Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The wonder of Wiki is mentioned on Huffpost

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

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

New Haven decision

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

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

POV in Federal Judicial Service section

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

Less, and more about prior cases

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

Lead

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

Baseball ruling

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

Almas Mater

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

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

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

How about some protection

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

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

The article has been semi-protected for a week by User:Sephiroth BCR . [1]. Edison (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

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

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

Old cites

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo? File:Sonia Sotomayor.jpg

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

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

Article mistakes in caselaw summaries

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

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

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

"Centrist" vs. "Liberal"

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

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

Environment

Should there be a mention about her ruling against power plants and favoring the Clean Water Act, which was overturned by the US Supreme Court.[2] Showtime2009 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

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

I added it to merge both entire articles. But I would never do the merge without a thorough discussion and a consensus. Someone else must have changed the merge tag to just the one section. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for a merge. As Category:Nominations to the United States Supreme Court shows, there are a number of "XXX Supreme Court nomination" articles, some of them quite lengthy. (And if the Bork and Thomas nominations had taken place during the WP era, you can bet they would be really long.) It would throw the weighting off completely to include all this material in the main BLP articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely disagree with the idea of merging the two articles - this is her biography, that is specifically about the nomination and adding that here would throw this article off. WTR has it right. Tvoz/talk 00:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Over reffing

We don't need to back up statements with so many refs. We should pick the best one for the less controversial statements, and use at most two or three of the better ones for the more controversial statements. Too many refs interrupt the reading experience. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a limitation of the MediaWiki technology. There should be a way for readers to suppress the footnotes if they don't want to see them. But the refs are necessary. News accounts conflict on some biographical aspects of her early years, and we have to establish which accounts we are using both for our readers and future editors on this article. Every time I've seen cite purges, a bad cycle develops: cites are reduced, sentences are moved or spliced and then lose cites, fact tags are added by new editors, inferior cites are brought in or material is deleted outright. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

youtube is not a reliable source

Removed: In reality, she is a far-left judicial activist, as proven by own statements that courts make policy. [3] This maybe the case, but youtube is not a good source. Consider for example: CNN: Who is Sonia Sotomayor? She is a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The liberal-leaning justice was named a district judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and was elevated to her current seat by President Clinton. Supporters say that appointment history, along with what they describe as her moderate-liberal views, will give her some bipartisan backing in the Senate. Conservatives argue Sotomayor has a "hard-left record" and believes that judges should consider experiences of women and minorities in their decision-making. They also described her as a "bully" who "abuses lawyers." Calendar (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Her own words are the most reliable source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.165 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC) the judgement on whether she is liberal or not is your own, so it is original research. Find a source to back up your POV, I gave you one just now. Calendar (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Fine, fine, I accept this is wikipedia policy, but does it not strike you as ABSURD the idea that a third party describing the views of somebody, as in CNN is more "reliable" source of that person's views than a TAPE RECORDING of that person saying her opinions. Don't you think, then, that--again, I'm not arguing this is not wikipedia policy--that such a policy is STUPID ON ITS FACE? Youtube is merely a suppository of videotapes. The tapes could be from any source, and can generally be viewed by anybody to verify them. By wikipedia's logic, a recording of the 2000 Olympic 100 meter dash is "unreliable" because it was uploaded to youtube, but a DISCUSSION of that race is "reliable" because it was uploaded to the CNN site. Does such a policy make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.136.141 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that she said those words is obviously not under dispute. However, the judgement that those words constitute proof that she is a "far-left judicial activist" is POV. 66.31.20.168 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Identity politics trumps juris prudence.

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

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

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

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

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

The quote is NOT out of context, although as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter. [... Forumizing removed ...] Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Considered by "several presidents, both Republican and Democratic"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I agree that now it is totally incoherent. Maybe better to just get rid of it after all. Could say instead "Sotomayor was appointed by presidents of both parties, and some news sources said she could have bipartisan support," and leave it at that. I think that was the change one of you made a couple of days ago. Or if we wanted to preserve the existing reference and render it coherent, we could say "Sotomayor was appointed by presidents of both parties, and it was reported by the Journal of the ABA that presidents of both parties considered her for higher judicial office." But honestly, you all have convinced me that this one source is not worth giving undue weight to, even though it is the American Bar Association. Lots of journalists have written about this story in the past couple of days and they haven't discussed this.JRtx (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

abortion section has been slanted

someone has inserted the words pro-life and anti-life

this is the wrong terminology. it should be anti-abortion and supportive of abortion rights.

I am pro-choice b/c I am pro-life. I know that if we make abortion illegal or inaccessible, women women will take things into their own hands and then there will be 2 deaths. I respect each person's right to decide what happens to their body in conjunction with their religious leader, their family, their MD. Teenmd (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)teenmd

am not able to edit the page b/c just registered today. and thought that my wikianswers registration was sufficient which has been open for years? but guess not.

Something very sneaky and subtle happened a little while ago in the paragraph about Sotomayor's abortion decision, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush. First, in revision 292821567, a user named Hoopsworldscout changed the terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" inside a quote from Sotomayor to "pro-life" and "anti-life." Then, in the next edit, 292822015, the same user, Hoopsworldscout, removed the quotation marks from the quote, with an edit summary "(removed improper quotation, statement was not a quote of Sotomayor, corrected phraseology to names of both sides of the abortion debate)." Well, actually, the statement WAS a direct quote from Sotomayor UNTIL Hoopsworldscout butchered some of the words in the quote to fit his/her own ideological leanings. The exact quote, from Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183, at page 198 (see here:[4]), is: "the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds." That's the exact quote, and we should put it back in the article. I can't quite believe the audacity of changing the words of a quote and then claiming it's not an exact quote because you changed the words! Somebody please undo the edits by Hoopworldscout, and also, I would watch any further edits by this user on this page. -130.132.117.25 (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored her original quote, and done some work on the rest of the section too. Part of the problem here was that pieces of the quote were wikilinked, which is almost always wrong per MOS:QUOTE. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

More about previous cases

This article is having more and more descriptions of cases added. Having an inline citation which leads to the actual case ruling is very helpful, and even more helpful is having an article about the case. Please consider adding this information, or consider creating a new article about the case, when adding another case to this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation of surname

That IPA looks suspiciously like educated Amurkin. The real IPA is probably more like /sɔtɔmɑ'jɔr/ where the final /r/ is aspirated and the last syllable stressed in an albeit slight, syllable-timed way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

infobox photo

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

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

Also, we need a MUCH more becoming photo of her. Those photos make her look hideous. I'm sure she is indeed a beautiful woman and a potential supreme court justice should have a better picture on wikipedia. Erich Mendacio (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Then tell the White House to take new photos, because that's what WP is relying upon. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The first photograph that appears should be cropped so as not to reveal Judge Sotomayor's legs.---- [22:41, May 28, 2009 71.202.181.219]

