- “Wise Latina” suggests religion should be considered in appointments to supreme court?
- Biggest reason why, in our opinion, Obama shouldn’t be allowed to put another of his selections on the Supreme Court
From a Fox News report:
Sotomayor wants more diversity on court, after Obama picks Garland, a white Ivy male
“Justice Sonia Sotomayor says the Supreme Court needs more diversity, amid the politically charged debate about filling a vacancy on the high court.
“I … think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school,” Sotomayor, the court’s first Latina justice, said Friday at Brooklyn Law School.“
HOW ABOUT THAT? In Justice Sotomayor’s view, apparently, there should be a religious test employed in the selection of Supreme Court justices.
Remember this is the Latina who famously said she thought that a “wise Latina” judge would make “better” decisions than A WHITE MALE judge.
Sotomayor didn’t mention Garland (Obama nominee to replace Scalia) or touch on the nomination. But in answer to diversity-related questions submitted by Brooklyn Law students, she said she felt that varied backgrounds help justices “educate each other to be better listeners and better thinkers because we understand things from experience.”
Sotomayor then went on to implicate one of her female colleagues on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, as to the kind of thinking that liberals bring to the highest court in the land:
“She recounted a 2009 oral argument in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that her then all-male colleagues had wrongly equated a strip-search of a middle-school girl to changing for gym class in a locker room because they had “never been a 13-year-old girl.” The court ultimately ruled, 8-1, that the search was unconstitutional.”
By that view, only male justices, even though in Justice Sotomayor’s opinion they are only capable of inferior decisions, should be allowed to rule in cases involving males, and only female justices should participate in cases involving females. Brilliant
Maybe those “fair-minded Republican senators who voted to confirm Sotomayor should have more carefully considered another of her admissions. **
Mike Gonzalez, VP of communications at The Heritage Foundation, quotes her in an opinion piece for the New York Post (her quotes in red and his commentary in italics):
“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”. …
For Sotomayor, of course, affirmative action is personal. She’s said she believes she got into Princeton and Yale Law because of affirmative action, disclosing once that “my test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale.”
She has thus been arguing, effectively, by her own example, against Affirmative Action about every time she opens her mouth. I wonder if sometimes Princeton and Yale don’t have some regrets?
It’s what came afterward, when a big law firm came recruiting at Yale, that is more revealing. One partner in the firm asked her, “Would you have been admitted to the law school if you were not a Puerto Rican?”
Sotomayor didn’t react well, lodging a complaint with Yale. The firm had to apologize to the university, lest it lose its coveted right to recruit at the nation’s top law school.
DLH
