10 Things You Should Know About Sonia Sotomayor

May 26, 2009

This morning President Obama nominated federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Most of you said a while back that you would like to see a woman nominated to the highest court. Well you got your wish! Here are 10 other things you need to know about Obama's nominee.

She was appointed federal judge by Republican president George Bush.
She was born in the Bronx, NY, to Puerto Rican parents. Her mother raised her in a housing project, and her father died when she was nine years old.
After graduating from Princeton, she went to Yale Law School, and served as the editor of Yale Law Review.
She got real Law and Order experience, working for five years as a prosecutor with the Manhattan District Attorney's office.
She's known for saving baseball because she issued a key injunction against team owners in 1995. It brought major league baseball back after a strike that caused the cancellation of the 1994 World Series.

To see the rest, read more.

She'll presumably be on the court for a while, as she's only 54 years old.
She's the first Hispanic person to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
If she's confirmed by the Senate, she will be only the third woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court.
She thinks her background is an asset. She once said: "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."
An episode of Perry Mason inspired her to become a judge.

Source

34 Comments

Chouette4u 3 years 51 weeks

Sloane, can you give an example of a Supreme Court case where a Latina (or another minority) would come to a "better" conclusion than a "privileged white male"? Of course, not all of the justices always come to the same conclusion, but that is because their legal and judicial backgrounds are not the same and they are individual people and have their own thought processes. (And shockingly, white people don't always fell the same way or agree on everything!!) It's totally irrelevant to their race. And if their race is playing any part, they are bad justices.Since you seem to feel so constantly disenfranchised and think that the world is ultimately against you because of systemic racism, what do you want everyone to do? Should we automatically pay minorities 15% more because they surely had to work harder to get their jobs and their employers would underpay them otherwise? Should corporations and universities all have race quotas to make sure everyone is equally represented? Should we start shipping white people out of the country to give them less of a majority?

Chouette4u 3 years 51 weeks

Sloane, can you give an example of a Supreme Court case where a Latina (or another minority) would come to a "better" conclusion than a "privileged white male"? Of course, not all of the justices always come to the same conclusion, but that is because their legal and judicial backgrounds are not the same and they are individual people and have their own thought processes. (And shockingly, white people don't always fell the same way or agree on everything!!) It's totally irrelevant to their race. And if their race is playing any part, they are bad justices. Since you seem to feel so constantly disenfranchised and think that the world is ultimately against you because of systemic racism, what do you want everyone to do? Should we automatically pay minorities 15% more because they surely had to work harder to get their jobs and their employers would underpay them otherwise? Should corporations and universities all have race quotas to make sure everyone is equally represented? Should we start shipping white people out of the country to give them less of a majority?

Michelann 3 years 51 weeks

Sloane, I never called "people of color" racists, so don't make accusations. If you think that white males can't experience hardships and experiences that make their lives unique and important, then you're blind to their experiences. I recognize that women and non-white people have difficulties and face prejudice, but so do men and white women. If you can't recognize that, that's ignorance. You stated that no matter what, a latina woman would face more obstacles than a white man, and I think that is ignoring the life experiences of many, many white men. So excuse me if I have to assume you are blind to their experiences.

Phil 3 years 51 weeks

I have to agree with sloan220 regarding Chief Justices making decisions based on what their experiences have informed them, or simply based rationality and on what would be the humane thing to do. The worst thing for a Supreme Court Justice, the ultimate arbiter of justice in America, would be for them to be little more than automatons. Otherwise, I'm sure someone can make up some computer that could interpret law, replacing the role of supreme court justices.

sloane220 3 years 51 weeks

fine i'll conceed that i'm not guranteed, but more then likely, if i'm doing the same job as a white male, i'll be making less money and it'll probably be for the color of skin, and my gender. LETS BE REAL. and what are you talking about? what life have i never lived and i'm blind to what f***ing experience? the experience of walking into an expensive store without being watched like i'm going to steal something? the experience of people clutching their bags or locking their car doors when i walk by. get the f*^$ over yourself. you think you're not being willfully ignorant right now. you seriously want to ignore the systems of oppression that work against everyone who is not a white male, well sorry it aint gonna happen. and i don't even understand what you're saying. and nobody said "their" hardships are the only hardships, i pointing out the facts a poor white male has privileges over a poor female of color, and can even have privileges over a middle or upper class female of color. who are "those people" you're talking about anyway? and you want to call people of color racists? oh please.

