatii petroliere la National Rifle Association la Asociatia Cultivatorilor de Cinepa si a Crescatorilor de Albine.

Nu se poate sa nu-ti dai seama de idiotenia pozitiei „empatiei” judecatoresti bazate pe organ sexual/culoare a pielii/origini saracacioase/”experienta de viata sexual/rasiala de victima” daca te gindesti la urmatorul scenariu: o Latina din Puerto Rico, cu experiente initiale ca ale lui Sotomayor–sa zicem Jennifer Lopez–care s-a mutat in clasa privilegiatilor, cum-necum, dar care a fost furata sistematic de fata din casa, o Latina de 17 ani din Puerto Rico, care are un copil din flori, nu vorbeste engleza, locuieste in cel mai rau cartier posibil din New York.

O intrebare pentru Sotomayor/Obama:
Care dintre cele doua se califica pentru titlul de „feminitate” si „intelepciune” Latina?
Bogata Lopez care apartine deja sistemului opresorului mascul alb si-i face jocul, sau isteata, descurcareata de 17 ani care incearca sa „supravietuiasca intr-o lume ostila”, care, cum zice Obama, nu intelege ce inseamna sa fii o mamica adolescenta?

Curata dilema … Mie imi scurt-circuiteaza ovarele, si le lasa fara pic de gindire, daca au avut-o vreodata.

Reply
emil
27 May 2009
Articolul lui Krauthammer Sotomayor: Rebut, Then Confirm este o buna sumarizare a argumentului impotriva acestei alegeri pentru tribunalul suprem. In final insa, Krauthammer recomanda senatorilor republicani sa confirme alegerea lui Obama, din deferenta pentru faptul ca presedintele are dreptul sa numeasca un judecator cu ale carui norme juridice se simte confortabil. Corect, dar Senatul nu se afla sub nici o obligatie sa parafeze alegerea prezidentiala, cu atit mai putin din deferenta. In acest paragraf final Krauthammer devine tactician politic si propune o mutare in opozitie cu splendida enuntare de principii din restul articolului.

Reply
panseluta
27 May 2009
emil:

Postarea ta e putin confuza. Nu e „corect” sa accepti o nominalizare din „deferenta” fata de alegerea Presedintelui. Cum spui si tu mai departe, Senatul n-are nici o obligatie constitutionala sa „defere” Presedintelui. Presedintele propune, Congresul dispune. Scurt si clar.
Argumentul lui Krauthammer e deprimant si bizar. Tipul propune ca republicanii sa incline steagul inaintea bataliei, ca si cum batalia ar fi decisa deja.
Bullshit. Sotomayor trebuie puricata la singe, si poate fi inca invinsa. Va trebui sa explice de ce crede ca o „Latina” are o mai buna judecata decit un „barbat alb”, si de ce asta nu constituie „rasism”. Va trebui sa explice de ce pronuntarile ei filozofice/ideologice contrazic litera si spiritul Constitutiei, in care toti cetatenii sunt egali in fata legii. Va trebui sa explice de ce apartine asociatiei „National Council of La Raza”–„la Raza” inseamna „rasa”–si de ce asta nu inseamna rasism, spre deosebire de rasismul KKK, avind in vedere ca La Raza promoveaza si sustine identitatea si suprematia rasiala a americanilor de origine hispano-amero-indiana, zic eu (chestie complicata, avind in vedere metisajele de tot felul, pe care nici La Raza nu le lamureste).
Oricum, in ideologia curenta, rasa victima a rasei invingatoare (albe) are dreptul sa fie rasista, desi rasa amero-indiana si-a casapit sistematic colegii de rasa mult inainte de venirea rasistilor albi…
Exceptionala Inga Clendinnen a lamurit situatia in studiile sale despre poporul „Mexica” si capitala lor, Tenochtitlan, distrusa de bandele lui Cortes in mai putin de un an:

http://www.common-place.org/vo…..xico-city/

Reply
Francesco
27 May 2009
Krauthammer mai propune ceva: ca republicanii sa-l cheme la audieri ca prim martor pe Ricci, iar daca democratii vor ca justitia sa aiba radacini in empatie, atunci trebuie ca mai intai poporul american sa judece daca promovarea trebuia sa ii fie negata lui Ricci pentru ca era alb, asa cum a judecat Sotomayor.

