Flashback: Alito on his immigrant background: ‘I do take that into account’ when ruling.
Flashback: Alito on his immigrant background: ‘I do take that into account’ when ruling.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has come under fire from the radical right for stating that her experiences as a Latina affect her judicial outlook. However, these same conservative critics never objected when Judge Sam Alito said virtually the same thing during his confirmation hearing, discussing how he “can’t help but think of” his immigrant family when evaluating immigration cases:
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … 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. [...]
And that goes down the line. 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.
Watch it (via Jed Lewison):
“Anyone who is objecting now to Sotomayor’s alleged ‘empathy’ problem but who supported Sam Alito and never objected to this sort of thing ought to have their motives questioned,” writes Glenn Greenwald.
UPDATE: Later in the hearing, Alito referenced his father’s experience as the basis of his view on district reapportionment:
GRASSLEY: Some have questioned your 1985 statement regarding the electoral reapportionment, that is how districts are drawn. They suggested that you’re hostile to the principle of one person, one vote. Clarify for me, nowhere in your ‘85 statement did I find that you wrote that you ever disagreed with the principle of one person, one vote. Did you?
ALITO: I never disagreed with that principle, Senator. What I disagreed with when I was in college was the application of the principle in some of — the elaboration of the principle in some of the late Warren court decisions. And this grew out of my father’s work with the New Jersey legislature. He had been the secretary to the state constitutional convention of 1966, which redrew the provisions of the state constitution relating to the composition of the legislature in an effort to bring it into compliance with the one person, one vote standard.
These provisions, however, because they tried to respect county and municipal lines, as I recall, resulted in population deviations of under 10 percent, but those deviations were much higher than the ones that the Supreme Court said in the late decisions that I’m talking about would be tolerated regarding congressional districts. There was a belief that that principle would be applied across the board, both to congressional districts and to legislative districts, and that would have wiped out the plan that had been adopted.
And I was quite familiar with all of this. And it seemed to me an instance of taking a good principle, which is one person, one vote, and taking it to extremes, requiring that districts be exactly equal in population, which did not seem to me to be a sensible idea.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
That all may be true, but here what makes it different:
Alito is a man nominated by a Republican President.
Sotomayor is a girl nominated by a Democratic President.
See the difference?
It’s the same kind of thing as when a man sheds tears he is showing compassion; when a woman sheds a tear she showing weakness.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:57 amMind-numbing hypocrisy.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:58 amThe distortion of Sotomayor’s quote has got to stop! Olbermann read the whole paragraph last night, that even the NYT forgot to include. She said that she holds IN CHECK the part of herself that might be determined by her Latina-ness when making a decision, but that it makes her self-aware of her own possible biases. Alito is just being a bit of a crybaby.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:01 amCFP, in your great wisdom, who would have been a better pick?
May 28th, 2009 at 10:02 amFlashback: Alito on his immigrant background: ‘I do take that into account’ when ruling.
– - Give it up, Wingnuts. You guys are totally pwned on this nomination.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:03 amDo you think that Hannity or Limbaugh will be courteous enough to give their listeners a gentle reminder of what Alito said?
May 28th, 2009 at 10:06 am#2 CRP Says:
Thanks for your concern, Troll.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:08 amSeems to me it’s time to enlarge the supreme court…Instead of nine, how about 18…Then we need some more adjustment’s as well, more women, native americans, asians and other’s from all walks of life,….Happy posting…P. B. & J
May 28th, 2009 at 10:08 amI also think there is a good chance that she will surprise Liberals on a number of issues once she has life tenure.
It also thinks, despite all evidence to the contrary?
To it’s lame point, the same could be said for Judge Souter.
PEACE
May 28th, 2009 at 10:15 amThe conservative idea of justice is thoughtless and mechanical. Thier ideal judge would probably be a robot.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:15 amNews Flash Conservatives: The definition of a person ‘without empathy’ is, in fact, “Sociopath”…
May 28th, 2009 at 10:15 amInternets make it so hard to be a conservative.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:15 amFrom what I’ve seen so far, I think
STOP.
NOBODY GIVES A SHIT WHAT AN INBRED, KOOL-AID DRINKING WINGNUT WITH HER HEAD FIRMLY SHOVED UP HER A$$ THINKS.
Got it b*tch-hog?
May 28th, 2009 at 10:15 amanother day, another example of right wing hypocrisy
how is this news?
May 28th, 2009 at 10:16 amAll of these attacks on Sotomayor are just so much blather as the repugs try to regain traction in the nation. The repugs attack dims for being “elitist” and “intellectual,” but turn around and say that Sotomayor is not intellectual and intelligent enough. There are DINOs (jeffrey rosen) that use anonymous sources, innuendo, and not actually reading her decisions to attack her as inadequate.
