Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament
29 May 2009 9:02 am by djjl
http://tinyurl.com/m6zsvb
Why not just follow Taylor’s lead on this. The choice of vocabulary reminds me of GOPac’s (AKA Newt’s)1996:
http://tinyurl.com/d2zvo
“Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.”
The media and Sotomayor’s detractors simply employ a sexist version.
This post was submitted by djjl.
No tags for this post.
“This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.
While the list could be the size of the latest “College Edition” dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.”
Look at this list and see if you can recall some of these rolling off the tongues of say – Newt, Cornyn, deLay, etc. I think you’ll be able to hear their voices:
* abuse of power
* anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
* betray
* cheat
* coercion
* corrupt
* cynicism
* decay
* disgrace
* hypocrisy
* lie
* pathetic
* permissive attitude
* self-serving
* shallow
* sick
* steal
* traitors
* welfare
“I felt she could be very judgmental in the sense that she doesn’t let you finish your argument before she jumps in and starts asking questions,” said Sheema Chaudhry, who appeared before Judge Sotomayor in an asylum case last year. “She’s brilliant and she’s qualified, but I just feel that she can be very, how do you say, temperamental.”
Hmmm…interesting assessment from a lawyer just 4 years out from passing the law exam.
http://www.legaled.com/nybeFeb05results.htm
Ogenec can tell us how much experience she has likely attained to make an assessment worthy of including in the New York Times.
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3850353_1?channel=LP
“They call it a hot bench when a judge asks a lawyer a lot of questions — well, she isn’t afraid of running a hot bench,” said H. Raymond Fasano, a Republican immigration lawyer who has appeared before her 24 times, mostly in asylum cases, and is a fan. “When a judge asks a lot of questions, that means she’s read the record, she knows the issues and she has concerns that she wants resolved. And that’s the judge’s job.”
I wonder how many times Chaudry appeared before Judge Sotomayor?
Jeffrey Rosen’s TNR piece opened the door for this crap, though if it wasn’t him it would be someone else. However, the Times fails on so many levels, as is easily proven, which I did in my post.
It’s so tiresome to have to call the Times and others out on this stuff.
Taylor,
They’ve been doing it so long. I remember the fabulously false and dishonest pieces from Jeff Gerth during the Clinton years.
Isn’t this just special……….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/john-cornyn-repudiates-gi_n_208915.html
“One of the top Republicans in the Senate, John Cornyn, is repudiating recent comments by Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich which claimed that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a racist.”
Uhh… would it not be of significance to note that it is Senator Cornyn of TEXAS.
You think this might have figured in his heart felt concern for the trashing of Sotomayor?:
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/population.html
In 2006, 48.3 percent of Texans were White; 35.7 percent were Hispanic; 11.4 percent were Black; and 4.6 percent fell into the “other” category, which includes persons of American Indian, Asian and Hawaiian descent, among others. This is in contrast to the U.S. as a whole, which was 66.4 percent White, 14.8 percent Hispanic, 12.3 percent Black and 6.6 percent “other” (Exhibit 3).4 Hispanics are the fastest-growing population group in Texas. The Hispanic population in Texas has grown by 10.9 percent since 2000, when Hispanics accounted for 32 percent of the Texas population.5
Exhibit 3
U.S. and Texas Population
by Ethnicity, 2006
Population by Ethnicity
(Population by Ethnicity, Text Alternative)
Texas became a “majority-minority” state in 2004, meaning various ethnic minority populations now outnumber Whites. Other “majority-minority” states include Hawaii, New Mexico and California.
http://tinyurl.com/kt6bjv
“The GOP’s Suicide Mission
by Mark McKinnon
BS Top – McKinnon Sotomayor Powell AP and Getty Images Memo to my party: Blasting targets like Sonia Sotomayor and Colin Powell is a surefire strategy to guarantee our extinction.
snip
If the GOP is ever to be resurgent, it has to pick its fights carefully. The tendency is, unfortunately, to shoot at everything that moves.
Here are a couple of fights we don’t need: Colin Powell and Sonia Sotomayor.
Let’s face it, Sotomayor is a political trifecta. Woman. Hispanic. Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from George H. W. Bush.
snip
We should be on our knees praising Colin Powell for declaring that he has not, despite the desire of some narrow and vocal forces within the GOP, left the party. Because if he does, we might as well turn the lights out.”
Let Tancredo, Gingrich, Cheney, Limbaugh keep talking. Which one of them will flip the switch……lights out.
Yep, McKinnon is another Republican who gets it. Sen. Cornyn is in the throes of a self preservation tour.
Taylor: Do you feel confident that she is pro-choice?
djjl, I don’t litigate, so I don’t know how seasoned a litigator with four years’ experience can be. I suspect not very. But I’ve been practicing in the US for just over 11 years, and my counterparties frequently call ME a young lawyer. Until I mop the floor with them. LOL.
