Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’

About: ... to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench


This is a lecture given by Sonia Sotomayor at symposium entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation". 
...
source: from page 2 of 5
America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puertorriqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.
...
source: from page 3 of 5
This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench.
...
source: from page 5 of 5
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

Tags

  1. sotomayor
  2. supreme court
  3. item 714
  4. racism
  5. scotus
  6. moving trains
  7. item 12025

Comments


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-07-14 11:56:35 12025
Perhaps you didn't understand the part about flushing to dev/null ...here is a illustration.  I really don't like to waste time repeating run of the mill blogisphere bloviations or rwg insults which do not inform, educate, enlighten, or have any chance of changeing any mind or fact of our life. 

More interesting would be to talk about the elephant in the room.  Judges are supposed to make unbiased decisions based solely on the law.  Yes they are supposed to do that.  Yet that is impossible and never does happen.  Look at Roberts record ... the dockets are replete with examples of judges consistently making rulings based upon their biases.  Sotomayor has been the first justice that i know of who has even broached that subject in her writings - though now, of course, she cannot articulate it.  Is the law a living thing which gets interperted by each generation according to the experiences of that generation?  Or is it a fixed thing entoomed in one dimensional words which should be applied mechanically by some automaton?  
I just watched an hour and half of Sotomayor including Sen. Kyle's questioning on the subject. I conclude that she knows the right answer. She did say words to the effect that she could not find a case that would not be decided solely on the basis of the law where she would have to resort to her empathy or background; thus demolishing your pink elephant in the room. It is a little disingenuous to think she thinks that, otherwise why is there any need for judges at all: simply a process someday replaceable by a Star Trek kind of computer to find the appropriate laws & enforce them? Congress is the one to write & mutate laws, not judges or SCOTUS. 


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-20 22:13:19 12025
MR 2009-06-20 14:19:21 12025
Interesting that she only wants to make sure it is not a distraction to her confirmation now. Was it OK for her before she was nominated? If so then why not keep it?
 
Was that what Rush has been talking about or did you just get it from Drudge?
Did you get your wise-ass commentary from the daily KOS or was it from Hardball?  In either cases it doesn't matter.  Is the linked article true or not?  The commentary is mine.  My commentary is what I thought after reading the article.  Like I said before I do not need WhiteHouse talking points from anyone, I can think for myself! Can you?

Mark de LA says
Sotomayor quits womens club after GOP criticism
Interesting that she only wants to make sure it is not a distraction to her confirmation now. Was it OK for her before she was nominated? If so then why not keep it?
 

Mark de LA says
~ clues: (MLK might have a differen take)


Seth says
MR 2009-05-29 12:39:03 12025
seth 2009-05-29 12:23:28 12025
She nailed the questions she was asked to address. There is nothing she has said in her lecture that is not true.  This is a prime example of why 714 is narrow minded. 
Nah, nothing more than the hollow words of "diversity" as if there were something magic about diversity - just the usual cliches.  It doesn't speak at all about 714 which you continue to misunderstand on purpose because you would have to acknowledge your own racism. She would have to describe exactly & specifically what in her Latina heritage can't be found in any other female heritage otherwise like most of the stuff emanating from your side of the room it's just feel-good, symbolism over substance - identity politics.

Well there is something magic about "diversity", you should give it a bit of study, but strangely enough that was not the thrust of her thesis.  Instead it discussed what it will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench.  To expect that 9 white men will always be coming to the same conclusion as a mixed group is to be childishly naive - she gives examples like: "Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case".

I tried to make your famous item 714 work by carefully selecting the categories to which it applied.  It rapidly became clear that there were no sacrosanct categories in which race distinctions would always imply the heinous crime of racism.  You have confused color blindness with the opposite of racism.  But racism is a crime in today's America and color blindness is some kind of PC stupidity.  Sotomayor said it better, " ... we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud". 

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-05-29 13:15:13 12025
MR 2009-05-29 12:39:03 12025
seth 2009-05-29 12:23:28 12025
She nailed the questions she was asked to address. There is nothing she has said in her lecture that is not true.  This is a prime example of why 714 is narrow minded. 
Nah, nothing more than the hollow words of "diversity" as if there were something magic about diversity - just the usual cliches.  It doesn't speak at all about 714 which you continue to misunderstand on purpose because you would have to acknowledge your own racism. She would have to describe exactly & specifically what in her Latina heritage can't be found in any other female heritage otherwise like most of the stuff emanating from your side of the room it's just feel-good, symbolism over substance - identity politics.

Well there is something magic about "diversity", you should give it a bit of study, but strangely enough that was not the thrust of her thesis.  Instead it discussed what it will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench.  To expect that 9 white men will always be coming to the same conclusion as a mixed group is to be childishly naive - she gives examples like: "Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case".

I tried to make your famous item 714 work by carefully selecting the categories to which it applied.  It rapidly became clear that there were no sacrosanct categories in which race distinctions would always imply the heinous crime of racism.  You have confused color blindness with the opposite of racism.  But racism is a crime in today's America and color blindness is some kind of PC stupidity.  Sotomayor said it better, " ... we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud". 
Most of your premises are invalid. Diversity itself is nothing to be worshipped. For example should we have some people who are not even familiar with the law - some non lawyers - on the bench for diversity sake? Should we have some very stupid people on the bench to make sure that demographic is represented?  Must we have gays on the bench or one each of every minority?  Again your ignorance of 714 is showing. I claim no crime for failure to take within the notion & distinctions in 714 - It is an internal matter just like the Golden Rule (I am really kind of sick of trying to get that point across to you). It is easy to say that if everyone lived by the Golden Rule there would be little need for other laws. The same kind of intuition is needed to grok that 714 would solve racism.  I am beginning to see that it is not racism which you might like to solve, but some sort of specialness within races that beckons to you. I say celebrate that within your culture & in your community and kick it the hell out of the political & justice (where true equality belongs) domains where it doesn't belong.


