La XX-Chromosomed Femenino Female Latina Woman

Yes, I'm feeling rather hope-less today...

Your English and Spanish lesson for the day: "Latina Woman" is redundant. So is "very liberal Obama nominee" -- but I digress.

When Sarah Palin burst on the scene, I often used shorthand and said how great it was to see a woman on the ticket. But what I really meant -- and said at other times -- was how great it was to see a candidate that has stood up to the status quo and worked to make some real progress and is a servant of the people who doesn't bow to party politics (etc, etc)... who also happens to be a woman.

People on the left argued that Palin wasn't the best choice, and that she was only chosen because she was a woman.

When Miguel Estrada was up for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals -- did the Democrats laud his "great personal story" of coming to this country at 17 from Honduras with nothing to his name, barely speaking English? No, they were too busy filibustering a Court of Appeals nominee for the very first time. They had to, because they knew if he were approved, Estrada was one step away from the Supreme Court. He had the "correct" pedigree, but alas, the wrong judicial view for the Democrats. They had failed to "bork" Clarence Thomas, and they weren't going to let it happen again with Estrada.

So how does the left respond to the nomination of Sotomayor for the SCOTUS? Suddenly, one's chromosomal make-up and heritage is essential to one of the most important jobs in our nation.

BO is no dummy -- he knew that there'd be a buzz about a nominee who was a Latina. And because of a single decision upholding a ban on the use of government funds for abortions, he believes he can pass her off as a "moderate." How could anyone stand in the way of letting this fabulous story -- fit for Hollywood -- play to the happy ending?

Well, it won't be by challenging her decisions, her intellect, or her disposition -- which apparently are not up to par. It could only possibly happen by asking her this simple question: Can you uphold the oath of the position?

She must be challenged as to whether or not she will be able to stand up and say,"I, Sonia Sotomayor, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Judge S. has already made it very clear that she will not be able to uphold that oath. She intends to judge with empathy. Justice isn't blind to her. It peeks out from under that blindfold to see your color, gender, social status -- or whichever personal obstacle you've had to overcome -- as you stand before the court.

(And despite that one decision on funding, I'm guessing her empathy only extends to those who can actually stand before her -- not the innocent masses crying out for justice from the hidden refuge of their mothers' wombs.)

We all know how SS should answer that question, but I suspect that the lawyer will rise from within and espouse fanciful legalese to obscure the truth -- and there will be no stopping her appointment. And every future nominee from Obama can be a half-step less to the left and will be declared "even more moderate" than she -- and they will be approved as well.

They will sit on that court decade after decade as tens of millions more preborn lives are slaughtered in the name of "empathy."

I think of all those pro-life voters who cast their ballot for Obama with the unsubstantiated, blindly bestowed belief that he would bring some new kind of approach to government, and incomprehensibly the issue of abortion, and wonder if they realize the most grave error they made.

So while pro-abortion women, Spanish voters, and diabetics can celebrate this nomination, I mourn it as the continuation of a very dark time in our nation. While the former aspect will be another footnote in what is supposed to be a post-racial, post-gender world, don't be fooled into believing it is anything but the latter.

*supremely monumental sigh*

 

Comments

[Lisa]

Bah Humbug! Has there ever been a Supreme Court judge who thought like a robot? If so, there wouldn't be a need for more than one! Somehow, though, when Obama says the word "empathy," it suddenly becomes a huge no-no.

You had empathy for Jon and Kate, who pimped out their family to support themselves. You had empathy for Sarah Palin when she admitted that she considered killing her baby. Seems empathy is your one-way street.

What Conservatives think about Sarah Palin (that she scares those who are her political opposites) reads loud and clear in this post.

[Lisa]

That last sentence should have read "What Conservatives think about Sarah Palin...is what Dems think about Sotomayor, and it reads loud and clear in this post."