sloane220 3 years 51 weeks

Michelann 3 years 51 weeks

Sloane, perhaps because you've never lived the life or had the experiences, you're blind to what that life is really like, and you wouldn't understand it. I get so sick of people who think their hardships are the only hardships, and that nobody else has it as bad as they do. It's a self-centered, ignorant viewpoint. And just because it has to be said, you are not guaranteed to make less that your white male counterpart. A statistic does not make a universal rule. That should be extremely obvious.

Michelann 3 years 51 weeks

Sloane, perhaps because you've never lived the life or had the experiences, you're blind to what that life is really like, and you wouldn't understand it. I get so sick of people who think their hardships are the only hardships, and that nobody else has it as bad as they do. It's a self-centered, ignorant viewpoint. And just because it has to be said, you are not guaranteed to make less that your white male counterpart. A statistic does not make a universal rule. That should be extremely obvious.

sloane220 3 years 51 weeks

i've also been repeatedly sexually harassed by men at work, school, and on the street. and i also want to add that because i'm a woman and because i am a person of color, i'm a guranteed to make less than a white male doing the same job as i am.

sloane220 3 years 51 weeks

yes, because at the end of the day, no matter how rich or poor a white male is, he still has white privilege, and he still has male privilege. he will never have to contend with systmatic racism and sexism. i'm a middle class black woman and i came from a good family, but i've still been stopped by the police for no reason on the street, and in my car, still followed around stores, had my intellect questioned and been told that i'm articulate for a black girl, and i've also been repeatedly sexually harasse by men at work, school, and on the street. don't pretend that a white male of any social class will ever have to deal with some of the issues a woman of color will have to deal with. yes she may have said better and honestly considering her background i'm inclined to agree with her. the typical politician and judge is a white male, she was a poor latina woman. i'm sure her life experiences helped her relate differently to anybody who came before her. chouette4u-maybe that's how is SHOULD be but that's not how it is. justice IS not blind, and judges personal opinions and personal life experiences do reflect in their rulings. i think you're being really idealistic about the american justice system. on the supreme court itself we have judges that constantly vote the same way on particular isssues due to their life experiences and political affiliations.

sloane220 3 years 51 weeks

Michelann 3 years 52 weeks

"a latina woman AUTOMATICALLY has more issues to contend with and overcome then a white male. this is fact, so i agree with her. her life experiences are bound to give her a different perspective and possibly help her reach some different conclusions and other solutions for problems then the average white male, who has white privilege and male privilege. "This is based on so many assumptions. What if that white male is extremely poor or orphaned, and the corresponding latina woman is wealthy and well-treated by her parents? Does she still have more obstacles? And since when do life obstacles make a good judge? Certainly a latina female might have different experiences that lead to a different decision, but Sotomayor said better not different. So she is indeed denigrating somebody based on their race and gender. If somebody said "I would hope a wise white man would with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life", then you would undoubtedly be calling that person both ethnocentic and sexist. You can't deny that. And very well made points, Chouette.

Michelann 3 years 52 weeks

"a latina woman AUTOMATICALLY has more issues to contend with and overcome then a white male. this is fact, so i agree with her. her life experiences are bound to give her a different perspective and possibly help her reach some different conclusions and other solutions for problems then the average white male, who has white privilege and male privilege. " This is based on so many assumptions. What if that white male is extremely poor or orphaned, and the corresponding latina woman is wealthy and well-treated by her parents? Does she still have more obstacles? And since when do life obstacles make a good judge? Certainly a latina female might have different experiences that lead to a different decision, but Sotomayor said better not different. So she is indeed denigrating somebody based on their race and gender. If somebody said "I would hope a wise white man would with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life", then you would undoubtedly be calling that person both ethnocentic and sexist. You can't deny that. And very well made points, Chouette.

