Sex

'To the Best of My Knowledge, a Man Has Never Asked'

|

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor explains why her membership in the Belizean Grove, a female version of the Bohemian Grove, does not violate the Judicial Code of Conduct, which says judges should avoid "membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin":

I am a member of the Belizean Grove, a private organization of female professionals from the profit, nonprofit and social sectors. The organization does not invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex. Men are involved in its activities—they participate in trips, host events and speak at functions—but to the best of my knowledge, a man has never asked to be considered for membership.

It is also my understanding that all interested individuals are duly considered by the membership committee. For these reasons, I do not believe that my membership in the Belizean Grove violates the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Since the code defines invidious discrimination as excluding otherwise qualified people based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin, I guess Sotomayor feels she has to maintain this pose. But her lawyerly evasiveness reflects worse on her than her decision to whoop it up like Henry Kissinger and David Gergen.

NEXT: Hey, Guess Whose Son Is Begging for an $80 Million Taxpayer Handout for His Pro Sports Franchises?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why are there no Caucasian-American waiters at Chinese restaurants?

    I smell a lawsuit!!

  2. “Since the code defines invidious discrimination as excluding otherwise qualified people based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin,”

    “OTHERWISE QUALIFIED”

    Since power/influence/wealth/gender are the qualifications, there’s no conflict, I think…
    After all, power/influence/wealth are really kind of intangible; Sotomayor was a member BEFORE her nomination to the SC, so it shows a kind of “yeah whatever” attitude to how much those qualifications matter, making the sole REAL qualification gender.

    Also, wouldn’t marriage count, as her marriage (if she’s married) could, in the US of A (for now) be ONLY to a male? That’s a sexually discriminatory invitational social arrangement, I think… :p

    –MANIAC

  3. You silly people. The Code prohibits only “invidious” discrimination. Women and People of Color are genetically incapable of invidious discrimination, which can be engaged in only by white males.

    It is also my understanding that all interested individuals are duly considered by the membership committee.

    Yeah. They are duly considered, and if they are men, they are duly rejected.

    She’ll fit right in at the Parsin’ President’s cocktail parties, that’s for sure.

  4. Don’t all churches exclude people on the basis of religion?

  5. good. disqualify her and let Obama nominate someone who doesn’t show deference to the government’s authority and hasn’t been a prosecutor.

    HA!HA!HA!

    I kill me.

  6. meh. this is weak sauce. If she’s not on the membership committee, it’s not a dodge for her to say “to the best of my knowledge.”

  7. Check out their “Mission Statement” to see why a man has never asked. Hmm, I wonder if they would have duly considered Ayn Rand?

  8. “Don’t all churches exclude people on the basis of religion?”

    Nope.

  9. Oh Sonia, you’re such a wise Latina.

  10. Check out their “Mission Statement” to see why a man has never asked.

    Also, check out a photo of Sonia Sotomayor for additional reasons.

  11. Is it Judge Sotomayor’s fault than no man has been wise enough to be admitted to this organization?

  12. Mr. DNA – I think it is best explained by nudes of the judge.

  13. Don’t all churches exclude people on the basis of religion?

    Not if they have money. Then they try to recruit ’em.

  14. “Since power/influence/wealth/gender are the qualifications, there’s no conflict, I think…”

    So, membership in the KKK would be fine? After all, no one who is otherwise qualified is excluded on the basis of race, what with race (presumably) being an explicit qualification for joining. Wouldn’t such reasoning sort of undercut the point entirely?

  15. I discussed this four days ago, and even then I felt bad because others had discussed it a week before. Even when I’m a week late to a story, Reason is even later.

    From our “Things Reason is Too Wimpy To Tell You” department, here’s my Sonia Sotomayor coverage. If anyone really wants to block her, note what I’m stressing. The way to block her is to turn public opinion against her; 55% don’t yet have an opinion of her, meaning that smart opponents can fill that gap. Unfortunately, aside from me, she doesn’t have any smart opponents.

    P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs delivered through sockpuppets, thereby conceding my points and showing the cowardly, childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians. Remember: you’re never anonymous on the internet. Write everything like it’s going to be the #1 search result for your real name in Google.

  16. StandardDisclaimer, Bits of Wisdom Edition!

  17. Why are there no Caucasian-American waiters at Chinese restaurants?

    Isn’t that why PF Changs was invented?

  18. …but to the best of my knowledge …

    Yep. She’s a lawyer.

