America is trying to stretch the face of her legal mind to fit the people she serves. Don't hold her back!
Why do we never get an answer?
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war — The Moody Blues, "Question"…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - roger nowosielski
Well, H&C just used it as shorthand: "a dumb blonde," if you know what it mean.
27 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, What are you working on now?
28 - roger nowosielski
A little piece, Jeannie, but my head is a mush. No cigarettes, no whiskey, no coffee.
Can't work under those conditions.
29 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, I quit smoking 4 years ago and it was the best thing I ever did..air
30 - Cindy
Well sure, Jordan, if you are going to put the sentence in context and make an effort to understand what she was saying, that's certainly one interpretation.
ROFL @ El B.
31 - roger nowosielski
I'm certain. I quit once for seven years.
But right now my brain cells are wired.
32 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, as long as we keep our heads while this thing is here we will be ok..:)
33 - Dan(Miller)
[Edited] Not to rain on a parade with actual information, but Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sat on the Supreme Court 1981 - 2006. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed in 1993 and is still there. They overlapped by about thirteen years. I seem to recall that both are women.
Dan(Miller)
34 - Jeannie Danna
Hi Cindy! good to see you here..:)
35 - Jeannie Danna
Thanks Dan! I am working on a culture piece next, but still I have the right to express myself.
36 - roger nowosielski
#33,
I think this transcends the education problem, Jeannie. It's generational. The sins of the fathers visit on their children for seven generations. And you're seeing the fruit.
37 - Cindy
Roger,
Just two things.
Anyways, we do have a mechanism in SCOTUS for a dissenting opinion. So why rub it in the face of "old white men" and play one-upmanship?
You would have to read her speech which was actually presented in 2001. It was an annual memorial to a Latino judge which is a 'themed' conference on such issues and it was published thusly, in a journal under a similar theme:
"...in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, a symposium issue entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation..."
So, she is not playing one-upmanship. But was speaking to the community as a voice for a cultural perspective.
But you can't be running on the double standard as a nominee. She'll have to repudiate. and,
Second, she is not 'running on a double standard'. You might have to read her speech to understand that, the point is in context and elaborated on.
And were she to repudiate, she will have been conquered by the dominant, privileged cultural imperatives. I don't think it's going to happen. And I sure hope not.
She is the voice of the future, not the voice of the past, which was more interested in 'playing' politics--and bent even those with good intentions to give up their noblest ideas. She is a new sort of voice that brings honesty and talks back to that old style and rejects it. It is a strength that refuses to give up or sell out in order to accomplish its goals.
38 - roger nowosielski
No disagreement, Cindy. I was trying to find the common ground with the opposition. I understand the motivational context of the original remarks, and the "double standard" should be in quotation marks.
Repudiation was not the most fortunate term. Still, she's going to have to come across as more "judicious" and more "objective" - i.e., allowing for the dissenting voices rather than claiming superior and/or privileged vision as her unique (and no one else's) attribute - before her nomination is approved. Mark my words.
So my point in essence touched on pragmatics.
39 - Cindy
Jeannie,
Great article. A couple things:
The point, and let me reiterate, is that I just like Judge Sotomayor see the world from my perspective, we all do, and this deference can enrich our lives if we would just learn to appreciate each other's culture.
I think that is a very important point to make. I just wanted to retweet you on that. :-)
I really like the way Dave Nalle edited my article and He made two subtle changes that improved it....thanks Dave :)
I think Dave does a fine job as an editor too and is very easy to work with and supportive. I'm really happy you published in politics.
40 - Jeannie Danna
Cindy and Roger, Thank you for your support here. You know, my education was not classic and I see things from my heart. "bleeding heart liberal" ha ha :)
41 - Jeannie Danna
OMG, Look at the time! I have to go. I hope my article is still here when I get back..BYE
42 - Clavos
She is a new sort of voice that brings honesty and talks back to that old style and rejects it. It is a strength that refuses to give up or sell out in order to accomplish its goals.
Sorta like Obama...
/sarcasm
43 - Cindy
LOL Clav. (I await the day---10,000 years hence---when we get rid of judges altogether. Honest voices or not.)
Roger yes, accomplices, I had an answer for you on that post.