The way the photo is composed, cropping as you suggest would throw off its visual balance. And the photo was released by the White House, so it's definitely intended to be at least semi-"official", which is what we want for the infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the photo looks quite odd. It's a chest and head portrait in a formal setting, with a knee thrust into the frame. Just because it was released by the WH does not mean we must use it in the infobox unchanged. I think a visually balanced crop can be made by cutting from the top and sides of the frame as well as the bottom. I will give it a try. Jonathunder (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Bronx Geography

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

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

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

Rather than doing our own research on how far "walking distance" extends (it's a relative term in any case, let alone while drunk), let's stick to the sources. Jonathunder (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now phrased it as "relative proximity" to the Yankees, which should be vague enough to keep everyone satisfied. The Bronxdale Houses question is dealt with by another talk section below. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I was struggling with this this morning. This 1995 NYT story has her saying, "You can't grow up in the South Bronx without knowing about baseball." This long NYT profile from today's paper doesn't say where she lived at first, although her mother worked in the South Bronx. But its "Childhood in the East Bronx" section sort of suggests they were first living with other Puerto Ricans in the East Bronx. Then in the 1960s, exact year unspecified, they move into the Bronxdale Houses, which is in Soundview, Bronx, which is in ... either East or South Bronx, depending upon the use of the term at various times. See this New Yorker bit (which alas references WP in part). Then by the late 1960s, when she was in high school, they move to Co-op City, which is Northeast Bronx. So I'm still looking for something definitive on where they lived first. But although she's more East than South, she seems to at least partly self-identify as South. I'll try to work all this in. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a Bronx native, it's not that clear that Bronxdale houses are East Bronx. Bronxdale Houses are in Soundview, and Soundview is south central - really not East Bronx. Colloquially, anything south of Tremont is considered South Bronx - some even would say south of Fordham Rd. As for Co-Op City, it is Northeast Bronx, not East Bronx. And our article says she was born in the SOuth Bronx and moved to Bronxdale houses, and she describes herself as having grown up in the South Bronx, so what's the point of this disagreement? It's not like the East Bronx is Riverdale and somehow takes away from her bona fides. Signed, Born and bred Tvoz/talk 01:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll happily defer to the born & breds for any further editing on this one ... this LAT story has some Bronx prideful reaction, but isn't specific about areas within ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no - don't give up! I haven't found anything definitive either about where they lived before Bronxdale - my only point is that the lines between south and east Bronx are kind of blurry, and I would go with the south self-identification if we can't find anything more, with links to Soundview and Co-Cop City as we have. Tvoz/talk 01:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are now two sources (Time cover story and a more recent NYT story) that say she moved into the Bronxdale Houses in 1957, when she was 3 years old. I've changed the article accordingly. This makes it less important where in the Bronx she lived before that, since it wouldn't have made any lasting impression on her. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing citation: "she would be the court's first Latina Justice"

The last sentence of the intro is: "If confirmed, she would be the court's first Latina Justice."

Shouldn't this have a citation?

avi4now (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is some debate over this, see "SCOTUS Sephardic Jew Trivia Edition" from tpm. Josh reaches the conclusion that Benjamin Cardozo being of Portuguese origination is not actually hispanic. So yes there could easily be found a citation for this information, but it might miss the broader debate over justice Cardozo. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The broader debate over Cardozo is at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. A few people consider Cardozo to have been Hispanic, but the majority view is that he was not. bd2412 T 16:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The citations for the proposition that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic justice are not missing. They are in the text of the article. The lede is not the place for citations. The lede is long enough as it is. As with most propositions in the lead, this is one where the citations are found lower down. Also, anyone joining the discussion at this point may want to look back up higher in this talk page, where there was an extremely long discussion of the topic of Sotomayor as the first Hispanic justice. I am deleting these footnotes and "arguably" etc under WP:UNDUE -- it is simply a widely-reported fact that she would be the first Hispanic, or Latina, justice. Half-baked speculation to the contrary about Justice Cardozo's allegedly Hispanic identity is a sufficiently marginal fringe theory that it should not be in this article, and certainly not in the lede. JRtx (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is pointless as everyone knows that Benjamin Cardozo was the first Hispanic justice almost 100 years ago. I learned that in law school. Erich Mendacio (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think some people above already discussed this. What you say "everyone knows" is actually a totally crackpot, fringe theory. There is just no way that Justice Cardozo can count as Hispanic. He had one distant ancestor who came from England who before that was from Portugal - that's the sole connection. In Justice Cardozo's lifetime, he was never considered "Hispanic," and by today's definitions, even his ancestor was not "Hispanic" because the word refers to Spanish colonies, not Portugal. Check the Census bureau. Portugal has nothing to do with "Hispanic" at all - and Justice Cardozo himself is not even from Portugal anyway. So please give it a rest! I think all this Cardozo discussion is being pushed by partisans who don't like Sonia Sotomayor and don't want to admit that her appointment would be historic. The only source I could find in a mainstream publication baldly asserting that Justice Cardozo was Hispanic was an unbiased source named Karl Rove, writing in the Wall St. Journal[5]. So please, could everybody give this tired, tired argument a rest? 96.233.30.146 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cardozo spoke Spanish fluently and could read and understand Portuguese. He was an erudite person who demonstrated an interest in his Sephardic lineage although he apparently could never identify exactly whether his ancestors originated in Portugal or Spain, in either case they would have been Iberian Jews, themselves the descendents of Latin speaking Jews present in Iberia since Roman times.

He attended the Spanish-Portuguese Synogogue in New York City, where services were held in Sephardic (i.e. Latin) accented Hebrew interspersed with Ladino words and phrases (i.e. words derived from Old Spanish and Old Portuguese, and that could have been derived from either of the two related languages). Both sides of his family took great pride in their Ibero-Jewish heritage. Sephardic Jews made little distinction between those who had originated in Portugal and those who had originated in Spain, in either case the traditional language spoken was Ladino, the culture an amalgamation of Hebrew, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Arab (they were in their own view the minority par excellence).

Sonia Sotomayor is a light-skinned Afro-Puerto Rican, which means many of her ancestors were forcibly removed from West Africa and transported as slaves to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo, she likely does not have the luxury of tracing her genealogy back through the centuries to Spain or any other part of Iberia, unless she were inclined to investigate the history of the slave-holders who owned her African ancestors and had sexual relations with them (a not very uplifting undertaking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marenach (talk • contribs) 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have searched intensely, and in vain, for any source that supports the contention that Cardozo spoke Spanish. bd2412 T 15:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

proposed new section: Sotomayor's rude and abrasive demeanor on the bench?

