Said Justice Sotomayor, quoted in "Justice Sonia Sotomayor issues unusual apology over 'hurtful' remarks about colleague Brett Kavanaugh/The liberal Supreme Court justice had criticized her conservative colleague while she was talking about an opinion he wrote last year in an immigration case" (NBC News).
Here's the statement for which she apologized: "This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour."You can see the context at the link. She didn't call the "man" by name — it was Kavanaugh — and she didn't even say he lacked empathy. She didn't even assert that he lacked experience with the working class. She didn't even say he probably doesn’t know anyone who works by the hour. She only said he probably doesn’t really know anyone like that.
To really know someone... that takes a lot. That's a high standard! She apologized for only saying that he probably didn't meet a high standard. Why apologize then?
Perhaps it's an effort to appear especially virtuous herself, but perhaps the motivation is to stop Kavanaugh supporters from getting lots of attention coming forward with accounts of his interactions with working class people. Kavanaugh has volunteered to serve the poor through Catholic Charities, he's done tutoring, and he's coached youth basketball in the Catholic Youth Organization league. This was widely reported during the confirmation hearings but that was years ago. It could all be laid out again, in detail, and with hooting at Justice Sotomayor. Some might ask whether Justice Sotomayor has done equivalent charity and service to the poor and working class. Better to apologize.
Posts
69 comments:
"Conservative colleague".... Sure, Jan.
Kavanaugh has endured a shit ton of vile leftist lies and smears.
He was almost murdered by a leftist democratic nutter. These leftist nutters are inspired to act like self-righteous thugs because of the Walzian mob and the hack Soviet D lying media.
As an outsider, one of the things the Supreme Court seems to have preserved, and seems to want to preserve, is a sense of professional and personal collegiality. This is a good thing. They are a very concentrated branch of government, that is based on the idea of tradition and highly structured, civilized behavior. I would applaud her wanting to take the high road to not only preserve it, but to nurture it, if that's what it is. Leadership starts by example.
Better still, as a Supreme Court justice, not to comment publicly on your colleagues' personal lives. Somehow I don't have a very hard time restraining myself from making disparaging public comments about people I know...
(I will not claim similar restraint in my private comments, sadly.)
It was a stupid dig for anyone towards a colleague but especially for someone of her status. The good news is it let us know a bit more about who she is.
The only hourly worker Sotomayor has ever had a longer conversation with is her maid.
And I'd bet good money she's never held an hourly job in her life.
"Some might ask whether Justice Sotomayor has done equivalent charity and service to the poor and working class"
To which the answer is, of course, NO.
Nobody knew about the comment until she apologized.
Hey his most famous quote is "I. Like. Beer." That makes him more of a blue collar man than Styx! CC, JSM
Collegiality is fine, but it is usually just a cover that allows one side to permit the other side their corruptions. Like the the highly admired bipartisanship that the MSM is constantly harking back to the better times when Republicans and Democrats would work together for the billionaires to screw over the little people and clap each other on the back.
Isn't that part of the appeal of Donald Trump? Taking off the years of varnish paint and patina that is piled up to expose the rotten wormy wood underneath.
It's what that quote reveals about her mindset that's so disheartening. So many lefties assume their superiority and I think that diminishes their listening and reading comprehension. Having the feeling that debating inferiors is a waste of time.
Sotomayor's original comment reflected a belief that judges cannot be neutral, that their thinking necessarily arises out of their personal experience, no matter how hard they try to be objective.
It made me think of the famous Kamala Harris line: "You exist in the context of all in which you live."
Christine Blasey Ford was probably paid by the hour, but I doubt Kavanaugh really knew her.
Sotomayor's original comment reflected a belief that judges cannot be neutral, that their thinking necessarily arises out of their personal experience, no matter how hard they try to be objective.
Somebody alert John Roberts!
"And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour."
Most lawyers work by the hour. How can she not know this?
She's a condescending jurist, a probable Diversitist. Em-pathetic.
She thinks she’s better than the other guy. That’s what the real issue is. Hubris.
Didn't thousands of women claim to be raped by that guy? How does she even work with him?
It may not be that serious a slight, but it's catty. It's irrelevant to the quality of his analysis. If she has a real complaint, she should have made it and not demeaned herself with cheap insults. So I'd say the apology was merited.
I often confuse Sotomayor and Kagan--one of them I like more than the other, but I can't remember which one.
Her remark was just a version of the classic hip bigotry of racist lefties towards white people, especially straight conservative men.
Reverse it with the comment about how Sotomayor or KBJ wouldn't understand or relate to high class people, or some other social group, because of their background as skin color minorities and the bigotry becomes stark.
