Current Topics
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by pondering_it_all
Today at 07:39 AM
The Debate: Is Americaĺs future capitalist or socialist?
by rporter314
Yesterday at 06:24 PM
Takeover
by chunkstyle
Yesterday at 03:11 PM
Political Correctness run amok
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 05:58 AM
The Green New Deal, explained
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 05:44 AM
The NYC/Amazon Deal
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 05:19 AM
RoundTable for February 2019
by pdx rick
02/18/19 03:40 AM
Great white sharks likely pushed the massive megalodon to extinction
by Jeffery J. Haas
02/17/19 08:30 PM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2019
by Golem
02/16/19 10:22 PM
Trump's New Toy - NATIONAL EMERGENCY
by NW Ponderer
02/16/19 01:42 AM
Middle East Conference
by jgw
02/15/19 05:35 PM
Justice is coming
by pondering_it_all
02/15/19 04:23 AM
Epitaphs
by logtroll
02/15/19 01:48 AM
The Twilight Zone - All Openings (1959 - 2002)
by Ken Condon
02/14/19 10:45 PM
Why are Republicans So Afraid of AOC and Omar?
by rporter314
02/14/19 09:05 PM
SMR (Small modular reactor)
by Greger
02/13/19 08:37 PM
A possible run on America?
by jgw
02/13/19 06:54 PM
the guy who used to own starbucks
by jgw
02/13/19 06:47 PM
Healthcare
by jgw
02/13/19 06:43 PM
It can never happen here!
by Greger
02/12/19 10:16 PM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
58 Forums
16495 Topics
284420 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 12 of 13 < 1 2 ... 10 11 12 13 >
Topic Options
#114066 - 06/06/09 01:32 AM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: Mellowicious]
numan Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/06/08
Posts: 10853
Loc: What! Me Worry?
-

I am suprised that no one brought up Plessy versus Ferguson as another huge black stain on the Supreme Court!

I think that these many corruptions of the legal process in the United States should not be confused with "empathy" --- more accurate to call them examples of "negative empathy."

Sort of like the photographic negative of "negative entropy" in thermodynamics. ;\)



Edited by numan (06/06/09 01:33 AM)
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools -- Herbert Spencer

Top
#114069 - 06/06/09 02:25 AM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: numan]
Mellowicious Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/03/06
Posts: 9573
Loc: The Great American Desert
Sorry, I'm missing something - Plessy v Ferguson is related to Sotomayor's nomination how, again? Or did I miss a link somewhere?
_________________________
Julia

Curiosity killed the cat - Satisfaction brought it back

Top
#114070 - 06/06/09 02:26 AM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: Mellowicious]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 12581
 Originally Posted By: Mellowicious
Issodhos, it appears to me that you have taken the post I wrote this morning and done exactly what I was talking about - you've posed two qualities as being somehow in opposition, when there is no requirement that they be posed that way.


I don't think so, Mellowicious. (emphasis added)
 Originally Posted By: issodhos
It is not a question of empathy and reason being exclusive so much as it is not allowing the subjective to override a pursuit of objectivity.

Yours,
Issodhos
_________________________
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos

Top
#114128 - 06/06/09 08:48 PM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: issodhos]
loganrbt Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/20/08
Posts: 5850
Loc: Massaphuggintwoshirts
Which is, I think, precisely where you and Judge Sotomayor part company. Having been inside the judicial system in all branches of court, there is an almost endless list of examples of cases where the "objectively" valid outcome is simply wrong. The inability, or refusal, to allow any subjective factors to enter into deliberation is guaranteed to result in unsatisfactory outcomes from a "justice" perspective.

I once represented a grandmother in family court. Her daughter had died unexpectedly, in her apartment with only her two-year-old son. The son was born out of wedlock. The biological father had made no attempt to connect with the child nor to provide any support for the child. Yet the law gave the biological father first claim on the child. Objectively, he should prevail.

Allowing that result, however, would wrench the child away from the only love and affection he had known in his very short life and placed him in a strange home with an alien "mother" and a father who was interested only in claiming his "trophy". The subjective view was that the child belonged with his family, the one that had loved and helped his mother nurture him.

