Talk:Sonia Sotomayor

Template:Activepol

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

Jurisprudence section

POV fluff? LeoO3 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That had to go.--Smashingworth 07:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone's curious, this is what the article looked like at the time that first 2005 comment was made. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of Laws from Princeton

I find it hard to believe that she received a Doctor of Laws from Princeton when there is no law school there. Where is the source? [10:46, April 1, 2007 76.80.130.214]

Looks like it's true. I guess when it's an honorary degree you can call it whatever you want. Josh (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a little off topic for this section, but education-related. I can't post this because of the protection on the article, but according to Sotomayor her undergrad degree was in History. If you think it's relevant and can post, feel free. Lamfr (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Political centrist?

Although a liberal Democrat or a liberal newspaper such as the New York Times may describe Sotomayor as a "political centrist," she is not viewed as such by conservatives. See Ed Whelan's evaluation of her in the National Review:

Highlighting the emphasis on diversity over quality in judicial selection, Justice Scalia has joked that “the next nominee to the Court will be a female Protestant Hispanic”. Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor fits at least two-thirds of the description. Plus, she’s acquired a reputation as a very liberal judge. For these reasons, she’s widely mentioned as a leading Supreme Court candidate in an Obama administration.

User:BoBo 00:59, November 27, 2008

I'm sorry, but there is widespread support in numerous solid, well-respected publications for the proposition that Sotomayor is widely considered a political centrist. The article already reflects that conservative activists call her a "liberal activist" etc., which is what conservative activists call nearly all Democratic judges. The blog post cited above from the National Review, a conservative magazine, by Ed Whelan, a right-wing lawyer, only confirms that she is a judge whom some conservative activists attack as liberal, a fact that is already present in the article. Thus, I am putting this proposition back in the article. However, as a concession, since the commenter above seems to think the New York Times is too biased a source (which, I would point out, is not consistent with usual wiki norms on this kind of issue), I'll footnote her centrist reputation instead to multiple additional sources. I'll cite the American Bar Association Journal, Cox Newspapers, _and_ the New York Times. The American Bar Association Journal alone should suffice to support this point. (Unless you are one of these wiki editors who thinks all sources are biased except partisan magazines that share your point of view.) Also, I would like to note that there is plenty of content in this article that comes from the National Review and other conservative magazines (from the supposed 'controversy' around Trent Lott calling her nomination to a vote, to the size of Senator Moynihan's role in her district court nomination, and on throughout the article); meanwhile there is NO content in this article that is sourced only to liberal or progressive magazines. Please do not remove well-sourced propositions regarding something as straightfoward as the fact that many publications have termed her a "centrist," using that word, merely because a right-wing lawyer on the National Review's blog takes another point of view that is already reflected in the article. --JRtx (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How come there is no information on her religion or on her position on abortion, or capital punishment for that matter...which all seem like substantial information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystalkeep (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The article said, "Bush appointed liberal Sotomayor in a deal that allowed a conservative judge to be appointed as well." Since the articles cites 16 sources that say she's a centrist, I changed the world "liberal" in that sentence to "centrist." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Her own words prove that the "centrist" tag is laughable. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001 208.127.106.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Reactionary periodicals like National Review (and make no mistake about their leanings) would consider John McCain a centrist, and Ronald Reagan (if it weren't for their considering him their patron saint) a liberal. Hbquikcomjamesl (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Examining the cited publications, they are mostly uniformly solid publications of the left. The New York Times, the Journal of the ABA, and the Huffington Post. These are all credible publications, but their view of the "centre" is no more accurate than that of the National Review. They are not NPOV. Indeed, the description of the National Review (a conservative magazine) as "reactionary" is interesting. Good grief. This is a mainstream conservative publication; I disagree with many things they say, but this view is very far from NPOV, and about as silly as describing the NY Times as a "revolutionary" paper, or a "far left" paper. I myself changed the wording to "moderate" rather than centrist. I think a much stronger case can be made for this. Centrist simply doesn't seem to fit. Holmwood (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is absurd in today's enviorment to expect any kind of objective source on whether a supreme court nominee is "liberal" or "moderate". Best to remove any attempt to label it one way or the other. This is especially true given the seriously flawed nature of many of the references cited for her being a "centrist". Check the dates - many are 10 years old. You could find sources that say David Souter is a moderate, if you looked at sources from years before his nomination. Just note the debate - something like "Democrats claim she is a centrist who respects the limits of the judicial role while republicans argue she is a liberal activist." Throw in some cites if you like. But please, only fairly recent ones - her judicial record 10 years ago isn't going to lead to very informed opinions. JaxElls (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

simple challenge on "unbiased sources" Name one Supreme Court nominee that the New York Times has labeled "leftist". 208.127.106.165 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, to label her as centrist and then link spam a bunch of left-leaning sources to back up the claim is disingenious. I suggest either adding support that lists her as liberal or removing the qualifiers alltogether. Arzel (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is uniform agreement that she is a centrist, regardless of what she really is. It's going to be something that people want to read about, so we should say "the NYT, ABA,... describe her as a centrist, while Fox News, ... describe her as a liberal". Then people can make up their own mind. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AP article says "In general, her rulings as a trial judge for six years and then as an appeals court judge since 1998 are in line with the liberal-leaning views of Justice David Souter, the man President Barack Obama has nominated her to replace."http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gFtUIX7x5MF3yejKGGXY_diC2pSgD98E6QA00 hard to say that AP is a conservative viewpoint.38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Sonia Sotomayor was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardozo

There seems to be a minor, and rather silly, edit war going on regarding whether Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic or Latino/Latina justice on the Supreme Court, if nominated. Some wish to insert the argument onto Sotomayor's wikipedia page that Benjamin Cardozo was actually the first Hispanic justice. This argument seems extremely remote and implausible based on available information. Cardozo and his parents and grandparents and great-grandparents (and great-great-grandparents and so on for a few more generations!) seem to have been born in the United States, and none of them spoke Spanish or Ladino or had any discernible connection to Hispanic or Latino/Latina culture or ethnicity as those terms are defined today. Rather, Cardozo is decended from Portuguese Jews who left Portugal, lived in the Netherlands, and then in England, before finally settling in British North America in the 1740s and 1750s. This is a pretty thin basis for calling him Hispanic. It is not even clear whether current Portuguese-Americans are considered Hispanic, let alone the descendants, many generations later, of members of the Portuguese Sephardic Jewish community who did not even immigrate to America directly from Portugal, and certainly had no connection to Spain or Latin America.