Mark de LA says
~ Obama keeps the ball spinning & rolling:
source: ...

President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge.

"I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.

...



Seth says
source: MR above
I say celebrate that within your culture & in your community and kick it the hell out of the political & justice (where true equality belongs) domains where it doesn't belong.
I agree.  The law and government is supposed to be color blind.  That is what equality under the law means.  But that is not what 714 says.  Perhaps you should suspend your pride of authorship and grok what it actually says and how it has actually been used.  

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-05-29 16:45:35 12025

source: MR above
I say celebrate that within your culture & in your community and kick it the hell out of the political & justice (where true equality belongs) domains where it doesn't belong.
I agree.  The law and government is supposed to be color blind.  That is what equality under the law means.  But that is not what 714 says.  Perhaps you should suspend your pride of authorship and grok what it actually says and how it has actually been used.  
It is interesting that, even though you have yet to master 714 you are willing to tell me what is & is not within it. 714 says exactly nothing about the law (except that a legitimate use of racial distinctions may be police APBs). Quote it if you can find it & I will kick it out if it is something I said. OTOH, if it is something you said then be ashamed!


Seth says
source: MR in 2009-05-29 17:03:50
It is interesting that, even though you have yet to master 714 you are willing to tell me what is & is not within it. 714 says exactly nothing about the law (except that a legitimate use of racial distinctions may be police APBs). Quote it if you can find it & I will kick it out if it is something I said. OTOH, if it is something you said then be ashamed!
Well i can't figure out what your trying to get at above and i have no idea what "racial distinctions may be police APBSs" might mean.  I hesitate to ask.  But all i was saying is that to say:

"... anyone who uses the distinctions of race to argue, judge, excuse, blame, criticize, politicize, incite, agitate, allocate, study, educate, etc. is a racist."

is not to say:

" ..The law and government is supposed to be color blind.  That is what equality under the law means. ...".

If item 714 had said the latter then i would have no problems with it. 

Mark de LA says
I think Charles Krauthammer sums it up best:
source: ...

But all that stops at the courthouse door. Figuratively and literally, justice wears a blindfold. It cannot be a respecter of persons. Everyone must stand equally before the law, black or white, rich or poor, advantaged or not.

Obama and Sotomayor draw on the "richness of her experiences" and concern for judicial results to favor one American story, one disadvantaged background, over another. The refutation lies in the very oath Sotomayor must take when she ascends to the Supreme Court: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. . . . So help me God."

When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story, and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling "facially race-neutral."

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: a judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.

...Frank Ricci was a plaintiff in a reverse discrimination suit that Sottomayer ruled against. His very poignant story is in the body of Krauthammer's editorial.

Mark de LA says
for some strange reason I cant edit my comments into your comment so the below will have to work.

Mark de LA says

  • An APB is an all points bulletin by the police to apprehend a suspect.  (See most TV cop dramas) It would be silly to eliminate racial distinctions from that just to be PC - I handled that in one of the first comments on the item.
  • My exhortations are about individuals & what they can do to solve racism. (I sayeth again!)
  • Those that seek the force of legal & governmental means to solve personal morality problems of mankind should suck on [item 12024] for a while.


  • Mark de LA says
    Frank Ricci's case is examined here rather well by Jennifer Rubin in the Commentary Magazine. She raises quite a few issues about Sottomayor's ruling & what her idea of justice is:
    source: ...

    So what does this mean for Sotomayor? Several things, I think. First, her legal craftsmanship or lack thereof is an issue. Why the cursory opinion? It is not clear whether she missed the big issues or whether she was trying to keep the case from a full review. Neither is a good. Second, what is her conception of equal protection if not the right to be judged equally by the government according to one’s ability? (Does she really think the city was practicing race neutrality?) Third, if empathy is her watchword how did that figure into the case here, if at all? Ricci seems a deserving fellow, at least entitled to an explanation from the court, if not his promotion.

    In this one case we see the multiple issues which will be at the center of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing. And what’s more we have a story that the average American can understand and relate to. The disabled guy worked hard under adverse circumstances and did better than most of his non-disabled peers, only to be told, “Sorry, the ‘numbers’ didn’t come out right.” And this is justice? Most Americans, I suspect, will think not and will want to know why Sotomayor acted as she did.

    ... ... & Andy McCarthy takes down Krauthammer's politics of give the president deference.


    Seth says
    MR 2009-05-30 11:30:53 714
    seth 2009-05-30 10:51:42 714
    To not see my statements as "vacuous and vapid" you might due me the honor of addressing them in context ...
    source: Seth above
    Well certainly there are experiences that are unique to each race ... to think otherwise is to be childishly idealistic.  Sonia Sotomayor talked about some of the experiences that were unique to her... ones that you from a Caucasian culture did not experience. I'm sure that she thinks those are special, just like you think you early experience in Esoterica are special to you. 
    Like it or not, people of Hispanic origin comprise the nation’s largest race or ethnic minority ... it is a time that they had a voice on our highest court.  Sonia's talk showed how a Hispanic justice would bring different experiences to the court.  No we do not accept they are "better" experience leading to "better conclusions", but they are different.  We should at least be able to accept that simple fact with no semantic quibbles.

    Btw, there is something about the way you are putting pictures in your comments that is breaking the HTML and making fluid dialogue tedious.  Was that intentional?
    You could not explicitly say anything in Sonia's speech or her background as a "Latina Woman" which would assist in making wise judicial decisions.  Instead, you worshipped at the altar of Diversity & Indentity Politics.