Her intelligence and capability(academic high honors and law review editor), as well as her experience are too much for the repugs to handle. She outclasses the repugs and the only thing they can do is make up lies and fake analyses.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:18 amConservativeForProgress Says:
From what I’ve seen so far, I think that while Sotomayor may not have been the best available candidate…
Who’s better? Give me a name.
.
Druids Dream Says:
The conservative idea of justice is thoughtless and mechanical. Thier ideal judge would probably be a robot.
No, they would hate that. More Scalias would be preferable to them – activists who openly skew the law wildly on behalf of white male bigots everywhere. They don’t actually have a problem with people messing with the law to suit a special interest group, they just have a problem with judges who don’t do it on behalf of their interest group. Merely declining to favor white males is “reverse racism” to them. See the Ricci case for a classic example.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:19 amChief Hypocrite of the Country Club tribe say, ” White skinned empathy good, brown skinned empathy not so much.”
May 28th, 2009 at 10:19 amConservativeForProgress Says:
I also think there is a good chance that she will surprise Liberals on a number of issues once she has life tenure.
– - Have at it. 516 pages of Sotomayor’s decisions:
http://documents.nytimes.com/selected-cases-of-judge-sonia-sotomayor#p=1
May 28th, 2009 at 10:20 amBearCountry Says:
All of these attacks on Sotomayor are just so much blather as the repugs try to regain traction in the nation.
Honestly, the best thing they could do for their party right now is to STFU and totally back her with a smile on their faces. Every attack they make is just hurting them more.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:21 amWorking at a college where the demographic is 88% black, I am now convinced that “reverse racism” is nothing more than an excuse some white people use to justify their own prejudice. After all, how can a minority ever oppress any majority?
May 28th, 2009 at 10:26 amEmpathy is the capability to share your feelings and understand another’s emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to “put oneself into another’s shoes,” or in some way experience what the other person is feeling. Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, sympathy, or empathic concern because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior.
-Wikipedia
Hmmmm, this definition differs greatly from what Republics are crying about, eh? I believe we’ll see more of them eating each other in public in coming weeks.
Republics, please wear a bib when eating each other in public. Progressives are growing weary of picking picking up conservative carcasses on a daily basis.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:27 amProbably Newt Gingrich.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:28 amConservativeForProgress Says:
From what I’ve seen so far, I think that while Sotomayor may not have been the best available candidate, she will likely be confirmed. While there are justifiable concerns about her that should be thoroughly explored in the confirmation hearings, I also think there is a good chance that she will surprise Liberals on a number of issues once she has life tenure.
***
your cork screw logic fails to impress.
keep trying.
:)
May 28th, 2009 at 10:30 amIf you just arrived from Mars and listened to fools like Newt Gingrich, you would think that rich old white men were the most oppressed people in this country.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:31 amElBruce,
Scalia’s not a robot? I coulda sworn…
May 28th, 2009 at 10:33 amstephanie miller coined the term, saying “i hope we don’t get soutered”…
rachel maddow brought it up also – this woman is not a liberal…
how ’bout it, TP… some info to make the righties celebrate?
May 28th, 2009 at 10:33 amLOL shoeless. That reminds me of the anonymous quote: “I am considered evil by those who feel persecuted because they cannot force me to believe as they do.”
May 28th, 2009 at 10:35 amangels81 Says:
“CFP, in your great wisdom, who would have been a better pick?”
Bybee? Yoo? Addington? Gonzales? Oh, you meant pick for the Supreme Court? I thought you were asking for suggestions on who will be the first top GOOper lawyer to play hide the salami in the prison shower.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:35 amConservativeForProgress Says:
From what I’ve seen so far, I think that while Sotomayor may not have been the best available candidate, she will likely be confirmed. While there are justifiable concerns about her that should be thoroughly explored in the confirmation hearings, I also think there is a good chance that she will surprise Liberals on a number of issues once she has life tenure.
Please, in your own words, tell us what those “justifiable concerns” are. You’ve demonstrated that you can repeat the GOP talking points, now explain why they are used as talking points. What are the “justifiable concerns”?
I’ll check your reply later when I get home from work. have a good day everyone.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:35 amConservativeForProgress Says:
From what I’ve seen so far, I think that while Sotomayor may not have been the best available candidate, she will likely be confirmed. While there are justifiable concerns about her that should be thoroughly explored in the confirmation hearings, I also think there is a good chance that she will surprise Liberals on a number of issues once she has life tenure.
Then why all the protest from the conservative base if she’s not as liberal as she appears? This doesn’t make sense.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:42 amjjm Says:
——————————————————————————–
The distortion of Sotomayor’s quote has got to stop! Olbermann read the whole paragraph last night, that even the NYT forgot to include. She said that she holds IN CHECK the part of herself that might be determined by her Latina-ness when making a decision, but that it makes her self-aware of her own possible biases. Alito is just being a bit of a crybaby.