My first choice would be to just omit entirely this discussion of Cardozo, which I don't think is germane or plausible, and state that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic Justice. As a second alternative, one could state that she would be the first Latino/Latina justice (instead of "Hispanic") -- since nobody has argued or could plausibly argue that Cardozo was a Latino. As a third choice, we can keep it the way it is, with an unqualified sentence stating that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic justice, followed by a brief discussion of the Cardozo theory.

Any views on this question? 130.132.165.162 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody seems to have kicked the Cardozo thing into a footnote. That seems about right to me. 71.234.233.60 (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because Cardozo did not come from a Latin American country does not mean that he was not Hispanic. As everyone knows, ethnic divisions are somewhat murky at the edges, but the best definition is someone descended from the Iberian Peninsula (which obviously includes Portugal). I will adopt the second suggestion and change the wording to Latino, which is more accurate (see Hispanic and Latino Americans) but there is documentary evidence that Cardozo was Hispanic so the footnote version is not accurate. Papercrab (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources in Cardozo's article describing him as a Hispanic. Why the controversy here? I'm removing the footnote per WP:UNDUE. --J^mundo 00:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find reliable sources for the Cardozo is Hispanic argument, so I'm fine with deleting it (WP:UNDUE). If somebody does find reliable sources for the proposition that Cardozo should count as Hispanic, then they can revive the footnote. In any event I certainly don't think this theory belongs in the text of the article, just as a matter of relevance, given that the subject of the article is Sonia Sotomayor. 71.234.233.60 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No question Cardozo was Portuguese; the question is 'are Portuguese considered Hospanic?' to negate argument that Sotomayor may be the first Hispanic justice.65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The current definition of Hispanic from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget does not include Portugal simply because Portuguese as a language *is not Spanish.* Cardozo is also not Latino because he is not from Latin America. Cordozo is Latin. Cordozo was the first Latin member of the Supreme court. If confirmed, Sotomayer will be the first Hispanic and first Latina Supremem Court Justice. This isn't rocket science, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHLister (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Small Business Administration, in addition to other federal, state, and municipal agencies, do recognize Portuguese under the umbrella term of Hispanic. This discussion has emerged on Daily Kos[1] and elsewhere so I think it is worthy of at least a mention on wikipedia.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and predominant practice is not to exclude information just because there's a good argument against that information. Like it or not, the criterion for inclusion is that sources deemed good are including it, whether there are good arguments against it or not. If newspaper reports, NPR broadcasts, and so on are saying Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic justice (and they are), that should be in the Wikipedia entry even if it's false and demonstrably so, because any argument like the above will be deemed original research by the strange standard Wikipedia practices. Similarly, if there are newspaper articles and reputable-enough news stories on cable news with pundits saying Cardozo was the first Hispanic justice (and there are), then that should also go in the Wikipedia article, and the article should mention that some are saying one and some saying the other. Arguments like that above, by the Wikipedia standard, can only appear if they are taken from some published source. So I say put both claims in the article and link to arguments for each. After all, we don't want Wikipedia to be a place where original research goes on, even if that would make more sense. Parableman (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Parableman that the media reports Sotomayor as the first Hispanic doesn't make it right when it isn't.(That AP reported Taiwan's Yani Tseng as being South Korean last Sunday, and that article being published at multiple news outlet websites, change that golfer's country of origin?) Hispanic, look up its definition here at Wikipedia, are people from the Iberian Peninsula. Which Portugal clearly is, and the Cardozo name is Portugese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry.com has a "One World Tree" (subscription) pedigree for Cardozo that says his Great-great-great-great-great grandfather David Nunez Cardozo was born in Portugal in 1640 and died in London 1724. David's grandson Jacob was born in London and emigrated to New York circa 1718. His other recorded Great grandparents had the surnames Hart, Nathan, Seixas, and Levy. Hart was Jewish per [2]. The Benjamin Cardozo article makes no reference to Cardozo being Hispanic. When he joined the Supreme Court, he was thought of as a Jew,or a Sephardic Jew, but no one has furnished any reliable source from his lifetime which called him Hispanic, and it does not seem to be a mainstream view of him. It would be WP:UNDUE weight to call Cardozo "Hispanic" and to call Sotomayor the "Second Hispanic." At this point, that is a fringe theory. Wikipedia is not the espouser of "truth" as determined by fringe theorists, but of what is referenced to reliable sources, and that only in proportion. Edison (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The book "Latinos and American Law" (2006)[3] says (p197) that Portuguese are not generally considered Hispanic. He puts claims by "some" that Cardozo was Hispanic in the same dubious consideration as claims that Scalia is Hispanic because he is of Italian descent. A2005 book "Advice and consent" by Lee Epstein and Jeffrey Allan Segal says (p 59) "some" claim Cardozo, (incorrectly said to be "of Spanish descent") was Hispanic . Another 2005 book "The Supreme Court in the American legal system," by Jeffrey Allan Segal et al, also says (p251) that Cardozo was "a Sephardic Jew of Spanish heritage" and wonders why he is not counted as an Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. A very short sentence or two treating on the question of 1st or second Hispanic justice might be appropriate and proportionate. Edison (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The blogosphere arguments that she would "not really be the first Hispanic Justice" sound much like the blogosphere arguments that Obama was "not really African American." Might look at how that meme was handled. Edison (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The original edit stated that Cardozo was Ibero-American and not Hispanic. Leonardo Alves (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor is also Ibero-American: "The term includes neither the United States (except for Puerto Rico), nor any of its fifty states...".UGA2001 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Then the Wiki entry for Hispanic needs to be amended as it includes those from Hispania and the Wiki entry for Hispania reads: "Hispania was the name given by the Romans to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula (modern Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Gibraltar and a very small southern part of France)".