    Her examples about how a woman's background affects judging were more pointed than about her Latin heritage:
    source: page 4 of Sonia's speech
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging. 
    Her point throughout is that different facts "show up" as important based upon your background. Cases are appealed to the higher courts just because the letter of the law is ambiguous for the facts of the case at hand.  An interpretation is required and a choice of pertinent facts is required. The notion that all a judge should do is to make a ruling which sticks to the letter of the law,  is not practical.  So it is progress indeed, the better our courts represent the mix of backgrounds that actually obtain in our country.  The better the mix, the more likely the pertinent facts will show up in decisions.  The better the mix, the more likely diverse cultural facts will show up to stand equal before the law.  If that is to be called "worshiping at the alter of  Identity Politics" by the likes of Limbaugh via MR, then so be it.   The alternative is some kind of AI which reduces the wholeness of life to one dimensional paper words.

    Mark de LA says
    Seth: ...
    ...
    Her point throughout is that different facts "show up" as important based upon your background. Cases are appealed to the higher courts just because the letter of the law is ambiguous for the facts of the case at hand.  An interpretation is required and a choice of pertinent facts is required. The notion that all a judge should do is to make a ruling which sticks to the letter of the law,  is not practical.  So it is progress indeed, the better our courts represent the mix of backgrounds that actually obtain in our country.  The better the mix, the more likely the pertinent facts will show up in decisions.  The better the mix, the more likely diverse cultural facts will show up to stand equal before the law.  If that is to be called "worshiping at the alter of  Identity Politics" by the likes of Limbaugh via MR, then so be it.   The alternative is some kind of AI which reduces the wholeness of life to one dimensional paper words.
    ~
         Well, perhaps we need a female racist bigot on the court then.
         Seriously, there is nothing in your argument or what you quoted, your nauseating ad hominem comments notwithstanding, that suggest that anything specific in her Latino/female background experience was special to the ruling on the case in point. You are still mesmerized by the memes of diversity & racism & sexism.
         Any woman probably would have made a similar ruling, but any man could probably have done so as well.  It is really the legal precedents & process of the law which comes in question at the Supreme Court; the facts of the case have already been determined long before in the lower courts.   We have Ginsburg & O'Connor who have made precedents. There is nothing new in your argument except more strident rhetoric.  You have yet to figure out why the traditional statues of Justice are blind & why it is said that all people are equal before the law.

    Seth says
    You know turning text blue does not make it more rational.

    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-06-01 08:43:49 12025
    MR 2009-06-01 05:35:21 12025
    seth 2009-05-31 23:46:50 12025
    You know turning text blue does not make it more rational.
    With irrational people nothing helps!  I guess you are never going to answer the question.
    I'm simply not buying into your premises. Your argument is circular. As a human who has studied the law & presided as a judge she is theoretically qualified. I don't see anything missing or increased by her ethnic heritage. Presumably, the Congress & sub committees will examine her past rulings, writings, speeches & character to determine if she belongs in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no reason that race, sex, nationality, religion or any other grouping should be considered.  It is a lifetime appointment - this country deserves the best.
    I have answered the reasonable part of your question ... i actually read the whole lengthy address to do a good job of it ... sorry i did expect a more reasonable response from you.

    Again, she has cited statistical studies indicating what our common sense tells us that background does affect conclusions.  I suppose it is your job here to deny that even in the face of these studies.  I saw another accounting of Sotomayor record on the bench this morning.  It was something like 70% of her rulings we against the complainants of discrimination cases.  I suppose you think it your job to deny that as well.  Why is this lady not the best choice?   Did she not just state our common sense notion that different backgrounds cause people to see things differently?  Do you accept that premis, and if not why not?    Or do you hold that interperting the ambiguities of the law never needs to call on one's background exclusive of the law?   If you want to have a reasonable discussion of the pertinant facts and viewpoints here, then by all means address them.  Otherwise please more the discussion off of my blog.
    Statistics lie to whatever point of view the person paying the statistician wants. Hence the polls are useless most of the time & we have a panic over Global Warming.  If some's background affects her judgement that is prejudice - the antipithy of jurisprudence. The ambiguities in the law are resolved within the law & the U.S. Constitution. I see no reason to bring race into it. BTW, just for reference the Democrats did their best to bork Clarence Thomas as not being the right profile of a person of color that they wanted.  It's more about liberalism & conservatism than whether she has any good judgement (which is in question). 

    Seth says
    source: MR above
    (1) If some one's background affects their judgment that is prejudice - the antipathy of jurisprudence.
    (2) The ambiguities in the law are resolved within the law & the U.S. Constitution.
    Those are two premises that could be legitimately debated.  In the first case i will resort to common sense which tells us that it is impossible for background not to affect judgement.  In the second premis we could be informed by proven mathematical knowledge which (in a more limiting sense) tells us that there is no set of rules which does not need outside interpertation.  I will, however, not debate these further with you, unless you agree in advance to follow some rules.

    Seth says
    As i don't expect any more intelligent dialogu on this item, i think this about summs it up, thanks TheWeek ...



    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-01 05:35:21 12025
    seth 2009-05-31 23:46:50 12025
    You know turning text blue does not make it more rational.
    With irrational people nothing helps!  I guess you are never going to answer the question.
    I'm simply not buying into your premises. Your argument is circular. As a human who has studied the law & presided as a judge she is theoretically qualified. I don't see anything missing or increased by her ethnic heritage. Presumably, the Congress & sub committees will examine her past rulings, writings, speeches & character to determine if she belongs in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no reason that race, sex, nationality, religion or any other grouping should be considered.  It is a lifetime appointment - this country deserves the best.
    I have answered the reasonable part of your question ... i actually read the whole lengthy address to do a good job of it ... sorry i did expect a more reasonable response from you.