I suspect Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would happily endorse the objective outcome. I have no doubt that Judge Sotomayor would endorse the subjective outcome.
_________________________
"The white men were as thick and numerous and aimless as grasshoppers, moving always in a hurry but never seeming to get to whatever place it was they were going to." Dee Brown

Top
#114266 - 06/08/09 08:43 AM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: issodhos]
a knight Offline
journeyman

Registered: 11/07/06
Posts: 754
Loc: inner mountain west
 Originally Posted By: issodhos
By the way, Phil, I did not see where anyone claimed that the law was not based on experience. Obviously the law is based on the experience and recorded experience of humankind. "Experience" and "empathy" are not synonymous.
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos , I've remained on the sidelines in this discussion, but have grown weary of your non-contextual spinning about Sotomayor, and Obama's nomination of her to to be a SCOTUS Justice. There have been far too many.

In this post, I will just address your continued hammering of a GOP talking point about Obama's selection process, and the import of "empathy". At its very foundation, the primacy of empathy is a distortion of what Obama stated were his criterion for nominating a SCOTUS Justice. It originates from just one of the many qualifications Obama stated were important in his decision making:
 Quote:
Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

President Obama, Interrupting A Press Briefing By Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, May 1, 2009

Here's a complete recap of President Obama's qualifications for his SCOTUS nominations:
  • someone with a sharp and independent mind
  • someone with a record of excellence and integrity
  • someone who understands that justice is more that abstract legal theory; that it's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives
  • someone who can empathize with people's hopes and struggles to arrive at just decisions and outcomes
  • someone who is dedicated to the rule of law
  • someone who honors our constitutional traditions
  • someone who respects the integrity of the judicial process
  • someone who respects the appropriate limits of the judicial role
  • someone with respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded who understands to apply them in our time
You admitted previously in this thread, that you had been duped by a WSJ editorial, and your assessment of the import Obama placed upon empathy had been in error, yet you have continued to emphasize it since. Why is that, and have you learned not to trust WSJ Op/Eds yet?

Top
#114267 - 06/08/09 09:04 AM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: issodhos]
a knight Offline
journeyman

Registered: 11/07/06
Posts: 754
Loc: inner mountain west
 Originally Posted By: issodhos
If anyone is interested in a transcript of her speech, this puts Sotomayor's wise Latina vs less wise pale male comment into some context -- though it, and other parts of the speech still warrant explanation or clarification.
 Quote:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women.

ůsnipů

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.

ůsnipů

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.

ůsnipů

I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

SOURCE:
Yours,
Issodhos

This is quite an artful use of snipped context, as you claim it places Sotomayor's "wise latina" quote in context.
Your four snips came from just three paragraphs of the speech's transcript.
There was no need to slice and dice, was there?

 Quote:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

Also, you failed to note that just three paragraphs after your snipped ones, were two more that qualified much of what you claim needs further clarification:

 Quote:
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

Top
#114268 - 06/08/09 09:42 AM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: SkyHawk]
a knight Offline
journeyman

Registered: 11/07/06
Posts: 754
Loc: inner mountain west
 Originally Posted By: SkyHawk
From what I have read so far, she seems to be eminently qualified.

Watch for the discussion on the New Haven firefighters decision, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Judging from the Supreme Court Justices' questions during the oral arguments for Ricci v Destefano, my guess is the decision is likely to come down a 5-4 split with Justice Stevens being the swing vote. Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter seemed to be in favor of affirming, while Kennedy seemed to be a strong leaner in that direction. Alioto, Roberts and Scalia seemed to be in favor of overturning, while Thomas, as is often the case, did not proffer any questions, but I assume will side with overturning.

Ricci is the result of Title VII legislation, and SCOTUS caselaw that is so convoluted, it has become almost impossible for communities to avoid facing lawsuits under Title VII, no matter what they decide. If New Haven officials had certified the test, they would have faced a lawsuit, and by not certifying it, they faced a lawsuit.