Judges who aggressively push book sales for personal enrichment cannot be trusted to understand the concept of work either. It's "too bad" that Sotomayor will forever be tarred.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sotomayor-book-sales-ethics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02
Bagdadbob - "Christine Blasey Ford was probably paid by the hour"...
Or whatever the time period of a lit cigarette is.
That beefy, pineapple-faced lady should know better.
Here's the statement for which she apologized: "This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour."
The implication of her statement is that Justices should be policy makers. That their values and experience should drive their work.
If she believes that, she should resign and run for Congress.
The remark she made longer than you quoted and I'm not sure if this was everything she said about him : “This is from a man whose parents were professionals and probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour. And so when he talks about the impact of this on real people, I’m not sure that he understands the consequences that even a short detention can have on someone who lives paycheck to paycheck. Those are the people who are going to suffer from this. Those are the people who can’t afford to lose even a few hours of work, who can’t afford to be taken away, even briefly, from their jobs and their families.”
The Left - including their legal beagles - are lying, thieving, seditious scum of the worst sort.
She's a bad judge of character.
I've written this here before, but I saw Justice Kavanaugh speak in KC last summer. I was so, so impressed by him. Yes, he's on the Supreme Court but even for a Supreme Court Justice he is impressive.
Through merit and hard work, he reached the Supreme Court. And the fact that the libs lied about him and tried to block him made his victory all the more sweet.
"Perhaps it's an effort to appear especially virtuous herself..."
The virtue signaling never stops, whilst virtue is conspicuous by its absence.
To be precise, she should have said "he probably doesn't know anyone engaged in physical labor."
I bet there are a lot more people who work by the hour who supported Kavanaugh's nomination than supported Sotomayor's.
n.n writes, "She's a bad judge of character."
Sotomayor once referred to herself obliquely as the "wise Latina". She could make that apology more meaningful by working on that deficit, starting with herself.
If Sotomayor cares so much about working Americans then why does she support driving down their wages by artificially increasing supply?
Ann's interpretation of the remarks is extremely generous. In context, it's obvious that Soto was slamming Kav as an uncaring, out-of-touch elitist. The comments were also pretty nasty insofar as they make it clear that either she hasn't bothered to get acquainted with Kav to get a sense of his experience with working class people, or she has engaged with him at that level but doesn't trust that he's being honest with her.
I liked the Supremes better when they keeping their yaps shut was seen as virtuous
Conrad said...
Ann's interpretation of the remarks is extremely generous
Conrad’s interpretation of Ann’s interpretation is extremely generous…
If you don’t look down on them, you don’t really know them.
Per Wiki, Kavanaugh's mom was first a DCPS teacher, then got a JD and wound up as a Maryland state judge. His dad was also a lawyer and was the president of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (because even if you just make perfume and soap, you need lobbyists to keep the vampires from sinking their teeth too deep into you).
So by DC standards, comfortable but not rolling in it.
Sotomayor's father had a 3rd grade education but was a tool-and-die maker, and her mother was an LPN. Hourly workers, sure, but more than comfy, in an era when NYC actually had factory jobs, and two blue-collar incomes could get you a decent standard of living, including sending your kids to Catholic school.
That lifestyle is no longer available to working class Americans, especially in NYC. Who does she think made that happen? CC, JSM
"To really know someone... that takes a lot. That's a high standard! She apologized for only saying that he probably didn't meet a high standard. Why apologize then?"
She should apologize for assuming facts not in evidence.
Hurty words.
A wise Latina, no less. Has she exhibited other symptoms of Diversity? At least she can discern a man from a woman, and she rejects the LatinX judgment and label.
Why did she apologize? Because love means never having to say you are sorry.
It made me think of the famous Kamala Harris line: "You exist in the context of all in which you live."
Now that's some cruel neutrality.
I'm prepared to give Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt on this one. She said something she believed, but on contemplation, she realizes it would have been better not to say it. She has apologized. For saying it. She hasn't said she doesn't still believe it.
I think Sotomayor is a beneficiary of a race-hustle, but she isn't really a race-hustler.
Anyone still think she’s a “wise” Latina?
Tim Maguire said:
"I often confuse Sotomayor and Kagan--one of them I like more than the other, but I can't remember which one."
Kagan is more judicial (less policy/activist) and way smarter. Former solicitor general if I remember correctly. After Obama appointed Sotomayor, when the next seat opened, Scalia was reported to have said (about Obama) "at least send us someone smart this time, like Elena Kagan..."
and Obama did.
Scalia clearly didn't see Sotomayor as "wise"
Kavanaugh has volunteered to serve the poor through Catholic Charities
Funny because that organization facilitates so much of the rapid community demographic changes sparking the pushback on mass immigration.
Ann Althouse said...
Sotomayor's original comment reflected a belief that judges cannot be neutral, that their thinking necessarily arises out of their personal experience, no matter how hard they try to be objective.