    Again, she has cited statistical studies indicating what our common sense tells us that background does affect conclusions.  I suppose it is your job here to deny that even in the face of these studies.  I saw another accounting of Sotomayor record on the bench this morning.  It was something like 70% of her rulings we against the complainants of discrimination cases.  I suppose you think it your job to deny that as well.  Why is this lady not the best choice?   Did she not just state our common sense notion that different backgrounds cause people to see things differently?  Do you accept that premis, and if not why not?    Or do you hold that interperting the ambiguities of the law never needs to call on one's background exclusive of the law?   If you want to have a reasonable discussion of the pertinant facts and viewpoints here, then by all means address them.  Otherwise please more the discussion off of my blog.

    Mark de LA says

    Yep, there are a lot of cartoons out there today on this subject, e.g:

    Seth says
    Dan Wasserman of Tribune Media Services has nailed it ! 




    Mark de LA says
    Well maybe we should go empathetic:


    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-02 11:45:05 12025
    The joke could be on you guys for like David Souter appointed by GHWB, who in recent years sides with the liberal wing of the court, Sonia Sotomayor may have aquired her identity politics more recently in order to appeal to Obama & his.  Some say that her rulings are inconsistent & don't clarify how she might rule. If being overruled 60% of the time in her rulings is a qualification for SCOTUS (at least for liberals) then you have your woman.

    I suppose it never occurred to you that her rulings were consistent with the law and not with some kind of affirmative action litmus.  And i herd several places that she was overruled on just a handful of cases out of the thousands that she made, so if your going to be spreading rumors on my blog you need to justify them with more than a reference to another biased blogger.

    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-02 17:28:50 12025
    seth 2009-06-02 17:18:06 12025
    MR 2009-06-02 16:47:20 12025
    seth 2009-06-02 12:35:04 12025
    MR 2009-06-02 11:45:05 12025
    The joke could be on you guys for like David Souter appointed by GHWB, who in recent years sides with the liberal wing of the court, Sonia Sotomayor may have aquired her identity politics more recently in order to appeal to Obama & his.  Some say that her rulings are inconsistent & don't clarify how she might rule. If being overruled 60% of the time in her rulings is a qualification for SCOTUS (at least for liberals) then you have your woman.

    I suppose it never occurred to you that her rulings were consistent with the law and not with some kind of affirmative action litmus.  And i herd several places that she was overruled on just a handful of cases out of the thousands that she made, so if your going to be spreading rumors on my blog you need to justify them with more than a reference to another biased blogger.
    Maybe you should shove it up your ass! I never mentioned affirmative action. It was a matter of Sonia looking forward to job advancement. I'll give you my source tomorrow or you can delete your entire item as far as I am concerned.

    It's not necessary to be nasty.  All we need is a reliable source for your assertion: "If being overruled 60% of the time in her rulings is a qualification for SCOTUS (at least for liberals) then you have your woman".  Certainly any judge who was overruled that percentage of times, would be a very questionable nomination.
    See the Washington Times in this article. The suggestion that perhaps Sotomayor may not be all that liberal based on her known opinions & writings came from Rush - the quote will have to wait until tomorrow.

    source: washingtontimes.com
    "Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed"
    ... hardly justifies your assertion that she is "being overruled 60% of the time".  Note how carefully and arbitrarily the cases were cherry picked.  I bolded the three joined criteria in case you missed them.  Funny the headline in the article wasn't outrageous enough for you so you had to drop the one criteria that Washington Times included.  Here's the story i heard: out of thousands of rulings she has only been reversed a handful of times.  Sounds a bit more reasonable, no?


    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-06-03 13:28:13 12025
    "I've agreed with myself"


    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-06-03 10:06:42 12025
    MR 2009-06-03 09:27:29 12025
    Well, this particular interchange is getting lengthy. Anyway, the law & SCOTUS are pretty strong on stari decisis & not changing with the prevailing winds. Remember that Chief Justice Roberts was quizzed over & over again about that particular because the Democrats were worried about Roe V. Wade.  But if you want to go with the prevailing winds then consider that all the justices who were involved with that ruling are now dead (all of them!).  Do you think that it should be revised now because some say the prevailing wind is against abortion?

    It is fairly obvious that i'm not advocating SCOTUS should consult polls to determine their rulings. However i am suggesting that the Constitution can be a living document where its wording is interpreted by SCOTUS according to new conditions in society which did not even exist when it was written.  The fact that the constitution was written in natural language words and not exactly specified in logical tokens, actually implies this is the case.  That is about all i can say in a generalized manner untill some particular ruling and context is in front of me.  But, yes, i suggest that we do not judicate RVW in this item ... that has not even come up yet in relation to Sotomayor.
    Well, actually Roe V. Wade has already come up in some circles & apparently, superficially anyway, she agrees with me:
    source: ...

    Sotomayor decided in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002) to uphold the Bush administration’s Mexico City policy, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from supporting organizations that provide or promote abortion overseas. “The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,” she wrote, “and can do so with public funds.”


    ...You can bet that the various abortion camps are lobbying hard.


    Mark de LA says
    Unlike Seth, Harry Reid the Senate Majority leader wants to vote without having read a single one of Sotomayor's rulings. Why bother, Harry, you don't want to read the bills you pass either. Watch the video. Why confuse him, he probably already has his mind made up.

    Mark de LA says
    Seth: ... An then too "Equal under the law" does imply equal representation
    ... that is a nice can of worms & not necessarily so.  Elections determine representation. It all depends upon the semantics of the word equal. You may be confusing your argument with what it actually says in the 14th amendment to the US Constitution & subsequent interpretations by SCOTUS:
    source: ... Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    ...anyway, it doesn't say that representation must be in statistical balance with the population by race or any other such criteria.