  19. “StandardDisclaimer, Bits of Wisdom Edition!”

    LOL!

  20. I CALL NATTERING POPINJAY!

  21. LoneWacko looked at his standard declaimer and paused. What was it missing? Then it hit him like a bad burrito especial would hit his intestines.

    A vague threat. Perfect. That was exactly what his disclaimer needed. He hastened to add it to his current posting, knowing that this would be the disclaimer of all disclaimers.

  22. Write everything like it’s going to be the #1 search result for your real name in Google.

    Sage advice from LoneWacko.

    A Google search of LW’s real name brings up pages about hockey players and Facebook veeps, but a search of LoneWacko plus his real name gets this as the #1 result.

    ps – Shut The Fuck Up, LoneWacko.

  23. Can you belong to the Catholic Church, since they don’t allow women priests? How about the Knights of Columbus?

  24. I wonder if they would have duly considered Ayn Rand?

    She’d never belong to a club that would have her as a member.

  25. Here’s some posts on Dave Weigel, and here’s something David Weigel doesn’t want you to see. He posted about me but then didn’t have the guts to approve a reply I left.

  26. “Mr. DNA – I think it is best explained by nudes of the judge.”

    Hey, now, I’d tap that. Of course, I’ll tap anything without male packaging.

  27. Can you belong to the Catholic Church, since they don’t allow women priests? How about the Knights of Columbus?

    Also, what’s really entertaining about this kerfuffle from my point of view is that conservative Libertarians, God bless ’em, are usually the ones harping on private organizations being about to exclude anyone for any reason they want.

  28. and by “about” I mean “allowed”.

    Preview, damnit!

  29. more cowbell, less lonewacker

  30. “Write everything like it’s going to be the #1 search result for your real name in Google.”

    So how are you doing with respect to that goal?

  31. Elemenope,

    I think the distinction here is the H emblazoned on her forehead. I’d be more impressed if she said, “So I’m a member–sue me.”

  32. Here’s some posts on Dave Weigel, and here’s something David Weigel doesn’t want you to see. He posted about me but then didn’t have the guts to approve a reply I left.

    I have to say, it kind of made me sick the way he blatantly used Reason to shill for Obama all throughout the election, and then skedaddled about ten seconds or so after the election was over.

  33. So how are you doing with respect to that goal?

    LoneWacko’s legacy shall be that noobs on the internet will seek him out by googling him, and his first search result will be his patented “please don’t make fun of me on the Internet, I’m very sensitive” disclaimer. He will charge five cents per use and become disgustingly wealthy on the royalties, but will find the the money fails to fill the void in his soul.

  34. I’d be more impressed if she said, “So I’m a member–sue me.”

    Me too.

  35. the relevant canon of judicial ethics (in particular, note the reference to ‘organization[s] . . . dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or . . . private organization[s] whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited.’

    ‘Canon 2C. Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s impartiality is impaired. Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. See New York State Club Ass’n. Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988); Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). Other relevant factors include the size and nature of the organization and the diversity of persons in the locale who might reasonably be considered potential members. Thus the mere absence of diverse membership does not by itself demonstrate a violation unless reasonable persons with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances would expect that the membership would be diverse in the absence of invidious discrimination. Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.

    ‘Although Canon 2C relates only to membership in organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin, a judge’s membership in an organization that engages in any invidiously discriminatory membership practices prohibited by applicable law violates Canons 2 and 2A and gives the appearance of impropriety. In addition, it would be a violation of Canons 2 and 2A for a judge to arrange a meeting at a club that the judge knows practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin in its membership or other policies, or for the judge to use such a club regularly. Moreover, public manifestation by a judge of the judge’s knowing approval of invidious discrimination on any basis gives the appearance of impropriety under Canon 2 and diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Canon 2A.

    ‘When a judge determines that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination that would preclude membership under Canon 2C or under Canons 2 and 2A, the judge is permitted, in lieu of resigning, to make immediate and continuous efforts to have the organization discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices. If the organization fails to discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices as promptly as possible (and in all events within two years of the judge’s first learning of the practices), the judge should resign immediately from the organization.’

  36. Well, Jacob, why don’t you do some journamalisming and apply for membership?

  37. I’m going to bet there are more balls in the rooms of those meetings than any NFL stadium during a game.

    If you have to have tits at VMI and in Skull and Bones why the hell can’t someone sue to get a cock in there?