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Panseluta, n-ar fi prima data cand Krauthammer are o opiniei ciudata.

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009

Coulter On Sotomayor: Clarence Thomas & Miguel Estrada’s Backgrounds Didn’t Impress Democrats

Clarence Thomas
Miguel Estrada

Si un articol bun semnat de aceeasi Ann Coulter: I FEEL YOUR PAIN. NOT THEIRS. YOURS

God save us from liberal „empathy.” After President Barack Obama announced his empathetic Supreme Court nominee this week, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, we found out that some people are more deserving of empathy than others.

For example, Judge Sotomayor apparently „empathized” more with New Haven, Conn., government officials than with white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions by the city on the basis of their race.

Let’s hope she’s as empathetic to New Haven residents who die in fires fought by inferior firefighters as a result of her decision.

In the now-famous firefighters’ case, Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased. (You know, just like all written tests were pre-screened for racial bias back when we were in school.)

But when the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions.

Such results never entice Democrats to reconsider their undying devotion to the teachers’ unions that routinely produce students who can’t read, write or do basic math. Obviously, disadvantaged children from single-parent homes suffer the most from inadequate public schools – and their tragic outcome bedevils the entire society for the rest of the students’ lives.

Instead, Democrats hide the failure of government schools by punishing the high-scoring whites, Asians and Hispanics, who presumably learned everything they know at home. (If only successfully applying a condom were relevant to firefighting, public school graduates raised in single-parent homes would crush the home-learners!)

So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one.

Seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race.

The district court ruled that there was no race discrimination because the low-scoring blacks were not given promotions either – citing the landmark case, One Bad Apple v. The Rest of the Barrel. (That’s the sort of sophistry we’re taught in law school.)

Concerned that Sotomayor’s famed „empathy” might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming – as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC – that she was merely applying „precedent” to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should.

This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth.

To be sure, there is „precedent” for racial discrimination by the government, but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. If Sotomayor had another case in mind, she wasn’t telling: The lower court’s dismissal of the firefighters’ case was upheld by Sotomayor and two other judges in an unsigned, unpublished opinion, titled, „Talk to the Hand.”

Not only that, but Sotomayor’s fellow Clinton appointee, Jose Cabranes (who sounds like an „empathetic” fellow), issued a blistering dissent from the appellate court’s denial of a rehearing specifically on the grounds that the case „raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit – and indeed, in the nation.”

A „case of first impression” means there’s no precedent. If there were a precedent, it would be a case of, at least, „second impression.”

If it were merely „empathy” that explained liberal judges’ lawless opinions, one might expect some liberal judges to have empathy for the white and Hispanic firefighters being discriminated against today, and others to have empathy for the hypothetical black firefighters discriminated against in times past.

But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims – always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups. As Joe Sobran says, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim.

Thus, the media and Democrats seem to find successful Hispanic attorney Sotomayor much more „empathetic” than successful Hispanic attorney Miguel Estrada.

After aggressively blocking Estrada’s nomination to a federal appeals court during Bush’s first term solely on the grounds that he is Hispanic and was likely headed for the Supreme Court – according to Senate Democrat staff memos – now Democrats have the audacity to rave that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice!

If Sotomayor is not more empathetic than Estrada, liberals at least consider her more Hispanic – an interesting conclusion inasmuch as Sotomayor was born in New York and Estrada was born in Honduras.

Forty-four of 48 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster Estrada’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with congressman and professional Hispanic Raul Grijalva assuring them that just because „he happens to be named ‘Estrada’ does not give him a free ride.”

The truth is liberals couldn’t care less about Sotomayor being Hispanic. Indeed, liberals often have trouble telling Hispanic people apart, as James Carville illustrated on „Good Morning America” Wednesday morning when he kept confusing Miguel Estrada with Alberto Gonzales.

„Empathy,” in Liberalspeak, is nothing but raw political power.