Chouette4u 3 years 52 weeks

"her life experiences are bound to give her a different perspective and possibly help her reach some different conclusions and other solutions for problems then the average white male, who has white privilege and male privilege"Having a different background or unique life experiences can be a plus for many jobs, even jobs in politics. However, for a judge and ESPECIALLY a Supreme Court justice, your race (or personal background, whatever) should not affect your decisions one way or another. A justice's job is to INTERPRET the law. While interpreting the law, the only past experiences that are relevant are the person's legal education, experience as an attorney, and previous experience as a judge. "The richness of her experiences" as a Latina woman is entirely irrelevant to this job.

Chouette4u 3 years 52 weeks

"her life experiences are bound to give her a different perspective and possibly help her reach some different conclusions and other solutions for problems then the average white male, who has white privilege and male privilege" Having a different background or unique life experiences can be a plus for many jobs, even jobs in politics. However, for a judge and ESPECIALLY a Supreme Court justice, your race (or personal background, whatever) should not affect your decisions one way or another. A justice's job is to INTERPRET the law. While interpreting the law, the only past experiences that are relevant are the person's legal education, experience as an attorney, and previous experience as a judge. "The richness of her experiences" as a Latina woman is entirely irrelevant to this job.

CHOOCHOO 3 years 52 weeks

From my point of view, there are as many differences in perspective from white males as there are hairs on my head.

sloane220 3 years 52 weeks

i meant** she's NOT denigrating anyone

sloane220 3 years 52 weeks

@honeybrown- thank you. a latina woman AUTOMATICALLY has more issues to contend with and overcome then a white male. this is fact, so i agree with her. her life experiences are bound to give her a different perspective and possibly help her reach some different conclusions and other solutions for problems then the average white male, who has white privilege and male privilege. she's denigrating anyone, she's being real, if there weren't so many privileged white men making policy, the entire face of this country would be different.

Michelann 3 years 52 weeks

Perhaps I should amend 'racist' to say 'ethnocentric' before somebody points out that Latina is not a race.

Michelann 3 years 52 weeks

Honey, that's not what she said, that's what you kindly read into it. She said her (or maybe some other wise Latina's) experiences made her ability to judge better than a white man's. That is sexist and racist and inexcusable to me.

HoneyBrown1976 4 years 25 m

Get off the Wise Latina quote. She's basically saying that she has something different to offer than the common white males that you see in Washington. It's the same damn voice and it's BORING!Move on with the false indignation.

HoneyBrown1976 4 years 25 m

bekkachan 4 years 5 h

I echo what Michelann and Glowingmoon said. If a judge (who is supposed to treat both sides of a case fairly) blatantly puts down members of another gender and race in public, I seriously wonder how impartial her decisions are, and whether she should be a judge at all. She shouldn't be allowed to get away with bad behavior just because she's a woman and a minority (saying this as a woman myself).

4 years 9 h

Having argued before Judge Sotomayor before, I can honestly say that her demeanor is not befitting to a judge, particularly a Supreme Court justice. She's a bully. I am politically liberal, and I am all for a Latino female justice, but just not her. There is absolutely no reason for a judge to yell at and berate a well-prepared attorney just because she doesn't like the position the attorney is advocating.

Phil 4 years 10 h

The more I get to know soon-to-be Chief Justice Sotomayer, the more optimistic I am about the appointment. I can relate so much to her background (something I think the whole "empathy" thing was supposed to address, less so than what FoxNews and conservatives tried to spin it to mean). Regarding the quote regarding her experience as a Latina woman, I think that quote is more-so addressing the fact that a caucasian male is guarded from facing the social and institutional discrimination that often comes with being a woman and a racial minority. She brings to the Supreme Court a unique perspective that most of the Chief Justices can't directly relate to. It's also sad that it seems some people are speculating whether she would be capable of serving as a Supreme Court Justice based on the fact that she's a type 1 diabetic. Which, with a basic knowledge of what diabetes is, implies nothing about her ability to serve. The only thing that might actually pose as an road block is her ruling on a case regarding a promotional test for firefighters that was found by a lower court to be discriminatory. The case has gone through appeals and ironically will be heard by the Supreme Court. But her ruling was substantive and shouldn't block her appointment. Excellent choice by Obama. Much to look forward to.

Link Love

34 Comments

You Might Also Like