Sotomayor Asked About 'Temperament'. Sexist Question?

His question to her is being commented on because he is a white man asking a minority a question. The left wing liberal media has a problem with conservative white men. PERIOD.

He should have asked her if she was a racist. The answer would have been "yes".

Steve,
It has nothing to do with liberal bias, the man is a jerk. He'd never ask that kind of question of another man...no matter what color He was.

Naw, it wasn't sexist. If someone is called a "bully" -- be he man or woman -- it's fair to ask if they have a problem with temperament. And Sotomayor is proving in the hearing, where she's been asked the same thing over and over, that her temperament is just fine.

It is a fair question. On every college application and many application the question is asked - "how would your peers describe you?" In this case, the question was leading and adversarial. To read anymore into the question is just dumb. Anyway Maureen Dowd is way left of center, and of course, she would try to editorialize the question to make it look it sexist. Its her job to be biased and to try to make things up and cause controversy.

Past remarks by candidates for supreme court are fair game. Sotomayor has made some very racially oriented statements and clearly thinks in terms of race in her perpective. Some prospective supreme court judges (as well as candidates for other offices) have been harshly criticized in the past for such remarks. Perhaps we are going to cease using such criteria in the future?..not likely. Women are different in temperament than men. We need not debate this. The question is whether Sotomayor's behavior on the bench in the past should be used as a criterion for expectation of how she will act in the future. The answer is yes.

I'm a 44 yr old white married female. I would like to see the 'diversity' and balance of another female on the Supreme Court. But after living in NYC for a little over a year some time ago, I hesitate to feel comfortable with a NY Puerto Rican woman with her history. We are all a product of our upbringing and I fail to see how she can judge a case w/o a bias. Sure she brings much absolute knowledge of the law of this land, but she also brings --what I feel would be-- the effect of her experiences.

It's SO nice that we are going to end discrimination on the basis of race and gender... by practicing discrimination on the basis of race and gender. The firefighter case discredited Sotomayor and showed her bias for her personal views outside of the law. But impartial arbiters haven't been on the bench for most of the 20th century. It seems the primary qualification is to be a judical activst, writing and enforcing policies either party could NEVER get away with were they exposed to the election cycle. They are unaccountable and therfore the last resort and best effort to implement political policies, instead of monitor fidelity to the law. Law is politics and enforcement of the law has always been relative to the politics of the enforcer... Why should we expect anything to change along these lines???

It is a profoundly sexist question. No man would ever be asked it. A man who stands up for himself and his views is perceived as being forthright and principled; a woman doing the same is perceived as being temperamental. B

y the way, I am not a liberal, and I am not a woman. I'm a straight white male independent who has seen first-hand the treatment that my wife and sisters have endured by cretins like Graham.

My take is this...Senators questioning an esteemed judge(any esteemed judge)about law is like a drunk asking a brew-master if he uses quality hops to make beer. Neither the senator nor the drunk has any idea what they are talking about.

"The firefighter case discredited Sotomayor and showed her bias for her personal views outside of the law."

No! The firefighter case showed that she follows the law, as written. The Supreme Court overturned the decision based on new criteria, new grounds that the appeals court could not take into account.

One hopes that the process has moved beyond Clarence Thomas being shoved onto the Court for political reasons, despite credible testimony by a woman who worked with him... to the point where Justices should be judged by their breadth of experience and their personal growth. Not too much actual experience on the Court now, as far as I can see. The Court needs a Justice Sotomayor. Go, Sonya!

It is ironic that Senator Graham has indicated that "he likes her (Sotomayor)and may vote for her". Likes her??? what about judicial qualifications, this is not a personality contest Senator Graham. With the exception of republicans who need a piece of red meat, his comment reflects the lack of critical thinking.

Having worked in the corporate workplace for over 25 years with all kinds of people, I think it is safe to say that in this era of being a “team player” or conversely, “going postal” and of course, workforce diversity, that asking a job candidate (which is what Sotomayor is) regardless of gender about his or her temperament is a legitimate question.

Also, as a female over 40 who has worked with her share of menopausal women, I’d personally want to know if she is popping her Premarin on a daily basis to keep the mood swings in check.

What hyocrits! Many of the senators now in the house have awful temperaments and are considered gross,vulgar and real BULLYS. One that comes to mind right away is Sen. John McCain who has been called on his gross, insulting behavior many times. Where he has come down on his peers and constituents with the four letter words. The other one is former hypocrit and senator Phil 'Foreclosure' Gramm. How can they sit there and condemn others for what they do regularly. As far as being 'racist,' what about the senators who belonged to private clubs that excluded Jews, Blacks, women and Latinos. Now that is being bigoted and racist!

Gary: Please provide the specific multiple statements that were made that can back up your statement "Sotomayor has made some very racially oriented statements". When, where and why? Be specific and back it up with multiple reliable sources.

I can't believe that Senators are asking Sotomayer questions, I thought she was supposed to just breeeze through these hearings. Isn't that the way it works for minorities and Democrats.

Yeah Steve,..."the left wing media". Those who don't report the news that you like... those are the "left wing media". And who do you think reports the news the way you like to hear it? I have a pretty good idea but I won't mention it.

What's all the boo-hooing about? She's called temperamental? So what. Male judges perceived as bullies on the bench get called much worse. And 'meltdown' has passed on from defining a tantrum to a definition that is more in line with its original meaning - a situation that goes horribly wrong very quickly, leaving a mess no one wants to deal with. To be honest, I've never heard of 'meltdown' being applied to a woman.

Some of these postings are just as much as farce as some of the questions from the likes of people such as Gramm and Sessions. As if Scalia hasn't a reputation for being cranky and temperamental. As if Rhenquist hadn't the same. History indicates a bunch of Justices who were irascible and often "temperamental." What a joke. If an intellectual lightweight with the baggage of Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court, then this lady's endorsement is a done deal.