44 - Cindy
Okay here goes my dumb blond joke (bombs away):
Three construction workers were working on top of a building, they were a Mexican fellow, an Irishman, and a blond guy.
They sat down for lunch and Jose pulled out a burrito. He said, "Every day my wife makes me the same thing. I am so sick of burritos. If I get one more burrito I am going to jump off this building."
Donald opened his lunch and pulled out an Irish Stew. "Same here. Every day it's the same thing. If I get stew just one more time, I'm jumping too."
The blond guy opened his lunch and pulled out a baloney sandwich. "Me too. Every day it's baloney. One more baloney sandwich and I'm gonna jump."
The next day, the three men sat down for lunch and, as expected, Jose pulled out a burrito and jumped off the building. Donald saw his stew and jumped right after him. The blond guy predictably got a baloney sandwich and followed suit.
A single funeral was held for all three. Mrs. Gonzalez cried, if I only knew Jose didn't like burritos I could have made him a taco! Mrs. Murphy cried, If only I knew Donald hated stew, I could have made him something else.
They both looked over at the blond guy's wife, wondering how she could be so cold as she didn't seem remorseful at all. Don't look at me, she said. My husband made his own lunch.
45 - roger nowosielski
Cindy, #52:
I answered you on the other, Gay-ban thread.
46 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy, you say (Comment #44),
She is the voice of the future, not the voice of the past, which was more interested in 'playing' politics--and bent even those with good intentions to give up their noblest ideas. She is a new sort of voice that brings honesty and talks back to that old style and rejects it. It is a strength that refuses to give up or sell out in order to accomplish its goals.
I am not convinced that Judge Soomayor's is more a voice of the future than of the past; more likely, it seems to be a voice of a past-present-future continuum. The Seventh Circuit in Wilson v. Weaver, 499 F.2d 155 (7th Cir. 1974) held that despite a lack of legislative history as to what the Congress had intended, an unborn child is a "dependent child" within the meaning of the Social Security laws then in effect. Circuit Court Judge Pell, dissenting and concurring in part, recalled that
The legal status of the unborn child, recently the object of attention in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), is not a new problem to the judiciary. At least as early as 1695, although the Common Bench and the King's Bench had unanimously held that a posthumously born child created a gap in the seisin, a thing abhorrent to the common law, the House of Lords with Baron Turton of the Court of Exchequer present held that the child could take a remainder interest in property. Reeve v. Long, 3 Lev. 408 (1695).
In a footnote, Judge Pell recited an old poem:
'Let's fill the cups to Baron Turton
Who, though the law was clear and certain
Would rather help a little foetus
Than round out Charlie Fearne's dull treatise.'
As pointed out in my two recent articles on Judge Sotomayor, the decisions which have thus far been much discussed, in which she joined as a judge on the Second Circuit, seem to rely heavily on precedent, as I think they should. I am hopeful that when acting in her capacity as a Supreme Court justice, she will continue along the same path.
Perhaps you would like an "anarchist judge?" Doesn't that seem rather oxymoronic?
Dan(Miller)
47 - Clavos
Perhaps you would like an "anarchist judge?" Doesn't that seem rather oxymoronic?
Yes, it does. Which is probably why Cindy says she'd prefer no judges.
48 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
By 'voice of the future', I wasn't addressing the content of what would be said. I only was speaking for the idea that the subordinate cultures will rise with their own multiple viewpoints and not cow to the dominant voice that says this or that way of seeing things is the only acceptable way.
An example: When I went to college, the only way one should write a scholarly paper was from an objective point of view--personal experience and voice was anathema. Now there is something called autoethnography. It brings in the personal voice and experience. Articles are now being published to major journals in this voice.
The point being, the 'voices of the future' stood up to the status quo. Individual teachers and students and social scientists decided they would write in a style because it had merit and was valid and they did it despite what the status quo said was acceptable to scholarly writing.
When I was in school. I was too busy trying to imitate scholarly writing to be a voice of the future.
Perhaps you would like an "anarchist judge?" Doesn't that seem rather oxymoronic?
What Clav said.
LOL. Indeed, it would be even more than oxy moronic--or less perhaps.
Anarchism is consistent with juries, not with judges.
[BTW Dan(Miller) do you have any secret spy message for me yet?]
49 - roger nowosielski
Speaking of "autoethnography," in the early seventies there was a new kind of study which started to resurface in the social sciences - ethnomethodology.
