Soto's Girl's Club, ABA Ethics and Democratic Double Standards

nighttimer said:

Sotomayor's opponents have tried to turn her into some kind of grotesque cartoon. A dangerous left-wing extremist nursing a serious grudge against White males but have failed to produce a shred of proof that she actually is or that it shapes her jurisprudence.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. Her kinda weak-kneed approach to Ricci v. DeStefano represents at least a shred. I like Slate's view on this, myself.

Of course, I still think Sotomayor should ultimately be confirmed. As a conservative, my opinion is that she's about the best I could hope for, all things considered.

robeiae said:

Of course, I still think Sotomayor should ultimately be confirmed. As a conservative, my opinion is that she's about the best I could hope for, all things considered.

Click to expand...

That's the way I felt about Roberts, from the other side.

Of course, I'm not very happy with him, but I didn't expect to be.

Former President GHW Bush stands up for Sotomayor

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/13/former-president-ghw-bush-stands-up-for-sotomayor/

aquacat said:

Please show me where my statement remarks in any way on "how far we've come." In no way is saying "we still have a long way to go" denying that some progress has been made. This isn't a world of (pardon the expression) black and white dichotomies.

Click to expand...

Well, the clue for me was in the word 'just'.

Just throwing a few laws, a few new words and a few official holidays at incredibly complex racial and class hierarchies does not make them go away or unravel them so quickly, either in companies and schools or in peoples' minds.

Click to expand...

If I'm honest (and if it helps at all) I was very sure you didn't mean a word of what you said there.

Wow, what a shocker. A Republicrat SocioFascist Globalist CFR supporter comes out in support of a Republicrat SocioFascist CFR supporter. At least it's nice to see them finally admitting they're all one gang.

Perks said:

Well, the clue for me was in the word 'just'.


If I'm honest (and if it helps at all) I was very sure you didn't mean a word of what you said there.

Click to expand...

Well, you're wrong - I do mean it. We have made progress but we have a long way to go, and it's rude of you to say that I don't mean what I write. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're being disingenuous. I have no idea how you're interpreting the word "just" in this sentence. My point is that the measures we've taken, though a step in the right direction, have not undone centuries of racial oppression. Or class or gender oppression, for that matter.

But if you really believe there's no longer any racism or classism in America and you think you can prove that, go ahead and try.

aquacat said:

But if you really believe there's no longer any racism or classism in America and you think you can prove that, go ahead and try.

Click to expand...

I don't believe anything close to that.

I also believe I'm hardly unique in my reaction to the qualifier 'just'. The word 'just' is used to trivialize what comes after it.

We have very far to go, but as I see it, the progress we've made is strongly motivating in its scope.

Fair enough. I was arguing that those things are relatively trivial in comparison to the type of huge cultural shifts we still need in order to combat these problems. Equality laws have more often been ineffective than effective - affirmative action laws, for instance, have benefited white women more than they have racial minorities, and even those have been struck down in most places.

And as to how far we've come - that depends on your perspective. I think the fact that we are still seriously arguing about a concept like "reverse-discrimination" when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee's identity is a sign that we haven't come nearly as far as we'd like to think.

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an “affirmative action baby” whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstances.

“If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted,” she said on a panel of three female judges from New York who were discussing women in the judiciary. The video is dated “early 1990s” in Senate records.

Click to expand...

^^^ And your point is?

I knew many more people grandfathered in to Ivy League schools than minorities. Don't tell me you don't wonder how certain public figures got into the school they went to.

BTW, grandfathering doesn't have any nifty rationale, either, except usually donations. As for true affirmative action, I believe that coming from a bad school system can limit how well you do on tests. I do like the idea of picking folks who might be able to go much farther than where they are. I would do it for a lot of white folks, too, as bad school systems affect everyone.

As for the OP, I don't like reverse descrimination, but the idea behind the club was clearly in reaction to an existing problem that left out too many folks. It's the very reason for the new standard. Is that not clear?

Would you seriously have a problem if it were, say, a women's group to advance female participation in the sciences? I'm a member of a group that does that, and I do take reverse descrimination seriously.

