Now that a Wise Latina is a Supreme Court Justice ...

"...I am merely advocating the selection of the most qualified men and women for our nation's highest court."

And it is at this point you seem quite in agreement with M Jensen.

This appointment, like the recent arrest of H Gates, is a good starting out point for reflecting on deep issues that have shaped our nation. It isn't really fair to burden one person, or one circumstance, with all the weight of a long complex history. There is no way she, or the appointment, can possibly embody all of our past, present, or future.

I don't really hear the writer attempting to do so--but desiring to draw us into a deeper consideration. I hear a big question. Not a demand for a particular answer.

On the narrower issue: Judges come to the bench with a culture. They all speak a language (or languages). They hold to norms of behavior, values and beliefs. They live at a particular time. They experience the freshness or the staleness of the air in the Supreme Court chambers. The current judges are steeped in the culture of the practice of law (this exclusive dependence on lawyers/judges to fill the Court is not mandated). They are shaped and formed by the American Academy. They develop their own culture on the bench that dictates/forms how cases are considered and resolved. There is a thousand ways that the cultural experience of each judge and the sub-cultures within which the Court itself functions interacts with the consideration of cases. For someone to note that their experience/culture is part of what they bring demonstrates a teeny slice of self-understanding. For other persons to contend that this self-understanding is a grand rejection of judging cases on the merits I find rather mystifying.

I really don't think Sotomayor's handful of passing observations can be fairly portrayed as some kind of identity politics

"I'm sure a wise Latina would have viewed the Dred Scott case differently."

I hope not , The Dred Scott Case was holding to the law , a lousy law , but the law. Laws are meant to be changed by the legislatures , if the law is UnConstitutional the Court settles it . The Dred Scott Case was based on law concerning property , and the Conjstitution clearly stated Blacks were property . Disgusting yes , but that was the law .

We have a case of a fairly liberal Justice being replaced by a fairly liberal Justice. Seems during the process of her being questioned by the Senate the republicans tried to siggest her race would cause her to make decisions from her heart and not the law. Now we have an essay that confirms those beliefs as a good thing , while the new Judge stated that would not be the case . I will take the Judges word on it myself till she proves different. Sometimes I think our biggest enemies in politics can be the ones who support the people we are speaking about.

ando - actually I'd say my comment on Roe is very un PC.... glad to hear you are, like me, a white, hetero, non-pc, Covenanter -

The Dred Scott decision had no consequence???

You might be inferring a bit more from the piece than is there in regards to politics and abortion.

Is abortion about human life or human tissue? Was slavery about human life or property? Your analogy about gold does not hold as gold was universally considered property--in states, in federal law, in society. Such was not the case in regards to persons held in involuntary servitude.

Mr. Jensen,

I'm not "threatened" by the thought that a Latina might be wiser than me. In fact, I am willing to stipulate that there are women of latin ancestry who are my intellectual and moral superiors. I'm just not convinced that Sonia Sotomayor is one of them. Her embrace of identity politics is not reassuring. I don't want a judge to embrace any racial identity too closely, I want him or her to judge cases on the merits.

As a Christian, I want the Supreme Court to be composed of the best and fairest judges possible. Since I do not have any litigation in the federal courts, I cannot anticipate that this will have any effect on my rights either way, and consequently in advocating the appointment of the best judges possible I am neither picking up nor laying down my rights, I am merely advocating the selection of the most qualified men and women for our nation's highest court.

LV

"...I am merely advocating the selection of the most qualified men and women for our nation's highest court."

And it is at this point you seem quite in agreement with M Jensen.

This appointment, like the recent arrest of H Gates, is a good starting out point for reflecting on deep issues that have shaped our nation. It isn't really fair to burden one person, or one circumstance, with all the weight of a long complex history. There is no way she, or the appointment, can possibly embody all of our past, present, or future.

I don't really hear the writer attempting to do so--but desiring to draw us into a deeper consideration. I hear a big question. Not a demand for a particular answer.

On the narrower issue: Judges come to the bench with a culture. They all speak a language (or languages). They hold to norms of behavior, values and beliefs. They live at a particular time. They experience the freshness or the staleness of the air in the Supreme Court chambers. The current judges are steeped in the culture of the practice of law (this exclusive dependence on lawyers/judges to fill the Court is not mandated). They are shaped and formed by the American Academy. They develop their own culture on the bench that dictates/forms how cases are considered and resolved. There is a thousand ways that the cultural experience of each judge and the sub-cultures within which the Court itself functions interacts with the consideration of cases. For someone to note that their experience/culture is part of what they bring demonstrates a teeny slice of self-understanding. For other persons to contend that this self-understanding is a grand rejection of judging cases on the merits I find rather mystifying.

I really don't think Sotomayor's handful of passing observations can be fairly portrayed as some kind of identity politics

If you think about what M Jensen is arguing for--a pursuit of justice--are you really in disagreement? Is it really 'white male bashing?'