[Colette Moran]

Empathy has it's time and place. As a judge who is handing down a sentence, sure. But sitting on the Supreme Court? No. The nature of the job is clear. It is to interpret what is already there, not create policy because we feel sorry for someone.

Empathy's place in government is when the legislature creates laws, or when the electorate votes for or against. It's place is NOT in the highest court in the land.

On the other fronts: Have you ever watched Jon & Kate? They did not "pimp out" their kids. Part of the reason Kate has been vilified is because she set such stringent rules for the filming. She was protecting her kids, and for that she is branded a witch. Her kids were doing fine.

Now all this mess happens and if there had been even a smidgeon of empathy, the media and the photographers would have realized what was going on and would have backed off to let a family sort out their problems.

Instead J&K are called names and thrown on covers of magazines and the kids can't go anywhere without being trailed. I stand by my support for the Gosselins. Jon is being creepy, but theirs is not that uncommon a story, even out of the limelight. (Couples of multiples are 3x more likely to divorce.) Show them support so they can work it out for everyone's sake.

Sarah Palin did not consider killing her baby -- she said it crossed her mind how easy it would be, and that she understood how it crosses the minds of women in those tough situations. That doesn't mean that it is therefore a valid choice.

We understand a woman thinking of killing an abusive husband, but of course, that doesn't mean it should be a viable option.

(So, exactly how does that make empathy my "one-way street"?)

And of course, you are right about what is thought about Palin and Sotomayor by their respective supporters. They are both women with great back stories.

Difference is, when it comes to the SCOTUS, you have to take an oath to be impartial. Empathy has nothing to do with it. And I just don't think Sotomayor can truthfully promise to exhibit that impartiality.

[Lisa]

Neither can Alito, be impartial that is, as it has been widely written of late: "My family's immigrant experience shaped my judicial outlook," he's on record (and video) as saying.

And I have a simple solution for Jon and Kate: get out of the limelight and work on your family. But apparently, it's now too lucrative to stay where they are. There's no empathy for Jon and Kate because it's not like they have no choice in this situation. Apparently, they've chosen fame.

[Colette Moran]

Maybe Alito's immigrant experience gave him an appreciation for the impartial American judicial system of equality before the law -- but I don't know for sure what he meant based on that single sentence, and I'm willing to bet you don't know either. That's the danger of making judgements based on such little info.

On the other hand, I have seen more than one account -- including that video -- where Judge S. has expressed what amounts to saying that there is a place for activism on the bench. Colleagues and analysts have come out to say they believe this to be true. Of course there are those who will disagree, but there is more than just one statement on which the partial/activist conclusion has been reached.

As for J&K: I think they would really like to get out the limelight and work on their family -- my understanding is that there are contractual obligations with the show and with book deals. Yes, these were all deals "chosen" by them, but I'm sure when they signed up, they (or at least Kate) did not anticipate that Jon was going to get an itch to party, and that it would turn into this media circus.

All along, they have protected the children, and I'm sure they are doing all they can now. What would be nice is if maybe the book companies let her skip more than a few promo appearances, and if the photogs would give it a rest(!) so that they can have a chance to rebuild their relationship.

What worries me, is that nothing has ever been said about counseling -- but of course, that is their business...

[Lisa]

"I'm willing to bet you don't know either. That's the danger of making judgements based on such little info...On the other hand, I have seen more than one account."

That statement's just a******-ish. Don't assume you know what I know or don't know.

[Colette Moran]

No, that statement is fair. I did not assume anything. I said "I'm willing to bet..."

The fact that you did not dispute what I said and simply swore at me does not persuade me to change my mind.

(Apologies if anyone saw that profanity before I edited it -- silly me, I didn't put that word in my filter -- didn't think anyone would stoop to using that one...)