I do have a favor to ask, though. Please let’s not make this an issue of “they are just afraid of a strong woman.” I don’t read it that way at all. Aside from the tagline of the NYT article — which the author(s) probably didn’t write — the article strikes me as very balanced. Even more so if you know the legal personalities involved. Guido Calabresi is a legend in the legal community and his expressions of support for Sotomayor carry much more weight than the unknowns quoted in the article.
I think the real issue for Sotomayor will be the empathy and “wise Latina” comments. Which are readily explained. Jeff Sessions, Cornyn, Hatch et al are signalling no filibuster. She is going to be confirmed, and by a good margin. So no need girding loins for a specter that is unlikely to manifest. IMHO.
Sometimes I think Liberal groups worry to much. I think Obama would not have picked someone who would overturn Roe v Wade, even if he didn’t ask that question outright. Obama is a smart, savy politician who knows were his support is. I don’t think he would piss off his base by putting someone who would be a pro-life supporter on the court.
I didn’t think I was making any indications that they are afraid of a strong woman. And my points are not limited to the NYT article. It has nothing to do with strength necessarily. It has to do with sexism. Simple as that.
You are a man. while you have had experiences with racism, I have had experiences with sexism. Most other women have as well. Recall all the broohaha over Katie Couric. This world is run by men. So is the US. I realize it is difficult to understand what you have not experienced. Sometimes it is difficult to even see it.
I only need to point to lynette’s post earlier about the women pilots from WWII. If not here is the link and a few excerpts:
http://tinyurl.com/mdqex9
“djjl says:
26 May 2009 at 8:49 am
http://www.baylor.edu/mayborn/index.php?id=49549
snip
“Thirty-eight WASP lost their lives while serving their country, their bodies sent home in cheap pine boxes, their burial at the expense of their family or classmates. These heroic women pilots were denied any military benefits or honors-no gold star in their parents’ window, not even so much as an American flag to drape their caskets.
Their military records were sealed, stamped either ‘classified’ or ‘secret’ and filed away in the Government Archives for 33 years. Consequently, their records were not available to the historians who wrote the historical accounts of WWII and history textbooks.”
snip
In November 1977, 33 years after the WASP were disbanded,
Congress *reluctantly* voted to give them the Veteran status they had earned, but their history is still not included in most textbooks and is unknown to millions of Americans. Despite General Arnold’s pledge that the Air Force would never forget them, it did, and so did America.
#
djjl says:
26 May 2009 at 9:09 am
lynette
This is the kind of systematic exclusion that our daughters are not aware of – and that leads them and this society to not see it where it continues.
#
lynnette says:
26 May 2009 at 9:22 am
That’s right, Djjl. The young people need to know about these women and how their own lives have benefitted from these trailblazers
djjl says:
26 May 2009 at 12:56 pm
And they need to know how these women and their deeds were intentionally hidden by their government. And they need to wonder “why?”
My point is not just this post. But I recall only one male responding to that post ( at least I think secular is a male). Seeing no response from the other male posters, I asked :
“djjl says:
26 May 2009 at 1:11 pm
I’d like to see some posts from our brother buddies about this post – see what you think. How ’bout it?”
I posted another request on the “busy” post In the News where there were more male posters.
No other male responded to lynettes post – even when asked.
So, I ask that no man ask any woman to not see comments through their own eyes and experiences. I think most women recognize that it is not the way most men would read it – it is outside their experience.
Personally, I’d just like each of you to consider it. You might learn something that would be beneficial to us all.
ogenec says:
29 May 2009 at 11:00 am
djjl, I don’t litigate, so I don’t know how seasoned a litigator with four years’ experience can be. I suspect not very. But I’ve been practicing in the US for just over 11 years, and my counterparties frequently call ME a young lawyer. Until I mop the floor with them. LOL.
ogenec
LOL!!! I would love to see that – kind of like Rainmaker with Matt Damon and Jon Voight.
I didn’t mean to make any reference to her age – I don’t know how old she is. (I’ve got a good friend just 5 years out of law school – shes 53). My intent was to reference experience. From the piece, it would seem they were giving equal heft to an attorney who appeared before Sotomayor once (3 years out of law school) as to a Republican attorney who had appeared before her 24 times.
It’s not that they are afraid of strong women – they just don’t like them!
Our thread here reminds me that we all look through our own prism of experiences, just like Judge Sotomayor said, when formulating our opinions of the world. It’s interesting, isn’t it? That’s why we need to be more tolerant of others in this country and really listen to what they have to say. I think the President said as much in his Notre Dame speech. P.S. I really thought the article about the WASPS in WW2 was so interesting – those women gave so much and asked so little in return. Another example, all through school I never learned (because it wasn’t in the history books) that Blacks fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, etc. Even history books are written from various perspectives, often excluding important groups. Okay, I have to go now. Have a great weekend everyone.
StarsHollow says:
29 May 2009 at 10:53 am
There is no evidence of her position either way. So the answer is no, I don’t.
