SCOTUS Sotomayor:ethnicity &sex of judge “may &will make a difference in our judging"

[Oktoberfest]

What? No fucking talk about this? Dont you just loooove the source too?


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.

Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama’s statement that judges should have “empathy,” a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.

Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

[Orbitus]

What? No fucking talk about this? Dont you just loooove the source too?


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.

Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama’s statement that judges should have “empathy,” a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.

Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Of course you make a new thread to something we already covered in another thread.

[Thepersona]

in other news, water is wet
yes, the background of a person determines their actions to an extent. that's why we can predict how a SCOTUS with a conservative upbringing (like scalia) would vote.

[Daerio]

Perspective is absolutely everything, she's right. A conclave of privileged sheltered lawyer asswipes deciding the laws of the land, totally unable to relate to the average person they're governing, is the opposite of government legitimacy.

[Bollocks]

Isn't the judge a white male and american?

[Calfredd]

Isn't the judge a white male and american?

This is about the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) so I'd have thought him being an American was a given.

More on-topic: I'd have thought having a more diverse opinion base among the highest court in the land would be a good thing lest you have nothing but conservatives or liberals controlling the court.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Guys, guys. We're all exactly the same, and our background will not determine our views nor change our decisions. At least according to Oktoberfest.

[Powerogue]

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated that inverting sexism and racism is STILL sexist and racist.

[Bollocks]

This is about the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) so I'd have thought him being an American was a given.

More on-topic: I'd have thought having a more diverse opinion base among the highest court in the land would be a good thing lest you have nothing but conservatives or liberals controlling the court.

If that is case, then why does it matter what heritage, gender or the colour of the sking has with their job' In fact, if what the source that the OP provided doesn't it mean that we should have an equal amount of people from all genders, skin colours and heritage so that there is no bias against nobody?

[Garnier Fructis]

She's stating the obvious.

[Pangean]

"Sotomayor’s argument was not that she sought to use her position to further minority interests, or that her gender and background made her superior to a white male. Her central argument was that the sexual, racial, and ethnic makeup of the legal profession has in fact historically informed the application of law, despite the efforts of individual lawyers and judges to rise above their personal stories—as Sotomayor noted she labors to do. Her comment about a “wise Latina woman” making a better judgment than a “white male who hasn’t lived that life” referred specifically to cases involving racial and sexual discrimination. “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences… our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging,” she said. This is not a remarkable insight, nor is it even arguable. Consider, say, how an African-American Supreme Court justice might have viewed the Dred Scott case, or how a female judge—Sotomayor cited this in the speech—might have looked upon the argument, advanced to oppose women’s suffrage, that females are “not capable of reasoning or thinking logically.” The presence of blacks and women in the room inherently changes judicial deliberation. She said that although white male judges have been admirably able on occasion to rise above cultural prejudices, the progress of racial minorities and women in the legal profession has directly coincided with greater judicial recognition of their rights. Once again, her point was not that this progress was the result of deliberate judicial activism, but that it was a natural consequence of fuller minority and female participation."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-story/307667/

Read the article if you can. It goes onto to explain how all the news sources went with this "story" all at once. Quite eye opening.

[stabetha]

Guys, guys. We're all exactly the same, and our background will not determine our views nor change our decisions. At least according to Oktoberfest.

as a supreme court judge, it shouldn't.

[Vanyali]

as a supreme court judge, it shouldn't.

Supreme Court judges don't cease to be people, and there are things a white person who grew up in NYC will never understand about being a black person in Rural Minnesota, or a black person who grew up in California will never understand about a white guy in north virginia.

We, as humans, are a sum of our experiences.. so I don't understand why people attack it as people trying to force x group out of power or something. We'd ALL benefit from a supreme court that wasn't largely men of similar background, because we'd get a more informed decision based on a larger group experience rather than one derived from a single viewpoint.

[Garnier Fructis]

as a supreme court judge, it shouldn't.

This is an impossible standard, imo. You're shaped by your life experiences, and the characteristics you're dealt at birth in part determine those experiences.

[nextormento]

"A 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"
One can spin this in so many ways that it hurts.
Any context for it? What life is she referring to? is Latina woman a rich experience per se in a way that white male isn't?.

[Oktoberfest]

The best part is, everyone defending her has to defend Trump when he said the Latino Judge might be biased against him. Hes right btw. The Judge IS biased against him.