Perhaps we should change the entry for Hispanic to read "only those who are less than two generations removed from the region known as Hispania or Central/South America, and Mexico". This will include Sotomayor and exclude Cardozo (it would also exclude a large portion of those in the US who consider themselves Hispanic). Also, it seems the word Latino is being used to try and show an ethnic difference between Sotomayor and Cardozo. The Wiki reference for Latino notes that these are synonyms. There is a lot of cleaning up to do.

UGA2001 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. Hispanic has two prevalent meanings: an ancient one (meaning someone from Hispania); a modern one, meaning someone hailing in same way from a Spanish speaking country. The article Hispanic states "Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico) is a term that historically denoted a relationship to the ancient Hispania (geographically coinciding with the Iberian Peninsula). During the modern era, it took on a more limited meaning, relating to the contemporary nation of Spain. Still more recently, the term is used to describe the culture and people of countries formerly ruled by Spain, usually with a majority of the population having Spanish ancestry and speaking the Spanish language. These include Mexico, the majority of the Central and South American countries, and most of the Greater Antilles. There are also Spanish influences in the African nation of Equatorial Guinea,[1] and the cultures of the Spanish East Indies' nations and territories, the Philippines, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands." So, Hispanic does not generally aplly to Portuguese, whatever some Portuguese-American senator do, or whatever the Federal Transportation Authority decides (unless you all want to say that Cardozo was the first Hispanic judge according to the Federal Transportation Authority...!). He was and American of Sephardi Jewish origin, not an Hispanic. The Ogre (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sephardic Jews are from the Iberian Peninsula. Those with ancestry in the Iberian Peninsula are Hispanic. Hispania refers to the whole of the Peninsula, not just Spain. Portugal's name is derived from the city name which is something like Portum Calientum (my Latin is not up to par). Go back far enough and Portuguese and Spanish converge. Just avoid the whole issue and refer to Sotomayor as the first Latina Supreme Court Justice, and there's no debate whatsoever. 130.111.163.179 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Hispanic has a modern meaning which is not related to Hispania, but to Spain and its language. And in the US Hispanic and Latino are the same - see Hispanic and Latino Americans. By the way, are you people aware that most Portuguese would consider it an insult to be called Hispanic? Because for them, as for the Spanish, that means Spanish speaker. The Ogre (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jurisprudence, really

I would guess that since she has been a judge for some eighteen years now, she might have, oh, I don't know, ruled on some cases? Rather than prescribing whether she is a "liberal" or a "conservative" based on what newspapers and bloggers say, how about we find out how she has actually ruled in cases that have come before her court? bd2412 T 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Editing...

User:JRtx has basically edited major portions of this article and has engaged in argument about the article on the article's talk page. (see above). The User's contributions appear to be nearly solely on this article also. There is a strong possibility that this user might be Judge Sotomeier herself. In any case, this user's edits should be watched closely. Yardleyman (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This article is edited and "watched" by several editors. You are making strong allegations about Sotomayor, remember that WP:BLP is clear about adding contentious material to biographical articles. --J^mundo 04:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless Yardleyman has further evidence of COI the tag should be removed. Mere suspicion isn't sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Highly unlikely that someone with the workload of a federal appellate judge would be spending much time editing their own Wikipedia article. Much more likely to be a mere partisan. bd2412 T 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that Yardleyman was subsequently blocked as a sock. JRtx has a sporadic editing history that predates his/her first edit on this article by two years. Chance that Sotomayor edits this article herself is zero! Really successful people don't do WP editing ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Father: Occupation and Education

Sotomayor's father's occupation has been variously reported by print news sources as: manual laborer, factory worker, and tool-and die maker. Definitely possible that all three were true at various times, but we need to resolve the discrepancy or remove the info about occupation. Also, it seems unlikely that a tool-and-die maker truly had a "third grade education." This highly-skilled occupation typically requires math skills well above the primary school level as well as a 4-5 year apprenticeship. Someone who left school after third grade but then acquires additional education does not have a "third grade education." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.13.48.8 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This New York Times profile from 1992 - http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/25/news/a-breakthrough-judge-what-she-always-wanted.html?&pagewanted=all - seems to be the source for "tool-and-dye worker with a third grade education." You are right that various other sources have said factory worker, manual laborer, etc. 71.234.233.60 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So, teach the controversy. Report everything and note the disparity that exists, to the extent that it does, unless one source or another is proven wrong. bd2412 T 19:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans are NOT IMMIGRANTS

That's like saying Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to Kansas immigrants. Scarykitty (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the New York Times recently issued a correction on this matter. see the bottom of this page. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=3 71.113.252.54 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth and not a state. Puerto Rican's are immigrants my brother. Its like saying someone was born in California to Guam immigrants. Puerto Rican's have the choice every so often to become a state, a nation or remain a commonwealth. Por favor, lea mi hermano. CashRules (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Puerto Ricans are NOT immigrant...period period period!!! My dad was born in Puerto Rico and came here, skipped customs and immigration, and has NEVER held any green card, you moron. They pay US taxes and have presidential voting power if they claim mainland residency. Please go back to 4th grade when this was taught. 65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and no. What date was your father born? From what you say, I assume he is not aged over 56. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, to quote the article, persons "born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States". Hence, even if Sonia Sotomayor had been born in Puerto Rico (on the date of her birth, 1954-06-25) she would have had citizenship of the USA. Yet, as she was born on soil of the USA (in the Bronx) there is no doubt of her being truly "American" and it is incorrect to call her "Puerto Rican". It is, however, correct to say she "has Puerto Rican ancestry" or, equally correcty as her article says, "is of Puerto Rican descent". As are you, who ever you are.- Peter Ellis - Talk 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

IF they claim mainland residency... IF! is the key word! They don't vote for president for a reason. PR is a commonwealth not a state. Native American's such as Iroquois are American citizens as well, but have a psudeo status different from Puerto Rican's, but a psudeo status as well. CashRules (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And could you further help us by telling us which grade you learned civility in?  Frank  |  talk  19:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, just flaunting the doctorate in Latin American politics again...65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Library of Congress, Puerto Rican's are immigrants. Please look up Unincorporated organized territories. Flaunting your doctorate? i.e. Essjay [4] CashRules (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts is a commonwealth, too - what is your point? ErikHaugen (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

different type of commonwealth. Look up Puerto Rico. Massachusetts is a state and a commonwealth. PR is simply a commonwealth.