I don't think RoeVWade was particularly an advance of justice. Why not entertain the possibility that some different perspectives on the Court might have led to something with greater wisdom and justice?

Let's see Ando. What I asked was simply if you and Marque are really in disagreement; if what he said was really white male bashing.

And that leads to a slam about whether I actually read your posts; that I am feeding a fire within angry white men.................

I am interested in dialogue. I am not interested in responding to the kinds of "fingers in the eyes" treatment you like to give some persons here. You can do it. I am not personally offended by it. I am just letting you know it doesn't interest me.

You have very legitimate concerns,have been around the block, are intelligent and able to express both your ideas and passions. You have experienced alot that looks like, walks like and talks like a bunch of malarky. OK, I buy that. And maybe you have experienced some pain because of it--I don't know. If it has--I don't dismiss it. Maybe you are just fed up having to be PC all day and want to do some verbal sparring with some persons here who sound like the PC stuff you have to put up with.

Maybe the PC stuff is a false answer to very real issues. Maybe the real issues exist because Christ's followers have not walked out just answers in loving relationships. Maybe what we could do is dialogue in a way that actually shaped our hearts and lives in a way so that when faced with both the issues and the false answers (PC) we could have a certainty of truth and hope that would offer a better way; and allow the space so when persons want to take a swing at us, we are able to duck.

Lord make me an instrument of thy peace
where there is hatred let me sow love
where here injury pardon
where there is doubt hope
...........

for it is in dying
that be are born to eternal life.

Let justice roll down like a river
and righteousness like a quiet stream

1Grace,
you might read up on the concept of "interstate comity" and its relationship to slavery and freedom during the antebellum era. The reason why Dred Scott was so important and so controversial is that it reversed decades of precedent established under the practice of interstate comity. The decision also came very close to suggesting that, since the Constitution guaranteed property rights, northern states had no right to outlaw slavery.

The Northwestern Ordinance of 1787 outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory and in any states carved out of it, one of which was Wisconsin. The implication of the Dred Scott decision was that the Ordinance was unconstitutional when it outlawed slavery because that was a violation of property rights.

Actually 1grace - it seems this is a point of which the law was unclear - which is why it was first heard by a Circuit Court and they ruled in Scott's favor - since he became free once he was taken into an area of the nation where slavery was forbidden (Illinois and later Minnesota (at this time Wisconsin Territory) by federal law.

Since federal law freed him - could he be taken involuntarily into slavery again?

Scott's master then appealed the case to the Missouri Supreme Court (a slave state) which ruled in the master's favor. Now tell me the justices on that court had no bias as to how to interpret an unclear law....

"Now tell me the justices on that court had no bias as to how to interpret an unclear law...."

First of all if you studied American History , Supreme Cout Decisions at that time meant little . Really they were irrelevant to the situation at hand ,.But you say If I stole
your ghorse in SC , your gold , if i went to NJ it would not be be considered stolen ?

You take a 2009 viewpoint , mix it with a what is common to law NOW, and disregard law . That is the same thinking that promoted abortion on demand. Roe V Wade make legal sense to you also ? Killing children from a viewpoint of privacy ? Are you a Christian , what makes you promote such vews ? Why defend the undefendable .
Slavery is evil , killing the unborn is evil . Interesting your politics supports one over the other ?

"I am willing to stipulate that there are women of latin ancestry who are my intellectual and moral superiors. I'm just not convinced that Sonia Sotomayor is one of them."

To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen:
I know Sonia Sotomayor (from her writings). And I know you (from your contributions here). Believe me Lord, you're no Sonia Sotomayor (not even close).

Translation: Yes this woman is your intellectual and moral superior (unless I missed something and you were actually on GWB's short list for elevation to the Supreme Court).

The Dred Scott decision had no consequence???

Actually yes , except for Mr. Scott . The Court's decision treated slaves exactly like the original Constitution had allowed them to be . Without the 14th Amendment , they had little choice . Saying one state could assign citizenship to the African American , but the Federal Government could not was the decision basically. . Lincoln spoke out against it , it caused politicians and activists to spar with more flammable rhetoric, but the Abolitionists continued working to get slaves out of the slaves states . The individual states continued to go on as before . The power of the Supreme Court has grown over the years . I watched a great documentary on the Court and how it has evolved , quite interesting . But basically they started out in a shack and the power of the Court on our lives has grown with Federalism and time .

"Is abortion about human life or human tissue? Was slavery about human life or property? "

Huh ? We are speaking about law . The Constitution , and the role of the Supreme Court . The Constitution is the Law of the Land , it is not equal or above the Holy Spirit . How the law speaks to issues is not how I look at life . Common Law did from a cultural acceptable method years ago . But not accepted in a secular culture.