I am new to wikipedia so i can't edit the page yet but i did read in the ny times and saw on the news as i'm sure you have too that there have been serious questions raised about Sotomayor's temperment and demeanor. Here is one source published today: [6]. (Ny Times). Erich Mendacio (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was skeptical, but that is a very good article. I think it is worth noting in the part about her judicial approach, in as neutral and factual a way as possible, that she is known for being well prepared, aggressive in questioning lawyers, and "sharp tongued" (if there's a better way to paraphrase that). If it looks like this is becoming an issue in the nomination, or was part of Obama's selection / vetting process it may also be worth working into the article about the nomination. Having discussed that in those two places, it's probably not worth mentioning yet a third time in this article's brief nomination section, unless it becomes a defining or pivotal issue. Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this might become an issue. Not only was this article published today, but questions about Sotomayor's rudeness on the bench have been increasingly a popular topic on cable news. I could find some links if you want. I know there is also a Federal Almanac published with disparaging reviews from laywers that practiced in front of her. Erich Mendacio (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And maybe we could include the quote from Judge Calabresi, who sits with Sotomayor on the 2nd circuit.“Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman,” Judge Calabresi added. “It was sexist, plain and simple.” TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, but what about the fact that other female judges like Sandra O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have no such complaints? That is something that needs to be reconciled with Calabresi's statement before we use it. Erich Mendacio (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Judge Newman and Judge Wesley also disagree with the claims brought up in the almanac. Wesley said his interactions with Judge Sotomayor had been “totally antithetical to this perception that has gotten some traction that she is somehow confrontational.” and Judge Newman said Judge Sotomayor frequently sent unusually detailed, closely reasoned and helpful memorandums critiquing their draft opinions. “She will offer substantive suggestions,” said Judge Jon O. Newman, “but she will not be tenacious in making sure the language comes out exactly her way.” TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This definitely does not belong on this page. This is a biography page. WP:BLP. If this discussion belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it belongs on the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination page, not here. 96.233.30.146 (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've created "Judgeship" subsections under both the District Judge and Appeals Judge sections, where a general discussion of her judgeship can go. Her behavior, approach, temperament, etc. are definitely appropriate to discuss in this respect; this is a biographical aspect to her life, independent of whether a big issue gets made of it in the Supreme Court confirmation process or not. I've leaned heavily on the NYT story referenced above, as that seems the fairest of the ones I've seen and it has a bunch of people willing to be named on the record, which is important towards credibility. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Racism etc. categories

User:JCDenton2052 has twice made this edit, which places this article into Category:Ethnocentrism, Category:Race and intelligence controversy, Category:Racism, and Category:Sexism. I do not believe any of these categories is appropriate. She's never written or said anything about race and intelligence, so that one is wrong. She's been accused by a fraction of the American political talk show class of the other three, but at this point, who hasn't? These categories are intended for articles that describe these phenomenon, or for people whose whole careers and public images are based on these themes, neither of which is the case here. I'm reverting again, but if anyone seriously believes these categories are appropriate, speak up. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

THey're not appropriate for this page. Maybe the nominatino page, but probably not there yet, either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref that talks about her attitudes towards race

LA Times. Might be a good one because it kind of summarizes both sides. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made the subject header less inflammatory. Because the LAT story isn't: it says she was a moderate student activist at Princeton and Yale Law, but hasn't let that affect her circuit court rulings. Most of this was already in the article, but I've added some bits here and there as well as the study on her discrimination rulings. Thanks for the pointer. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nice work on the article, by the way. I haven't read it thoroughly, but it seems like you're doing a pretty good job of keeping it NPOV. I don't believe in including every bit of Rush Limbaugh criticism, but we should include some of the major republican points. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor quotes published in The New York Times

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

"In 2001 at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, Sotomayor stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." At the same event, she also stated, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." In 2005, she said that "...Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move to the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination article

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

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

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

I don't know if the rulings are controversial or not. But after she's confirmed or rejected by the Senate, no one will care about the quotes. But the rulings in this article will continue to be the law of the land. 66.31.20.168 (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be better to have them worked somehow into the linked article on her nomination. ⟳ausa sui ^× 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Berkley Law "A Latina Judge's Voice" lecture is now described in general terms in the "Judgeship" subsection for her Appeals Court Judge material. It was a major public lecture that was later reprinted in a law journal, and deals with biographically significant themes for her. The "wise Latina" quote is now given in the Supreme Court nomination section, since it has become the primary subject of discussion about her nomination and thus belongs in even this summary section. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sectioning changes

I regrouped the sectioning a bit for better chrono flow, combining Early life and education together (typical for our BLPs), which also solved an image problem, and moving her 1980s-era pro bono etc activity from Other activities into Early legal career, which is where it belongs since it helped contribute to her being named a judge. I also reloc'd her marriage to fit the chrono better. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've subsequently further split the Early life and education section into two. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A different sectioning question. Does the current "Previous rulings" section make sense as it is? It jumbles together her district court original rulings with her circuit court appellate rulings, and places them all of out chrono with respect to the SCOTUS nomination. I think it may be preferable to move the district ones into the "Federal district judge" section, and to create a "Federal circuit appellate judge" section to contain the other ones (with the current confirmation section also being moved into there). This proposed approach seems even better if you consider what the article will look like if she gets confirmed to SCOTUS. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it makes sense to sort the rulings, especially since as a district judge she authored opinions on her own and as an appellate judge her rulings were as part of a panel of judges and so don't mean quite the same thing. I'd say the current nomination ought to be its own section rather than a subsection.--ragesoss (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As a first step, I've done this for the district court rulings. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now done this for the circuit court rulings as well. An open question is whether there should still be subsections for each topic (First Amendment, Second Amendment, etc.) or whether all the rulings material should be combined into a "Notable rulings" header, as I did for the district judge period (where there was much less content). I'd tend to favor combining them, especially since the topic sections are short, stubby, and potentially misleading (e.g. the abortion ruling doesn't really tell us what she thinks about it at a constitutional level). What do people think? Also imagine what the section structure of this article will look like once she's in the Supreme Court, assuming she's confirmed. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a middle road, merging them under one "Notable rulings" header but using non-header bold separators to maintain the topic area descriptions. That solves my main goal of keeping the volume of the table of contents down. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Libral Justice

This article needs to focus more on the fact that she's a libral justice. The american people need to know. No libral! No libral! No libral! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.38.30 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The correct spelling of this use of the term is "librul". Search the web and you'll see. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominee

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

She IS a nominee. The President nominates, and the Senate confirms, which completes the appointment process. Nyq0227 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue was whether there's a separate "Supreme Court nominee" section within the infobox. I agree with the OP that it isn't appropriate. Rest assured, about two seconds after her confirmation vote is finished, it'll be there. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

National Council of La Raza

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.Jameszz12937 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't provide descriptions of organizations when an article can simply provide a wikilink to the article itself, in this case National Council of La Raza. If you feel the description of the organization, at that article, is incorrect, please feel free to get involved in discussions on that article's talk/discussion page about changing that article.

