A provocation of the day, courtesy of Michael Kinsley, who contends that liberals and conservatives aren't being intellectually honest -- nor are they being honest with themselves -- about race, gender and Sonia Sotomayor.
Listening, via the media, to the debate inside the Republican Party, you also have to wonder about the party's commitment to a colorblind society. The Democrats' too, but Democrats don't carry on about colorblindness the way Republicans do. It's clear that the one paralyzing fact about Sonia Sotomayor, to Republicans, is the color of her skin. If she weren't Latino, they would be in full revenge-for-Clarence-Thomas mode. Instead, they are in an agony of indecision, with GOP strategists openly warning: Support the Latina or die. If the 40 remaining Republican senators end up voting for Sotomayor, her race will be the reason. Democrats, meanwhile, can enjoy supporting her for her impressive intellectual qualifications. They don't even need to mention the obvious: that these qualifications aren't the main reason President Obama picked her.
Yes, of course, ethnicity in politics is different from ethnic job quotas, and a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a special kind of job. Nowhere is a bit of diversity more obviously desirable. Nowhere is the case stronger for taking race, ethnicity and gender into account. And conservatives apparently agree. If only they could bring themselves to say so.
I'll bite first. As a conservative, I could care less about her race, and while I agree that with the point that conservatives quite possibly aren't "getting revenge" because of her race/gender, I'm glad. The Republicans would be well served to get over revenge and actually come up with some ideas.
With that said, my biggest problem with all of this is Obama's comment before even naming a candidate (although it seems Judge Sotomayor was the pick from the beginning). In the case of the Supreme Court, I agree that the law is about "how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation." M-W says empathy is " the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner." The Supreme Court sets precedents that affect an untold number of people, both in the present and the future. First, by definition, one cannot empathize with those in the future. This may just be semantic, but I cannot fathom how a judge can empathize with the untold number of people each particular ruling will affect, let alone conceptualize every particular scenario in which a ruling will play. That is why I think the ability to empathize is in now way a prerequisite for a SCOTUS member, although neither is it a disqualification. Appointment to SCOTUS should be based on achievement, experience, and ability. You would be hard pressed to find many people as qualified as Judge Sotomayor. My only reservation would be her 60% turnover rate by high court.
Your last sentence shows a lack of understanding about how the supreme court works. Most cases that are appealed to scotus are never actually accepted.
Her record is better than average. The average turnover rate of cases selected by the SCOTUS is in the 73% - 76% range. So 60% beats that. Hence, "better than average."
Out of over 400 cases she decided, only 5 were picked up for review by the SCOTUS, and only 3 of those overturned. That makes her overturn rate less than 0.75%. I don't know what the average rate is on that, but that looks pretty good to me.
That 60% is a red herring. She has had 3 of the 232 opinions she has written overturned, which puts that number at 1.3%. She has only had five opinions appear before the Supreme Court, if you use 5 as your denominator you do get 60% then (3/5) but you're still throwing a red herring around because the SCOTUS typically overturns a high majority of the cases it hears, 68% last term, 73% the term before.
The average for a sitting judge is 75%. So she actually has a lower (and significantly lower) reversal or vacated rate than most.
Agreed. I definitely did not look for/find a reference for what that meant. I still say empathy should have little to do with being appointed to SCOTUS.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html
You can empathize with the teen, and not empathize with the school board (this article indicates Sotomayor did not agree with their decision), and yet still maintain precedence based on previous rulings and the law.