  38. ‘When a judge determines that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination that would preclude membership under Canon 2C or under Canons 2 and 2A, the judge is permitted, in lieu of resigning, to make immediate and continuous efforts to have the organization discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices. If the organization fails to discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices as promptly as possible (and in all events within two years of the judge’s first learning of the practices), the judge should resign immediately from the organization.’

    I like this section. “If you don’t want to quit, try to reform the organization first, instead.”

  39. And not a rubber cock.

  40. So when can we admit that Sotomayer has no business being on the Supreme Court? The fact is she would never have gotten into a top law school without affirmative action (as she admitted) and a compelling personal story. She doesn’t write well at all, as has been pointed out here. She’s never written an opinion showing any hint of the kind of intellectual grasp of complex legal issues expected of a justice.

    I think the painfully obvious conclusion that nobody can say is that she simply isn’t that smart. If she’s a white male of the same intelligence she’s probably a middle manager somewhere who never has to write anything more difficult than a business memo now and then. And yet here she is on the brink of writing legal opinions on constitutional matters that will set precedents lasting generations… If she was white and Obama was a Republican, this would be Harriet Myers all over again.

  41. If we’re going to have a Lefty Justice, I’d prefer a dumb one. She’s more likely to accidentally vote correctly.

  42. She’ll vote as instructed. I rather suspect she is the leftish equivalent of Harriet Miers.

    It’s great that the quality of appointees seems to be getting steadily worse, regardless of the party in power. Meh.

  43. Okay, I’ve been avoiding passing judgement on her, but Sotomayor just is starting to seem more and more like a classic died-in-the-wool left-liberal. Pretty much a straight-out product of the academic establishment, toes the line on every issue, and never thinks for herself. I haven’t seen any significant area where she diverges from the liberal-Democratic mainstream.

  44. I haven’t seen any significant area where she diverges from the liberal-Democratic mainstream.

    She ruled that NYPD cops are free to be racist scumbags on their own time.

    That doesn’t sound very “left-liberal” to me.

  45. She doesn’t write well at all, as has been pointed out here. She’s never written an opinion showing any hint of the kind of intellectual grasp of complex legal issues expected of a justice.

    I think the painfully obvious conclusion that nobody can say is that she simply isn’t that smart. If she’s a white male of the same intelligence she’s probably a middle manager somewhere who never has to write anything more difficult than a business memo now and then.

    Exactly. She’s not really an intellectual thinker. She’s just a run-of-the-mill camp follower.

  46. Elemenope,

    Not old school left-liberal. But it is consistent with the government-is-always-right mentality we see increasingly in justices these days.

    I’m getting that hemmed in feeling. Janice Rogers Brown is a black woman–can’t Obama appoint her instead? Please?

  47. She ruled that NYPD cops are free to be racist scumbags on their own time.

    That doesn’t sound very “left-liberal” to me.

    I don’t know about that. It would probably be pretty radical and controversial to rule otherwise, which would be a career risk. Generally, people climbing the bureaucratic ladder hew close to the mainstream, while remaining strictly loyal to their party leaders.

  48. I don’t have a problem with a supreme court justice exercising their right of free association. I would have a problem with her denying that right to some litigant in her court.

    The reason to reject Sotomayor is her utter contempt for the rights of private property owners.

    -jcr

  49. But it is consistent with the government-is-always-right mentality we see increasingly in justices these days.

    In what way is telling the NYPD to go fuck itself for trying to fire someone consistent with “the-government-is-always-right”? Methinks you have your case wires crossed.

  50. I would have a problem with her denying that right to some litigant in her court.

    My question is, what would lead you to believe that she would? Has she ruled in such a way in the past?

  51. I look forward to Scalia making her look like a shaved chimpette in one of his concurrences or dissents. I don’t always agree with the man, but he can deliver a straight up verbal beat down with no turd left unkicked or dipshit left unidentified. I have a feeling she will have a target on her forehead for a long time.

  52. what would lead you to believe that she would?

    Her royal screwing of the firefighters in connecticut doesn’t give me any confidence in her sense of fairness. So, if you and I start a golf club and we don’t want to let Krugman or Michael Moore join, I wouldn’t count on Sotomayor to uphold our right to not invite pinko rat bastards to come and bitch about us spending money on recreation instead of funding PETA.

    -jcr

  53. I don’t want to see her on SCOTUS because the more I hear about her, the more she seems to defend the accumulation of power to the government, not because I think she’s stupid.

