Talk:Sonia Sotomayor

This page has been mentioned by media organizations. The mentions are in: Marty Kaplan (26 May 2009). "Sonia's Wiki Wonder". Huffington Post.

Javier Sotomayor

Moved to Talk:Sotomayor (disambiguation)

Chain of Recommendation

Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau recommended Sonia Sotomayor to Senator Daniel Moynihan, who (with the approval of Senator Alphonse D'Amato) recommended her to President George H.W. Bush (Bush Sr.) as a Federal trial court judge in 1992. --Michael Steuers (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on this NYT story, the first step in what you wrote is an oversimplification. Morgenthau made a call, but also a partner at her law firm (Botwinik) and his friend (Gribetz) already knew her and had helped her get onto Sonyma, and they made calls to Moynihan as well. And Gribetz ran the judicial search committee for Moynihan. So it sounds like Morgenthau was the least important of these three in getting her the position. The Moynihan/D'Amato judgeships apportionment arrangement is already described in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

It seems that Sotomayor's sentence "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," quote didn't make it in this article. Sometimes (not always, though) things are only NPOV on Wikipedia if they are the majority's POV. [1] Invmog (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, the quote is in the article:

The strongest criticism of her nomination came from conservatives and some Republican senators regarding a line that she used in some form in a number of her speeches and that became best known from its use in her 2001 Berkeley Law lecture:[109][168] "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."[12][169]

And then later, the article says:

A June 12 Fox News poll showed 58 percent of the public disagreeing with her "wise Latina" remark but 67 percent saying the remark should not disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.[182]

In other words, if you had done a text search for 'wise Latina' you would have found it twice. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Cardozo was the first Hispanic Justice

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/05/26/sotomayor-not-first-hispanic-justice-cardozo-was/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonBeeble (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good for you, you have found a fringe source talking about a fringe idea. However wikipedia is not about giving fringe sources credibility. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument is fully addressed at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009May26/0,4670,USSupremeCourtFirstHispanic,00.html Last time I checked FOXNEWS was not a fringe source. If you were to ask me, I would say they are the most reliable news source.--Subman758 (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The Fox News article to which you refer does not say that Cardozo was the first Hispanic. In fact, it specifically states "Was he also the first Hispanic? There is no conclusive answer." The article itself makes a number of arguments as to why Cardozo would not be considered Hispanic. Hence, the position that Cardozo was Hispanic is still a "fringe" idea, just as the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is a "fringe" idea even though Fox has reported on the existence of that particular theory. bd2412 T 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Subman758, take a look at Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 3 and Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 1, where this has been discussed in the past. The consensus among both news sources and WP editors is that Cardoza does not 'count' and Sotomayor if confirmed will be the first Hispanic SC justice. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Implying racism?

Maybe I misread this in the article. "Some in the Republican majority believed that an easy confirmation to the appeals court would put her in a better position for a possible Supreme Court nomination (despite there being no vacancy at the time nor any indication the Clinton administration was considering nominating her or any Hispanic)," The first assumption I got was that the Republicans would oppose someone of Hispanic lineage. Perhaps this should be re-written? Anton.hung (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the Republicans thought the Dems wanted to name the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court, and were boosting Sotomayor to the appeals court in order to get her ready for the next vacant Supreme Court slot. The Republicans didn't want Sotomayor on the Supreme Court (for the same reasons they don't want her on now, and additionally because they wanted to name the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice), and thus slow-walked her confirmation process in order to make her appear less 'inevitable'. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of 60% overturn rate?

Seriously, this is the problem with Wikipedia - the article is locked to not allow user editing, and there is no mention of the fact that she's had 6 of her rulings reviewed by the Supreme Court, on which she hopes to sit, and 4 of them have been overturned? Do you not think that relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is included in the article. It says: "Over her ten years on the circuit court, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases, and has written about 380 opinions where she was in the majority.[9] The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two[9] – not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years[14] and a typical percentage of reversals.[96]" I think your stat may include Ricci, which this stat doesn't because she didn't write the ruling. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate hearing from a DNC official spokesperson, the fact remains: 6 of her cases went before the Supreme Court for review, and 4 of her decisions were overturned. That is a fact that bears mentioning. One could also hope that you'd remove/adjust the hopelessly biased dismissal of her "wise Latina" comments, but knowing the bias of Wikipedia editors I won't count the days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)