Wrong (again). Enough, just give it up. PR's are not immigrants, period, explanation point. And yes, MA, KY, VA, and PA are ALL commonwealths; HOWEVER, since they signed the constitution as a states in the 'United States' they are treated as states, but legally commonwealths. PR, Guam, Mariana Islands, etc., have never signed as a state. Just give it up...65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans are born American citizens, and have the same right of free travel among the states, commonwealths, and territories of the U.S. as any other American citizen. So, they are not immigrants. End of argument. In any event, Ms. Sotomayor herself was born in the Bronx in New York City.Alinnyc (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, immigration need to be accross national borders, or even any borders at all... Puerto Ricans are not aliens in the United States, but they are immigrants in the same way that if an Oregonian goes to live to New York, he is an immigrant.

People who move within a single country are migrants not immigrants. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the immigrant issue. Neither she, nor any other Puerto Rican, are immigrants in any sense, no matter which definition you unilaterally apply. And she was born in the US anyway! The constitution only bars non-US born people from attaining the presidency or vice presidency. It's totally moot from even discussin it.65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of her cases

Unlike some of the other people mentioned as Supreme Court candidates, there is minimal discussion of her cases and opinions that she's written. Looking around the net, I did see one at SCOTUSBlog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/ Anyone have any thoughts on whether it would be appropriate to add a link in the article? An alternative source for the same information? This is the kind of information that I came here trying to find. Mdfst13 (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a link to the article sounds good. It looks like a pretty thorough and detailed article. What I think we should generally avoid is plucking out like one or two cases and saying these are the "major" "notable" cases for judging her appellate jurisprudence - that's highly, highly subjective and very prone to political manipulation by those who like or don't like the judge. (I think it's fine to link to a specific case that is notable because it was NEWSWORTHY, like the baseball and vince foster cases already in the article that she decided as a district judge. But it's hard to say what were the big cases for understanding her jurisprudence.) So a link to this (and any other articles like this) would be good.128.36.122.110 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - Scotusblog is no ordinary blog. It's cited by law professors and courts. I think they have a whole series on this judge's jurisprudence, and it would be worth linking to each of the posts. Will Beback, who just deleted Mdfst13's link, is an admin, so if he has views on this perhaps he'll post them here? - 96.233.30.146 (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sloan v. Truong & Polgar?

On 5/18/09, "Kayokimura" added this: "Sam Sloan vs. Paul Truong and Susan Polgar, 08-5813-cv, decided May 8, 2009" and called it a "notable case." I was curious, so I looked it up. I could not find any such decision by Judge Sotomayor in Lexis or Westlaw (the two main legal databases). The case has something to do with an election inside a chess federation. The trial court dismissed the complaint and it does not look to me like a particularly interesting or notable case anyway. If Judge Sotomayor has actually decided this case, then maybe "Kayokimura" can provide a link to her decision or a correct citation and also some reason why this is "notable." 128.36.122.110 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Catholic?

Is she Catholic? That would give the SCOTUS a Catholic majority for the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.66.236.56 (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop mixing religion and politics. I'm sure they rule with justice not religion.65.215.94.13 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That would mean that the court would be under undue influence from the vatican. Looks like the Holy See will now decide constitutional law in the US, welcome to the holy roman empire. Nah im just kidding. That would actually be an important point considering the relationship between catholic immigrants and 'established' protestant americans over US history (Know Nothing Party, the KKK, and so forth). Remermber when Al Smith had trouble because of his catholicism, and Kennedy had to meet with pastors in texas to explain he would not be an agent of the papacy. Now, we could possibly have a catholic majority SCOTUS. Historians, note this because it will be an interesting point when discussing culture and religion in 21st century US.--75.187.83.247 (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It already has a Catholic majority (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito). -BDA, 26 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.213.39.45 (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

you have a wierd idea of PROTESTANTS I'm a Evangelical Protestant and I am not White, Aglo-Saxon, and I was a history majoy and the KKK was not Protestant...it is like tring to call Mormons on The Mt Meadows Masacar "Protestants" I am a Latino Evangelical Protestant, I urge you to read what The Roman Catholic Church did in Latin America it was pretty Bad and I'm been kind and if it would not have been for some misionaries many would have a worst life than what they have now. I don't live in Latin America I live here in the States and I'm not a great fan of Sotomayor...Not that it matters here...but you know who is the BEST PEOPLE to go to be Missionaries in the Muslim World???? It is not WHITE ANGLO-SAXONS it is BROWN LATINOS and there is a huge movement with in The Latino Evangelical Church in both U.S. and Latin America of Latinos going as missionaries to The Muslim world. The Catholic Church brought the Christian faith to the Native Americas of Mexico, Central America, and South America. Before the Spanish came, the Maya, Aztec, and Inca people were worshiping demons (who they thought were gods) and also mandated human sacrifice on a large scale. I am a Hispanic Catholic of both Spanish and Native American descent and I give thanks to God Almighty for the Catholic faith brought to the Americas by Spain. Of course there were some mistakes made but in general the Spanish were much more humane than the Protestant English, who killed-off the American Indians and refused to mix their blood with the natives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.72.151 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm down brother. It was an 'over-simplification' of mid 19th century America during the the alrge influx of irish and southern/easrtern europeans. I am a protestant myself (and anglo-saxon), I also have a MA in history. Truman received flak because he appointed a rep to the Vatican (int he 1950s!!) I was just suggesting with look at the court now and how a catholic majority wold not be possible in 1909 (100 years ago). Same thing as a Black president, or a openly gay senator. America is becoming more progressive, thats what I was hinting at. Sorry if i did a bad job. 75.187.83.247 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

TIME.com has said that it is not clear whether she is a practicing Catholic. The sidebar on this main page should not note that she is a "Roman Catholic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.84.152 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This Boston Globe story is currently being used as a source for being raised Catholic. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

