Not debatable. Many are ignorant of this but many more are in denial of it due to their fear of offending the like minded or people that are their friends that struggle to continue to respect and so stay silent given the mass fear on all sides in the PC police circles beltway types run in.

During his confirmation hearing, he testified:

“And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position [...]

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. ”

So, he takes his own family experience into account on the bench. How does this differ from Sotomayor’s suggestion that she hoped that a “wise Latina” would, “more often than not,” come to a better conclusion than someone who “hasn’t lived that life?”

We should also consider that, as Sotomayor said in her lecture, she was providing a counterpoint to a specific quote from Sandra Day O’Connor, who suggested that a “wise old woman” would come to the same conclusions as a “wise old man.” Note that O’Connor didn’t say “should,” but “would.” Do we really believe that men and women will necessarily draw the same conclusions in controversial matters?

Simply put, we have a judicial system because the law is not always clear. When the law is unclear, we ask judges to (as John Roberts put it) “call balls and strikes.” Every umpire has their own notion of the strike zone. This is not a bad thing. (Note that this actually ties in well with Sotomayor’s comment that appellate judges “make policy.” Policy is, in large part, the implementation of law; as judges call “balls and strikes”, they are effectively making policy within the scope of the law.)

There will certainly be valid criticisms of Sotomayor’s jurisprudence–and it’s interesting to see elements of the left up in arms because she has ruled against abortion rights groups in the past–but, once you read the full lecture instead of the hot-button quote, this one doesn’t seem a showstopper to me.

The comment itself really does not bother me.. I guess I could dovetail off of the above poster and state that perhaps the law is not always clear… Hence Bush lawyers come to the conclusion that torture, or enhanced interrogation when used in specific cases are legal, whereas Obama’s lawyers would find differently. Neither side is wrong really, but the intent to go after the previous administration based on ones own interpretation is wrong… I believe most americans regardless of party believe what we did to protect us after 9/11 is acceptable if it kept us safe……I guess the law could be like the bible, interpreted differently by everybody.

I would like her to be asked what she meant and be given the chance to explain. The comment itself does not bother me really, the comment about using the courts to “make law” bothers me more….Clarence Thomas was dirt poor…. period…. and he was chastised by the left in his nomination. I do not care so much about the background, I do believe justice is blind, so a case before her should not hinder on weather the person is rich, poor, white, black, latina, latino, union worker, non union worker, CEO, or hourly labor… If she can operate that way great…… I will say though, that comment would have gotten her dismissed from a jury pool……so she needs to explain herself.

The “what if a white person said that” argument is not one that will sell very well to the general public. This needs to be argued in a way that people understand, like in this post:

http://www.redstate.com/loganyung/2009/05/28/sotomayor-and-baseball/

the richness of my experience as a half Asian – half black – half white person of a certain gender have taught me that ridicule and not outrage is best to defeat Sanjaya Sotomayor.

A big deal in the sense that it should prevent her from being confirmed? No, not really. Do you really think that if Obama chose his top 100 people for the job, approximately 100% of them think the same way. Elections have consequences, and Obama getting to put in his people is one of them.

On the other hand, is it a big deal in the sense that it should be used as a rallying cry to remind idependents why Democratic presidents are a bad idea? You betcha.

the fact that all his cronies and appointees were also racists would not stop anyone of goodwill from opposing each one individually.

Elections have consequences: the consequence of this one is that we have to fight a bunch of increasingly open racists.

…I’m more concerned with the actual opinions she’s issued than I am the lectures she’s given. So far, there isn’t much controversy in her work from the bench.

From what I’ve been able to discover, she’s written roughly 380 opinions. Of those, only 6 were heard by the SCOTUS on appeal. That means that the other 374 were either so solid as to be “not worth an appeal to SCOTUS” or were denied cert by SCOTUS. 374 out of 380 is a pretty good batting average.

Even the case currently before the SCOTUS, Ricci v. DiStefano, is in keeping with Second Circuit precedent. SCOTUS agreed to hear it because other circuits have ruled differently in such cases. That’s how the system works.