    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-03 08:17:50 12025
    Thomas Sowell: ...
    The code word for the new racism is “diversity.” The Constitution of the United States says nothing about diversity and the Constitution is what a judge is supposed to pay attention to, not the prevailing buzzwords of the times.What the Constitution says is “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans " and that is not taken out of context. People have put their lives on the line to make those words a reality. Now all of that is to be made to vanish into thin air by saying the magic word “diversity.”The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, like the Constitution, proclaimed equal rights for all, not special rights for those for whom judges have “empathy.”
    ...read the whole thing especially:

    Thomas Sowell: ...
    Sometimes, instead of making you appreciative of a society in which someone born at the bottom can rise to the top, it leaves you embittered that you had to spend years struggling, and resentful of those who were born into circumstances where the easy way to the top was open to them.Much in the past of Sonia Sotomayor, and of the president who nominated her, suggests such resentments. Both have a history of connections with people who promoted resentments against American society. La Raza (“the race”) was Judge Sotomayor’s Jeremiah Wright. If context is important, then look at that context.
    ...

    Yeah i read the whole thing.  It does contain several twists of truth that i would like to point out.  For one thing there i have heard absolutely nothing that suggests that our president harbors the resentment mentioned.  An then too "Equal under the law" does imply equal representation. 

    As to affirmative action cases, i will wait for a full presentation of Sotomayor's rulings to be presented before i am willing to characterize them as Sowell has.  My opinion is that affirmitive action is pretty much a thing of the past ... i wonder if that will come out in the hearings.  Should a judge be gigged for her rulings out of context of the predominating feelings of the erra in which they were made?  If you think about it, should we hold Cheney and Rumsfield accountable for their actions on interrogation based upon the times changeing?

    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-03 08:53:12 12025
    seth 2009-06-03 08:38:19 12025
    MR 2009-06-02 23:29:19 12025
    I was assuming the headlines were correct (3 out of 5 is 60%). The story has been reported elsewhere as well you can google "sotomayor reversals" & choose your own "truth". 76,700 or so articles show up.  11925 gives you a picture of that experience as well. Someday we might have a more accurate picture of news fronts, who first starts a storm & how long it lasts with statistics on what some of the major spins & tornadoes are and where they come from & perhaps from all that you can again believe your own truth; not liking what you find anyway. The spin jockeys in Obama-land have occupied the highest positions in Google search. Congratulations!
    You seem to have missed my point.  Yes, 3 out of 5 is indeed 60%.  However 20 out of 3000 is 1%.  My question is why have those 5 cases been cherry picked?  Based upon that kind of cherry picking of cases you could make any judge's record look bad.
    Probably because they went to the Supreme Court, eh?
    Nope, you need to study this.  These 5 were only the cases the Supreme Court decided to hear ... others cases that went to the court, it just agreed with and didn't bother to hear them.  Why are those not included in the count?

    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-03 09:16:26 12025
    seth 2009-06-03 09:03:58 12025
    MR 2009-06-03 08:53:12 12025
    seth 2009-06-03 08:38:19 12025
    MR 2009-06-02 23:29:19 12025
    I was assuming the headlines were correct (3 out of 5 is 60%). The story has been reported elsewhere as well you can google "sotomayor reversals" & choose your own "truth". 76,700 or so articles show up.  11925 gives you a picture of that experience as well. Someday we might have a more accurate picture of news fronts, who first starts a storm & how long it lasts with statistics on what some of the major spins & tornadoes are and where they come from & perhaps from all that you can again believe your own truth; not liking what you find anyway. The spin jockeys in Obama-land have occupied the highest positions in Google search. Congratulations!
    You seem to have missed my point.  Yes, 3 out of 5 is indeed 60%.  However 20 out of 3000 is 1%.  My question is why have those 5 cases been cherry picked?  Based upon that kind of cherry picking of cases you could make any judge's record look bad.
    Probably because they went to the Supreme Court, eh?
    Nope, you need to study this.  These 5 were only the cases the Supreme Court decided to hear ... others cases that went to the court, it just agreed with and didn't bother to hear them.  Why are those not included in the count?
    I guess you answered your own question!  Are you sure that SCOTUS saw them all? Did their not hearing them mean that they necessarily agreed with them?  SCOTUS only hears constitutional issues it doesn't have time for others; particularly those where a state has jurisdiction.  The question of Obama's birth certificate is such a question. Those who are into it are having a hard time getting SCOTUS to hear the case because essentially the states are the ones who run the details of the elections. The lawsuits have to be framed as a constitutional issue.

    I don't know the exact number of her cases that were appealed to the court.  Hopefully her exact record will emerge in a user friendly manner and we won't need to guess.  All i am going by is the words in your article:  "and reviewed by the Supreme Court".   To me that means those cases that were accepted for review.  Many cases are appealed by the court does not even accept for review by them.  But anyway, to me, the only number that makes any sense to compare is the total number of her cases that were reversed.  There is no reason to cherry pick cases whatsoever.

    Seth says
    source: MR above
    Again you must shove that idea that [item 714] is about calling people racists. It is about making distinctions about racism that will help make the problem disappear.
    But that is all you have ever done with item 714, is call people racist citing it.  I have never read where you have ever made any "distinctions about racism that will help make the problem disappear".  Rather you and Rush have used your distinctions to fan the flames of racism.  Do a study of the demographics of Rush's audience if you doubt that. You probably need to move this train, if you want to continue it, to 714, it is out of place here.

    Instructions for moving comment trains.  (1) quote the train and compose you comment on the original item, (2) click View Source, (3) Copy the entire text box into the clipboard, (4) go to the new item and click to make a new blank comment, (5) click View Source again on the new blank comment, (6) paste the clipboard, (7) click view source again, (8) review your comment and publish if you still think your comment is worth anything.  I've tried this several times and it works well.  It does preserve the reference back to the orignal item where the train started.

