jfmoyn i agree, and she will have her day during the process…….i want on of the senators to read her statement back to her with the following changes…. “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a person of color who hasn’t lived that life.” I want her reaction to such a statement, and i want to hear her logic………

@mikew, today’s ruling had nothing to do with the Constitution. It had to do with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the City of New Haven violated a law passed by Congress. The majority decided that the law as written by Congress was bad policy, and decided to re-write it - NOT to bring the law in line with the Constitution, but because they didn’t like the policy. That’s judicial activism in a nutshell.

Additionally, a non-activist judge would have simply interpreted the law, then sent the case back to the lower court. Instead, the conservatives on the Court decided that they know the facts better than the lower court, and decided to act as judge and jury. Again, that’s activism.

@ken, do you REALLY want to hear her logic, or are you going to hold the same opinion regardless of what she says? It seems to me like you have blinders on and are incapable of judging her beyond that one single statement, which you’re dead-set on repeating over and over.

i sincerely want to hear her logic…….as i would imagine many do…and again, she has made this statement many times both in personal appearances and in her writing over the last 20 years….it goes beyond a sound bite…i don’t think i am asking too much, and i am surprised that you wouldn’t want some kind of explanation faithful…

Society needs to remove all “checkboxes” for race and gender for applications for colleges, employment, etc. One’s merit and qualifications should be the only thing judged for situations like this. If you are the best person for the job (outside of networking) and have worked hard to excell at your job, regardless of race or gender you should get that job. It’s ridiculous that we have to fear objection from a minority that will claim a test was unfair and seek legal action.

@pds, if your goal is a pure meritocracy, I’m curious as to why you think networking is alright but picking candidates on the basis of something like gender or race is not. Playing the “old boy’s network” is politically correct compared to say race quotas, but it hardly guarantees that you’re going to get qualified candidates.

A pure meritocracy is impossible because most people have some biases. Maybe you know somebody they know, or went to the same school as the candidate, or maybe you just hit it off with the person in an interview, even if they’re less qualified. We’re not robots focused entirely on efficiency. If people want to make choices based upon arbitrary things, that’s their choice. If those arbitrary things make it impossible for entire classes of people to qualify, that’s a bad thing. But that’s not what happened here.

The point is that our Constitution and our civil rights laws don’t force employers to make decisions entirely based upon merit. What they do require is that governments and employers don’t seek to keep entire classes of people off the job or out of the classroom. If equal opportunity hiring is bad policy, then let that be debated in the political system rather than the courts.

@ken, perhaps you should read the entirety of the speeches that she’s given. She gives a more than adequate explanation, but you don’t seem interested in hearing it. You just want to repeat one sentence over and over again.

faithful, i am waiting to hear her explanation as she has given none, except for those around her saying it was taken out of context…i have read her speeches, i have heard her say it aloud, and i am still waiting for an explanation….demonizing me for bringing it up does not answer a question only she can answer…….

@ken, I think the repeating one sentence to gin up outrage while ignoring her explanations has virtually guaranteed her nomination. I predict that Republicans will ask her about it at the hearing, and she will give a reasonable answer, but then people like yourself will insist that she either didn’t answer the question, or didn’t answer it sufficiently.

People are tired of the politics of resentment. The woman is extremely qualified, and nothing in her judicial record suggests any bias or prejudice. Her educational background is top notch, and her story is compelling. It defies logic to suggest that somebody would have spent several years on the bench and several more years in private practice doing solid legal work, and then somehow act differently once she is on the high Court.

please don’t assume to know what i am thinking faithful…..you predict many things, but i have asked numerous times for you, or anyone else watching this thread to show me her explanation…….i hope you are right, in that she does answer the question fully, and becomes a very thoughtful justice on the supreme court…….but you say the politics of resentment, like it was someone else who made the statement…..the resentment seems to be coming from ms sotomayor…….

I am liking her less and less.

@ken, now your turn for some ’splainin… what has Sotomayor said that’s “resentful?” At worst, the sentence you keep pointing to would suggest she thinks herself more qualified than a white guy, but it doesn’t suggest any ill will. It’s not like she said that she’s been oppressed.

In fact, she goes on in her speech to say: “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.”

Honestly, I’d like to hear your explanation — something more than you just saying “b-b-but look at this one sentence.”