More importantly, the point you raise is something relevant to her nomination, which is an entirely separate article. [I'm not aware that anyone has pointed out something about her La Raza membership (sort of like being in the NRA or ACLU?) that was important to her life.] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this belongs on the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination page, not here. 96.233.30.146 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Her post-law school, pre-judge years ("Early legal career" in this article) are important not just because of the two paying jobs she held (ADA, private law firm) but also because of the organizations she joined at that time, which both pointed to her social/political beliefs and also gave her the visibility to be considered for a judgeship. So I've added a brief mention that she joined La Raza, and am looking for WP:RS that further describe her role there. Of course, debates over the nature of La Raza itself belong in the La Raza article and the effect it has on her nomination belongs in the nomination article. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John Broughton: the question about this kind of detail is whether this was an actual activity of hers -- i.e. she was on the board of directors of the organization, or an officer of it, or something like that, so that this was actually an activity she "did" in her life or something important in her life -- or whether this is just something she was a member of, the way somebody might be a member of the NRA, the ACLU, the American Bar Association, etc. The source says she joined the "National Council of La Raza" (NCLR) but that is just the name of the organization itself -- it's not that she was on some special "national council" within the group. "National Council" is in the group's name. Can anyone find a source that says whether she was actually an official or important person in this group, versus being just any old member? If she was just a member than I don't think it's important enough to be in the bio, any more than the American Bar Assocation and many other groups I would expect that she was a member of as an attorney. (Although if this is a subject of debate in her nomination process, then it could appear on the nomination page.) - JRtx (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I keep scanning Google News for some mainstream newspaper that reports on this in more depth, especially in light of Tancredo's idiotic remarks. Haven't seen anything yet. What I have in the article is a placeholder for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. A Washington Post article today states: "Between 1999 and 2003, she was a member of the National Council of La Raza, the large nationwide Hispanic advocacy group at the heart of the immigration debate. An organization spokeswoman said that Sotomayor limited her membership to paying the $35 annual dues and, records suggested, did not attend any conferences." So this was not an organization she helped run, organize, or advance. She did not even attend its meetings. This is certainly not something that "gave her visibility to be considered for judgeship." This is just a big national group, like the American Bar Association or the NAACP or the Anti-Defamation League or take your pick, which she was a member of for a few years in the sense of responding to their mailings and writing a $35 check. Although it is a right-wing talking point all over the web that Sotomayor was heavily involved in La Raza, actual reporting seems to show the opposite. In my view, unless some credible source comes along contradicting this Washington Post article on this point, we should take the La Raza reference out of this bio page. This is just not significant enough to be a part of a person's biography. Most people whose biographies appear on Wikipedia send in annual membership checks to a variety of organizations, I'm sure, but those facts are not important enough to be part of the biography pages. - JRtx (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, based on this, her membership in NCLR is not significant enough for the main BLP. This episode probably deserves a mention in the nomination subarticle, though, as an example of how the rhetoric and hyperbole got ramped up so fast, with this source being used to show the reality. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right about putting it in the nomination article. Given that the accusation is out there, it is probably worth mentioning the accusation and also the facts. It is an impressive example of "how the rhetoric and hyperbole got ramped up so fast"... - JRtx (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"increased" latino representation

This is a very small point, but I noticed that the lede now reads "She was an activist for increased Latino representation at both schools." That is correct. But from both the lede and some of the discussion further down in the article, one might get the misimpression that Princeton and Yale Law already had a few Hispanic faculty members, and Sotomayor and other students were advocating for more to be hired (i.e. "increased" representation). In fact, at least at the time Sotomayor began her work on this issue, there was not a single full-time Latino professor, nor any class on Latin America anywhere at Princeton. At Yale Law, the number of full-time Hispanic faculty members was also zero. Jose Cabranes was Yale's General Counsel, and he taught a class at the law school but was not on the full-time faculty. Indeed it remains true today that Yale Law does not have a single Hispanic faculty member. I just mention this because I think it provides some context for why Sotomayor and other students would be advocating for some faculty representation. It's not as though there already were lots of Hispanics on the faculty and they wanted more. They just wanted to get hiring to begin. Anyway, I'm not saying the word "increased" is wrong, although we could say she was an activist for both schools to begin hiring Latino faculty. Maybe there's a place for some of these details later on in the article. - JRtx (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your additions to the body of the article on this are good. As for the lede, I thought her student activism definitely merited inclusion in it, and was trying to come up with something succinct that described it. I'm not married to "increased" and am totally open to alternate/better wording. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now changed this to "She was an activist pushing for hiring of Latino faculty at both schools." User:Jmundo removed the previous version with the edit comment "judgmental", but I don't agree; the body of the article establishes in some detail her activist role in this regard. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not sure this does actually belong in the lead. I don't know if I would call "activist" a judgmental word, but I see Jmundo's point. It is a somewhat inflammatory word. To many (esp. conservatives), "activist" is an insult. I think "activist" is a fair factual description of some of Sotomayor's activities at Princeton and (to a lesser extent) at Yale, but without the context that is present later in the article, the sentence in the lede sort of leaps out, and suggests something quite different from what it turns out to be (i.e. sit-ins, protests, 60s-style "activism," militancy, that sort of thing). That's not what you mean by the word in this context, but the reader won't know that before reading the full article, which is getting pretty long. Also, it's not clear to me that this activism is important enough to make the lede anyway. There's a lot of stuff in the article that's arguably more important than these particular episodes in her life (especially at Yale, where any activism really was a very small part of the story of her time there). What do you think? If you really wanted to keep this in the lede, perhaps the wording could be changed, e.g. "She was an advocate for the hiring of Latino faculty at both schools" or something like that. But I'm not sure it belongs. - JRtx (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've switched it to your latest formulation. But I definitely think it belongs. Her activism (even if we avoid that word) related to her Latina self was a big part of her student life, and has been the subject of press attention then and now. How many students ever file a formal complaint with a federal agency, or with an interviewing firm, and appear in both The New York Times and The Washington Post as a result? It helps to illustrate what kind of person she was, which is the goal of a biography. And we spend a lot of time on it in the article text, which the lede is supposed to accurately summarize. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of racism