    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-04 13:38:33 12025
    Name calling never absolved a single racist!
    Nor did calling somebody a racist, not withstanding item 714.

    Mark de LA says
    The Judicial Committee's Questionaire is at this website for Sotomayor. Enjoy reading. See if you can find the documents related to the multiple "wise Latina" comments referenced here. More info here.

    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-06-04 15:34:11 12025
    MR 2009-06-04 13:38:33 12025
    Name calling never absolved a single racist!
    Nor did calling somebody a racist, not withstanding item 714.
    ibid.

    Mark de LA says
    ~


    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-04 12:43:35 12025
    seth 2009-06-04 12:40:25 12025
    MR 2009-06-04 12:25:00 12025
    seth 2009-06-04 10:02:55 12025
    It needed to be said ... thanks Tony Auth ...



    So..?

    If you don't see humor in the hypocrisy of these good old boys, then don't look to me to explain it to you.
    I don't see any humor at all, no hypocrisy & she probably would.
    Very good old boy, then i guess you belong in the cartoon.

    Mark de LA says

    Tweet of the Day

    Sonia Sotomayor breaks her ankle and Dave Weigel tweets:

    I would hope that a wise Latina woman's ankle, with its richness of experience, can heal faster than a white male's ankle.


    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-08 11:59:51 12025

    Tweet of the Day

    Sonia Sotomayor breaks her ankle and Dave Weigel tweets:

    I would hope that a wise Latina woman's ankle, with its richness of experience, can heal faster than a white male's ankle.

    ... well i guess its funny.

    Seth says
    Finally we get some small analysis of her actual rulings ...
    source: OP-ED David Brooks
    Tom Goldstein of Scotusblog conducted a much-cited study of the 96 race-related cases that have come before her. Like almost all judges, she has rejected a vast majority of the claims of racial discrimination that came to her. She dissented from her colleagues in only four of those cases. And in only one of them did she find racial discrimination where they did not. Even with what she calls her “Latina soul,” she saw almost every case pretty much as they did.

    When you read her opinions, race and gender are invisible. I’m obviously not qualified to judge the legal quality of her opinions. But when you read the documents merely as examples of persuasive writing, you find that they are almost entirely impersonal and deracinated.
    ... the rest of the OP-ED is well worth reading if you want a rounded view of this Latina jurists.

    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-29 17:49:47 12025
    seth 2009-06-29 17:24:47 12025
    MR 2009-06-29 16:49:33 12025
    He who sees partisanship every place he looks probably has a mirror in front of his face. If you refuse to find out what Rush actually said you haven't moved the mirror yet.  You do have the WH talking points spot on today, however. You are a true Obami.

    I did watch the Rush video that i quoted.  And, yes, i am sick and tired wasting time with petty partisan bickering.  When you always pick the pettiest things to rang upon it means you are letting the important priorities go un-dealt-with.  Rush's erroneous math is such a case.  It is in fact trivial and petty that SCOTUS overturned Sotomeyor with the exact margin between Liberal and Conservative on the current court.  It is even more triveal whether it was 9 to 0, or 8 to 1 whether her panel should have sent it back for retrial.  From my perspective the whole Republican mission to obstruct her nomination is petty and a waste of our Senators time.  Certainly they have more important things to attend to.  I hope that this is not a measure of what you think is important.  
    Remember the Democrat's petty attempt, along with Anita Hill's lies trying to smear Justice Clarence Thomas about a pubic hair on a coke can? Eat your own shit, dude!

    Neither party is immune to hyperpartisanism.   But I do prefer a politician who does not partake.

    Mark de LA says
    Apparently today SCOTUS ruled against Sotomayor's ruling in the firefighter case!


    Seth says
    source: MR above
    That point was agreed upon by all 9 (by one account).
    For the record, Rush got it wrong ... "In point of fact, Justice Ginsburg wrote in her dissent that she supported the District Court decision upheld by the Second Circuit".  Me thinks that legitimate moves in the LC/RWG should be quite literally accurate, don't you?

    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-29 11:45:06 12025
    seth 2009-06-29 11:29:50 12025
    Not quite sure what this means re the LC/RWG, but it might be interesting to parse it out.   Btw, i tend to agree with the slim conservative majority that sans evidence the tests were flawed by bias, they should not be kicked out for violating the Civil Rights Acts.  The argument Sotomayor's court advanced to relative to fear of litigation doesn't hold water for me.
    I think the point was that Sotomayor should have sent the case back to trial (or re-trial) instead of summary judgment. That point was agreed upon by all 9 (by one account). The 5-4 vote just affirmed that Sotomayor was wrong.
     
    Well if you want to play layer reading the actual opinion of the court might be in order.  It is quite detailed and nuanced.  My own reading pretty much stopped when it confirmed my red bolded opinion above ...
    source: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL.
    At every stage of the job analyses, IOS [the company designing the test], by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters toensure that the results—which IOS would use to develop the examinations—would not unintentionally favor white candidates.
    ..

    Seth says
    MR 2009-06-29 14:31:51 12025
    Maybe you should rely on people with less of a Rush-bashing tendency; yourself notwithstanding.
    Pg 79 out of 93 of the PDF: ...