I also like how Keith called out CNN for not reporting the entire quote
May 28th, 2009 at 10:43 amThe prime example is Bush v. Gore. What could be more activist than when Scalia and gang rewrote the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to protect George W. Bush from the voters fo Florida?
May 28th, 2009 at 10:43 amkaty Says:
how ’bout it, TP… some info to make the righties celebrate?
The only abortion-related case she’s ever touched had to do with upholding the Mexico City rule. That’s the one where doctors in foreign countries can’t mention the “A” word or they lose any U.S. aid.
Corporations also seem pretty happy with her.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:45 amBecause she hasn’t come out in favor of right-winger’s wet dreams, like disbanding the public school system, eliminating pollution laws, lifting the ban on child labor, ect.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:48 amIsn’t taking into account your past code for “empathy?”
I still don’t understand the logic behind the GOP’s tactic of attacking one’s empathy.
http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=731
May 28th, 2009 at 10:48 amElBruce,
shoeless,
Ya, you’re right. Thier ideal justice would probably be more like Judge Dredd.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:59 amPurple State / Lavender Boy Says:
Then why all the protest from the conservative base if she’s not as liberal as she appears? This doesn’t make sense.
They wanted to attack whoever Obama nominated. Heck, he could have nominated Dubya and they’d be saying horrible things about him. This is because they see a SCOTUS nomination fight as a party-building exercise, as many in the past have been. But they don’t give a crap about the actual qualifications of the actual nominee. She’s just a stand-in.
.
kevsters Says:
I still don’t understand the logic behind the GOP’s tactic of attacking one’s empathy.
I have no idea. They’ve come out against veteran’s benefits, for rape, for torture, for murder… They might want to rethink the sides they’re taking on issues.
It would be one thing to do it old-school where you’re pro-greed on the one hand, but have enough “moral” issues under your belt that it sort of balances out in many voter’s minds. But pretty much they stand for evil across the board now.
I think they’ve completely forgotten about a political strategy of “capturing issues” and are going entirely on character assassination and wordsmithery (a la Rove), which means right now they’re giving up the “right” side of every issue there is. This is what’s killing them.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:59 amshoeless Says:
If you just arrived from Mars and listened to fools like Newt Gingrich, you would think that rich old white men were the most oppressed people in this country.
newtie too???
heard a clip of limpbone announcing that repugs are the oppressed ones…
May 28th, 2009 at 11:00 amreally!
They tend to be authoritarian…so, I think, they are trying to ‘frame’ that word [mentally envision] as a weakness
May 28th, 2009 at 11:00 amThe framers envisioned a government OF the people. We invest in individual Americans fantastic rights. We elect one person to be our President for four years, to lead our armed forces, to sign or veto bills, and to pardon criminals. The President has many powers which would be reserved for the monarch in another country.
The Supreme Court is a court of individuals who have been granted a different, but no less extraordinary power. A lifetime appointment to a court which can truly shape the nature of our laws. At times the justices literally hold the life of a defendant in their hands. They are asked to make judgements based not just on the law is, but on what our guiding principles say the law should be.
Diversity on the court benefits all of us by broadening the debates which will take place in the chambers of the court.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:02 amAnother quote:
– Antonin Scalia, 2002, majority opinion for “Republican Party of Minnesota v. White”
May 28th, 2009 at 11:06 amAt least not yet.
But then maybe she hasn’t had the chance to rule on them.
She’s a reliable corporatist, who will rule for the State in matters of corporate hegemony, state power, and limiting regulation. her positions on wedge issue are of only marginal importance at the moment–at least until one of the 5 OPUS DEI-sts–I keep hoping it’s the Chief, Roberts, with his falling spells–gets called home…
May 28th, 2009 at 11:06 amWell, Salamander called her a racist. In Republican code, that means she is prejudiced against rich old white men.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:10 ameveryone uses their background to make everyday judgments. our experiences is how we learn and advance. to make a big deal about this means that you really are against any progress of any kind, and want to live like cavemen pre-fire
May 28th, 2009 at 11:17 amIt is hard to believe that Alito is a Supreme Court justice.
The decisions he is required to make are way above his mental pay grade. Although almost always wrong, at least Scalia and Roberts are somewhat thoughtful (well maybe not Roberts). This can’t be said about Alito.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pmJust to note a weakness in the argument here: Alito turned out to be a lot less conservative in his rulings than Atilla the Hun and the rest of the neocons anticipated.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:29 pmMerdad Says:
I would be much happier with another Alito than this racist Sonia.
You realize you’re only calling her a racist for saying what he said, right?
May 28th, 2009 at 9:22 pmdivx film
Seslisohbet
Seslisohbet
thank you..
May 29th, 2009 at 6:30 amThat all may be true…
sarki dinle
June 1st, 2009 at 3:29 pmklip izle
liseli kizlar
porno