do I really have to say it???
Posted on 02/05/2011 5:23:45 AM PST by reaganaut1
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew attention to her racial politics this week during a speech at the University of Chicago Law School, where she took issue with the positions of some of her colleagues on the bench.
Since her confirmation hearings, in which she had to explain her previous assertion that a wise Latina woman "would more often than not reach a better conclusion" than a white man in the same position, Justice Sotomayor has typically been more guarded in her public comments. But at the student forum, she criticized Chief Justice John Roberts's position in a 2007 case about whether public school admissions could be race-conscious to achieve diversity (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1).
Writing for the court, Justice Roberts said that "the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Justice Sotomayor told U of C students that that formula is "too simple" for her. "I don't borrow Chief Justice Roberts's description of what colorblindness is," she said. "Our society is too complex to use that kind of analysis." She also told students that, contrary to fellow Justice Antonin Scalia, she was "not sure" whether determining the original intent of the Constitution was the most important consideration in deciding a case.
Justice Sotomayor also talked about being the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. "To the extent my presence has given people of color a sense of belonging with the court, then I have made a difference," she said. The justice said that she doesn't let her racial identity affect her judgment in cases but is convinced that others pre-judge her. "People have views of me and expectations of me that are based on stereotypes," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Sotomayer’s who being is tied into her racial identity. She is NOT a full person. This society will not survive such touchy-feely thought. A system of law can not just be “whatever feels right today”.
I heard a Bolshecrat analyst claim that if it passes Congress and the President signs it it is Constitutional. With that attitude who needs a Supreme Court to determine what is Constitutional. The rule of law has turn to the whim of man. Until, DumBO is in prison for what he did to the Chrysler bondholders there is no rule of law.
Idiot woman.
A moron with a lifetime appointment to destroy our Constitution.
If I could I would ask her which doctor she wants performing brain surgery on her, the qualified one or the PC one.
Weak, foolish republicans put her in the Supreme Court.
We will live to regret their weakness.
Justice Sotomayor also talked about being the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court.......
....The justice said that she doesn’t let her racial identity affect her judgment in cases but is convinced that others pre-judge her
________________________________________________
AH maybe because you make an issue of the fact that you are “Hispanic” etc
and when has Hispanic been equated to “color”
Maybe you can get away with “minority” but the first “Hispanics” in the New World were considered white men and they were from Europe...
If your ancestors were from Spain then they were considered white...
If your ancestors were Central or South American Indians and “people of color” then they were not Hispanic at all...
Wasn’t she Barry’s personal eligibility lawyer?
do I really have to say it???
I have not heard this progressive mantra in a public forum. It has, however, been insinuated.
“The woman is a moron.”
She is, but it is a refreshing change that instead of some hillbilly Klansman saying blacks & hispanics are inferior we now have a Puerto Rican woman shouting it loud & clear; there is no other meaning to be taken from the “racial preferences” debate.
One of the problems that will eventually doom racial preferences is the fact the former president Fox of Mexico (6’+ tall, white as Ivory soap) is considered “Hispanic” in terms of college admission, racial quotas for civil service (or private industry, now that this is legislated there as well via threat of lawsuits), etc. This, combined with the fact that “Hispanics” now outnumber blacks in the US population, has taken some of the fire out of the debate; if twenty firefighter positions have to be held for “other”, and the top twenty scores go to Hispanics and/or white women, then they’ll have to go back to square one.
A wise Latina wouldn’t stoop to using the term “wise Latina”.
And this is a surprise? Too many whites are either naive, sheltered or plain stupid.
Because of junk like that for many years now on government forms when given a choice of ...
white
black
hispanic
Chinese/Asian
Pacific Islander
etc
I have chosen Pacific Islander
I was born in New Zealand...
:)
so what if my skin is lily white and my ancestors for 100s of years have been European...
French, Dutch, English, Scot, Irish
I’m a Pacific Islander...
Punta in Spanish.
They’ve already been through that in court with a South African white; he lost (apparently not “African” enough).
Good luck with that; if you don’t mind my asking, why would a Kiwi live here?
So it in not because of what she has achieved, it if because of what she is.
This is supposed to be about equality of opportunity. Not legislated outcomes.
Yes she is. She is sure it is *not*. The most important thing is to advance the progressive agenda toward a more centrally-planned and controlled wealth redistribution utopia, with Wise Latinas and other Marxists being the cannibalistic Morlocks, and conservatives playing the role of the delicious Eloy.
We all knew this as soon as she was nominated by Pharaoh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.