    They don’t give summa cum laude on the degree by affirmative action.

  54. Her royal screwing of the firefighters in connecticut…

    The firefighters case was horrifically complicated by both the law and the facts. Please don’t tell me you’re trying to draw something coherent about her jurisprudence out of that case.

  55. Why are we still arguing as if her nomination had anything to do with her qualifications as a judicial paragon?

  56. Why are we still arguing as if her nomination had anything to do with her qualifications as a judicial paragon?

    Winner winner, chicken dinner.

  57. LMNOP
    You would make this far easier and more comfortable on everyone if you would just go along and assume that in the firefighters case the legal issue was clear but that Sotomayor, with her longtime companion Satan, decided to make this another step in her lifelong plan to destroy white males. C’mon! First you ask us to apply a little common sense and nuance in evaluating Holmes, and now Sotomayor. What’s next, Hitler?

  58. “Why are we still arguing as if her nomination had anything to do with her qualifications as a judicial paragon?”

    Do you think any President has asked for the best legal mind in the nation for his nominee? Do you think they looked at people from the opposing party? Of course not. Every nomination has been qualified by something.

    Opposition from the right is getting really tiresome. If anyone should be pissed, it should be us liberals. You guys are getting off lucky, Obama could have nominated a liberal giant to kick your asses judicially like Warren, Black and Brennan did for decades. He didn’t. Celebrate dudes.

  59. Elemenope,

    Nah, I was just issuing can responses. It’s easier than reading everything around here.

  60. You would make this far easier and more comfortable on everyone if you would just go along and assume that in the firefighters case the legal issue was clear but that Sotomayor, with her longtime companion Satan, decided to make this another step in her lifelong plan to destroy white males.

    Heaven knows I *hope* I have never given the impression my goal is ever to make people more comfortable.

    If I have, I deeply apologize for deceiving you all. 😉

  61. Nah, I was just issuing can responses. It’s easier than reading everything around here.

    LOL. That’s certainly true. These threads can be tiring.

  62. Obama could have nominated a liberal giant to kick your asses judicially like Warren, Black and Brennan did for decades. He didn’t. Celebrate dudes.

    Valid point. It is less of a threat to have a common foot soldier filling the seat than an intellectual heavyweight. A barely competent, party-line lightweight is probably the best we could hope for.

  63. Elemenope,

    In theory, I’m supposed to be using my brain for my company, to which I pay fealty as a wage serf.

  64. MNG,

    Which is why I think Obama is a failure from the left side of the aisle, too. A great liberal president would’ve appointed a great liberal justice. A heavy duty legal scholar can overcome politics to some extent and use his/her genius to persuade justices to come over to his/her side. Mediocrities, on the other hand, are the ones who get persuaded. Or merely cast about in inane irrelevance.

  65. They don’t give summa cum laude on the degree by affirmative action.

    In history?? Are you sure? No offense to history majors, but it doesn’t exactly take a stunning intellect to do well in history to begin with. That’s especially true if what you’re writing is lot of minority-flavored PC stuff your profs love.

    Sorry but no matter how you want to break it down, If it were possible to test, I’d be willing to bet any amount that she has the lowest IQ of anyone on the court right now and lowest of any nominee not named Harriet Myers (and it may well be lower than hers too. I don’t know how Harriet did on the LSATs or SATs).

    And look, if you don’t care about IQ fine, I don’t know for sure how much it matters in the long run. But the same people who went nuts over Harriet Myers for not being up to the intellectual standard of a Supreme Court Justice can’t now say it doesn’t matter. That is unless the only qualification they care about is a few years on an appeals court without distinction. If they want to argue that is the sole measure of qualification, because that’s all she has over Myers, go for it, but good luck with that.

  66. I’m calling bullshit on LMNOP. If the New Haven case was so complicated and nuanced, she should have spent time explaining the nuances in her decision. Rather than, say, blowing off the serious legal issues presented in a few, insubstantial paragraphs.

  67. actually, I do care about IQ, but we don’t know what hers is. we also know that the correlation coefficient between IQ and the SAT is less than 1.0.

    slate.com has an analysis of how her decision in the Ricci case was dictated by stare decisis from discrimination cases written by conservatives, including Scalia. check it out.

  68. “Or merely cast about in inane irrelevance.”

