Sotomayor's Controversial 2001 Remarks -- and Their Context

POTUS and Judge Sotomayor discussion of "empathy" as a desirable quality in a Supreme Court appointment is a complete straw dog. This is an act of raw, boldface political gamesmanship. “Oppose THIS, all you Republicans.” (All that’s missing is “make my day.”)
She points out that Holmes and Cardozo voted on cases upholding sex and race discrimination and that the Court until the 70s ever found for a woman in a gender discrimination case. Well, none of the nine guys on the Court in the 1970s had uteruses and THEY still found a woman’s right to an abortion somewhere in the Constitution. None were “Hispanic” in the 1960s, and yet somehow Ernesto Miranda was overturned by those same guys (8 white & 1 black). How does she explain that?

Next, as Cal Thomas says in his column today, if pulling oneself up from bootstraps biographies could guarantee smooth sailing through the process, Clarence Thomas should have been granted an express ticket to the bench instead of the trip to hell & back that was his confirmation hearing.

If one must have a physical “representative” on the Court in order to somehow come nearer to “justice,” then what about a second generation descendent of coal-mining, deer-hunting, Eastern European Slavs? Who represents me?

"gosh darn it, some people just don't know their place......."

Wha? Ah yes, their place in the world. Right, they have to go into the back of the resteraunt to eat, separate bathrooms etc. Yup, thats their place. Just like civil rights struggle. Oh those poor people. But that's where they belong! That's their place! Your argument is so silly.

What you obviously point out is that society should behave as you see it, you want people to think the way you do and willing to engage courts into doing it. Since they are treated the same under the law, are not discriminated against, the difference is what it is called, as if society MUST do what you say it must. Sorry, guess what, individuals in this country have a right to believe and support what they want to, which is why that is where the effort should be focused. By pushing it through courts you make more enemies, more people against it. But by presenting the case and appealing to the people you'll get what you want eventually, to call it marriage instead of civil unions.

But right now, there isn't any sympathy because it comes down to what you want to call it, not any difference in how society treats it. Under the law now, they are married. But the people do not want to call it marriage, they want to call it civil unions. The movement to change this comes accross as cry baby's and loses sympathy.

And then your argument is totally based on what it's being called is a civil right? Rediculous.

"if 'they' were treated the same under the law they would have the right to be married the same way heterosexuals are."

Your impossible.

Explain the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage, and how the law treats them differently? Just answer this simple question.

KR

re: "Why is that not good enough?

gosh darn it, some people just don't know their place.......

KR

btw: 'So the LABEL is different, who cares? They are treated the same under the law, '

if 'they' were treated the same under the law they would have the right to be married the same way heterosexuals are.

KR

are you in anyway familiar with the concept of 'separate but equal', and what it means.. and the laws instituted regarding it?

"next you'll be telling me that society didn't force 'black' americans to be 'black'..."

Did you even READ what I said? I said to NOT BE gay, so you have to put in to NOT BE BLACK. Even blacks get offended when people equate gay marriage to the civil rights struggle, its not even remotely similar.

"back in your good old days, slaves wanted to be equal and free, ... status and label society didn't want to give them."

Again, equating black civil rights to gay marriage is foolish and hurts your position being for gay marriage. When are you going to learn?

Answer this, do gays get all of the legal entitlements of marriage through civil unions? Yes or no.

Can gays live together and live how they please (freedom)? Yes or no?

What is the difference between civil unions and marriage, as recognized by the government?

We know the answer to these questions, the only difference is one is called marriage, the other civil union. Why is that not good enough? Is it just to take a jab at society for spite? Explain why the people have to explain themselves, yet the gay movement doesn't have to explain themselves? So the LABEL is different, who cares? They are treated the same under the law, VERY VERY DIFFFERENT THAN SLAVERY OR WOMEN RIGHTS!

Society is not forcing gays to not be gay.
KR

and your calling my arguments pathetic?

next you'll be telling me that society didn't force 'black' americans to be 'black'...

re: 'What they want is a label that society does not want to give them.

back in your good old days, slaves wanted to be equal and free, ... status and label society didn't want to give them.

"yeah, sort of like the struggle for racial equality and women's rights... "

How you could ever equate racial equality and womans rights with gay marriage is pathetic and only harms your argument. Society is not forcing gays to not be gay. They are not forcing them into anything. They can live how they wish, they can have civil unions that gives them all the legal entitlements. What they want is a label that society does not want to give them. They don't have a right to that.

But that's not good enough, it has to become a right, which allows them to force society into their view of rights. That is not connected to the constitution.
Posted by: KR

yeah, sort of like the struggle for racial equality and women's rights... imagine 'forcing' those views of rights on a society that didn't want them........ don't even get me started on 'inter-racial' marriage and how that was 'forced' onto society to deal with

"The primary purpose of the Constitution is to protect people, even from unfair laws."

Agreed. And it is societies role to dictate government, not government dictate the people, the very basis of the consitution is the governing empowered by the governed, not the other way around.

The primary purpose of the Constitution is to protect people, even from unfair laws. If the Supreme Court decides that Prop8 is not fair and unconstitutional then they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Just lower your expectations.. no matter who he nominated, they would be biased.. it's human nature..

Momma said that 'Life's not fair'.. she probably knew what she was talking about...

"Maybe not specifically, but Ted Olson for example says he thinks Prop 8 violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution."

He can think the moon is made out of cheese and it won't make it a right. The constitution is sought as a trump card over society since it was signed, extrapolating it into whatever agenda someone has. So I think the tactic is completely wrong. The focus that people who advocate gay marriage shouldn't be going through courts and citing the consitution that has no direct bearing on the issue. The focus of thier efforts should be on society itself. By taking it through the courts, they create enemies because it is seen as using the courts to deem what I find personally acceptable or not. Whether I personally accept or not is irrelevant, society has to accept it. It should be put to the people, not to judges in court. In California, the people have spoken. So it is up to those with that agenda to convince society otherwise. What they are doing is creating animosity, not acceptance.

"Sheesh. This woman is a racist."

Try reading the full context of Judge Sotomayor's remarks as described immediately ABOVE here on this page. Judge Sotomayor's remarks are balanced and insightful, and while they address the possible role of race (and gender) in decision making, they are certainly not racist.

"No where in the consitution does it say marriage is a right."

Maybe not specifically, but Ted Olson for example says he thinks Prop 8 violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Sheesh. This woman is a racist. I wonder if Obama knew this when she nominated her. I think the Repubs must have set Obama up and he nominated her without knowing that she said statements like this, in order to embarrass him when he has to pull her nomination. What a mess.

" I would cite the gay-marriage issue as an example that we still don't have equal rights in this country."

You equate gay marriage as a right, when marriage is a social acceptance issue, its not a right. Same as multiple marriages are not a right, its under social acceptance. No where in the consitution does it say marriage is a right. It is recognized because society recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. Civil unions give gays all the legal entitlements they seek. But that's not good enough, it has to become a right, which allows them to force society into their view of rights. That is not connected to the constitution.

"You intentionally left out the part of the sentence before the comma, you know, the part about the 'well regulated militia'. Sure, if you just describe the last half it's easy."

Because that was talking about MILITIA, the second half, AFTER THE COMMA, says PEOPLE in plain and simple language. It does not say the MILITIA has the RIGHT, it says the PEOPLE. That is very clear.

"Wouldn't that imply that it's been realized and then usurped?"

No. I would use the metaphor that we were trying to go the right direction when Bush turned us around the other way. I would cite the gay-marriage issue as an example that we still don't have equal rights in this country.