    D The Court stacks the deck further by denying respondents any chance to satisfy the newly announced strongbasis-in-evidence standard. When this Court formulates a new legal rule, the ordinary course is to remand and allow the lower courts to apply the rule in the first instance.See, e.g., Johnson v. California, 543 U. S. 499, 515 (2005); Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U. S. 273, 291 (1982). I see no good reason why the Court fails to follow that course in this case. Indeed, the sole basis for the Court’s peremptory ruling is the demonstrably false pretension that respondents showed "nothing more" than "a significant statistical disparity." Ante, at 27�"28; see supra, at

    e.g., Johnson v. California, 543 U. S. 499, 515 (2005); Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U. S. 273, 291 (1982). I see no good reason why the Court fails to follow that course in this case. Indeed, the sole basis for the Court’s peremptory ruling is the demonstrably false pretension that respondents showed "nothing more" than "a significant statistical disparity." Ante, at 27�"28; see supra, at
    ...
    ibid pg 81/93: ...

    In sum, the record solidly establishes that the City hadgood cause to fear disparate-impact liability. Moreover, the Court supplies no tenable explanation why the evidence of the tests’ multiple deficiencies does not create atleast a triable issue under a strong-basis-in-evidencestandard.


    ...
    pg 84/93: ... Like the chess player who tries to win by sweeping the opponent’s pieces off the table, the Court simply shuts from its sight the formidable obstacles New Haven would have faced in defending against a disparate-impact suit.
    ... the matter is quite legalese dependent.  Rush's lawyers concluded what was in his program today - it was not just the off-the-cuff conservative opinion. You should listen to Rush rather than someone talking about Rush your 1/2-life of absorbed truth will grow.
    I don't want to persue this much further. You can by searching the PDF & reading the material around "summary" & "summary-judgement" & get the point.  In any event she lost!


    Your materials quotes here do not disprove the Kos's point that the vote was not 9 to 0 that Sotomayor should have sent the case back for re-trial; because Ginsburg held that the District Court' conclusions appear entirely consistent with the record before it - that makes it 8 to 1 on that point.  Rush was off by one vote.  Where does your quoted text disprove that?

    On an unrelated aspect, 4 of the 9 justices came to the same conclusion as did Sotomayor - rendering that ruling not exactly off the wall.  It appears to me that it is a straight forward LS/RWG partisanship even at SCOTUS.

    Mark de LA says
    This article makes more clear the assertion that it was 9-0 against Sotomayor in the specific context of "disparate impact" lawsuits and further states:
    The Blog: ...

    The broader questions lying behind the New Haven case are whether this nation will ever get beyond racial preferences and quotas such as those encouraged by both the Sotomayor and the Ginsburg positions, and whether it will ever realize Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of a nation where people are judged not by the color of their skins, but by the content of their characters.

    Justice Ginsburg's prediction that the New Haven decision "will not have staying power" seems to reflect a conviction that the nondiscrimination ideal articulated by Dr. King should be put on hold for the indefinite future, if not forever. Judge Sotomayor's position in the case, and some of her off-the-bench pronouncements, suggest the same even more strongly.


    ...


    Seth says
    source: MR above
    She did say words to the effect that she could not find a case that would not be decided solely on the basis of the law where she would have to resort to her empathy or background; thus demolishing your pink elephant in the room.
    Well of course she had to say that, and in fact, it is probably more true than not.  But my elephant is still in the room, your miscoloring of it not withstanding.  Perhaps for coherance sake, intelligent dialoug on the elephant can take place on your new 12247.

    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-07-14 10:35:22 12025
    MR 2009-07-14 10:02:35 12025
    seth 2009-07-14 09:17:54 12025
    MR 2009-07-14 08:23:59 12025

    Another Obamite demonstrates that there is a half-life to her statements depending upon whom she is trying to bullshit, in this case it's the judicial committee & she is going for the U.S. Supreme Court where her statements, unfortunately might live on.
    source: ...

    "My play on those words fell flat. It was bad," Sotomayor told Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, trying to defend her 2001 speech in which she suggested a "wise Latina" would usually reach better conclusions than a white man without similar experiences.

    "I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gendered group has an advantage in sound judgment," Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, the second day of her confirmation hearing to become the first Hispanic to sit on the high court.  "I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge."
     

    ...
    In a way you pretty much proved Sotomayor's famous saying about how your background makes a difference in what kind of facts show up as important.   A fact that anyone with common sense should gladly acknowledge ... a fact that is in fact the elphant in the room. See i watched the whole question and answer episode between Jeff Sessions and Sotomayor live.  What showed up for me was not the half life of her statements. No, what showed up for me was a Republican from Alabama, who having been rejected himself because of his racist background, is now refusing to accept her reasonable explanation of the context of her remarks.  Sessions remarks were an execllant exmaple of how a closed mind does not accept an explanation. 
    When you have nothing to refute the content you always resort to ad hominem - way to go evolving back to closed mindedness & maybe racism if you agreed with her. Her coaches did a superb job getting her to say the exact opposite to her previous comments (made more than once in several situations) with conviction.  I wish I had the high speed cameras necessary to find the micro-expressions in her delivery similar to the lie to me scenario. It would be revealing.
    Fact is it doesn't even matter to you what she said, you and Sessions had already closed you mind.  It didn't even matter who she was, you and Sessions would have brought up the same horseshit on any nominee.  But what might have been interesting would to have had a non partisan discussion of the elephant in the  room.  We won't be getting to that now because of all this hyperpartisan static.  Please do direct your so's-you-mother comment to dev/null.
    Yep, still ad hominem & you add a bit of false mind-reading to your arsenal to boot.  I would prefer that Sotomayor recant or apologize for her racist comment.  I do not speak for Sessions nor does he for me. Congruent deframes seem to be in vogue in the Obama administration. I just deframed your arguments into this

    Seth says
    Perhaps you didn't understand the part about flushing to dev/null ...here is a illustration.  I really don't like to waste time repeating run of the mill blogisphere bloviations or rwg insults which do not inform, educate, enlighten, or have any chance of changeing any mind or fact of our life. 