She's a 1972 graduate of Cardinal Spellman, a large Catholic high school in the Bronx. Does not prove one way or the other that she's a practicing Roman Catholic, of course, but she did have a Catholic education.74.72.224.4 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

She is a Catholic, and what we do not need on the Court is another Catholic. Why is everyone ignoring this? Between the last four Presidents and now Obama, the Court has been STRIPPED of its essential Protestant character and replaced with SLAVES to Rome! There will be ONE Christian left on the Court after this, ONE! Less than the number of Jews even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.100.3.85 (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hot button political issues

Considering the large amount of views this page is going to get in the following days/weeks (like it or not, when news breaks people come to wikipedia first) does anyone think it appropriate to tastefully add Sotomayor's opinions on hot button political issues. It seems to me that most people really only care about where a prospective judge stands on abortion, gun control, and gay marriage; and generally dont care about the other 'boring stuff.' I think someone who knows where this judge stands (I sure dont) should add it in as this is what people will come here to read. Thanks guys. Peace and Love from Dayton, Ohio --75.187.83.247 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The wonder of Wiki is mentioned on Huffpost

here. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I added it above in a template. thanks. Calendar (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

youtube is not a reliable source

Removed: In reality, she is a far-left judicial activist, as proven by own statements that courts make policy. [5] This maybe the case, but youtube is not a good source. Consider for example: CNN: Who is Sonia Sotomayor? She is a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The liberal-leaning justice was named a district judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and was elevated to her current seat by President Clinton. Supporters say that appointment history, along with what they describe as her moderate-liberal views, will give her some bipartisan backing in the Senate. Conservatives argue Sotomayor has a "hard-left record" and believes that judges should consider experiences of women and minorities in their decision-making. They also described her as a "bully" who "abuses lawyers." Calendar (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Her own words are the most reliable source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.165 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC) the judgement on whether she is liberal or not is your own, so it is original research. Find a source to back up your POV, I gave you one just now. Calendar (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying and calling her a "centrist". She said it. You can't deny it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.165 (talk • contribs)

Please don't say other editors are "lying". you tube is not a reliable source. I am not arguing whether or not she is left, right, up, or down, I am simply stating that your views need to be backed up with reliable sources. Do the homework, your views are in the article, don't they will be removed, that is how wikipedia works. I already provided you with the CNN site. I had no part in framing her as a centralist, or adding those cites. She maybe a hardcore liberal, but you need reliable sources to show this. Calendar (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, fine, I accept this is wikipedia policy, but does it not strike you as ABSURD the idea that a third party describing the views of somebody, as in CNN is more "reliable" source of that person's views than a TAPE RECORDING of that person saying her opinions. Don't you think, then, that--again, I'm not arguing this is not wikipedia policy--that such a policy is STUPID ON ITS FACE? Youtube is merely a suppository of videotapes. The tapes could be from any source, and can generally be viewed by anybody to verify them. By wikipedia's logic, a recording of the 2000 Olympic 100 meter dash is "unreliable" because it was uploaded to youtube, but a DISCUSSION of that race is "reliable" because it was uploaded to the CNN site. Does such a policy make sense?

Amazing how a Republican president nominated, and a Republican-controlled Senate confirmed someone that people here consider to be so extremely liberal. Maybe folks around here should reconsider their definitions. (Hint: George 'Dubious' Bush was not even right-of-center) DOR (HK) (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

New Haven decision

It should be pointed out that she voted for throwing out the promotion test which showed "disparate impact" against blacks (only whites and one Hispanic passed the test), It is hard to imagine her voting to throw out the promotion test if no whites passed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.121.99 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

She voted, as part of a unanimous three judge panel, to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed the City of New Haven to rescind the test. Several white firefighters who had taken the test had sued to stop the city from rescinding the test and its results. However, the City's legal counsel believed that accepting the test and the test results may have violated the "disparate impact" clause of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and have caused them to be sued successfully by non-white firefighters.Alinnyc (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

POV in Federal Judicial Service section

This is obviously POV and needs a re-write: "Falsely labelled byt left-wing groups a political centrist[5][6][10][11][12][13][14][15] by the American Bar Association Journal[10][11] and others,[5][6][12][13][14][15] Sotomayor was nominated on November 27, 1991, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated by John M. Walker, Jr. " GBrady (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Identity politics trumps juris prudence.

Why are you afraid of the truth? (This is what is known as a rhetorical question.)

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.165 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times cited that quote. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be added to the article! John Asfukzenski (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a case of quote mining. If one look at the full text of the speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html), one sees that she's discussing the understanding of discrimination cases that other people who haven't experienced discrimination might not. I don't see the justification of mining one quote out-of-context to try to change its meaning as opposed to taking any other quote. --JamesAM (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Almas Mater

Will someone PLEASE PAY MORE ATTENTION when adding/updating information? For instance idiots who do not read carefully enough into the article or proper sources where it clearly says her undergrad was at Princton; yet the fact box states Cornell. Fact: Princeton. And do not change it again. Thanks.65.215.94.13 (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Several vandals are inserting the incorrect claim that her undergrad degree was from someplace other than Princeton. Perhaps a bulletin board somewhere suggested that as an activity for those with too much time on their hands. We can warn, then block, but these reversions have to be done carefully to avoid removing good-faith edits with which they will be interspersed. Edison (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not vandals, just someone who's confused. Kathleen Sullivan who was widely expected to be named went to Cornell. That's probably why someone prepping that box in haste might have messed up. 130.111.163.179 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about some protection

Just saw a load of vandalism on this page and seeing as her prominence is sure to grow maybe this page should be guarded a bit closer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.155.200 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For now, we should be able to keep reverting the vandalism and warning, then blocking the vandals for repeat offenses. I expect that several admins are watching the article. Edison (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a week by User:Sephiroth BCR . [6]. Edison (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Article semi-protection will most likely be needed until after the nomination process.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