My group does allow any gender to join, but it has "Women" in the name and isn't focused on scholarships for males at all. That's not necessarily bigoted, you know. I want to help overcome the effect sexism has on many girls in relation to science. A reaction to something that needs to be fixed, not an exclusionary group for kicks or superiority.

aquacat said:

Well, you're wrong - I do mean it. We have made progress but we have a long way to go, and it's rude of you to say that I don't mean what I write. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're being disingenuous. I have no idea how you're interpreting the word "just" in this sentence. My point is that the measures we've taken, though a step in the right direction, have not undone centuries of racial oppression. Or class or gender oppression, for that matter.

But if you really believe there's no longer any racism or classism in America and you think you can prove that, go ahead and try.

Click to expand...

aquacat said:

Fair enough. I was arguing that those things are relatively trivial in comparison to the type of huge cultural shifts we still need in order to combat these problems. Equality laws have more often been ineffective than effective - affirmative action laws, for instance, have benefited white women more than they have racial minorities, and even those have been struck down in most places.

And as to how far we've come - that depends on your perspective. I think the fact that we are still seriously arguing about a concept like "reverse-discrimination" when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee's identity is a sign that we haven't come nearly as far as we'd like to think.

Click to expand...

*bolding mine*

Do you have citations to support these assertions? I'd particularly like to see some source materials to support your assertion that white women have been benefitted more than racial minorities by affirmative action laws.

I personally have witnessed a great deal of change throughout my lifetime for all minorities. Are we there yet? No, of course not. Can we do better? Of course we can. However, to sweep a broad-bristled brush and tar over just the positive steps forward our society has made in the last forty years is equally as disingenuous as to assert that no problem exists at all.

Back to the OP--the more I'm learning about Sotomeyer, the more concerned I'm becoming. I'm still ambivalent about her as a jurist, although I agree with Robieae that she's probably about the best we could hope for at this time to the SCOTUS. So ideologically, she's not a cause for concern to me. However, her tendency for imprudent commentary, her inability to temper her decisions with an eye for her responsibilities and an apparent bias (as expressed through her recent comments) have made me wonder if she is tempermentally or intellectually suited for the SCOTUS at this time.

mscelina said:

*bolding mine*

Do you have citations to support these assertions? I'd particularly like to see some source materials to support your assertion that white women have been benefitted more than racial minorities by affirmative action laws.

Click to expand...

Sigh. Why am I the one that has to prove my assertions when no one else has been asked to do the same? I don't have time to do your homework for you, but here's just one source that talks about how affirmative action has actually worked versus how it's supposed to work: http://aapf.org/focus/episodes/oct30.php

I personally have witnessed a great deal of change throughout my lifetime for all minorities. Are we there yet? No, of course not. Can we do better? Of course we can. However, to sweep a broad-bristled brush and tar over just the positive steps forward our society has made in the last forty years is equally as disingenuous as to assert that no problem exists at all.
.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I did broad-bristled sweeping - in fact, I've said more than once that we have made improvements. However, I think we have further to go than we have gone based on the huge racial inequalities that continue to affect us. For what it's worth, I study critical race and gender theory, racial politics and the law professionally - I'm getting a PhD in it, in fact. For me to "prove" what I'm saying would take more time, energy and space than is really available or appropriate for an internet forum. If you're interested in this, there are plenty of books you could read -Patricia Hill Collins, Michael Eric Dyson, George Lipsitz, bell hooks, Angela Davis, Herman Gray, Michael Omi and Howard Winant - all have written terrific books about the relative successes and failures of the civil rights movement and racial politics. Check them out.

Just for the record, aquacat, it's accepted practice here in P&CE for someone who has made a claim to be asked to back it up with relevant links. That's not unusual. You're not doing anyone's "homework" for them, you're backing up your assertions.

Just so's ya know.

Um, yeah, that was pretty much a rhetorical question.

Right then. 'Scuse me.

When you make assertions, you should be prepared to support them. That's how political discussion works. It's not a question of doing my homework for me, it's a question of you providing a reasonable basis of credibility for your claims.

In re the citation you did provide, the only source that claimed affirmative action benefits white women more than other minorities is a 1995 US LAbor Department report on reverse discrimination, in which the Department of Labor estimates (estimates, not confirms) that 6 milllion women are in higher positions at the time than they would have been without Affirmative Action. Now then, seeing as the estimate is based primarily upon hypothetical thinking and is without a statistical base, it can hardly be construed as a hard and accurate fact. As a candidate for a PhD, surely you understand the differences between hypothetical estimate on a conditional supposition and accredited fact.