Obama is scrambling on it:
http://tinyurl.com/l8enms
In a 2007 debate during the campaign, then-candidate Obama said, “I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy.” The Supreme Court found that the right to privacy provided a woman the choice to terminate a pregnancy in its early stages.
ad_icon
The president’s advisers could not point to a specific basis for Obama’s belief that he and Sotomayor share the same view on the issue, other than their general conversation about judicial philosophies. In nearly 20 years as a district judge and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York, Sotomayor has not confronted constitutional questions about the issue.
–this comment has been updated–
lynnette says:
29 May 2009 at 12:19 pm
It’s not that they are afraid of strong women – they just don’t like them!
lynette
LOL!!!
Back at you!
I’m glad you were here.
I, too thought that was a very interesting article. My parents had a friend, a woman who served in the Women’s Army Corp. I was a young teenager when I overheard a discussion between them about her and her colleagues routinely accused of being gay. I don’t know what words they used – I just knew that what it meant.
BBL
djjl and lynnette, I acknowledge your points. I was using “fear of a strong woman” as shorthand for sexism. From what I’ve seen, there is a soupcon of sex-based comments in the attacks, but most conservatives are focusing on the empathy and “wise Latina” remarks. But you are right — I haven’t any experience regarding sexism, so I’m not exactly an authority on the subject. And you also are right that this is proof that Sotomayor is correct to say that who we are invariably shapes our perception of the world, legal issues included.
I wish Dems would push back harder on the firefighter case. As I mentioned a few days ago, her decision is actually an example of judicial restraint, not activism. Both Eugene Robinson and Michael Kinsley made the same point today, but it needs wider circulation.
BTW, I did see the post on female pilots, but I didn’t contribute because I didn’t have much to say. I try to stick to what I know. Or, more accurately, what I think I know.
Thanks Taylor. I was hoping for some reassurance because I’ve got a bad feeling about it. I can’t imagine that President Obama could have made this appointment without absolute certainty on this issue, but there is no evidence of it. The few hints that have been given based on her history don’t reassure me at all. I hope that she is asked directly at the hearings. I’ll be watching very closely.
You bet, though I wish I could offer more emphatic assurance. I’ll be listening very closely, too.
All past presidents have always said there is no “litmus” test when it comes to abortion and that has always been a lie. Maybe this President isn’t lying, maybe he really isn’t using abortion as a litmus test.
I understand Ms. Sotomayor is a ’strong’ Catholic. If so, this relates to the recent controversy at Notre Dame.
It continues to irritate me that the two subjects of ‘Gay’ and ‘Abortion’ and their related arguments stubbornly REFUSE to simply go to the actual ‘foundation’ of these disputes! With the ‘Gay’ issue, the true argument that must be settled before anything else can be is the ‘Choice vs. Born’ question.
Unfortunately, the abortion (+stem-cell) issue’s ‘foundation’ is the entire ‘Soul’ question (is it there and when?). The ultimate question is, can that ever be ’solved’? I somehow doubt it as it also returns to the word ‘Faith’ – and that’s seems impossible to argue.
ogenec says:
29 May 2009 at 1:10 pm
You’ve got me laughing, Ogenec. How do you like dijjl and me so far??
I agree, there is sexism aimed at Sotomayor. She may exhibit some strong questioning techniques that the male judges exhibit, but it’s okay for them and not for her – that’s what I take from all these remarks about her. (She should make a good antidote to Scalia). You know Sotomayor, Hillary, and Michelle Obama are all kind of forceful, direct women and they have all been labeled in one way or another, i.e. dumb and rude, monster and a bitch, and angry black woman. Notice the pattern? (Michelle gets a double insult – race and sex).
I know what you mean about the firefighter case. I have heard it mentioned but not often about the judicial restraint vs. activism argument.
I’m glad you read the post about the WW2 women. They were pretty special, weren’t they? So inspiring.
StarsHollow says:
29 May 2009 at 1:14 pm
I feel like you do. I hope she is pro choice. I would be very surprised and upset if she wasn’t.
pmichael
How does that relate to the Notre Dame controversy?
Blacks made up between 20 and 25% of all troops deployed in both the Revolutionary AND the Civil War. Washington stated that without them the war would have been lost. He had NO problem with many of them going back to slavery after the war was won. Reality sometimes gets in the way of history as wished for.
In the same vien there were Black soldiers in the CONFEDERACY before they were organized in the Federal forces!! In fact, many of the guards at Andersonville Prison Camp were Black Confererates!!
Sweet Baby Jesus in the manger! So the judge is sharp-tongued? What a bunch of misogynist hoo-yah. Clarence Thomas has spent his entire career spewing bile and Alito is also known for his acid tongue. So only men who agree with the white male power structure get to be heard? The Latino woman is supposed to be demure and do what? Bake cookies?
This whole meme stinks like a week old fish left out in the August sun. Misogyny check, fear of the brown menace check, yup it is a smear campaign poorly cloaked as concern trolling.
And, Scalia is oh so meek.