[Maryann]

Technically, when one says, "I'll bet..." it's an accepted understanding that the one doing "the betting" is certain of that which they're betting on. So I think it's safe to assume that you were certain that Lisa was ill-informed. Why would you say so otherwise? When you debate someone, especially someone who has chosen to take a moment to comment on your blog (by the way, I see you don't have many comments, so I assume you don't have many visitors), why would you say you'd bet they haven't explored the issue when YOU HAVE NO IDEA IF THAT'S THE CASE? Your statement reads as an insult.

Though I probably would have used different terms, I think Lisa's comment is justified. If you continue to answer comments so snarkily, I'll bet you'll continue to have a not- very-widely-read blog.

[Colette Moran]

See Maryann, there you go assuming again -- it's tricky to inject inflection and full meaning -- not matter how many emoticons or itals, etc one uses...

It's interesting that you say "technically" and "it's an accepted understanding" that one is "certain" when they bet...
If that were true, every casino would be out of business (hey, not such a bad idea...) That right there shows that one persons notion of what is "fact" is another person's not so much

I was making a guess -- sometimes people just shoot for the moon! (Altho I think the *fact* that Lisa hasn't supported her statement is a probable indicator that she too was making a conjecture-- if she comes back and supports at this stage, it will be after she has done research -- and if she does comes up with support for her opinion, I'll be the first to say she had a point after all)

As for snarkiness, I can't win there -- when I think I'm beiong straightforward, there always seems to be *somebody* out there who takes offense

And it seems there are folks who *like* snarkiness while others are turned off --

btw congrats on your *assumption* that I don't have many visitors -- not hard to figure out -- but I haven't been making it a top priority -- and not sure if I want to take the steps that seem to be necessary to get widely read...

[Maryann]

OK, I'll bite...

When people gamble in casinos, they do so understanding the great deal of uncertainty in the outcome: will they win any money or won't they? That's the thrill. Addicts, of course, may be the exception to this scenario, but that's for another conversation.

However, when you told Lisa, "I'm willing to bet you don't know either..." you were, as you've clarified, "guessing." In my dictionary, here's the first definition of "guess": "to form an opinion from little or no evidence."

On the opposite side of the coin, you could have "assumed" that Lisa was more informed about Alito's statement but didn't write a more detailed comment for the sake of brevity, and you could have asked her to expand her comment.

So perhaps Lisa isn't revisiting your conversation, not because she has nothing to contribute to support her point of view, but because it's exasperating to discuss something with someone who minces words the way you do.

[Colette Moran]

Some people don't think so much when they make a bet -- some are in a hurry and are just looking to respond to what they think is probably an *assumption* on Lisa's part about Alito.

I'm not a SCOTUS expert, but I watch a lot of coverage about it, and read about it. I have never heard any controversy surrounding what Alito said, and Lisa is the only one I have heard bring it up in light of the Sotomayor nomination. So I made a bet/guess/whatever! that she probably did not have anything to back up her statement.

No, I do not know Lisa personally, but it has been my experience in the blogosphere that people tend to do that. Yes, I could have assumed the other side of the coin, (or any other variety of possible scenarios for that matter) but I didn't. It was more of a challenge than a bet/guess/whatever! and Lisa should have known or knew that.

So yes, maybe she didn't care for my "mincing" -- or maybe she was in fact off base. Still, she has not backed up what she said, nor has anyone else.

And I'm sure there is more than one definition for both "betting" and "guessing" -- now who's doing the mincing and who is the exasperating one?

[Maryann]

Just because you've not heard any controversy regarding Alito doesn't mean there's nothing out there on the topic.

You and Lisa are not reading the same things. Here's an example of MANY articles that I found discussing Alito's comments on his heritage:

http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/nbcs-david-gregory-thinks-sotomayors.html

[Colette Moran]

Okay! Something I can work with! (And I never suggested it didn't exist because I hadn't heard it, I simply said I hadn't heard it. I admit that I am not privy to every single news source.)

As Lisa said, these *are* people we are talking about, not robots. Of course, they take into account who the people are before them. And naturally, both Alito and Sotomayor bring their experiences with them.