Now then, let's try again, shall we? You have averred that white women benefit more from affirmative action than other minorities. Do you have any figures on this other than a group that confirms the benefits Affirmative Action gives to Arab-Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Latino/Latina Americans, Native Americans and women and whose stated purpose and function is "Focus on Affirmative Action/A Project of The African-American Policy Forum?"

Oh, and for the record (just so you know and since we've already descended into the spiraling and bottomless pit of resume' waving) my thesis was about how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enhanced the status quo racially in the early 1980s because the legislation wasn't effectively updated to deal with the growing needs of the minority communities. I wouldn't want you to think that for some reason I thought Affirmative Action had 'fixed' the problem.

mscelina said:

When you make assertions, you should be prepared to support them. That's how political discussion works. It's not a question of doing my homework for me, it's a question of you providing a reasonable basis of credibility for your claims.

In re the citation you did provide, the only source that claimed affirmative action benefits white women more than other minorities is a 1995 US LAbor Department report on reverse discrimination, in which the Department of Labor estimates (estimates, not confirms) that 6 milllion women are in higher positions at the time than they would have been without Affirmative Action. Now then, seeing as the estimate is based primarily upon hypothetical thinking and is without a statistical base, it can hardly be construed as a hard and accurate fact. As a candidate for a PhD, surely you understand the differences between hypothetical estimate on a conditional supposition and accredited fact.

Now then, let's try again, shall we? You have averred that white women benefit more from affirmative action than other minorities. Do you have any figures on this other than a group that confirms the benefits Affirmative Action gives to Arab-Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Latino/Latina Americans, Native Americans and women and whose stated purpose and function is "Focus on Affirmative Action/A Project of The African-American Policy Forum?"
.

Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that the source isn't credible, which is a typical accusation thrown at people of color doing scholarship on their own condition. How about this source, then? When Affirmative Action Was White, by Ira Katznelson. This book talks about how Affirmative Action was structured in ways that explicitly limited it's effectiveness in helping people of color and that the results (that white women have benefited more than any other group) are predictable on that basis. (And just as an aside - I support affirmative action, but I also think it's important to be clear about how government and institutional structures have subverted it in some ways, in order to combat the idea that it's no longer needed.)

Aside from that, I provided multiple authors who've written about these very issues.

Oh, and as a PhD student, I understand that there really is no such thing as an "accredited fact" when you're talking about racial/social issues - there are multiple perspectives, multiple kinds of research and some strong probabilities and common trends of oppression that we can talk about, but "fact" is not really the object, nor should it be given how biased "facts" can be. Your argument that the DOL is just "estimating" based on no statistics is simply untrue - if I had access to those documents, I could show you that they do serious amounts of quantitative analysis to come up with that information (in fact, I've seen some of those studies, but nothing I can point you to online). The "estimation" isn't based on merely theory and conjecture - they say "estimate" because it is actually impossible to get absolutely, 100% accurate "facts" about such things. Most well-trained social scientists know that full well, so they say estimation in order to show that they're not making a totalizing argument that they simply cannot support.

I guess that means you don't have any links handy on that, then? Too bad, I was curious to see if your assertion held up. But I'm not going to request a book from intra-library loan to win an argument on the internet. I'd happily read an article, though.

*shrug*

It doesn't bother me that she was a member of a selective club.
Troublesome is that more thaan half of her rulings were overturned by a higher court.
Does she know the law and the constitution?

Gregg said:

It doesn't bother me that she was a member of a selective club.
Troublesome is that more thaan half of her rulings were overturned by a higher court.
Does she know the law and the constitution?

Click to expand...

Not exactly
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023663.php

Cranky said:

I guess that means you don't have any links handy on that, then? Too bad, I was curious to see if your assertion held up. But I'm not going to request a book from intra-library loan to win an argument on the internet. I'd happily read an article, though.

*shrug*

Click to expand...