Reply
panseluta
27 May 2009
Francesco:

O sa te amuze sa afli ca unor leftisti le suride ideea de-al avea pe Ricci martor pe Capitol Hill. Se pare ca nu face impresie buna (citeste: e considerat cam prostanac), ceea ce ar fi o dovada in plus ca a trecut examenul de locotenent fraudulos!!

Pentru toti cei care vor sa inteleaga mai bine cazul pompierilor din New Haven, linkul urmator e super:

http://www.scotuswiki.com/inde…..o%2C_et_al.

Merita citit, pentru ca va fi un punct nodal in jurisprudenta americana, si pentru ca e mai interesant si complex decit e prezentat de media.

Reply
panseluta
27 May 2009
Re Ana Birchall:

Femela asta a primit un master magna cum laude de la Yale, si-si construieste o cariera politica in Romania pe baza patalamalei prestigioase:

„Antonescu crin misoginismul and …
May 31 May 31
Sa tot discutat zilele acestea despre recenta declaratie a lui Crin Antonescu. S-au facut si emisiuni TV pe aceasta tema… talk show-uri…prin care sa declasat o competitie deschisa cine castiga marele premiu condamnandu-l mai aspru pe Crin Antonescu pentru misoginism. It was all discussed these days about the recent statement of Antonescu crin. They did it on TV talk show theme … links … which declasse who opened a competition to win the big prize condamnandu him on grueling for Antonescu crin misoginism .

Nu am fost si nu voi fi niciodata adepta promovarii femeilor in politica sau in orice alt domeniu doar pentru ca sunt femei. I was not and never will be followers of promoting women in politics or any other field because women. Stiu ca sunt nenumarate statistici care arata o reala discriminare a femeilor in multe domenii si cu siguranta trebuie facut ceva pentru a elimina aceasta discriminare…dar aceasta discriminare nu poate fi eliminata promovand femei doar pentru ca sunt femei..fara a tine cont de o profesie, de un CV etc. I know there are many statistics that show a real discrimination against women in many areas and certainly something to be done to eliminate this discrimination … but this discrimination can not be eliminated promoting women because women are not you .. the profession , etc. to a CV.

Cu siguranta sunt multe de spus pe acest subiect inclusiv ca femeile sunt primele care nu sustin si nu promoveaza alte femei. Certainly there are a lot to say on this subject including that women are not the first to support and promote other women. Daca ar fi sa vorbim cu cartile pe masa trebuie sa recunoastem acest adevar . If I had to talk to the cards on the table must recognize this truth.

Personal nu consider ca prin aceasta declaratie Crin Antonescu a fost misogin. Not consider that the statement was Antonescu crin misogynist.

A fost o declaratie care arata ca dictatura Non -Valorilor, cum o numesc si eu, este cancerul societatii romanesti. It was a statement that shows that Non-dictatorship Values, as I call it, is cancer of the Romanian society. Romania sufera de o criza a valorilor reale. Romania suffer a crisis of values real.

Si sunt de acord cu Crin Antonescu ca “sarlatanii” si “sforarii” din viata politica, cei care nu sunt in stare sa initieze un proiect politic dar sunt maiestrii in jocuri de culise, indiferent din ce partide fac parte, sa fie aruncati la groapa de gunoi a istoriei…acolo unde le este locul! I agree with lily Antonescu as „sarlatanii” and „sforarii” in political life, those who are not able to initiate a political project but in games maiestrii backstage, regardless of what party they are members to be thrown in the hole bin of history … where it is!”

Bipezi, nu vi se face frica, nu va ingheata singele in vine ca asa o nulitate a primit o diploma de la una din universitatile cele mai bune din lume?
Avind in vedere ca nu stie sa scrie corect nici in romana, nici in engleza, iar logica sufera si mai mult, ma intreb cum a trecut de toate examenele de masterat?

Interesant si de investigat.

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Ba da, mi se pare ingrozitor, dar e pesedista, asa ca jumatate din mister e elucidat. Totusi, de unde textul de mai sus, Panseluta? Jumatate din el contine o traducere foarte proasta a ultimului post de pe blogul Anei Birchall. Pare tradus automat.

P.S. Am corectat apelativul folosit in a doua parte. Tre’ sa tinem la „brand”.