As the foot notes indicate, her AB is from Princeton, not Cornell. 76.230.234.164 (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably just someone who's confused. Kathleen Sullivan who was widely expected to be named went to Cornell. That's probably why someone prepping that box in haste might have messed up. 130.111.163.179 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Less, and more about prior cases

First, the Major League Baseball case is mentioned twice in the article. The second mention is enough. Also, several of the cases discussed later in the article have red links. These cases are sure to be discussed at length in the press and in the Senate hearings, so articles on them would be helpful. Of course, if confirmed, she must recuse herself from any cases that she handled before. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

infobox photo

For me, at least, on a Mac running Safari, her infobox photo is distorted (squished so she looks like an El Greco figure). . The original photo, viewed on its photo page , looks fine. [1] what causes this; [2] Is this a problem for others, and [3] can it be fixed? - Nunh-huh 18:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: this seems to have been fixed when "imagesize = 200px" was added to the infobox. So, nevermind, I guess, unless someone can explain why thumbnailing looks so bad when this parameter is missing. - Nunh-huh 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Bronx Geography

Wiki bio states that her Bronx home, which are the Bronxdale Houses projects, is walking distance from Yankee Stadium. This is not true. Bronxdale Houses are on the Southeast section of the Bronx and Yankee Stadium is closer to its Southwest section. Lostinka (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How far is that, like how many blocks. I walked 20 blocks drunk in DC before. At 2am no less--in january. 75.187.83.247 (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bronxdale Houses are nowhere near Yankee Stadium-- about 4 miles. Not "a short walk," and not really "the South Bronx" either.

Considered by "several presidents, both Republican and Democratic"

"Prior to her selection as President Barack Obama's nominee, Sotomayor had been regarded as a potential Supreme Court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic."

JRtx: The articles cited in support of this do not talk about Sotomayor being considered for SC. They talk about Republican support, they talk about GHWB nominating her to a *different* court, but they do not strictly support the text I quote here. I realize Sotomayor was suggested to GWB by various democrats for consideration for SCOTUS, but I hadn't heard that Bush seriously entertained that suggestion. I would be surprised if he had. I would like to see evidence of this. I will revert back to my wording shortly, if you care to revert again or stop me please point me to the text from the sources you referred to that support this claim. thanks. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I edited the text at Sonia_Sotomayor_Supreme_Court_nomination, so let's figure this out and get it right in both places - thanks. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi ErikHaugen. This isn't worth getting into a big argument about, but the cited source (ABA Journal) reads as follows: "A political centrist, the Bronx-born Sotomayor has been re­garded as a potential high court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democrat." The "high court" is the Supreme Court. I don't know if the source is referring to GWB or not - could be that GHWB regarded her as a potential future SCt nominee - but the source certainly supports the proposition, "Sotomayor had been regarded as a potential Supreme Court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic," which is almost an exact quote. If another source says this is false then the statement should obviously be qualified.JRtx (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

JRtx - I certainly don't want to get into an argument, I just want this article to be factual. When I read that article, I had assumed that it was talking about other "high" courts, like the one she is currently on, and not the SC, but perhaps you are right. If so, I am dying to know which rep. president considered her! GHWB presumably only nominated her to the district court because of Moynihan, not because Bush had high hopes for her career. I know of no evidence that GWB gave her a moment's notice after her referral by democrats, and to think that he did kind of defies imagination. No, I'm giving the ABA Journal article the benefit of the doubt - "high court" must include other courts, such as the one she is on now. Further evidence is to consider which *democrat* president the article could be talking about - it isn't Obama because he wasn't pres yet when the article was written. Clinton considered her for the 2nd. circuit court of appeals - a very high court indeed. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any inside info about whether this article is correct about what it says. But I am 100% certain that the phrase "high court," in the U.S. context, only ever refers to the U.S. Supreme Court, not to other important courts. See Supreme court. What "high court" means is the supreme court of a jurisdiction. Anyway, if some other sources say this is false, then probably the statement should get a qualification or whatever. JRtx (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

JRtx - ok, let's try to make sense of this. Clearly it was not GHWB: <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Why-did-George-HW-Bush-pick-Sotomayor-for-the-courts-46094732.html> - '"She was not our first choice," recalls a third Bush I official, "but she was someone who was, if we were going to get a nominee confirmed to that position -- essentially someone we had to go with."' And for O'Connor's replacement, I don't think anyone seriously thinks Bush considered Sotomayor or the other recommendations for a minute. She was never on any list published by GWB or leaked by anyone, was she? Hopefully we can agree that it wasn't Reagan. I have a problem with this seemingly obviously false claim standing on Wikipedia when it is only backed up by a sloppily worded article. Can we find any other evidence that *any* president, other than Obama, has ever indicated in the slightest that Sotomayor might be on the SC? ErikHaugen (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - this is absurd. The fact that she may have been "considered" in some entirely formalistic and meaningless manner as a gesture to the Democrats that recomended her, and some article offhandily dropped a misleading comment about this, does not justify having such a deceptive line in the begining part of this article. Can we use a little common sense? Of course GWB didn't consider her in any meaningful manner, just look at the staunch conservatives he apointed to the court. And as far as any other Republican president considering her - no way. She would have been way too young and inexperienced for this to be a likely scenario, remember, her first appointment to a trial bench was in the early 90s. Perhaps she was considered by Clinton, but not a republican. I really wonder at the self-deception people are trying to engage in, portraying her as a moderate jurist that republicans should be happy about. OF COURSE she is a liberal - Obama is a liberal, he was elected on such a platform, and he is entitled in our democratic system to put forward a liberal SCOTUS nominee. Why admitting that should be regarded as a black mark, and poeple should seize on clumsily worded sources to make absurd claims to disguise the fact that Obama nominated a candidate who is politically in line with him, I have no idea. Does anyone here really expect her not to carry on Souter's role in the 4 member liberal justice camp? Does anyone think she would have survived Obama's vetting process if her views were not such? If she indeed would have been the kind of jurist GWB would have seriously considered? JaxElls (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]