But of course, the most important quote found in that article is when Alito says

"And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result."

I think that fact that Sotomayor, a liberal judge, has been overturned by the SCOTUS, which has a liberal majority, 3 of 6 times is a good indication to me that she does not adhere to the above. I haven't heard much that convinces me to the contrary.

(Yes, I heard that Alito was overturned 100% of the time -- everyone seems conveniently not to say that it was only 2 of 2-- another example of how folks seem to hear things and repeat them without knowing exactly what they're talking about -- but it would make sense that a conservative judge would be overturned by a liberal court, which only takes cases that it is seriously considering reversing.)

Thanks for the comments.

[Maryann]

"On the other hand, I have seen more than one account -- including that video -- where Judge S. has expressed what amounts to saying that there is a place for activism on the bench."

One final question: Have you actually read the full text of Sotomayor's speech from which Repubs have pulled that "controversial" statement regarding her ethnicity? It's easy to find, and it might change your mind about her intentions once she's confirmed.

[Colette Moran]

No I haven't actually read it because thankfully I have more than one source that I trust as reputable journalists who actually have read it -- I read their summations, commentary and discussion on another website, and I came down on the side of the person who felt what I expressed above.

Ultimately, this is all blather since she'll be approved because the GOP knows that "borking" is wrong, and there isn't any Democrat who'll have the guts to vote against, no matter what is said at the hearings.

But that doesn't mean that a nominee shouldn't be put through tough scrutiny. This is the highest court in the greatest country in the history of the world. No one should be able to just waltz on...

Btw did you see the poll that 80-odd percent of republicans and independents and 70-odd percent of democrats believe that a SC judge should not let their personal feelings influence their decisions?

Of course, each side is fearful of a judge whose feelings differ from theirs, but the independents would be less inclined to be thinking in that way, and so I think their number is the most interesting.

[Colette Moran]

I ran across the exact numbers and wording of the poll again:

"[R]espondents reject precisely the kind of nominee that President Obama is almost certain to pick. Far from preferring “empathy,” 92 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Independents, and 84 percent of Democrats said they prefer a nominee who “will interpret the law as it is written and not take into account his or her personal viewpoints and experiences.”

[Maryann]

Wasn't this poll quote taken from a pollster working on behalf of Americans United for Life? And was then reiterated in a Conservative blog?

So rather than read the actual text of Sotomayor's speech and coming to your own conclusions, what you've done is come to someone else's conclusion, and that someone is one with whom you would agree anyway.

There is scientific evidence to support the idea that in our search for information (on all topics), we all seek that which will support what we already think. That's what you've done here.

[Colette Moran]

I don't think who hired the pollster matters. The firms who are hired need to be unbiased in order to stay in business. Whenever I quote abortion statistics, I always use the Guttmacher numbers -- the polling arm of Planned Parenthood -- because I think the results speak for themselves.

What can sometimes be questionable is how poll questions are worded, which can be influenced by who commissioned the poll. But I think the above quote of what the respondents chose also speaks for itself. I don't see anything wrong with how it was worded.

And I was going to say in my previous post --> that you can bring on the accusation of not thinking for myself and only listening to people I already agree with. (I was going to predict it, but I didn't want to appear to be "assuming" -- thanks for proving me right.)

Hey, I only have so much time -- but I did read what appears to be the significant chunks plus a little more. I don't know how much more there was to it. But if I *had* read all of it, without doing any other research or knowing any more about the topic, would that have been any better? I'm sure a lot of people who agree with you have done just that. Is their opinion better just because they "actually read it" without any kind of point of reference?

Maybe I wasn't clear in my above post -- there were disagreeing opinions on the website. Both writers were men whose opinion I respect, and I agree and disagree with both of them on various issues. They each presented their assessment, one finding SS's statement troubling, the other thinking it was no big deal. I found the first guy's argument more compelling.