Admittedly, this isn't PC, but one common talking point about this case is the named petitioner, Ricci, was a firefighter who suffers from dyslexia so severe, he needed to have all test materials read into audio tapes, and have special tutoring lasting 10 hours a day, paid for out of his own pocket, in order to successfully pass the test. I would think this would disqualify him from holding supervisory position in the Fire Department. Isn't an ability to comprehend written material a necessary qualification for the job? If the test is certified, will the city then be required under ADA to hire a employee, who will transcribe for him all written communications to supervisors into an audio medium? I'm not being unsympathetic to persons afflicted with dyslexia, only making an observation. I do not believe the New Haven Fire Department would allow a person afflicted with epilepsy, who had a history of needed varying medication prescriptions to control grand mal seizures, to drive one of their fire engines either.


Edited by a knight (06/08/09 09:45 AM)

Top
#114326 - 06/08/09 05:18 PM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: a knight]
Snargle Offline
member

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 1489
Loc: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Tough break for nominee Sotomayor:

 Quote:

Sotomayor fractures ankle at New York airport

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor broke her ankle Monday morning in an airport stumble on her way to Washington to meet with senators who will vote on her confirmation.

The federal judge, who has been keeping up a busy schedule of appointments on Capitol Hill, tripped at New York's LaGuardia Airport before boarding a flight to Washington and sustained a small fracture to her right ankle, the White House said.

SFGATE
_________________________
Larry
---------------------------
"To the intelligent man or woman, life appears infinitely mysterious. But the stupid have an answer for every question." - Edward Abbey

Top
#114401 - 06/09/09 02:29 AM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: a knight]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 12581
 Originally Posted By: a knight
You admitted previously in this thread, that you had been duped by a WSJ editorial, and your assessment of the import Obama placed upon empathy had been in error, yet you have continued to emphasize it since.


"Admitted"? Lets correct that to what I actually did -- I corrected myself.;-)

And yes, the error I corrected concerned the "import" of empathy over other qualifications that had been attributed to President Obama. I have not attributed that import to him since. I have, however, continued to state that I do not think it is something that should be used by a judge to decide the constitutionality of a case.

In my correction to my post, I did reference the Obama Sotomayor nomination speech that I used to determine that the WSJ article was misleading. I thought I had included the link in that post, but on review, I did not. It included the qualifications President Obama said he would look for in a judge. My apology for the oversite on my part for having failed to link the speech.
Obama speech nominating Sotomayor:
Yours,
Issodhos
_________________________
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos

Top
#114410 - 06/09/09 03:07 AM Re: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court [Re: a knight]
issodhos Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 12581
 Originally Posted By: a knight
This is quite an artful use of snipped context, as you claim it places Sotomayor's "wise latina" quote in context.
Your four snips came from just three paragraphs of the speech's transcript.
There was no need to slice and dice, was there?

Actually, yes, there was. If I exceed approximately 150 words quoted from an article, I am usually told to reduce them to stay within the 'guidelines' of the forum. If you care to count the words in the above quote you will see that I was naughty and quoted just under 200 (I did try my best to keep it within the range, but I also wanted to give some idea of what I was referring to).

Now, I do not know how others view this forum, but I tend to make the assumption, given the guidelines we work under, that those interested in a post will avail themselves of the link to the entire article rather than just limiting themselves to the quotes -- especially when it is stated that it will add context to a comment in it that is controversial. A part of determining context includes the venue in which the speech was given, which appears in my link to the article. The quotes I used were selected to show that the quote attributed to Sotomayor might be mitigated by paragraphs preceeding and following it. Note the portions highlighted by me.
 Quote:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women.

ůsnipů

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.

ůsnipů

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.

ůsnipů

I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.




 Originally Posted By: a knight
Also, you failed to note that just three paragraphs after your snipped ones, were two more that qualified much of what you claim needs further clarification:


No, a knight, they did not clarify what I think needs clarification. And please note how far beyond the 'guidlines' you had to go to make those quotes -- quotes which were available from the link I provided.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos
_________________________
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos

Top
Page 12 of 13 < 1 2 ... 10 11 12 13 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 26 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2