[Sky High]

Lol, of course this has to do with Trump university. Whether he's biased or not is pure speculation on the OPs part.

[Oktoberfest]

Lol, of course this has to do with Trump university. Whether he's biased or not is pure speculation on the OPs part.

Speculation that a Supreme Court Justice says is most likely true.

[Sky High]

Speculation that a Supreme Court Justice says is most likely true.

Cool, still has next to nothing to do with the Trump case besides you trying at the most accurate Glenn Beck inpression. "Someone said this, so Ima draw a line that clearly leads to this!" It's so painfully what you're trying do here.

[Pangean]

The best part is, everyone defending her has to defend Trump when he said the Latino Judge might be biased against him. Hes right btw. The Judge IS biased against him.

Yeah that's nonsense. If you want to claim bias you first need to show an actual unfair ruling. There is none. Trump is blowing smoke.

"The Makaeff case was filed on April 30, 2010, and transferred to Judge Curiel on January 30, 2013....On the issues where Judge Curiel had discretion, he generally ruled against the plaintiffs....On the issues where Judge Curiel had to rule on disputed legal concepts, he generally ruled against the plaintiffs....There’s only really one issue where Judge Curiel truly sided with the plaintiffs, and that was over the appropriate proof of damages.

....Summing Up: Judge Curiel is doing his job like a normal judge, issuing rulings consistent with the case law. But you already knew that.

For the record, note that the "plaintiffs" in this case are the folks suing Trump. So when Curiel rules against the plaintiffs, he's ruling for Trump. "
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...t-donald-trump

The issue that Trump is claiming bias on is the Summary Judgment ruling:

"First you've got to understand what summary judgment is. It's not "my evidence is stronger."

Here's how it works. One side files a motion attacking the complaint, or certain causes of action in the complaint, or maybe a defense, and points out to the court (usually by attaching evidence from discovery) that there is no evidence supporting the other side's position. Then the burden shifts to the other side to come forward with admissible evidence supporting their claim or defense.

So, for instance, say you sue me for copyright infringement for posting your art on Popehat. I could make a motion for summary judgment supplying my declaration that I never posted your art on Popehat. The burden would then shift to you to come forward with admissible evidence — say, a declaration from you, with screenshots — to show that there is a dispute of material fact. That means you have to offer evidence that there's a factual dispute about a fact that's meaningful to the claim at issue.

And then the judge decides who is right?

To be more precise, the judge then evaluates whether there is any evidence to support the attacked claim or defense.

The judge doesn't weigh evidence or determine credibility. If I have 20 declarations saying that your art never appeared on Popehat, and you have one declaration saying that it did, then you win the motion because there is some evidence supporting your claim. But if you can't supply admissible evidence — say, if you can only offer hearsay that someone told you they saw your art on Popehat — then I win.

So what happened here?

In the 2010 case, Donald Trump filed one motion for summary judgment and Trump University filed another.

Trump's own motion argued that he didn't make any of the alleged misrepresentations about Trump University that plaintiffs claim and therefore couldn't be held liable for them, and that the law didn't allow them the damages they demanded. Trump University argued that the law doesn't allow the plaintiffs the damages and injunctions they are asking for. The plaintiffs opposed both motions, arguing they had offered admissible evidence creating factual disputes about Trump's personal liability and Trump University's liability.

So Judge Curiel shot Trump down?

Partially, but not completely. Judge Curiel issued a very detailed 44-page order analyzing the arguments. The order has a good review of the evidence that the plaintiffs offered to support their case.

Ultimately he granted the motions in part and denied them in part. He threw out all of the demands for injunctive relief against Trump University, but kept the demands for restitution and other forms of monetary relief. He based that order on an earlier ruling limiting the class action claims. As to Donald Trump himself, Judge Curiel found that plaintiffs had offered admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute about whether Trump "hand-picked" Trump University instructors as he claimed, that they had offered enough evidence to create a dispute about whether Trump was responsible for Trump University advertisements because he reviewed them personally, and that they had offered enough evidence to create a factual dispute about whether plaintiffs relied to their detriment on false representations for which Trump could be held responsible. The court granted Trump's motion to throw out claims for injunctive relief against him.

The end result was that the demands for damages stayed alive, but demands for injunctions — which really didn't drive the case — got thrown out."

https://popehat.com/2016/06/01/lawsp...iversity-case/