The fact that both of them were writers who are considered conservative actually supports the notion that it was a more balanced evaluation. There wasn't posturing for the sake of party or partisanship -- it was an honest analysis.

Btw, the site is for The National Review -- which is considered conservative. Every day I read the message board-like "Corner" where they discuss stories of the day and opinions run the gamut (including libertarians who can be all over the map).

As for that scientific evidence... well, duh, Mr. Researchers. We all want affirmation, and nobody looks to find out they're wrong about something.

The difference is, I am not one of those people who ONLY relies on those they agree with. I subscribe to the WashPost and its the first thing I read in entirety day in and out. No one is going to call them a conservative paper. To balance it out, I then check what the Corner has to say.

As for tv news, I watch NBC network news and Fox News. I find that the former leans to the left and the latter... well, we all know.

So is that what I've done here? Simply sought out someone who supports what I already think? I would say that's an incorrect assumption.

So Maryann -- where do you get your info from? Which conservative pundits did you turn to in order to reach a balanced opinion about Sotomayor? (I won't say what I'm "guessing" but let's see if I'm proven right again...)

[Maryann]

"And I was going to say in my previous post --> that you can bring on the accusation of not thinking for myself and only listening to people I already agree with. (I was going to predict it, but I didn't want to appear to be "assuming" -- thanks for proving me right.)"

That's the silliest thing I've ever read! Of course, who can doubt what you WERE GOING to predict? Since there's no way I can tell you what you were thinking when you never spelled it out, then...OK, you were right! You were thinking what I was thinking! I DID end up questioning the objectivity of your sources!

"So Maryann -- where do you get your info from?(I won't say what I'm "guessing" but let's see if I'm proven right again...)"

Oh, Collette, Great Reader of Minds, All-Knower and Seer! You want to know what I read? You tell me!

This is getting tedious. Over and out.

[Colette Moran]

Once again, someone refuses to answer a question and support her statements or reveal her actions. Even after I gave full disclosure, and while they are still anonymous. I wonder why?

[Maryann]

By the way, the pollster absolutely matters. It's important to know who's doing the polling, and thus you've got some insight into who's polled. You even misquoted your own evidence because you're so rigid in your thinking.

Here's what you told me:

" did you see the poll that 80-odd percent of republicans and independents and 70-odd percent of democrats believe that a SC judge should not let their personal feelings influence their decisions?"

and here's what your quote read:

"[R]espondents reject precisely the kind of nominee that President Obama is almost certain to pick. Far from preferring “empathy,” 92 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Independents, and 84 percent of Democrats said they prefer a nominee who “will interpret the law as it is written and not take into account his or her personal viewpoints and experiences.”

For all I know, "respondents" could be the attendees at a Right to Life convention.

Anonymous? I gave you my name. What else did you want, my SSN and blood type? I didn't give you my email address because I see no need. Your forum is just as good a place as any to engage in a back-and-forth with you.

[Colette Moran]

You said that the Americans United for Life commissioned the poll -- they didn't actually conduct it. So I'm not sure if you were addressing who commissions or who conducts the poll as what matters.

You would be right about that it does matter who the respondents are. Seems to me that unless they say otherwise, it's usually a sampling of registered voters. I don't think I've ever seen anything in a widely read publication that picked out such a precise group as those at a convention without saying so.

So I "misquoted" because I'm so "rigid"? More like I was in a hurry so paraphrased and was pretty close in the question asked, and was 10% too low (it was 90-odd instead of 80-odd) on 1 out of 3 of what were decisive majorities. But then I knew how persnickety you would be and so I went back and got the exact quote and numbers. There's no pleasing some folks...

I don't expect or want anything else from you. My point is, everyone knows exactly who I am and I lay it all out on the table. Meanwhile others come along who can't even own up to answering pointed questions when they have the veil of anonymity.

And somehow "over and out" certainly wasn't...