    More interesting would be to talk about the elephant in the room.  Judges are supposed to make unbiased decisions based solely on the law.  Yes they are supposed to do that.  Yet that is impossible and never does happen.  Look at Roberts record ... the dockets are replete with examples of judges consistently making rulings based upon their biases.  Sotomayor has been the first justice that i know of who has even broached that subject in her writings - though now, of course, she cannot articulate it.  Is the law a living thing which gets interperted by each generation according to the experiences of that generation?  Or is it a fixed thing entoomed in one dimensional words which should be applied mechanically by some automaton?  

    Mark de LA says
    To use one of your own references, I submit that the Jon Stewart of the Daily Show crisps up the drama & bullshit of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings quite nicely in the embedded video in this link.


    Seth says
    Yeah Stuart nailed it ...

    Seth says
    Sotomayor Confirmed
    source: NYT
    Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation was never in much doubt, given Democrats’ numerical advantage in the Senate. But the final vote — 68 to 31 — represented a partisan divide. No Democrat voted against her, while all but 9 of the chamber’s 40 Republicans did so.
    ... usual partisan divide, chipped away by a few reasonable Republicans who know that they need the Latino vote.

    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-08-06 12:39:16 12025
    Sotomayor Confirmed
    source: NYT
    Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation was never in much doubt, given Democrats’ numerical advantage in the Senate. But the final vote ��" 68 to 31 ��" represented a partisan divide. No Democrat voted against her, while all but 9 of the chamber’s 40 Republicans did so.
    ... usual partisan divide, chipped away by a few reasonable Republicans who know that they need the Latino vote.
    Apparently somebody else noticed:


    Seth says
    Here is a perfect cartoon to illustrate 714 , thanks The Week



    See Also

    1. Thought Socretes Cafe Tuesday April 25 2017 with 109 viewings related by tag "racism".
    2. Thought Means & Ends - the Good, Bad and the Ugly with 88 viewings related by tag "racism".
    3. Thought Political Correctness & Racism with 47 viewings related by tag "racism".
    4. Thought Copy of - Racism with 40 viewings related by tag "item 714".
    5. Thought Racism with 30 viewings related by tag "item 714".
    6. Thought Racism is Fluid Just Like Gender, eh? with 28 viewings related by tag "racism".
    7. Thought The Racism Swamp with 26 viewings related by tag "racism".
    8. Thought Intersectionality with 22 viewings related by tag "racism".
    9. Thought Grown Ass Woman with 14 viewings related by tag "racism".
    10. Thought Why is this not racist? with 11 viewings related by tag "racism".
    11. Thought I Demand An Apology with 9 viewings related by tag "racism".
    12. Thought about: white people have no place in black liberation. - racebaitr with 8 viewings related by tag "racism".
    13. Thought Well with this new fluidity, what is the big deal ... with 7 viewings related by tag "racism".
    14. Thought Racism with 7 viewings related by tag "racism".
    15. Thought Two different directions out of racism with 5 viewings related by tag "item 714".
    16. Thought It is all about the Juice with 3 viewings related by tag "racism".
    17. Thought Obama versus the Wright with 3 viewings related by tag "racism".
    18. Thought Left Wing IS racist & sexist - here's proof with 3 viewings related by tag "racism".
    19. Thought It's Hard to get Americans to Riot over a Cartoon with 3 viewings related by tag "racism".
    20. Thought WTF with 2 viewings related by tag "racism".
    21. Thought I Call Out Blatant Racism with 2 viewings related by tag "racism".
    22. Thought Brown Eyes - Blue Eyes Experiment with 2 viewings related by tag "racism".
    23. Thought Obamma's Momma's Momma with 2 viewings related by tag "racism".
    24. Thought The Race Card is Poison with 2 viewings related by tag "racism".
    25. Thought about: Agreement from the gecko - comment 57646 with 2 viewings related by tag "racism".
    26. Thought Cool Response with 2 viewings related by tag "racism".
    27. Thought The Oprah Solution ? with 1 viewings related by tag "racism".
    28. Thought about: Partial Birth Abortion with 1 viewings related by tag "supreme court".
    29. Thought White vs Black Manifesto by Dylann Roof with 1 viewings related by tag "racism".
    30. Thought The Trayvon Martin Killing with 1 viewings related by tag "racism".
    31. Thought Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day! with 1 viewings related by tag "item 714".
    32. Thought about: Obama the Magic Negro with 1 viewings related by tag "item 714".
    33. Thought Statistical Governmentalism & Racism with 1 viewings related by tag "racism".
    34. Thought Who are the Racists Here? with 1 viewings related by tag "item 714".
    35. Thought Racism with 1 viewings related by tag "item 714".
    36. Thought Empathy for GZ with 0 viewings related by tag "racism".
    37. Thought Obama - first black president ? with 0 viewings related by tag "racism".
    38. Thought pic says a hundred words with 0 viewings related by tag "item 714".
    39. Thought first black president? with 0 viewings related by tag "racism".
    40. Thought Environmentals - Go Thou & do Likewise - Please! with 0 viewings related by tag "scotus".
    41. Thought Good Old Boys with 0 viewings related by tag "sotomayor".
    42. Thought JURIES are the ultimate arbiter with 0 viewings related by tag "supreme court".
    43. Thought about: The Audacity of Hops with 0 viewings related by tag "racism".
    44. Thought Diversity of Thought with 0 viewings related by tag "racism".
    45. Thought Symbol VS Being with 0 viewings related by tag "scotus".
    46. Thought Racism is NOT MY Problem with 0 viewings related by tag "racism".
    47. Thought Evan Thomas Video - Obama is sort of a god with 0 viewings related by tag "item 714".
    48. Thought Progressive Racism with 0 viewings related by tag "racism".
    49. Thought Ferguson took a Shit with 0 viewings related by tag "racism".
    50. Thought Racism in America with 0 viewings related by tag "racism".