    I don’t see her as having the “ummph” to write a lot of seperate lone dissents…Maybe that’s just me…

    My thing: she is not deserving of the hate she gets from the right, nor the praise from the left…Maybe she will prove me wrong. If one were writing when Thomas was nominated, would one predict he’d be such a force on the SCOTUS bench? Who knows, but at present, she’s nothing to get excited about, and that goes for liberals as well as conservatives and libertarians…

  69. well, if she’s nothing to get excited about, why aren’t liberals opposing her nomination?

  70. In history?? Are you sure? No offense to history majors, but it doesn’t exactly take a stunning intellect to do well in history to begin with. That’s especially true if what you’re writing is lot of minority-flavored PC stuff your profs love.

    In Princeton in the 1970’s? You might have a point if it were Berkeley in the ’90s, but it wasn’t.

  71. TAO
    It’s a common thing, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

    I worked for Jerry Brown back in 92. I hated Bill Clinton with a passion as a phony half-assed “Democrat.” But, I felt, he was better than Bush I…Then, when the over the top attacks started to roll in from Falwell, Robertson, Limbaugh, etc., all the windbags I hated, I felt some need to defend the fucker…This happened with liberals on a mass scale…Clinton used this to his advantage: when liberals were mad at him he basically said “hey, it’s either me or Gingrich!”

    Same thing here. When it’s Limbaugh or Tancredo attacking the lady, the instinct is “must be something right about her!”

    Of course, we should resist that. Limbaugh and Tancredo are just royal idiots who would attack any Dem nominee with gusto…

  72. But TAO, since you lean right for many reasons, let me ask you the question you didn’t ponder: why are conservatives opposing her so strongly?

    They all agree she is average, in fact it is the basis of their attacks. As I’ve stated, it’s good for them to have an average judge rather than a giant. So, as a conservative, what’s up with that?

  73. first of all, again, I’m not a conservative. Barring insanity or a Ron Paul nomination, I’ll probs never vote for an R again.

    secondly, what else has the Republican party got to do with its time? Oppose TARP? Ahh, that was a Bush program. Oppose the stimulus? It’s already signed and done.

  74. “If the New Haven case was so complicated and nuanced, she should have spent time explaining the nuances in her decision. Rather than, say, blowing off the serious legal issues presented in a few, insubstantial paragraphs.”

    Oh Lord, it’s worse. Her defenders can argue that it was so UNCOMPLICATED that her ruling did not need a lot of backing…That’s the point from the slate thing, that there was a lot of precedent behind it…

    Look, I’m no expert on discrimination law. But I have heard of things being challenged on the grounds that they have a “disparate impact.” I seem to recall situations in which measures that yielded no protected minority candidates for hire/promotion/whatever are highly challengable…So you can see where New Haven was in a tough position, given the law, which you, and for the record I, don’t agree with…I’m sure a conservative like you would advocate that an appellate judge should simply “apply the law” rather than indulge her sympathies for someone like Ricci?

  75. TAO
    Between you and me, you are a conservative, you should really just embrace it…

    But to the point, to ask why liberals aren’t opposed is to bring up the question, why are conservatives so hot and bothered? The reason why liberals should be opposed is the same as to why conservatives should not be so upset…

    What impresses me more and more about her is how utterly unremarkable she seems…Maybe that is a function of every major Democratic Appellate Court judge at the federal level having to have survived the GOP Congress years???

  76. MNG – I doubt it. you might (or might not) be aware, but there is little acrimony either way about District and Appellate nominees. Congress is so unaware of what goes on below the Supreme Court, it would boggle your mind.

    well, conservatives being conservatives, they’re just playing on the team, I guess. So too it could be said about liberals and this nomination.

  77. I’m sorry, but for conservative Scalia-lovers to bitch about the Ricci case is too much for me. In part, they point to Ricci’s hardships and hardwork, in other words, empathy. Secondly, certainly the “original intent” or “understanding” of the 14th by those that passed it, the same Congresses that passed measures under Reconstruction aimed at helping blacks exclusively, was not to the effect of barring race based preferential government treatment.

    I am opposed to such preferences, but of course I’m not a conservative “originalist” (whatever the fuckers “expected” they WROTE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW)….

  78. “Between you and me, you are a conservative, you should really just embrace it…”

    Let me retract that and apologize. While you certainly lean right, I’ve seen you take it to ultra-rightist John lately, and no conservative opposes the WOD or the Iraq War as you do.