Reply
panseluta
27 May 2009
Imperialistu’:
Ai dreptate. O noua vizita la blogul lui Birchall arata o versiune curata a aceleiasi postari.
Habar n-am de unde a aparut „traducerea”.

Revoc postarile legate de Birchall si Crin Antonescu, si-mi cer scuze.

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009

Charles Krauthammer on Judge Sotomayor and Identity Politics

Reply
fish
27 May 2009
Pompierii din Connecticut nu au fost promovati pentru ca erau albi – Curtea Suprema a SUA

Curtea Suprema a hotarat luni ca pompierilor albi din New Haven, Connecticut, le-a fost in mod nedrept refuzata promovarea, din cauze rasiale. Curtea a intors astfel decizia Soniei Sotomayor, nominalizata de Barack Obama pentru postul de judecator la Tribunalul Suprem.

Reply
Tuberiu
27 May 2009
Despre ADL numai de bine

Reply
costin
27 May 2009
Tuberiu,

Despre Anti Defamation League vorbesti? Ce-a zis?

Reply
Tuberiu
27 May 2009
ADL,SPLC,ACLU,NAACP etc …sunt mana’n mana,dar parerea mea, este ca ADL is Capo di tutti capi :))

Reply
costin
27 May 2009
Nu am urmarit ce face ADL de aproape, dar spune citeva lucruri pertinente despre ce se intimpla la ONU: http://www.adl.org/durban/
Scopul principal declarat al Anti Defamation League e: ‘Stop the Defamation of the Jewish People… secure justice and fair treatment to all’, dar politichia corecta nu iarta pe nimeni, iar aceasta organizatie, evreiasca de felul ei,

strongly condemns remarks made over the last few days at various appearances throughout South Florida by Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. In his speeches, he claimed that „Islam is not a religion” and „the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam.” Mr. Wilders also stated that the Koran is a book of hatred, and that Mohammed was both „a pedophile and a warlord.
http://regions.adl.org/florida…..marks.html

Pe linga faptul ca Wilders are gura mare, acesta este unul dintre cei mai mari prieteni si sustinatori ai Israelului din Europa contemporana. Dar politichia corecta nu prea se omoara cu logica sau cu bunul simt. Ea condamna.

Mai jos este un articol scris de Robert Spencer, academician care a studiat islamul toata viata, despre motivele pentru care ADL se insala:

The ADL: Wrong About Geert Wilders

[…]the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned his remarks, saying: “In his speeches, he claimed that ‘Islam is not a religion’ and ‘the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam.’ Mr. Wilders also stated that the Koran is a book of hatred, and that Mohammed was both ‘a pedophile and a warlord.’”’

These are serious charges, but they don’t stand up to close inspection. In light of the fact that the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable, Sahih Bukhari, reports no less than five times that Muhammad (then in his fifties) consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was nine years old, Wilders would have little difficulty making the charge of pedophilia stick. And given that Muhammad participated in numerous battles during his prophetic career, all but one of them offensive, the “warlord” charge can easily be established from texts that Muslims consider accurate in reporting the details of Muhammad’s life.

And the Koran a book of hatred? Again, the book itself gives the answer in passages like these and many others:

“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians”: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.” – Qur’an 5:82

“The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” – Qur’an 9:30

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” – Qur’an 9:29

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks. At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens.” – Qur’an 47:4

“Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.” – Qur’an 98:6

But when Wilders speaks of restricting Muslims’ religious freedom, his words appear more problematic. Wilders’s full statement on this, however, elucidates what he meant: “Stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.”

I disagree with Wilders’s statement that Islam is not a religion. Islam is certainly a religion – a belief-system that, like other religions, purports to relate human beings to the divine. But at the same time, I understand why he says that Islam is not a religion – because the strictly religious aspects of Islam are actually of no concern to unbelievers at all. It makes no difference to me if a Muslim wants to pray five times a day, or read the Qur’an, or believes that Muhammad is a prophet – except insofar as it impinges me as a political program that demands my conversion, subjugation, or death.

There are precedents for how America can deal with this threat. The U.S. did not outlaw the Communist Party of the USA, but it did move actively to suppress Communist activity, driving the party almost completely underground after World War I and always working energetically against Communist subversive activity in the United States. The religious aspects of Islam obscure the fact that Islamic jihadists are pursuing a political program that seeks, no less unmistakably than did the Communists, to replace the U.S. Constitution with a system that would deny many basic rights guaranteed by that Constitution.