You might want to look this up, especially the work by Harold Garfinkel, "Studies in Ethnomethodology." He was the pioneer.
"Anne Rawls states: "Ethnomethodology is the study of the methods people use for producing recognizable social orders" [9].
The social order used in our example is the recognizably competent performance of the methods and practices of surfing ["being a surfer"] as demonstrated by members of this particular group of surfers.
The fundamental assumption of ethnomethodological studies is characterized by Anne Rawls:
"If one assumes, as Garfinkel does, that the meaningful, patterned, and orderly character of everyday life is something that people must work constantly to achieve, then one must also assume that they have some methods for doing so". That is, "... members of society must have some shared methods that they use to mutually construct the meaningful orderliness of social situations" [10].
In line with this assumption, the goal of ethnomethodological investigations becomes the description of the methods employed in the production of the orderly character of everyday life. These methods are embedded in the work that people do, and realized in local settings by the people who are party to those settings."
50 - Cindy
Now Judge Pell, in appending a poem in a footnote of a legal writing--maybe he was like a voice of the future. (Unless, of course, that was commonly accepted.)
Then again, in trying to determine whether Judge Pell was a he or a she, I discovered someone (for some reason or other) thinks Judge Pell is a fraud.
But, I don't have the patience or the interest in Judge Pell to find out why.
51 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy, re last paragraph:
Never fear. In due course, and in the fullness of time, I shall do it(:>). I've been spending far too much time on the hot-button issue of our new Supreme Court justice, which I must confess I find more interesting than the question of what is, or may be, or isn't, or may not be "torture." I shall steel myself and provide the coded message.
Dan(Miller)
52 - Cindy
Oh, not that Dan(Miller)...that is old history Get to that at your leisure.
I only wondered if the, you know, eagle had landed? Ahem...(hint hint). Do I have to quote a verse from Spenser?
53 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy, #62
It takes about a month for stuff to get to our PO box from the States, and we check it every week or so. I'm looking forward to receiving the materials referenced in your coded message, and shall have my copy of The Code Breakers handy.
Dan(Miller)
54 - Cindy
Thanks for #59 Roger, very interesting. Autoethnography speaks says something about ethnography as done by anthropologists. I am only just starting to read about ethnomethodology, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with the later idea of autoethnography--or even provided the insight for it. Hard to tell though after only a few paragraphs.
[Edited]
55 - Cindy
They said 6 business days. They promised! It's the government! They never lie!
56 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
It went priority mail. So, if you don't have it next time you check your box, let me know and I'll go fight for a refund.
57 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy,
It's the government! They never lie! Why, no of course not.*
Dan(Miller)
*I must assume that the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring BC comments. So, evidently, do you.
58 - Clavos
*I must assume that the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring BC comments. So, evidently, do you.
If they are, the two of you talking about sending each other coded mail has certainly lit up their radar.
59 - Dan(Miller)
Clav -- Hot Damn! That will give them something to do, thereby getting more of them hired and stimulating the economy. It must be boring spending their time on renegade veterans, Methodist bishops and Rush Limburger.
Better be careful though, I hear that they are particularly interested in people with Hispanic connections.
Dan(Miller)
60 - Dan(Miller)
Censorship, of any kind or sort whatever, as well as all limitations on absolute freedom of speech, are always bad, no matter the context, and should never be invoked.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
There are, of course, exceptions where children (of any age) are involved, see Doninger v. Niehoff
Dan(Miller)
61 - El Bicho
Can't wait until they get the banned option fixed.
62 - Clavos
C'mon, Bicho, (Miller)'s OK! :>)
63 - Arch Conservative
Regardless of what one thinks of Sotomayor the fact is that King Barry himself voted against Alito and Roberts for purely political reasons and now he expects everyone to fall in line and jump on the Sotomayor bandwagon.
He and his minions are nothing but hypocritical riff raff.
64 - zingzing
archie: "Regardless of what one thinks of Sotomayor the fact is that King Barry himself voted against Alito and Roberts for purely political reasons and now he expects everyone to fall in line and jump on the Sotomayor bandwagon."
and that's just what the smart ones will do. like it or not, obama played this opportunity with such political shrewdness that to oppose sotomayor's appointment is stupid. checkmate.
republicans may gripe, but sotomayor is going in.