We could say "According to XXX, she was considered..." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) contribs) 04:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what is best. On the one hand, this is a pretty reliable source. But on the other hand, you all make a very good case that the statement itself is just not that likely-sounding, and so we should not just state it as fact without more support. I agree. (I suspect that it was Bush 41 who the source is talking about, not Bush 43, but it's hard to tell.) Maybe it's best to do what talk said, and/or also restate it in more general terms: that as a judge, prior to being nominated by Obama, she had been considered for elevation to higher courts by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic. That way, if it was just sloppy wording on the ABA Journal's part, we are not taking that wording and making it more precise than it really is. JRtx (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sotomayor had been regarded by the Journal of the American Bar Association as a potential Supreme Court nominee by several presidents" - now it just sounds silly. It kind of sounds like the ABA is involved in the nomination process or something. Well, I suppose it isn't completely inaccurate about anything important, so I will leave this alone. thanks. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead

See WP:Lead, it should summarize the whole article. It wasn't even as big as it should have been. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Old cites

I made this point earlier, but noone seems to be discussing it. I believe the cites for the judgment that she is a "centrist" that are from the 90s should be deleted. These judgments were made without the benefit of the past over 10 years of her judicial record, and so aren't judgments about her current judicial record at all - rather they are outdated. This is especially true in that they were formed exclusivly based on her record as a trial judge - where cases are more fact-based and give comparitivly less insight into jurisprudential views. There are plenty of more recent ones already cited, from the past couple of years - the plethora of ancient obsolete judgments seems only to be included to create a giant string of cites after the proposition that she is a centrist, so as to give the appearance of it being unassailable. We are dealing with a Jurist with nearly 20 years experience. Judgments based only on her first few years are simply not any support at all for descriptions of her judicial record. But I didn't want to remove them myself, so I turn the issue over to discussion. JaxElls (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's controversial, so we should use the newest and highest quality sources that we can get our hands on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like three of the citations currently shown are from 2009, and one is from 2008. Some others are older, but is anybody suggesting that she has shifted dramatically to the left in that time? Unless some sources are saying that, I'm not sure I see a big problem with some of the sources -- if high quality -- being older. 130.132.120.30 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that we have some recent judgments to that effect weighs against including the older ones. Besides, its not that "she has shifted to the left" - its that at the time of those older judgments, she really had no record at all to shift one way or the other. Those earlier judgments were made on almost no basis at all, compared to the judicial record available now. She wasn't even a trial judge until 1992 - and we've got sources from '92 and '95 up there? Not to menotion she didn't really start accumulating a record to make these kinds of judgments about until she became an appeals court judge in '98. As I said, trial courts deal with many fact intensive decisions, rather than the many arguments of legal jurisprudence that an appelate judge deals with. The simple truth is, the cited sourced do not support the statement they are cited for at all. The statement is a judgment synthenizing her entire judicial record and assigning a desriptive term. Judgments that were made about the first couple of years of her record, are nothing more than judgments about her early career, not about her current record as a judge. JaxElls (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about someone who can edit semi-protected pages (I can't, never edited before) go ahead and remove any of the cites for her being a "centrist" (or any other sweeping judgment for that matter) that are from before she was made an appeals court judge in '98. I'd really prefer removing all but the last few years, but to avoid getting too aggressive, lets just remove all those 92, 95, etc statements, as they really have no purpose. Can someone take care of this?

JaxElls (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Baseball ruling

Currently it's mentioned in 3 or 4 separate places in the article; these should be consolidated... AnonMoos (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominee

I removed the 'nominee' listing for her in the infobox. This seems WAY TOO PRESUMPTUOUS and HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE. She hasn't been confirmed yet, and we should NOT list "nominees" for something in the infobox. We should only list official titles for actual positions that these people hold. Yes, the article should certainly say something about her being the nominee to fill Justice Souter's position, but putting that in the infobox is taking a gigantic leap way too far. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo? File:Sonia Sotomayor.jpg

The current photo in the infobox is absolutely horrible! I know we preferably want to use free images on here, but I am sure that we can find a photo of her, I dunno, ACTUALLY LOOKING INTO THE CAMERA, possibly?!?! Good grief! This image of her does her no justice whatsoever! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP is justly famous for its awful photos of BLPs, because the rules for use are so restrictive. I've found a 2004 group photo that I've added to the article, but it won't do for the top photo. But if she gets confirmed there will be a formal Supreme Court portrait done of her, and the problem will solve itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Article mistakes in caselaw summaries

We should start discussing how to improve the case summaries - Here's a mistake - the article's discussion of In Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp.[57], keeps referring to Bivens as a law. "A law" implies something like a statute. Bivens is case law, not a statute. Its is a case that found an implied right of action within the constitution against agents of the federal government for violation of constitutional rights. It should thus be reffered to as "case law", and to be clear, it should not be called Bivens, but rather should be called "a Bivens action" or something like that. Bivens in just an abbrevated case name, and so the word "action" or "cause of action" should follow it. Also, the whole description is filed under Antitrust (???) and reads very oddly - I'm a law school grad and I'm really not sure what its trying to say. Should be cleaned up by someone familar with that case. JaxElls (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a stab at it. Most of us here don't have any legal training. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, but unfrotunetly my lack of previous edits keeps me from editing semi-protected pages like this one. Looks like someone did a pretty good job cleaning it up in the meantime - the only further change I'd suggest, is referring to it as an "established Supreme Court Doctrine" makes it sound a bit odd, like its some kind of power-grab the court did. I'd just refer to it as "the implied right to bring a cause of action for violations of constitutional rights by agents of the Federal Government." Also, from what I can tell it sounds like her ruling was analagous to prior supreme court precedent under the statutory state version of Bivens - Section 1983. Someone who has access to her opinion might want to check if this was part of her reasoning, and include a quick statement to that effect if it was. As it currently stands, it might read like she was being more of a "judicial activist" than she really was - as my guess is she was just mirroring the analogous supreme court caselaw dealing with private entities intertwined with state actors. But again, without access to the case, I can't tell one way or another. JaxElls (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor quotes published in The New York Times

I created a new section called "Sotomayor's statements on her judicial philosophy," with this text:

"In 2001 at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, Sotomayor stated, "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." At the same event, she also stated, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." In 2005, she said that "...Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know."