WPUndue clearly does not apply here, the news has 16,000 hits, appearing in many quality media. Perhaps we could create a paragraph of its own for the allegations below, but since these are intrincably linked with the nomination, it would be less than balanced to talk lengthily about the latter, about her origin and race and whatever and leave out the former. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Has this first been brought up in the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination talk page where it would be more appropriate as it is directly related to the supreme court nomination hoopla? Brothejr (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:lead, the "racist" comments doesn't belong in the introduction and are already covered at Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination‎. --J^mundo 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not really notable, to quote Robert Gibbs its "just the blog of a former lawmaker", or to quote Wonkette "Fat Unemployed Adulterer Criticizes Sotomayor, On Twitter" [7] hardly seems noteworthy enough to mention in the article about Judge Sotomayor, let alone in the lede. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This stuff does not belong in the bio article of a living person, and it's wildly inappropriate for the lead. Jonathunder (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The place to deal with all allegations of this kind is definitely the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination page, and I see they are already over there. 96.233.30.146 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A quote from the person is NOT an allegation, its a fact that the person said what they said. The question should only be "was this racist" - and by definition the quote was racist - was it malicious? Probably not, but it was racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.165.186.20 (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's irrelevant whether it's racist, and none of our concern. What was said is a fact. Whether it's racist or not is an opinion (not an allegation) and given how widely cited the opinion is, it's appropriate to include the opinion but it remains an opinion, not a fact (well it's a fact that there's an opinion). Note that it's somewhat different if you're referring to her as a racist. That can either be an opinion or an allegation (perhaps a fact if she were convicted of racist hate crimes) Nil Einne (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this doesn't belong in the lead, but I think it does merit brief mention in the nomination section. So far, the "wise Latina" line from the 2001 speech has been the focal point of the debate about her nomination, and I've added that fact with several supporting references to it in that section. And as the article now illustrates, much of Sotomayor's life has been involved with issues of race and gender, and the charge of racism being hurled back at her (no matter if bogus) is a notable biographical event for her. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Wording

I'm probably nitpicking here, but I'm a little offended by the wording in this sentence: "Working in the trial division, she prosecuted everything from shoplifting and prostitution to robberies, assaults, murders, and police brutality." To me, it compares police brutality to crimes equal to robberies and murders. Personally, I think it should be modified to be a little less 'range' sounding and more 'list' sounding, like "Working in the trial division, she prosecuted trials including shoplifting, prostitution, robberies, assaults, police brutality, and murders, among others." It's my opinion, so I thought I'd throw it out there instead of editing myself. --FLstream1 (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it didn't fit the framing. I've moved it elsewhere in the paragraph ... may change more, as I'm about to do further work on that period. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be reworded but I would point out it also compares police brutality to assaults which seems a much fairer comparison (and assaults to murders) Nil Einne (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The current text doesn't compare police brutality to anything, but it is sort of hanging in nowhere ... I haven't found anything that discusses what her particular involvement in those cases was. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Publications listing for Berkeley Law speech/article

User:Flatterworld and I are in disagreement about how to list "A Latina Judge's Voice" in the "Publications" section; see this edit for the two approaches. The distinction is not trivial in my view, because it goes to the heart whether "A Latina Judge's Voice" was just a random speech (of which she's given many, not just this one) or was a carefully prepared lecture for a symposium that was going to be published afterward. Typically authors have a chance to revise their remarks before such publication, for instance, which as far as I know she didn't do. So it's more than just a speech, in my view. What do others think? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A speech is a speech. The link is to a transcript of said speech. The NYT has a copy as well, which it lists under 'Speeches' in her Times Topic page: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/sonia_sotomayor/index.html Every article in the news media has referred to this particular speech as a speech, and of course people come to the Wikipedia article to find said speech. That's what we're here for: to help people find information. Lots of people gives lots of speeches which are carefully prepared - and later misunderstood. That's life. They're still speeches. Flatterworld (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A speech is a speech until it's published as an article in a journal, as this one was. The link isn't a transcript, but an article reprint; as it says, "The text below is from the archives of the La Raza Law Journal." The Library of Congress lists it as an article here. If she made any changes/corrections before publishing it, they are present in what we are linking to. By publishing it in a journal, she converted a serious speech into an article, and that's how we should list it as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of work goes into either a formal speech (of the kind that sometimes might get reprinted in a journal) or an article. But I think it's work of a different kind. With a law review article, the author generally submits a draft, it goes through a process of being accepted or rejected by journals, and then it goes through a few rounds of edits between the author and the journal's editors, with the back-and-forth producing a more precise and carefully footnoted end product. In 2001, the approximate norm for law review articles was something like 20,000-40,000 words, with 200 to 400 footnotes. (If that sounds crazily long, read this 2005 statement in which the Harvard Law Review explains that it is imposing a limit and will publish no more articles longer than 35,000 words). Some, to be sure, are shorter. But "A Latina Judge's Voice" appears to be just under 4,000 words, which would be an extremely unusually short length for a law review article. It has no footnotes, which is not something you ever see in a law review article. In general it does not read like an article, but like a transcript. I'm sure a lot of work went into it, but unlike in the case of a law review article, almost all of that work was before the speech was given, and it was work by the judge and (presumably) one or more of her clerks. It did not go through the normal law review editing process. So while I appreciate what you are saying about this speech being printed in a regular, bona fide law review (in a special symposium issue, where it is listed specifically as the "Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture"), I don't think most legal scholars and judges whose speeches are reprinted in some journal would thereby consider those speeches to be "articles." So, I would go with the approach that draws a distinction between this speech and the other publications, which both sound like they are regular law review articles. - JRtx (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how many footnotes standard law review articles have. (If you look at Talk:Jill Biden#Reference insanity, you'll see a somewhat amusing dialog where I defend my heavy citation style by saying law reviews are worse.) I certainly wasn't claiming that "A Latina Judge's Voice" was a full-blown law review article, but that it was some kind of article. Anyway, we'll see if anyone else has an opinion; for now it will stay the Flatterworld way. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just ran across another "speech" and added it, although I'm not entirely sure how significant it is. - JRtx (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I had looked at that one and passed ... but it can't hurt to include it, it does illustrate some of her personality and how she views the law school world. I did some work on the formatting and citing for it. I also added the book foreword that LoC lists; it's only two pages, but it's on an interesting, somewhat hot-button topic. And we listed all the forewords that John McCain has written in his article, which is FA, so there is precedent. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

a Puerto Rican separatist - not an American

Once again, from her own writing See http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/grading-sotomayors-senior-thes.php

[... copyvio from referenced article deleted ...]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.132 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, sure thanks for the Rant. Brothejr (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the rant was a cherry-picked copyvio from the Stuart Taylor entry, which is interesting and worth reading. Also the OP should note that Sotomayor was born in the Bronx an American citizen, so even if she at one time favored independence for Puerto Rico, she's still an American like it or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit of description of the scope of thesis to the article, based on this reference. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters and the "wise Latina" remark