  79. TAO
    I think Clinton’s whole thing was that he wasn’t going to fuck with the GOP senate too much. Ginsburg and Breyer were certainly not liberal giants, and in fact both were “OK” with the Chamber of Commerce types, and so they did not get much of a fight…

    Of course, the Dems were pretty belligerent on Appellate Court nominees under Bush, but only on a few…

    Either way, if Clinton would have nominated fire-breathers I think he would have got some opposition, which he did not have the spine to encounter…I really believe Hatch when he says they came to agreements over this stuff…

  80. MNG – of course, if you’re going to appeal to the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, you should also note that forced integration was not their intent, either. After all, the Congress at the time segregated its observation gallery. So, the decision in Brown didn’t really rely on “equal protection”.

  81. At the least it is hard to argue they were opposed to programs to help just some or one race. They clearly were not…

    Brown rests on the ground that segregation is 1. inherently and 2. as an empirical matter at the time unequal. I think the first probably not so, the second though was obviously true…

    Of course, I don’t give a shit what the “original expectations” of the drafters was, but what the original principle derived from the text itself was…

  82. The question is how a similiar club whose membership were exclusively male and had a discrimination suit against it would fare in Sotomayor’s court weilding that kind of argument? Or for that matter, what way would many of her left wing patrons want her to rule in such a case?

  83. I thought LMNOP had pointed in many other posts to evidence that she tends more than not to rule for the defendant in discrimination cases?

  84. The question is how a similar club whose membership were exclusively male and had a discrimination suit against it would fare in Sotomayor’s court wielding that kind of argument?

    Who knows?

    Or for that matter, what way would many of her left wing patrons want her to rule in such a case?

    Who gives a damn?

  85. I thought LMNOP had pointed in many other posts to evidence that she tends more than not to rule for the defendant in discrimination cases?

    Well, it was one case, and it was more of a free speech case than a discrimination case (unless neo-nazis are a suspect class…). My main point was there is some scant evidence she is not a doctrinaire liberal, and that we have no idea what she really thinks on many, many issues.

    The hearings should be interesting one way or the other.

  86. from the slate article:

    “In fact, she voted against the plaintiffs in 78 out of 96 other discrimination cases she heard as an appellate judge. That’s a margin of 8-to-1.”

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/

  87. Obama could have nominated a liberal giant to kick your asses judicially like Warren, Black and Brennan did for decades. He didn’t. Celebrate dudes.

    I’ve been saying that Obama could have picked far worse since just a few days after her nomination. Thanks for proving me right (seriously).

  88. “In fact, she voted against the plaintiffs in 78 out of 96 other discrimination cases she heard as an appellate judge. That’s a margin of 8-to-1.”

    There you go. Wasn’t me, it was the innominate one.

  89. “but to the best of my knowledge, a man has never asked to be considered for membership”

    Ha! Ha! I’ve decided to found the “Organization for Blonde, Blue Eyed Aryan Men”, but don’t worry, anyone is allowed to join.

    “If we’re going to have a Lefty Justice, I’d prefer a dumb one. She’s more likely to accidentally vote correctly.”
    I’m with Bubba

    “But TAO, since you lean right for many reasons, let me ask you the question you didn’t ponder: why are conservatives opposing her so strongly?
    They all agree she is average, in fact it is the basis of their attacks. As I’ve stated, it’s good for them to have an average judge rather than a giant. So, as a conservative, what’s up with that?”

    Because we know we’re not going to stop her anyway, but we can at least go on record as voting against this tool of a judge.

  90. Because we know we’re not going to stop her anyway, but we can at least go on record as voting against this tool of a judge.

    You’re a US Senator? Mein gott!

  91. Methinks MNG suffers from logorrhea. While it is the case that liberals find opposition from the right tiresome, it is also the case that conservatives find opposition from the left tiresome. The difference is that in both this case and the case of Harriet Myers, it is conservatives who are speaking out. Are liberals too tired to find any arguments that are not ad hominem?

  92. The difference is that in both this case and the case of Harriet Myers, it is conservatives who are speaking out.

    Another difference, apparently, is that liberals bother to check how to spell people’s names before typing about them.

  93. So let’s see, if I belong to a golf club that has no non-white members, and as far as I know its because no one who isn’t white has ever applied, and since I’m not on the board of directors or on the admission committee I have no real control concerning the decision making process on admissions, so everything is fine, right. Well, yes in fact, sometimes its just a golf club, and sometimes its just a social club that caters to busy professionals who happent to be women. I think everybody but Kennedy, Biden et al will undertand this.