Sotomayor's original comment reflected a belief that judges are free to ignore the law, and just force their personal beliefs on the rest of us.
IOW, she's a morally wretched, oath breaking, laying sack of shit.
But we knew that
Don't lawyers typically work by the hour?
The partisan responses here are exactly why Roy Cohn advised Trump. Never apologize.
…same advice the Thomason’s gave the Clintons…
That's a great photograph at the link. Really good.
look at Roberts, caught in the middle
A Supreme Court Justice who disagrees with a majority opinion should file a dissent, explaining the disagreement in detail. Once the decision has issued, he/she should then shut up about it. The only reason for her to have made that statement is to call the majority decision into doubt. She will no doubt be wondering why confidence in the judiciary is declining.
Sotomayor was the dumbest SCJ until KBJ was appointed. She is a fool. Her entire background shows the effect of misguided preferences. Her coursework at Princeton was a joke which let her graduate with honors. We are fools as a society to have permitted unqualified people to ascend just to make (some of) us feel better. No qualified Latin or Hispanic who attended college or Law School with her thinks that she is qualified.
It almost makes me feel sorry for Kagan who, although no brilliant academic (she was a great fundraiser as Dean of HLS, however) and misguided as she is in her political and judicial philosophy, is still up there on the intellectual scale. Those other two - not so much.
Those other two, however, will say what they think in front of a friendly audience which reveals both their stupidity and their innermost thoughts (oh, but I repeat myself).
Does Sotomayor know anyone who drives a pickup truck?
"And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour."
I'm betting "people who work by the hour" are not keen on a flood of immigrants taking away their jobs.
The most important part of an apology is its reception.
Althouse: that quote from Kamala Harris hurt my brain.
i wish Sotomayor had been even more abusive and not apologized. The sooner people accept that the 3 Democrat judges are just partisan far-left hacks who vote their politics the better.
Ginsberg and Stephen Beyer were much more intelligent but did exactly the same thing. I prefer someone like Jackson - so people can more easily understand the game being played.
Do you want fries with that Soda mayor?
I often confuse Sotomayor and Kagan--one of them I like more than the other, but I can't remember which one.
Kagan is actually a decent jurist. Sotomayor got appointed simply because she checked the right boxes.
And until KBJ came along, the Wise Latina was the dumbest person on the Court.
I recall Sonia is no working-class girl from hardscrabble, despite her "street-smart Latino" self-styling. Nope, the girl comes from a privileged background, went to Fancy Pants Ivy league schools, and probably never cleaned a toilet bowl not within her own bedroom bathroom.
Hey, she apologized for saying it. Why not assume she did so sincerely? Althouse was, after all, prepared to entertain seriously Trump's claim that Trump's Christ image was really about being a doctor. The same principle of charity would dictate assuming good faith here, wouldn't it?
And surely it is the saying it, by one judge about another judicial colleague, that is the wrong here, not the thought itself. Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, and grew up in the South Bronx, as the child of factory worker who died young, leaving her to be raised by her mother, who was a nurse. Sotomayor also served as a trial court DA in NYC for five years. It makes perfect sense that her experience would lead her to be more aware of the risk and impact of stops based on racial profiling. Conversely, it makes total sense to think that Kavanagh is less aware of or sensitive to those issues. After all, he is the only child of a lawyer lobbyist and a judge, who grew up in a wealthy white DC suburb and attended private high school there, and held jobs only at the most elite levels of the judiciary, the federal government, and private practice. That's just common sense, and it's independent of political party or appointing president. Does anyone believe that such experiences have no influence on judicial decisionmaking? Her offense was not thinking it, but saying it, as one colleague about another.
Well it's probably not good for collegiality for justices to personally criticize other justices. But as criticisms go, its pretty mild. I'm not sure classifying it as "hurtful" ennobles any of them. Toughen up, Buttercup!
For a wise Latina, Sotomayor is pretty dumb.
Sure, Stephen. What this means is that only Clarence Thomas is really qualified to opine on the subject, and everyone else is bound to agree with him. I'm guessing that Sotomayor experienced as much "racial profiling" as Kavanaugh.
Sotomayor should apologize for being an idiot that embarrasses the judicial system.
RCOCEAN II said...
i wish Sotomayor had been even more abusive and not apologized. The sooner people accept that the 3 Democrat judges are just partisan far-left hacks who vote their politics the better.
At least Sotomayor is honest about what she is trying to do.
That puts her a step up from Roberts, Kavanaugh, ACB and Gorsuch.
Boatbuilder, I said nothing about qualifications, only about experiences. And I did not say that experience always determines votes. But it seems unlikely that there is no correlation between experience and votes, even at the Supreme Court.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.