I've taken out this addition to the article. First, Media Matters is not a reliable or neutral source when it comes to political analysis. They are pro-actively skewed and biased towards a particular viewpoint, and tend to argue that viewpoint in their analyses. If you want to try to find a neutral assessment of the speech, FactCheck would be a much better choice. Moreover, the purpose in this summary section should not be to debate what her speech and remark meant. For example, many people of all viewpoints believe that Sotomayor was indeed speaking about legal decisions in general, including apparently Gibbs and Obama, and if we start bringing in all these other interpretations, the section will go on forever. The purpose here is simply to describe the one issue that has taken off as the primary point of contention about her nomination. And "wise Latina" is clearly that issue. When Sotomayor herself explains what she meant by that, we can include it here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor did sort of clarify it yesterday, with her "ultimately and completely" quoted remark to Leahy, so I've included that in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to include ALL those 'interpretations' by others, you can certainly include that by Media Matters - which was actually based on her entire speech. 'Many people of all viewpoints'(!) simply copied the first ooh!ooh! report. Certainly Gibbs and Obama did NOT. If you can't edit dispassionately and without bias, perhaps you should work on another article. You do not own this article. Flatterworld (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insults. Have you looked at the article's recent history? Do you know who is responsible for adding huge amounts of biographical material here, the vast majority of which are (justly) highly favorable to Sotomayor? You gotta be kidding. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anyone who thinks News Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are paragons of virtue not 'pro-actively skewed and biased towards a particular viewpoint' (your words). Media Matters is indeed a reliable and neutral source. As they say, they challenge distortions of so-called conservatives. Do you really not understand the difference between addressing a subset of statements and not being biases in the criticism of those statements? I am re-inserting the balancing statement. If you want to remove it again, I will be happy to take this up a level. This is too high-profile of an article for you to hijack it. Flatterworld (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been civil in this discussion and you have not, so any attempt by you to take it up a level will not be to your benefit. And note that I didn't remove the MM text the last time, User:Jheiv did. The question of whether Media Matters is a WP:RS has been discussed frequently at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The general consensus is, yes for their reporting on media happenings ("Rush Limbaugh railed against Obama for all three hours of his show today") and no for their political interpretations and conclusions ("The Republican leadership is lying"). What you are using them here for is an interpretative conclusion that many others of all ideologies disagree with. Indeed, from what I've seen the majority interpretation of that text is that the "wise Latina" remark is referring to O'Connor's "wise man and wise woman" saying, which is not restricted to any particular kind of case. Not wanting an edit war, I have left in the MM text, but changed it from "MM pointed out that ..." (which sounds like our article is agreeing with them) to "MM argued that ..." (which is neutral as to whether MM is right or not). That's also how the nomination article reads, at least the last time I looked at it. But as to your other point, Gingrich and Limbaugh are both big fat idiots without any sense of responsibility, whose remarks are practically self-refuting, in addition to Cornyn's denunciation of them. So the article was already balanced without getting MM into it. In other words, Gingrich and Limbaugh do more damage to the Republican Party than MM ever could, which is why Cornyn and others were so unhappy and why Gingrich has now backed off a bit. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time and have again removed the Media Matters reference. First off, you cannot argue, really, that Media Matters is a politically skewed and agenda-driven organization -- using them for a source for anything should be seriously questioned. Second, the wording that was used in the article just was also biased and skewed. It said something about an important point that was left out and it added context to the speech that just was not there. This reference shouldn't be added back. jheiv (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

On this 'richness of her experience' remark: a story broke today that Sotomayor had included an earlier speech containing nearly identical language in her packet of speeches that she submitted to Senators in 1998 during her confirmation to the Appeals Court. (The earlier speech stated: "First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”) At the time, no one objected. And the Republicans went over her record in 1998 with a fine-toothed comb, attacked many things in it and blocked her confirmation. All of a sudden this time around, Republicans have latched onto the same sentence and are making it into a big scandal. This seems like relevant context. It shows what a ridiculous, made-up scandal this is. 128.36.122.106 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Human error and chaos theory both apply to political controversies – what gets overlooked or not thought of at one time can be seen and become obsessed about at a different time. The 1994 speech was probably screened by some Republican judiciary committee staff assistant who missed the text, or didn't think it important. The 2001 speech got noticed by someone and talked about and its importance gained critical mass once she was nominated to the Supreme Court. So it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I've added a parenthetical that the 2001 speech had a 1994 predecessor. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

After various editing that went on today, I've tried to streamline coverage of the new reports about the many instances of this remark. This is a summary section that needs to read well ten years from now, and the exact sequence that press reports came out about how many "wise Latina" instances there were doesn't matter. Nor, at the end of the day, does it matter much whether the remark was brought up by Republicans in the 1998 hearings. If someone says something that shows them unfit for a job, that holds regardless of whether it was picked up on the first time around. And if the remark is innocuous, then surely it can be defended on grounds other than that the statute of limitations for objections has run out. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to put Gant.

I wrote the following summary of Sotomayor's noted dissent in the Gant case, but I am not sure where in the article to place it. It's not "employment discrimination", as the subject of the discrimination was a kindergartner, not an employee.

In 1999, Sotomayor dissented in Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (1999). The case involved claims that a black kindergarten student had been harassed due to his race, and had been discriminated against when he was transferred from a first grade class to a kindergarten class without parental consent, while similarly situated white students were treated differently. Sotomayor agreed with the dismissal of the harassment claims, but wrote in dissent that the grade transfer was "contrary to the school's established policies" as well as its treatment of white students, which "supports the inference that race discrimination played a role".

If this should be included, please find an appropriate place in the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the number of topic areas to a minimum (otherwise it really disrupts the flow of the otherwise chronological article), so I'd suggest changing "Employment discrimination" to "Employment and other discrimination" or just "Discrimination" and including it there. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I moved your reference to the SCOTUSblog analysis of her ruling patterns in discrimination cases overall out of this topic area and into the "Judgeship" section, where there was already an earlier Goldstein analysis. My scheme for the article is that the "Judgeship" sections (district, circuit, and SCOTUS if she gets confirmed) will discuss general characteristics of her judging, including overall ideological/legal tendencies, temperament, analysis of influence, all that, while the "Notable rulings" sections (again, three of them if she gets confirmed) will discuss her most important specific rulings. If you have reservations about this scheme, we can certainly discuss here ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that readers will get the false impression that Ricci represents a "deviation" of some sort. In other words, they may assume that Sotomayor usually accepts racial discrimination claims, but that this case is mentioned because she rejected the claim where the plaintiffs were white; whereas Goldstein's analysis indicates that she just rejects racial discrimination claims no matter the race of the person bringing them. bd2412 T 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but every case is decided on its own based on the peculiar facts of that case. I get the impression from Goldstein's analyses that most discrimination cases are rejected at the circuit court level, regardless of who the judges are. Ricci has some different facts from most of those other cases, and thus it's still going. As for the "notable rulings" that we list, we do so not because they are outliers for Sotomayor's decision making, but because they have attracted a lot of press or legal community attention (thus, "notable"). Is that clear to readers? I hope so. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as topic listings, I would avoid creating a "Discrimination" topic because it's not a coherent category -- that label could include a ton of different kinds of legal claims. Instead I'd probably just put this Gant case under the general heading of "Civil Rights" (which is already one of the categories in the article): this is a case outside the specialized domain of employment discrimination, in which the parents (or the kid) are arguing that their civil rights were violated because the child was transferred and/or harassed on the basis of race. - JRtx (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems okay to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Early life, encylopedias and quote