I don't have any links that wouldn't take you to journal articles which you can't access without a password, no. And frankly, I don't feel like I should have to spend the rest of my evening looking up links when the people I'm discussing this with are unwilling to provide any supporting evidence of their own for their assertions and don't seem to be interested in more than "wining" a superficial argument. I find it really fascinating that my providing one book, by name, as well as multiple other authors isn't enough because I'm not able to quickly come up with a handy-dandy breakdown of the facts on the internet. This is a complex issue - you do a disservice to complex issues when you act like they can be easily digested and understood with one brief webpage full o'"facts".

Relevant (I think) article in The New Yorker about the history of nominating minority candidates for the Supreme Court.

Diverse Opinions

robeiae said:

Of course, I still think Sotomayor should ultimately be confirmed. As a conservative, my opinion is that she's about the best I could hope for, all things considered.

Click to expand...

This is the kind of sentiment that makes me think that the entire brouhaha is just rote, required objection by Republicans who can't sit by and accept a candidate who may be the best one they could get. (Not that they should, politically, see below.) I am certainly no expert on potential nominees, but comments such as the above and the Bush Sr. support seem unlikely attachments to another candidate.

I think that the same behavior would be going on if the parties were reversed. It's not a Republican thing; it's simply that either party must, at minimum, question its opponent's candidate. How far they take that questioning depends on how intense the actual opposition is. I think Sotomayor will be confirmed. The reason that Republicans need to object so heartily right now is that objection (which is loud) gives the party meaning and power at a time when it's in disarray. Doing nothing, even about a candidate that might be the best they'd get, would suggest weakness.

Crap. I meant to say that NYer piece was more of a comment/opinion piece than a historical article. Clearly it's biased. But my point in offering it wasn't about the pros/cons of Sotomayor herself, it was about the history of past nominees—still interesting, even if the overall opinion doesn't mesh with your own.

aquacat said:

I don't have any links that wouldn't take you to journal articles which you can't access without a password, no. And frankly, I don't feel like I should have to spend the rest of my evening looking up links when the people I'm discussing this with are unwilling to provide any supporting evidence of their own for their assertions and don't seem to be interested in more than "wining" a superficial argument. I find it really fascinating that my providing one book, by name, as well as multiple other authors isn't enough because I'm not able to quickly come up with a handy-dandy breakdown of the facts on the internet. This is a complex issue - you do a disservice to complex issues when you act like they can be easily digested and understood with one brief webpage full o'"facts".

Click to expand...

I don't act any such way. And I have no assertions. (So, yeah, I shouldn't have added that snarky bit about winning an argument on the internet, I'll admit) I wanted to learn more about yours, or rather, where you were getting your information from. I'm not asking you to spend the rest of your evening doing it...one link would have sufficed. However, if, as you say, I would need a password to access such peer reviewed journals, well, then, I guess I'll just have to suspend judgement on your assertion. I can't review the information for myself, so I can't make an informed judgment about your assertion and it's accuracy.

Maybe, if I'm lucky, I might find something in my university's library on the subject. But then I'm doing the work to prove your assertion, which I should be doing...why? It's not my assertion or my opinion. That's the reason you're asked to provide info that is easily accessed by others who don't have that book. Nobody's saying you are right or wrong, we're saying we have no way of giving what you've said credibility.

Bah.

You know what? Forget it. Here's what a couple of minutes of googling has wrought:

Finally, although affirmative action policies appear to target women and people outside a majority group as 'beneficiaries,' majority group members benefit as much as minority groups, if not more, from such policies. Although opinion polls reveal that many Whites believe they are unfairly discriminated against by affirmative action policies, it is Whites who benefit most. This is because of their larger numbers in most sectors covered by affirmative action interventions. For example, when white women, along with people of color, benefit directly from affirmative action in the schoolhouse and workplace, all citizens benefit by being part of a well-trained, competitive U.S. workforce capable of participating effectively in the global world market and of supporting an aging population. Further, when white women are as well educated and well employed as white men, then white men, women, and children also benefit, for in virtually every woman's life there is someone with whom she shares resources.
-- Office Of Public Policy factsheet

Click to expand...

For the above, there is a bibliography linked for those inclined to take a look.

