Obama nominates NewyoRican female to SCOTUS

[Imran Siddiqui]

I shall also add that Madison wasn't the only member of the Congress to go through the 19 drafts. There was a commission created to finalize a consensus draft. This commission composed of Madison, Roger Sherman (CT), John Vining (DEL), Oliver Ellsworth (CT), William Paterson (NJ), and Charles Carroll (MD). There were plenty of Hamiltonians among these 6 (Paterson, Ellsworth, Vining)

[DinoDoc]

So how did Madison benefit from judicial activism?

Aparently you are less of an originalist than I thought.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, so how is that judicial activism? Marbury v Madison is famous for establishing (or formalizing) judicial review but the decision in favor of Madison was hardly judicial activism.

To a good number of people of the era, including Jefferson, the SCOTUS acted outside the authority granted by the Constitution and WAS judicial activism. The document does not explicitly state that the Court can strike down laws, does it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Aparently you are less of an originalist than I thought.

[Berzerker]

Considered or not, the authors were mainly Virginians and their notion of religious liberty became enshrined in the 1st. Freedom of speech, the press - the Jefferson Memorial says it all. And it aint ludicrous (speed) to reject Adams' opinion of a free press and speech just because he may have voted for the 1st Amendment, the words dont match his deeds. I'll take the opinions of the men who wrote it over the opinions of people who tried to destroy those freedoms. We know what power can do and we know everyone has their own biases. I'm sure Adams wasn't an ahole, but he sure looks like it from that episode. Now which authors of the 1st Amendment supported the Alien & Sedition Act? Shame on them... Do you take seriously the opinion of someone who says they support the 1st Amendment while jailing people for criticizing Congress? I sure dont...

[Ramo]

You are correct, both Roberts and Alito were only adjunct faculty so they fall to her level in that regard while Scalia maintains his position as the most qualified by my criteria. OTOH, both Alito and Roberts argued cases before the Supreme Court (which counts positively for their credentials) while Sotomayor did not.

She had five times more experience on the Court of Appeals than Roberts. She was also on a District Court for several years. Roberts' experience as SC mitigates his rather short tenure at the Appellate level (though not as short as Thomas). Roberts is superbly qualified as well. Asserting that she's substantially less qualified is ridiculous nonsense.

Is it racist or sexist to have criticisms of the judge?

It's either gross ignorance or racism/sexism to call her an affirmative action pick.

It's racist and sexist to refuse to consider any white males.

For a court that is 8/9 white and 8/9 male, why? The simple truth is that there are a large number of "qualified" candidates. Beyond that, all you've got are politics. And identity is a clearly important part of politics.

The Solicitor General was considered this time, but she lost out to Sotomayor despite being more qualified.

The same concern trolls here would whine about Kagen's lack of appellate experience if she were Obama's pick. Or maybe not, since she's not brown.

[Drake Tungsten]

Kagan and Wood are both more qualified than Sotomayor, but they don't offer the same political benefits.

[Ramo]

Because your opinion as to the merits of academic (Kagan has been SG for a couple months) vs. appellate experience is worth anything at all.

[DinoDoc]

Is it racist or sexist to have criticisms of the judge?

It's either gross ignorance or racism/sexism to call her an affirmative action pick.

You seem to assert that she was picked for her skin color and lack of dangly parts. So what is wrong with concluding that this pick is the same sort of identity politics Obama decryed during the campaign as an enormous distraction?

I also fail to see what is racist or sexist with asserting that political appointments based on identity are an unseemly spectacle which undermine real achievements of the ethnic group or gender they seek to promote and infantilizes the candidate being elevated.

[Ramo]

Care to substantiate how the selections of Marshall or O'Connor "undermined" the real achievements of the black/women communities and "infantilized" the people in question?

And politics is substantially about identity. There's no getting around it.

[Kuciwalker]

For a court that is 8/9 white and 8/9 male, why? The simple truth is that there are a large number of "qualified" candidates. Beyond that, all you've got are politics. And identity is a clearly important part of politics.

Wait, are you asking "why is it sexist and racist to eliminate from consideration all members of a given sex and/or race?"

Really?

[Kuciwalker]

Care to substantiate how the selections of Marshall or O'Connor "undermined" the real achievements of the black/women communities and "infantilized" the people in question?

I can show how Thomas did

And politics is substantially about identity. There's no getting around it.

Except for white males, though. They aren't allowed to have an identity.

[Ramo]

Wait, are you asking "why is it sexist and racist to eliminate from consideration all members of a given sex and/or race?"

Really?

For one particular seat in the context of stark under-representation, particularly wrt gender. Yes.

I can show how Thomas did

That wasn't the question. Thomas has a tiny fraction of the appellate experience that Sotomayor has. Can you answer mine? Marshall and O'Connor.

Except for white males, though. They aren't allowed to have an identity.

Really? Why do you suppose that most of the justices are Catholic?

Ever read up on why Scalia was picked by Reagan over Bork?

[DinoDoc]

Care to substantiate how the selections of Marshall or O'Connor "undermined" the real achievements of the black/women communities and "infantilized" the people in question?

You're engaging in a childish and stupid sidestep of your original point which was you decrying people who called this an identity based pick as being racist and or sexist. I found that odd given the fact that you defend identity politics and claim this pick was part of that in that same post.

Seeing as how this thread though is about Judge Sotomayor, let's discuss her shall we? In recounting Sotomayor's "extraordinary journey," though, President Obama treats her as a daughter, not a colleague. His mention of her girlhood passion for Nancy Drew mysteries draws sweet laughter from the audience. And he repeatedly refers to Celina Sotomayor as "Sonia's mom."

Could you imagine a formal nomination speech that talked of John Roberts' mother as "John's mom"? And would anyone note that the chief justice enjoyed "Winnie the Pooh" as a boy, which he probably did?

When President Bush named his two male Supreme Court nominees, he invariably called them "Judge Roberts" and "Judge Alito." Sotomayor is supposedly every bit as much a judge, but Obama calls her "Sonia."

And politics is substantially about identity.

I find it repugnant that someone would consider a person solely what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is. I also fail to buy into the idea that members of whatever group being discussed can only be understood or represented by members of that group.

Embeded in those assumptions is that canard that the members of that group vote and feel the same about an issue which isn't the case as the issue of immigration indicates wrt Hispanics: http://www.kvoa.com/global/story.asp?S=4749422

Now that we've gone down this road could you get back to your original point?

[Boris Godunov]

Ah, white men whining that a white man wasn't selected for a position that historically has been occupied by 98% white men. Poor things.

Of course, it's a lie that no white males were considered, since Merrick Garland made the list of the final 9 candidates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28select.html?_r=1

So a white male was considered. In the end, a well-qualified candidate was picked. What's the problem?