The political program of Islam is generally not recognized in the U.S. today, but nonetheless there are many groups dedicated to carrying it out. They should not be allowed the protection of a religious cover to obscure their criminal and seditious activity. Section 2385 of the federal criminal code states that “whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

This already existing law – revised as of January 2, 2006 – could and should be applied to Islamic groups that call for implementation of Sharia in the U.S., and work toward that implementation. In short, just as freedom of religion was not deemed to be a sufficient justification for Mormon polygamy in the late nineteenth century, so now freedom of religion should not be deemed to be sufficient justification for agitation on behalf of a system of laws that would deny freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people before the law.

The ADL has unfairly maligned Geert Wilders, and in doing so, has placed itself on the wrong side of the great battle to defend free speech and free societies against the advancing global jihad.

Pina la urma nu trebuie sa ne mire foarte tare. Minati de acelasi zel corect politic, peste 70% la suta dintre evreii americani l-au votat pe Obama, care a promis Ierusalimul palestinienilor.

Reply
Tuberiu
27 May 2009
evreii sunt ceva de genul romanilor …la ei cu sigruranta sangele apa nu se face! „

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Ho-paaaa.

Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal

A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.

Two weeks ago, the numbers were much brighter for the nominee. At that time, 42% favored confirmation, and 34% were opposed.

Rasmussen Reports has been tracking this question every other week, and it is not possible to know at this time if the decline in support is anything more than a temporary aberration caused by the publicity surrounding the Supreme Court reversal. Sotomayor was one of a panel of federal Appeals Court judges who signed off on the Ricci decision, rejecting the claims of New Haven firefighters who said they were being discriminated against for promotions because they are white.

[…]

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of liberal voters favor confirmation while 63% of conservatives are opposed.

The initial reaction to Sotomayor was more positive than the reaction to those nominated for the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush. Bush’s nominees also experienced declines in support at times during the confirmation process.

Overall, 38% of voters have a favorable opinion of Sotomayor, down 12 points from before the Supreme Court reversal.

Forty-six percent (46%) believe that Sotomayor is politically liberal while 32% view her as a moderate.

The nominee has been criticized for comments suggesting that a “wise Latina woman” would make better judicial decisions than a white male. In response to that criticism, the president has said that Sotomayor „misspoke.” Americans overwhelmingly believe that judges of different gender and ethnic backgrounds would reach the same decisions if they honestly tried to apply the law as written.

Eighty-three percent (83%) believe that the U.S. legal system should treat all Americans equally. Only eight percent (8%) believe the law should be used to help those with less power and influence.

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Firefighters to testify about Sotomayor

Republicans will call two New Haven firefighters to testify in the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor next week, making clear the GOP’s intent to place affirmative action at the center of the Senate battle over Sotomayor’s nomination.

A Judiciary Committee press release lists Frank Ricci and Ben Vargas as expected Republican witnesses. Ricci was the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano, the controversial case in which Sotomayor ruled the New Haven fire department acted constitutionally when it discounted the results of a qualifying test for promotions after too few black firefighters scored as high as their white counterparts. Vargas, who is Hispanic, was the only non-white co-plaintiff in the racially charged case.

The Supreme Court later overturned that decision.

Meanwhile, Democrats will trot out New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who supports Sotomayor’s nomination. Also testifying at the behest of Democrats will be former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau (Sotomayor’s boss when she was a prosecutor) and former major league pitcher David Cone. (I’m assuming Cone’s testimony has something to do with Sotomayor „saving baseball.”)

Reply
chriscross
27 May 2009
Urmariti?

Reply
costin
27 May 2009
Urmariti linkul lui chriscross!

Today at 9:30 am ET, Sonia Sotomayor returns to the Senate Judiciary Committee to continue the confirmation hearings for her nomination to the Supreme Court. So far, Sotomayor has avoided any missteps — mainly because the Senators on the committee have hardly allowed Sotomayor a word in edgewise. That will change at least somewhat today, as the Republicans will press harder for answers about Sotomayor’s past statements, and Democrats spend their time asking hardball questions like, “Just how did you get so awesomely awesome?”