Next:

That such straightforward requirements have worked to the benefit of women -- particularly white women -- is hardly disputable. Thanks in large measure to affirmative action and civil rights protections that opened up previously restricted opportunities to women of all colors, from 1972-1993:

-- The percentage of women architects increased from 3% to nearly 19% of the total;

-- The percentage of women doctors more than doubled from 10% to 22% of all doctors;

-- The percentage of women lawyers grew from 4% to 23% of the national total;

-- The percentage of female engineers went from less than 1% to nearly 9%;

-- The percentage of female chemists grew from 10% to 30% of all chemists; and,

-- The percentage of female college faculty went from 28% to 42% of all faculty. (Moseley-Braun 1995, 8)

Furthermore, since only 1983, the percentage of women business managers and professionals grew from 41% of all such persons, to 48%, while the number of female police officers more than doubled, from 6% to 13% (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1995, Table 649). According to a 1995 study, there are at least six million women -- the overwhelming majority of them white -- who simply wouldn't have the jobs they have today, but for the inroads made by affirmative action (Cose 1997, 171).
---Is Sisterhood Conditional?:
White Women and the Rollback of Affirmative Action
By Tim Wise
Published in the National Women's Studies Association Journal, Fall 1998, 10:3

Click to expand...

Again, with a list of sources for folks to backtrack if they so desire. And there you are...a couple of links that help support your assertion.

Happy reading.

I honestly think minority advocacy groups and gender specific groups are the wrong way to approach this. This is coming from someone who is a tribal member, and represents on of the smallest, and least represented of all minority groups present in the USA.

Here's my reasoning. As soon as you grant special privilege to any group, and protect it by law, you're giving something that can't easily be revoked. Let's look down the line 50 years from now. White folks will NO longer be in the majority. What then? The justifications of affirmative action just aren't acceptable to me for this reason. I see it as a potentially dangerous thing, that will only act to create different castes in society, and note I said castes. That's what affirmative action is going to lead to, and it's already on its way to creating a society even more focused on individual differences than similarities.

Seriously there's such a level of ridiculousness when "under representation/disproportionality" and things are spoken of. Do I expect that exactly 2.3% of every profession be native american so that people of my ethnic background are adequately represented respective to our populations? I hear this particular argument a lot from people who complain about the lack of women/minority/insert group here in the sciences/"insert dominated profession here", but at the same time I never hear of people complaining that men make up a very small proportion of kindergarten teachers/nurses/"insert female dominated profession"?

What I'm getting at is that equality for equality sake is a fucking bad idea, and that's what affirmative action is doing, and how it's designed. Harvard offered me a half-ride because of my ethnicity, and I turned it down out of principle, because I knew a guy who was white who had better grades than I did, who didn't get accepted. No matter how people try to spin it, affirmative action is making some people more equal than others in order to try to "make everyone equal". That makes no sense what so ever to me, and I will NEVER support it. It's demeaning to me, I don't think it's ethical, and I think it only serves to provide ammunition to the bigots out there.

Cranky said:

I don't act any such way. And I have no assertions. (So, yeah, I shouldn't have added that snarky bit about winning an argument on the internet, I'll admit) I wanted to learn more about yours, or rather, where you were getting your information from. I'm not asking you to spend the rest of your evening doing it...one link would have sufficed. However, if, as you say, I would need a password to access such peer reviewed journals, well, then, I guess I'll just have to suspend judgement on your assertion. I can't review the information for myself, so I can't make an informed judgment about your assertion and it's accuracy.

Maybe, if I'm lucky, I might find something in my university's library on the subject. But then I'm doing the work to prove your assertion, which I should be doing...why? It's not my assertion or my opinion. That's the reason you're asked to provide info that is easily accessed by others who don't have that book. Nobody's saying you are right or wrong, we're saying we have no way of giving what you've said credibility.

Bah.

You know what? Forget it. Here's what a couple of minutes of googling has wrought:



For the above, there is a bibliography linked for those inclined to take a look.

Next:



Again, with a list of sources for folks to backtrack if they so desire. And there you are...a couple of links that help support your assertion.

Happy reading.

Click to expand...

Ok, look - all of this information you just posted is on the page that I initially linked to up above (see the bottom of the page here). There are also links to more information on that page. When I posted that, mscelina slammed it, so I was looking for something a little more current.

How am I forcing you to do "my" work, exactly, when the page I linked to shows the same thing you've just shown? Can you understand why I'm a little frustrated here?