  94. Anyone can join the Wise Latina Women club, the name is just a suggestion.

  95. Alan – I think you meant “who happen to be white”, but I catch your point. However, you, my friend, should consider yourself lucky to be a member.

  96. elemenope said:

    Another difference, apparently, is that liberals bother to check how to spell people’s names before typing about them.

    There are a couple of possibilities here. 1) Either elemenope thinks that I misspelled Myers, whereas it is in fact Myers/Miers who doesn’t know how to spell her own name; or 2) elemenope is feeling insulted that I didn’t accuse him of being logorrheic. Well, I can at least atone for the latter: elemenope also suffers from logorrhea.

  97. what’s really entertaining about this kerfuffle from my point of view is that conservative Libertarians, God bless ’em, are usually the ones harping on private organizations being about to exclude anyone for any reason they want.

    Personally, I don’t care much about this. I just want to see it pushed long enough to make some leftists, particularly those in the media, squirm a bit while trying to explain why Sotomayor’s private club is ok. I want a New York Times editorial explaining why “Men are involved in its activities” gets Sotomayor off the hook, but “Women play on our course quite often” didn’t stop them from trying to crucify Augusta National Country Club.

    Apart from the double-standard angle, there’s another good reason why Sotomayor’s membership in this club presents a problem not present in your run of the mill Right of Association case that conservatives/libertarians push: the Code of Judicial Conduct. It’s not just that Sotomayor was a member of a club that discriminates based on sex; it’s that she was a member while a sitting judge, (arguably) contrary to the Code. So the problem would not be the membership per se, but her violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Can you belong to the Catholic Church, since they don’t allow women priests? How about the Knights of Columbus?

    Mad Max posted the rule and commentary from the 2004 Code. The 2007 Code, though, says the following in the Commentary to Rule 3.6, below. The quoted comments show that membership in the Catholic Church is clearly allowed. I would argue that membership in the KofC would be allowed under those rules as well, but it’s less clear. At any rate, the “preservation of religious, ethnic, or cultural values” could easily cover a private Catholic group that excludes women. There’s no similar exception for a “professional” group that excludes men.

    COMMENTARY
    [2]…Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is a complex question to which judges should be attentive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current membership rolls, but rather, depends upon how the organization selects members, as well as other relevant factors, such as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members,…

    [4] A judge’s membership in a religious organization as a lawful exercise of the freedom of religion is not a violation of this Rule.
    [emphasis added]

  98. Ok, a quick follow-up on the Knights of Columbus (I’m a Knight, so interested in the question):

    A quick Google search shows multiple advisory opinions allowing membership in the Knights by judges. A sample:

    Florida: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/probin/sc05-281_proposed_amd_chart.pdf (page 7)
    Texas: http://www.courts.state.tx.us/Judethics/151-160.htm
    Indiana: http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/jud-qual/docs/adops/1-94.pdf (page 3)

    The Indiana opinion also lists the Daughters of the American Revolution as an acceptable organization to belong to, and that doesn’t have the religious background that the Knights do. So it’s not a given that Sotomayor’s association with a women’s professional group is a violation. But she’ll have to give a better answer than she did.

    And if the shoe were on the other foot, and Roberts or Alito had been members of Augusta National, we’d never hear the end of it.

  99. The firefighters case was horrifically complicated by both the law and the facts.

    I beg to differ. The men in question fulfilled the requirements given by their employer for promotion, and they got screwed because the employer didn’t like their color. It’s not complicated, it’s merely obfuscated by bureaucrats trying to pretend that they’re not racists, and the lawyers (hired at taxpayer expense) to help them construct that charade.

    -jcr

  100. *headdesk*

    JCR, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Tell me, exactly, and show your work, why you think what New Haven did was against the law. Now, because it’s good for you, lay out the opposite case.

    It’s *so* uncomplicated, why do we even have the Supreme Court. We can just bring all these cases to you!

  101. Regarding Sotomayor’s view on that New Haven case, it never ceases to amaze me that some people still insist the cure for racism is more racism.

  102. Women only, but something tells me there would be plenty of opportunities to say “that’s a man, baby.”

  103. Either elemenope thinks that I misspelled Myers, whereas it is in fact Myers/Miers who doesn’t know how to spell her own name

    That’s quite possibly the stupidest sentence fragment I’ve read all week.