Andrew Malcolm and his partners at Top of the Ticket have done a great job in live-blogging the hearings. Keep up with the transcripts at ToT. Kerry Picket, meanwhile, points out the double standards at play in the hearing when compared to the ordeal of Miguel Estrada[…]
Live stream from Sotomayor hearings

Reply
panseluta
27 May 2009
costin:
Audierea lui Sotomayor nu merita de urmarit decit in comparatie cu cea a lui John Roberts din 2005, Seful Curtii Supreme. Diferenta de intelect e uriasa, si intareste banuiala curenta ca Sotomayor s-a ridicat la sefie juridica prin puncte etnico-rasiale.
Eu n-am rezistat prea mult la monotonul ei robotic si mincinos, in care s-a „lepadat” de sine de cel putin trei ori, si in care n-a facut decit sa regurgiteze statute si decizii vechi.
Mi-a inspirat, cumva, mila, la drept vorbind: o femeie clar amibitioasa de origine cvasi-obscura (nu era vietnameza sau cambodiana sau laotiana, ci portoricana, adica cetateana a SUA) propulsata de fortele „actiunii afirmative” in Marea Liga a intelectului si jurisprudentei americane.

Spre comparatie:

http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/r…..earing.ask

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009

From The Hicks File; The Case of Sotomayor v. Bork

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Why the GOP failed the Sotomayor test (Byron York)
Sonia Sotomayor’s Troubled Eyes (George Joyce)
What Ricci Says About Sotomayor – and Obama (David Gibberman)

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009

Lindsey Graham si Sonya Sotomayor

SEN. GRAHAM> But your speeches don’t really say that to me. They – along the lines of what Senator Kyl was saying, they kind of represent the idea, „There’s a day coming when there’ll be more of us women and minorities, and we’re going to change the law.” And what I hope we’ll take away from this hearing is they – need to be more women and minorities in the law to make a better America. And the law needs to be there for all of us if and when we need it.

And the one thing that I’ve tried to impress upon you, through jokes and being serious, is the consequences of these words in the world in which we live in. You know, we’re talking about putting you on the Supreme Court and judging your fellow citizens. And one of the things that I need to be assured of is that you understand the world as it pretty much really is.

And we got a long way to go in this country. And I can’t find the quote, but I’ll find it here in a moment, the „wise Latino” (sic/Latina) quote. (Pause.) Do you remember it? (Laughter.)

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Yes.

SEN. GRAHAM: Okay. Say it to me. Can you recite it from memory?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I –

SEN. GRAHAM: I got it.

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: (Laughs.)

SEN. GRAHAM: All right. „I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”

And the only reason I keep talking about this is that I’m in politics, and you got to watch what you say, because, one, you don’t want to offend people you’re trying to represent – but do you understand, ma’am, that if I had said anything like that, and my reasoning was that I’m trying to inspire somebody, they would have had my head? Do you understand that?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I do understand how those words could be taken that way, particularly if read in isolation.

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I don’t know how else you could take it. If Lyndsey Graham said that I will make a better senator than X because of – my experience as a Caucasian male makes me better able to represent the people of South Carolina, and my opponent was a minority, it would make national news, and it should.

Having said that, I am not going to judge you by that one statement. I just hope you’ll appreciate the world in which we live in, that you can say those things meaning to inspire somebody and still have a chance to get on the Supreme Court. Others could not remotely come close to that statement and survive. Whether that’s right or wrong, I think that’s a fact.

Does that make sense to you?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: It does. And I would hope that we come in America to the place where we can look at a statement that could be misunderstood and consider it in the context of the person’s life and the work they have done.

Numai ca respectivul comentariu nu este un simplu accident, doar a fost repetat ani la rand, cu diverse ocazii. Sotomayor chiar crede ca o „wise latina” poate sa judece mai bine decat un barbat alb.

Sotomayor ‘wise Latina’ quote used on multiple occasions

Judge Sotomayor spent three days on Capitol Hill this week telling senators the „wise Latina” quote from 2001 that’s causing so much controversy was a „poor choice of words.”