But it is the basis for those of us who agree or differ to work things out in somewhat of a civil manner .
The law of the land stated slaves were property. You valueing gold differently then slaves is irrelevant to the LAW. . . The Law equated slaves as property. Our personal opinions is what the legislatures handles , the 14th Amendment was written because of personal opinions and importance of any man is not based by the pigment of their skin or their address. One day i hope a similiar protection will be made that the importance of life will not be measured upon their specfic address either .

My individual beliefs about abortion or slavery I assume to be quite similar with yours, but our views are just that . The truth of the matter is the Constitution allowed for people owning people based on race , that pathetic aspect of our history is for ever real , equating our new Court member for changing that decision is like saying because of race she will change Roe V Wade. No! legal precedent and decisions may have an impact , law may indeed. But laws changed on feelings or belief by a Judge is not a good precedent .
We got slavery because law was based on race. We need just laws not decisions based on personal racial beliefs . According to her testimony , the new Judge aggrees with me .
A Court Justice obeying the Constitution would have to use the laws of the land as their compass, not their heart felt belief and reality of believing killing what God created is wrong , A Christian Judge says a Cross can not be on public land , is that because he hates God , no its because that is how precedent has taken that issue over the years . I disagree with it , original intent disagrees with it , but a Judge now going against modern precedents is as wrong as the Judges who went againt precedents to make a cross illegal in certain areas .
A Christian can be a lousy Judge or a good Judge . Their belief in God , their race, etc do not make them a good Judge.

The progressive editorialist used Dred Scott,.. race issues seem to be more important to liberal circles , but the example is relevant I am drawing . Abortion is more popular in my circels,

Going against Row V Wade is as wrong as going against the Dred Scott Decision . According to Judge Scalia I am wrong , he says the precedent of Dred Scott led way to the thinking that allowed for Roe V Wade. We have laws now that are race oriented , crack cocaine is a prime example , why is the same amount of crack coaciane considered more punishible under our law then if it was just white cocoaine. Again a Justice should NOT change that , but legislatures should . But having Judge Scalia on the side of this SOJO editorial I doubt will be a comfort to him .

You said
Your analogy about gold does not hold as gold was universally considered property--in states, in federal law, in society. Such was not the case in regards to persons held in involuntary servitude."

It sounds good in todays world , but your not debating the issue . Winning the debate by saying people should not be owned as property . Well duh !! We both have similiar cultures , beliefs , actually owning a human being seems uncomprehendable . Again we are debating what we believe is right or wrong , the law of the land and the editorialists saying a person of a different race was a reason for having her on the court to make better decisions . I find that similiar to using examples of Mexico and their historical in justice system as reasons for why she could not make good court decisions , then cherry pick decisions that were unpopular and insert revisionsist history . Thats not fair to the new Judge , nor is using race as an example of better or worse ability . I see her race as a plus in many ways , but I believe God sees all of our races as a plus . Even white Judges .

Okay, if you say so. Far be it from me to question your assessment of my intelligence.

LV

Let's see Ando. What I asked was simply if you and Marque are really in disagreement; if what he said was really white male bashing.

And that leads to a slam about whether I actually read your posts; that I am feeding a fire within angry white men.................

I am interested in dialogue. I am not interested in responding to the kinds of "fingers in the eyes" treatment you like to give some persons here. You can do it. I am not personally offended by it. I am just letting you know it doesn't interest me.

You have very legitimate concerns,have been around the block, are intelligent and able to express both your ideas and passions. You have experienced alot that looks like, walks like and talks like a bunch of malarky. OK, I buy that. And maybe you have experienced some pain because of it--I don't know. If it has--I don't dismiss it. Maybe you are just fed up having to be PC all day and want to do some verbal sparring with some persons here who sound like the PC stuff you have to put up with.

Maybe the PC stuff is a false answer to very real issues. Maybe the real issues exist because Christ's followers have not walked out just answers in loving relationships. Maybe what we could do is dialogue in a way that actually shaped our hearts and lives in a way so that when faced with both the issues and the false answers (PC) we could have a certainty of truth and hope that would offer a better way; and allow the space so when persons want to take a swing at us, we are able to duck.

Lord make me an instrument of thy peace
where there is hatred let me sow love
where here injury pardon
where there is doubt hope
...........

for it is in dying
that be are born to eternal life.

Let justice roll down like a river
and righteousness like a quiet stream

1Grace,
you might read up on the concept of "interstate comity" and its relationship to slavery and freedom during the antebellum era. The reason why Dred Scott was so important and so controversial is that it reversed decades of precedent established under the practice of interstate comity. The decision also came very close to suggesting that, since the Constitution guaranteed property rights, northern states had no right to outlaw slavery.

The Northwestern Ordinance of 1787 outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory and in any states carved out of it, one of which was Wisconsin. The implication of the Dred Scott decision was that the Ordinance was unconstitutional when it outlawed slavery because that was a violation of property rights.