    And, yes, it is Miers, and I’m prepared to take her word for how her name is spelled over yours.

    I just want to see it pushed long enough to make some leftists, particularly those in the media, squirm a bit while trying to explain why Sotomayor’s private club is ok.

    I agree.

  104. Sounds a bit like the old line ” of course Jews can apply for Country Club membership, it’s just happens that we have no Jewish members” The problem is that we now have a judge that thinks while everybody else is a racist

  105. “It is less of a threat to have a common foot soldier filling the seat than an intellectual heavyweight.”

    I assume by ‘intellecual heavyweight’, you mean ‘criminal mastermind’. There are no ‘intellectual heavyweights’ who might have voted for Obama.

    “what’s really entertaining about this kerfuffle from my point of view is that conservative Libertarians, God bless ’em, are usually the ones harping on private organizations being about to exclude anyone for any reason they want.”

    Libertarians say, if you don’t like our rules, go ahead and make your own orginization. A person who wants to uphold justice for the public good, however, has to move beyond prejudices of the sort that might get in the way.

    I agree with you completely, KZ. The solution to racism is to treat EVERYONE equally. Otherwise, you end up with resentment on one side and the conflict never ends. Look at how well the Treaty of Versailles worked after a couple of decades. Only, white people in today’s world (as opposed to the world after the Civil War) have never been slave owners. Punishing the Whites for the fact that their great-great-grandfathers once oppressed the Blacks’ great-great-grandfathers is absurd.

    Personally, my beef with Sotomayor is not this orginization that apparently allows men into their functions if not grant them full membership.
    My problem is that she thinks her job is NOT to judge right from wrong regardless of prejudice, but to work with her “opinions, sympathies and prejudices” where appropriate. See: http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWUzYTFiYWNlZDQxMTAxYTNiYzAwZjY0ZTIyM2JhZDk=

  106. There are no ‘intellectual heavyweights’ who might have voted for Obama.

    FTFY

  107. *headdesk*

    Hey, try that a couple dozen more times, maybe you’ll knock some sense into your head.

    JCR, you don’t know what you’re talking about

    I do, but you don’t.

    It’s *so* uncomplicated, why do we even have the Supreme Court

    We have the supreme court to provide a back-stop when lower-court judges fuck up as one did in this case, or when the legislature enacts a statute that is beyond their constitutional powers. They don’t always do their job, of course.

    -jcr

  108. “Punishing the Whites for the fact that their great-great-grandfathers once oppressed the Blacks’ great-great-grandfathers”

    “Fact”? My ancestors (serfs in the Old World) emigrated here in the 1880s. I’m getting punished for other people’s great-great-grandfathers. Real fair.

  109. JCR – Your assertion does not an argument make.

  110. The point: Why would any self-respecting man want to join a female organization. Women join mens’ organizations simply to cause trouble.

  111. Catholic churches refuse communion to non-Catholics. Is that “invidious”?

  112. “Look, I’m no expert on discrimination law. But I have heard of things being challenged on the grounds that they have a “disparate impact.” I seem to recall situations in which measures that yielded no protected minority candidates for hire/promotion/whatever are highly challengable…So you can see where New Haven was in a tough position, given the law, which you, and for the record I, don’t agree with…I’m sure a conservative like you would advocate that an appellate judge should simply “apply the law” rather than indulge her sympathies for someone like Ricci?”

    disparate impact theory is the biggest sham ever.

    let’s apply it to criminal law. criminal law (in every state as well as the federal govt. if it is FDIC insured, etc.) makes it a serious felony to rob a bank.

    the DISPARATE IMPACT of this law is that men are arrested vs. women at greater than a 10:1 ratio for this crime.

    therefore, bank robbery laws have a disparate impact on the male gender and should be tossed.

  113. hereby conceding my points and showing the cowardly, childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians

    This is something about Lonewacko that still confuses me.

    If he really believes this about “libertarians”, why does he waste his time with them?

    Seriously though. I mean, we do nothing but piss in his coffee. Whats his angle here? Is it that he thinks that he’s slowly converting this ‘powerful interest group’ (reason readers?) to LoneWackodom? I doubt it. I mean, I dont hang out at MotherJones.com and remind them every day that they are a bunch of wet-nursed weeping hippy sissies, totalitarian apologists, and really really boring to boot…

    I am starting to suspect he’s an Artificial Intelligence gone rogue.

    I loved the “hereby” though. Classic.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.