However, someone erased the section. In the comment section, they claimed that the quotes were "right wing anti-sotomayor talking points." Even if that claim is true, that does not take away their relevancy. The fact that The New York Times chose to publish these quotes is very relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They would be relevant under a larger and more holistic "judicial philosophy" section, but a whole section for a single quote isn't appropriate and constitutes an extremely narrow representation of her judicial philosophy. NPOV cuts both ways: adequate representation is necessary from all sides to give a clearer picture of her judicial philosophy; hell, we're not even at the confirmation hearings yet. Setting the section by itself in such a manner is a WP:UNDUE problem. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the section had three quotes, not one. Secondly, those were the quotes that have been published in the mainstream media during the time when she was first cited as a possible nominee. Third, the article should reflect the sources, which is exactly what I did. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the expand tag to the section. If anyone finds any relevant quotes published by a reliable source, especially if the source is recent enough to encompass when she was first cited as a possible nominee, please add it to the section. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

These quotes, along with some that have been added since, are more than a bit problematic on BLP grounds, since they're entirely missing context. The media doesn't have a neutrality policy - but we do. If we're going to mention these soundbites, we need to put them in the context she actually said them in at the time. Rebecca (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This new section by Grundle2600 is a major WP:BLP violation, as well as violating WP:UNDUE. If you listen to the Republican talking points about Sotomayor over the past 24 hours, as I have been doing, from organizations who openly say they oppose her nomination/confirmation, these are precisely the same out-of-context quotes that you hear over and over from those sources. Just because a mainstream media source ran the same quotes (probably in the context of talking about her "controversial statements" and certainly not in the context of exploring her "jurisprudence"/"judicial philosophy") does not mean that it is even remotely accurate for us to run those same quotes and title the section "judicial philosophy"! That is way beyond the pale. For starters, Sotomayor herself did not say that any of these quotes were descriptions of anything to do with her "judicial philosophy." They are just things she said, in different contexts, that her opponents have tried to spin as "judicial philosophy." So my conclusion is that Rebecca is right and the only legitimate way to use these quotes would be to give them way more context and show what she was talking about. The section as it stands should be cut immediately in my view. A lot of people are viewing this page and it is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a bunch of partisan talking points. - 130.132.117.20 (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I cited The New York Times and The Washington Post for those quotes, and that meets the test of verifiability. It's a fact, not an opinion, that she said those quotes, so that meets the test of NPOV. The quotes are being cited in many other sources, so that makes them notable. Both of the newspapers that I cited endorsed Obama for President, so they are not right-wing propaganda. If you think the section should be expanded with more context, then please do so. But you can't make the section better by erasing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you are right that these quotes are notable, they are notable for being controversial statements. To say these particular quotes constitute her 'judicial philosophy' is simply to adopt a highly contentions, political viewpoint and make it the center of the article. JRtx (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on my reading of WP:BLP, these quotes should not be included in a way that makes it seem like they are representative of her judicial philosophy. They could be included as part of a more comprehensive discussion of her views, but the quotes in isolation are not good enough for the very high standard set out by WP:BLP.66.31.20.168 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I will change the section title to "controversial quotes." Grundle2600 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial quotes" isn't really good enough either. An "opposition to the nomination" section might be more appropriate, and with it, we can quote Sotomayor in context - so we can source them as talking points for her critics, and at the same time, ensure that we're quoting what she actually said. Rebecca (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what the section is called. And you can feel free to add any information about context that you want. I just want the quotes to be included. If a section of an article isn't so good, then it should be fixed, not erased. If lots of people add to the section, all the better! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination article

It's clear that these quotes are relevant as a part of the arguments against confirming Sotomayor, but I don't think these quotes merit a full section in her main biography, except maybe in the future as part of a well-developed "judicial philosophy" section. I think this material should be moved to the nomination article.--ragesoss (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They are only controversial in the context of the nomination fight. Gamaliel (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are no more or less controversial than the section on her past rulings. (In the name of full disclosure, I created both sections.) I actually think the two articles should be merged. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be better to have them worked somehow into the linked article on her nomination. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Centrist" vs. "Liberal"

I have added a new sentence in the Federal Judicial Service section about how some reputable sources consider her to have liberal inclinations. I'm not trying to pick an ideological fight here. I just thought it would be wise to include the fact that many news organizations and legal scholars do actually identify her as a liberal, even if a moderate one. The cited sources are this article from the Associated Press, this article from the Wall Street Journal, and this article from Time. All explicitly identify her as a liberal. Jeffrey Toobin on CNN also described her as a moderate liberal.UberCryxic (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that all points of view should be included. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bronxdale Project, where Sonia Sotomayor grew up in NOT in the South Bronx nor is it walking distance from Yankee Staduim.

I'm tired of the media and other information websites listing the Bronxdale Projects, where Sonia Sotomayor grew up, as being located in the South Bronx. That is factually NOT TRUE. Check any NYC Map/Bronx and you'll see. The Bronxdale Projects are in the East section of the Bronx. Furthermore, Yankee Staduim is located in the West side of the Bronx, a lenghty car drive away from the East section of the Bronx. Yankee Stadium is NOT a short walk from the Bronxdale Projects. Wikipedia, please correct your article page on Sonia Sotomayor to reflect the above statements. Thank you Jomacue (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Joanne Cuevas

I don't know anything about this, except that "walking distance" is a very subjective term. I often enjoy five mile walks when the weather is nice, but some able bodied people think they need to drive to get somewhere that's just a few blocks away. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There were two refs for that statement; I checked them both and removed one that didn't actually state that (didn't contradict it either). The remaining one does, indeed say that. However, it also calls her parents "immigrants" so I find it less than totally convincing. Let's work on finding cites in reliable sources that address it.  Frank  |  talk  19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Merge tags have been added to this and Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination. I don't think this is appropriate; there is way too much information that would have to be cut from the nomination article, especially as it develops over the next few months. The nomination is notable, and distinct enough from her biography, to merit its own article (and we have similar articles on other nominations), and putting all the nomination information here would be undue weight on the recent news.--ragesoss (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, it looks like the tags were added specifically for the quotes section.--ragesoss (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)