The quote "My brother and I plagiarized many a school report from those books, but I can remember the enormous financial burden that purchase placed on my mother.[21]" directly supports the previous sentence, indicating that it was a financial burden on her family. The fact that Sotomayor recalled that she plagiarized is not inflammatory nor taken out of context, and has been mentioned in the cited article, which also serves as a partial biography. Frankly, the fact that she publicly recounted that she and her brother plagiarized many school reports is noteworthy in and of itself, and I beleive noteworthy enough to be in the "early life" section. 100DashSix (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The unusualness of the Britannica in a housing project is already covered in the article. And she copied a school report from an encyclopedia in grade school? C'mon. At least she was doing it from a high-class source; where I lived, everyone did it from the World Book Encyclopedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Wasted Time R that the quote is not needed in the section as there is already a line above that comments on the encyclopedia. Plus, looking at the quote, it does not add anything to this BLP. Brothejr (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with User:Wasted Time R -- there is no way this quote serves any purpose other than to be inflammatory. JRtx (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

More lead section discussion

With this edit and the edit comment "advocate, active role; according to who? compare to who? loaded political/pov words dont belong in the lead", User:Jmundo removed this text from the lead:

She was an advocate for the hiring of Latino faculty at both schools. She worked as an Assistant District Attorney in New York for five years before entering private practice in 1984. She played an active role on the boards of directors for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the State of New York Mortgage Agency, and the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

First of all, even if you take out the "advocate" and the "active", that doesn't warrant excising 13 years of her life from the lead, including her first two jobs.

Regarding the sentence about her student activities, that wording has been discussed at length in #"increased" latino representation above, and Jmundo should join the discussion there instead of just categorically removing the statement. There have been numerous press accounts of her activism in school, especially at Princeton, and it's an important part of her biography, so we need to say something about it in the lead.

Regarding her active role on the boards of these organizations, that's biographically very important. It was her visibility from those boards that in large part led to her being seen by Moynihan's staff and being selected for federal judge. In terms of comparison, some people play passive or uninvolved roles on organization boards while some are active; the body of the article, supported by cites from the New York Times and other sources, says she was "vocal" on the State of New York Mortgage Agency, "active" in New York City Campaign Finance Board, and a "a top policy maker who actively worked" in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. The lead is summarizing that text. Read the cited newspaper articles to verify that these descriptions are valid. The lead is completely accurate in using the wording that it did, and I've restored the text. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This new New York Times story from today gives even further emphasis to this period, and describes her role in Sonyma and the NYCCFB with words like "vigorous", "dogged", "extremely involved", "demanding", etc., and says "If one wants to understand Ms. Sotomayor’s journey from boutique corporate lawyer to strikingly young federal judge, the eight-year stretch from 1984 to 1992 offers the best window into her maturation as a public figure." The lead section is quite appropriate in including this period and describing it as it does. And I've incorporated material from the new story into the body of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the main points, but it mentions her involment in the Puerto Rican Defend Fund using the political code word "active". I object to this description because I know many "extremely involved" and "active" lawyers and she doesn't fit the profile. According to the Washington Post "The organization's board had a limited role -- at bimonthly meetings... it generally left the legal tactics to the dozen or so staff lawyers....I wouldn't describe [the board] as a bunch of firebrands...Her social activism does not shed light on whether she has, as a trial judge or later on the appellate bench, been a "judicial activist" -- the derogatory label conservatives sometimes apply to liberal jurists." 1. But I don't have time to edit or discuss so I supposed is your call, after all your are the "active" and "extremely involved" editor in this article ;) --J^mundo 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Three issues here. One is what her role was on PRLDEF board. I agree that the WaPo story on it is somewhat at variance with this NYT story and (more briefly) this much earlier NYT story. I chose to go with the NYT takes, because PRLDEF is a New York organization and the NYT has been writing about it ever since its inception (see some of the links in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund article I've been writing) and they should have a better feel for it. Second is what kind of activist Sotomayor was. Here, every account agrees: moderate, "passionate but civil", determined but not a bomb-thrower, I've seen all those expressions used. I'd love to be able to capture the feel of that in our lead description; I had "moderate activist" in at one point but another editor didn't like it. Third is "active" or "activism" as a buzzword. She was a social activist in school and before becoming judge; that's a good thing, not a bad thing, and if a reader doesn't like it, too bad. "Judicial activism" has become an insult term that's thrown in every direction these days, but as you point out, social activism before becoming a judge has nothing to do with how one behaves once one is a judge. If readers don't understand that, it's not our problem. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you've now added a {{clarify me}} tag to the lead. The clarification comes in the body of the article; we don't typically put footnotes in the lead. The body of the article says, "Sotomayor was a member of the Board of Directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund from 1980 to 1992.[53] There she was a top policy maker[5] who actively worked with the organization's lawyers on issues such as New York City hiring practices, police brutality, the death penalty, and voting rights.[53]" As examples of inactive PRLDEF board members, consider some of the others they had: U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, Senator Jacob Javits, Ambassador William vanden Heuvel, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, and New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams (see the PRLDEF article). I'm pretty sure most or all of these people were typical window-dressing-for-the-fundraising-letter-head-type board members, as they would have been too busy or too distracted to be more involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk, I have undo my "clarify me" tag. I agree that "moderate activist" is a better description based on the sources, but I know some people will disagree will such boring/neutral adjective. --J^mundo 03:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an LA Times story from today in part about the PRLDEF board. Most board members were picked for their wealth or connections that could benefit the fund, but she was not. Indicating again that she was different from the other board members, and thus much more likely than the others to be active in the fund's operations. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor and Gun rights