But looking through the documents she sent to Capitol Hill yesterday, it turns out she has used a version of that quote of multiple times in multiple addresses over the years.

Some examples:

–In a 1999 speech: „I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experiences
would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

–In a 2002 speech to the Princeton club: „I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

–In 2004, in a speech on women judges at Seton Hall Law School: „I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

P.S. Amuzant cum Lindsey Graham „bullies” Sotomayor. Ce ti-e si cu albii complexati…

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Rachel Maddow de la MSNBC l-a invitat* pe Patrick J. Buchanan pentru a-si expune punctul de vedere privind Sonia Sotomayor. Buchanan puncteaza fantastic, scotand in evidenta ipocrizia actiunii afirmative, in timp ce Maddow repeta ca o moara stricata ca diversitatea este un castig pentru Statele Unite, de parca asta ar fi marea problema atunci cand se discuta meritele unui judecator de a fi membru al Curtii Supreme de Justitie.

* Multumiri corectului politic CJ de la LGF. Fara un comisar precum el, nici nu as fi putut face rost de clipul video.

P.S. Articolul din NYT la care face referire Buchanan este Videos Shed New Light on Sotomayor’s Positions .

WASHINGTON — Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as “a product of affirmative action” who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to “cultural biases” that are “built into testing.”

On another occasion, she aligned with conservatives who take a limited view of when international law can be enforced in American courts. But she criticized conservative objections to recent Supreme Court rulings that mention foreign law as being based on a “misunderstanding.”

Those comments were among a trove of videos dating back nearly 25 years that shed new light on Judge Sotomayor’s views. She provided the videos to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week as it prepares for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing next month.

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an “affirmative action baby” whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstances.

“If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted,” she said on a panel of three female judges from New York who were discussing women in the judiciary. The video is dated “early 1990s” in Senate records.

Her comments came in the context of explaining why she thought it was “critical that we promote diversity” by appointing more women and members of minorities as judges, and they provoked objections among other panelists who pointed out that she had graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and been an editor on Yale’s law journal.

But Judge Sotomayor insisted that her test scores were sub-par — “though not so far off the mark that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.” Her scores have not been made public.

“With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,” she said. “And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”

Judge Sotomayor’s approach to affirmative action has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Conservatives have criticized her remarks in speeches that her personal experiences will influence her judging, and they have focused on her vote to uphold a decision by New Haven to throw out results from a firefighters’ exam because not enough members of minorities scored well.

In the program, Judge Sotomayor also rejected the proposition that minorities must become advocates of “selection by merit alone.” She said diversity improved the legal system — like having a Hispanic judge in a case where a litigant and his family is Hispanic, and who can translate what is happening into Spanish.

“Since I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means, and in any context, whether it’s judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences in and of itself, bring merit to the system,” she said, adding, “I think it brings to the system more of a sense of fairness when these litigants see people like myself on the bench.”

Judge Sotomayor also mentioned her personal involvement in challenging testing in a 1994 interview. Reflecting on her 12 years on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund before she became a judge, she recalled helping change its policy focus from voting rights and bilingual education to economic issues, like “cases attacking civil service testing and issues of union admissions.”

If she is confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would fill the seat being vacated by Justice David H. Souter, who has voted to uphold affirmative-action programs.

Nerusinarea acestei individe este uluitoare. A intrat peste tot inaintea unor oameni mai calificati decat ea pentru simplul fapt ca era latino-americana si cu toate acestea indrazneste sa spuna ca scorurile nu reflectau realitatea, fiind „subiective”.

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Ghici cine voteaza impotriva lui Sotomayor. McCain!

Again and again, Judge Sotomayor seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case, thereby substituting herself in the role of a legislator. Our Constitution is very clear in its delineation and disbursement of power. It solely tasks the Congress with creating law. It also clearly defines the appropriate role of the courts to „extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.” To protect the equal, but separate roles of all three branches of government, I cannot support activist judges that seek to legislate from the bench. I have not supported such nominees in the past, and I cannot support such a nominee to the highest court in the land.

Reply
Imperialistu'
27 May 2009
Rasista Sotomayor este membru al Curtii Supreme de Justitie.

Reply