The Dred Scott decision had no consequence???

Actually yes , except for Mr. Scott . The Court's decision treated slaves exactly like the original Constitution had allowed them to be . Without the 14th Amendment , they had little choice . Saying one state could assign citizenship to the African American , but the Federal Government could not was the decision basically. . Lincoln spoke out against it , it caused politicians and activists to spar with more flammable rhetoric, but the Abolitionists continued working to get slaves out of the slaves states . The individual states continued to go on as before . The power of the Supreme Court has grown over the years . I watched a great documentary on the Court and how it has evolved , quite interesting . But basically they started out in a shack and the power of the Court on our lives has grown with Federalism and time .

"Is abortion about human life or human tissue? Was slavery about human life or property? "

Huh ? We are speaking about law . The Constitution , and the role of the Supreme Court . The Constitution is the Law of the Land , it is not equal or above the Holy Spirit . How the law speaks to issues is not how I look at life . Common Law did from a cultural acceptable method years ago . But not accepted in a secular culture.

But it is the basis for those of us who agree or differ to work things out in somewhat of a civil manner .
The law of the land stated slaves were property. You valueing gold differently then slaves is irrelevant to the LAW. . . The Law equated slaves as property. Our personal opinions is what the legislatures handles , the 14th Amendment was written because of personal opinions and importance of any man is not based by the pigment of their skin or their address. One day i hope a similiar protection will be made that the importance of life will not be measured upon their specfic address either .

My individual beliefs about abortion or slavery I assume to be quite similar with yours, but our views are just that . The truth of the matter is the Constitution allowed for people owning people based on race , that pathetic aspect of our history is for ever real , equating our new Court member for changing that decision is like saying because of race she will change Roe V Wade. No! legal precedent and decisions may have an impact , law may indeed. But laws changed on feelings or belief by a Judge is not a good precedent .
We got slavery because law was based on race. We need just laws not decisions based on personal racial beliefs . According to her testimony , the new Judge aggrees with me .
A Court Justice obeying the Constitution would have to use the laws of the land as their compass, not their heart felt belief and reality of believing killing what God created is wrong , A Christian Judge says a Cross can not be on public land , is that because he hates God , no its because that is how precedent has taken that issue over the years . I disagree with it , original intent disagrees with it , but a Judge now going against modern precedents is as wrong as the Judges who went againt precedents to make a cross illegal in certain areas .
A Christian can be a lousy Judge or a good Judge . Their belief in God , their race, etc do not make them a good Judge.

The progressive editorialist used Dred Scott,.. race issues seem to be more important to liberal circles , but the example is relevant I am drawing . Abortion is more popular in my circels,

Going against Row V Wade is as wrong as going against the Dred Scott Decision . According to Judge Scalia I am wrong , he says the precedent of Dred Scott led way to the thinking that allowed for Roe V Wade. We have laws now that are race oriented , crack cocaine is a prime example , why is the same amount of crack coaciane considered more punishible under our law then if it was just white cocoaine. Again a Justice should NOT change that , but legislatures should . But having Judge Scalia on the side of this SOJO editorial I doubt will be a comfort to him .

You said
Your analogy about gold does not hold as gold was universally considered property--in states, in federal law, in society. Such was not the case in regards to persons held in involuntary servitude."

It sounds good in todays world , but your not debating the issue . Winning the debate by saying people should not be owned as property . Well duh !! We both have similiar cultures , beliefs , actually owning a human being seems uncomprehendable . Again we are debating what we believe is right or wrong , the law of the land and the editorialists saying a person of a different race was a reason for having her on the court to make better decisions . I find that similiar to using examples of Mexico and their historical in justice system as reasons for why she could not make good court decisions , then cherry pick decisions that were unpopular and insert revisionsist history . Thats not fair to the new Judge , nor is using race as an example of better or worse ability . I see her race as a plus in many ways , but I believe God sees all of our races as a plus . Even white Judges .

Sister Marie, what a nasty remark to make. And to paraphrase that senator's remark? He didn't show class on that occasion, either. As I recall, it was directed at Jack Kemp (if I'm remembering rightly), who was making the point that he was older than JFK was when the latter started into politics and/or took office. The senator said, "You're no Jack Kennedy," but Kemp had never claimed to be. He was simply comparing relative ages. Your citation is
out of line, as is your rudeness toward LV.

Sister Marie, what a nasty remark to make. And to paraphrase that senator's remark? He didn't show class on that occasion, either. As I recall, it was directed at Jack Kemp (if I'm remembering rightly), who was making the point that he was older than JFK was when the latter started into politics and/or took office. The senator said, "You're no Jack Kennedy," but Kemp had never claimed to be. He was simply comparing relative ages. Your citation is
out of line, as is your rudeness toward LV.