65 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
Thank you very much for the free speech case. What do you think about these two, items:
1) FCC Warrantless Household Searches
You may not know it, but if you have a wireless router, a cordless phone, remote car-door opener, baby monitor or cellphone in your house, the FCC claims the right to enter your home without a warrant at any time of the day or night in order to inspect it.
Supreme Court upholds warrantless search by FCC.
2) The case in the supreme court about the strip-searched student.
P.S. /999((42))***!
66 - Arch Conservative
republicans may gripe, but sotomayor is going in.
I agree with you Zing, Sotomayer will probably be seated on the Supreme Court but that still doesn't change the fact that King Barry and the Dems are hypocrites.
67 - Christopher Rose
Hypocrisy is over-rated!
68 - Jeannie Danna
I have something to say to all the people who hung around this thread yesterday in spite of that thing and all of it's slurs and even the fact that we have different political views....Thank You!
Now please read this:)
Thank you
69 - Jeannie Danna
My husband and I are going to walk in the woods today :) and we will probably hug a tree...next essay:)
70 - Arch Conservative
"Hypocrisy is over-rated!"
Yes I agree, people are getting tired of Obama already.
71 - Bliffle
#1 Doug Hunter says:
"...Newt had a great point in that if a white male had said that he was better than a Latino he would be disqualified (and likely not even nominated in the first place). Do you disagree?"
I remember well that in the 50s and 60s this exact argument was made on behalf of white candidates vs. black candidates. The argument went like this:
"while we all want the best for blacks, it is nevertheless imperative that we elect the white candidate because he, as a member of the majority white race is in a better position of strength to deal fairly with race issues, because he doesn't have the same axe to grind and thus is above mere race politics and the pressures that the black guy will be subjected to by his black supporters".
It was openly promoted that whites were better able to be color-blind than blacks. Can you believe it? After 400 years of whites imposing slavery and discrimination on blacks?
And it was even worse before the 50s.
72 - Dan(Miller)
Bliffle,
Taking everything in Comment #71 as absolutely and undeniably true, where is the change in which we were urged to believe a few short months ago?
Isn't the notion that an Hispanic female can be more just than can a White male in dealing with racial or feminist issues the same song, different verse? Surely, you would not suggest that since Whites owned Black slaves years ago, Blacks should be permitted and encouraged to own White slaves now.
Dan(Miller)
73 - Cindy
#72
Actually that sounds like a capital idea, but only white 'male' slaves. I have to put my foot down somewhere.
Perhaps if that does happen, we will all get to discuss whether or not that could even be called slavery.
74 - Cindy
Actually, come to think of it, not all of you will get to participate in that discussion--you'll probably be busy with other things.
Jeannie? Clav? I think we need to talk amongst ourselves about this.
75 - Dan(Miller)
Re Comment #63
Arch, you say King Barry himself voted against Alito and Roberts for purely political reasons and now he expects everyone to fall in line and jump on the Sotomayor bandwagon.
Hypocritical? Of course. However, I very much doubt that President Obama expects any such thing. Such an expectation would fly in the face of the way things have been done for a long time; uninformed knee jerk reactions are certainly to be expected, rather than the reverse, from most politicians -- that sort of thing is their stock in trade. To expect any better would be rather silly.
Here, knee jerk reactions by Republicans are almost certain to hurt the Republicans and to help the Democrats -- the more absurd and partisan the reactions the better for the Democrats. On the other hand, Knee jerk reactions by the Democrats supporting the confirmation of their party leader's nominee seem quite unlikely to harm the Democrats or to help the Republicans.
It strikes me that by opposing the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor reasonably, and only on the basis of her judicial philosophy as demonstrated by what she actually said and did as a Second Circuit judge over the past decade, as distinguished from egregious spin, the Republicans would do themselves far less damage than President Obama realistically hopes for, and might even do themselves some good. If the Republicans demonstrate what I consider good judgment during the confirmation process, instead of shooting themselves in the foot, they will have a lot to complain about, loudly and legitimately, when a future Republican president nominates a reliable conservative to the Court and the Democrats want to "bork" the nominee. That day may come, perhaps as early as 2013 or 2014 -- a possibility that should be kept in mind.
Dan(Miller)