IS Supreme Court nominee BIAS ?

[Davy]

 
for Sotomayor

What !

(Sadly, this article had been written in support of SotomayOR)

In a much-discussed 2001 speech at the University of California, Berkeley, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor singled out a Minnesota case as an example of the kind of difference diversity on the bench can make.

Sotomayor's views about the role life experiences can and should play in judges' decisionmaking will no doubt get a spacious airing during this week's Senate confirmation hearings -- which makes her Minnesota case in point of some interest.

It was in the Berkeley speech, after all, that Sotomayor made her most celebrated and controversial remark. "I would hope," she said, "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."

A few paragraphs earlier, she had said this:
"The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this [diversity among judges making a difference]. 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."

<MORE>
Finding a case that fits this description has proved a bit of a challenge. Even Wald, who generously scanned her files, was unable to identify it. According to White House staff, Sotomayor named the wrong court. The decision in question, they say, is Hall vs. Hall, a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling from 1987. (The Minnesota Supreme Court declined to review it.)

Even assuming that's the right case, Sotomayor's description was imprecise. In Hall, a 14-judge "en banc" appeals panel upheld a lower court's protective order on a 7-7 vote. Four male judges joined three female judges on the prevailing side. Seven judges, all male, dissented.

All the judges agreed there was no evidence that the father had ever abused his children.

[snowrose]

The problem with that is that in many of the family issues I've read a judge will allow a protective or restraining order against someone with basically no evidence.  It doesn't seem to matter if it's a man or a woman, though I think that probably men do have orders placed against them more often.  That's just the nature of a woman's response (do something legal to stop/control him (even if he doesn't deserve it)) and it's also how she is led to do things by society and the institutions that support women.

I'm nowhere near saying that's the right response.  I'm just saying that the sad reality of today.

[MixedBag]

I JUST had one filed against me, MOM.  and it was granted with no evidence or proof of what the father was alleging.

And we had a final hearing about 9 days later and it was DENIED and DISMISSED.

It goes both ways....

[Davy]

MB, One huge difference is that is that MOM actually had a hearing and another huge difference is that it was denied and dismissed.  Moreover, the article used an example of a 14 judge appellate panel that split 7 - 7 to deny a child access to a parent.   

But the very WORST issue is that the nominee BOASTED of the kind of difference diversity on the bench can make saying she 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."

That tells me she wouldn't last very long if she lived the life of a white male. 

Think about it.  That's what this issue is about to most of society and is why this article was posted.

Is she really saying white males would better themslves if they had the rich experiences of an arrogant female that had never been married and does not have children. 

I think she should go to Latina where ever that is.



.