Just in case any other person wants to add in information about a supposed thesis that Sotomayor wrote a Princeton called "deadly obsession: american gun culture", check out the source of the origional article clamining this. [8] By someone named Nathan Figler of American News Inc. A person who doesn't exist, writing for a new source that doesn't exist with a "satire" tag on the bottom. If you believe that article is acurate I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite true, but there are some out there on the internet who will believe it to be quite true. Brothejr (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To quote someone from the Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner, "There are any number of issues with this report, starting with the fact that the website given for American News, Inc is non-existent, Nathan Figler does not appear to be a journalist, Princeton Law only requires one thesis (although they do write several junior papers), and finally, the entire article seems to be written to cater to the worst fears of conservatives. We have a number of real cases where Judge Sotomayor’s opinions about gun rights are made evident. We do not need to make ourselves look foolish by buying into urban legends." [9] TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all an unfounded Internet rumor. Many of the instances of it don't even make possible sense, as they refer to Sotomayor writing it at Princeton Law (it doesn't have a law school) or as a graduate student at Princeton (she was only an undergrad there). Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Archives

This page is gettting so long that we need some sort of archiving. Can someone set it up? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just archived about a quarter of it - I'm reluctant to archive any more recent conversations, though. bd2412 T 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I set it up for fourteen days. If a thread has not been commented in over fourteen days, then it should be archived and if someone really wants to bring it back up, they can start a new thread. Brothejr (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Something's gone wrong. It's now archiving in Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 3, having skipped over Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 2, when there's still plenty of room in Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 1. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that happened. Heck, while I put the correct coding per the documentation, I've noticed it works only some of the time. Even the coding on my talk page doesn't even seem to be working at all. Brothejr (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Length of lead

User:Hello4321 made changes to the lead section to make it four paragraphs, not three. I believe this is unwise: the fourth paragraph should be reserved for her time as Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed, and is unnecessary if she isn't (how many current appeals court judges have four-paragraph leads?).

Additionally, a couple of editors including Hello4321 have tried to add who the first two Supreme Court justices were to the opening paragraph. I believe this is also unwise. The body of the article already states "She would also be the third woman to serve on the Court, following Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg." To introduce both names in the very first paragraph of the article loses the focus on Sotomayor and wanders off on an aside. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Was she a beneficiary of affirmative action?

One thing that hasn't been conclusively established is whether Sotomayor was a beneficiary of affirmative action in being admitted to Princeton or Yale Law. This NYT story from a few days ago said she "benefited from affirmative action policies" without further details at the start, then said the reverse later on with regard to Yale Law: "Given her standout record at Princeton, said James A. Thomas, a former dean of admissions, Ms. Sotomayor’s background had little role in her acceptance to the school." I included the latter in the article at the time. Now this NYT story from today has Sotomayor herself saying that she was a beneficiary in both places, due to having sub-par standardized test scores. But how would she know on what factors her applications were accepted? No student ever really knows why they were accepted or rejected by any given college. She was a valedictorian in high school, and the Princeton admissions committee may have weighed that highly enough that her SATs didn't matter as much. And she was summa cum laude at Princeton with additional awards and lots of extracurricular activities, and Yale Law may have weighed all that higher than her LSATs (as the former dean seems to indicate). So for now, I'm not planning on adding anything further on this to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should take her statements about being a beneficiary of affirmative action at Yale seriously. Only she knows how she did at the LSAT. Moreover, Yale Law is ridiculously difficult to gain admission to. There are plenty of people who graduate summa and PBK from Ivies like Princeton every year who are rejected from Yale Law School. It's frankly implausible that race wouldn't play a factor, especially since Sotomayor herself reports that her LSAT wasn't good enough to otherwise gain admission. 75.34.210.88 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Wasted Time R on this one - at best her comment that she was a beneficiary of affirmative action is just her guess, as admissions offices absolutely do not reveal what goes into their admissions decisions. Unless documents were released from admissions that stated such, I think we should stay away from speculation in either direction. Tvoz/talk 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You also have to deal with how things were in the 1970s, not now. Today, Yale undergraduate admits only 7.5% of applicants and Yale Law only 6.9%. I haven't been able to find a Yale Law figure for 1976, but for Yale undergraduate in the early 1970s, they had over 10,000 applicants for 1,275 freshman spots. That probably equates to a 15% or so acceptance rate (allowing for some turndowns), i.e. twice as easy to get into back then as now. If Yale Law was similar (a guess), then the Yale admission dean's statement may be credible. Princeton's undergrad admissions description back then doesn't give admission percentages, class rank breakdowns or SAT guidelines or anything, all very mysterious. Maybe it depended upon which eating club wanted you. (As it happens I am the same age as Sotomayor, graduated from high school at the same time, and was in the same applicant pool as her for some of the colleges we applied to in common. [Yes, she did better than me, then and now :-] And for some reason I still have the College Board College Handbook from back then, which I'm using to look up admissions stuff.) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this question is likely to be resolvable in any definitive way by either journalists or encyclopedia editors. My own best guess is that she may well have been a beneficiary of affirmative action as a high school senior when she was admitted to Princeton, but that it was overdetermined that she would be admitted to Yale Law (i.e. at that point, she definitely did not need any affirmative action). In other words, Princeton took a chance on her, and the chance paid off: she performed outstandingly. As to Yale: While some top graduates of Princeton are indeed rejected from Yale Law every year (even more today than in Sotomayor's time) I doubt that too many winners of the Pyne Prize who apply have ever been rejected from Yale Law, then or now. That particular prize requires major extracurricular achievements and contributions to the life of Princeton as well as stellar grades; that kind of stuff is exactly what the Yale Law admissions people are looking for in order to separate the summa cum laude Ivy League grads they admit from the ones they reject. Even if Sotomayor's LSATs were a bit below the Yale median, Yale tolerates some LSAT variance, and I think her superstar performance at Princeton made her a shoo-in at Yale Law. By shoo-in I mean that some white student who did other, different, but similarly impressive stuff that earned her the Pyne Prize the next year would also have almost certainly been admitted. So I think Thomas' account is quite credible. Sotomayor's own statements that appear to contradict his account need to be read in light of the fact that she was speaking during the affirmative action wars of the 1980s and 1990s, and she was arguing for affirmative action. It would not have furthered her argument, and indeed would have sounded both divisive and ridiculously egotistical, for her to emphasize the possibility that she personally did NOT need affirmative action at Yale, while other minority applicants did. Anyway, she had no personal knowledge of the real reasons for her admission to Yale (as both Wasted Time R and Tvoz have already noted). James Thomas, on the other hand, certainly had personal knowledge. All that said, I don't think this is one we can definitively resolve, so the factual statement as to whether she did or didn't benefit from affirmative action probably does not belong in the article. - JRtx (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about your guesses. One alternate approach for us to take would be in the "Other activities" section, where we talk about the themes of the speeches and discussions she has given over the years. We could say there that she has spoken about how she is an affirmative action success story, and maybe even include the "I am the perfect affirmative action baby" quote that's gotten a fair amount of play the last couple of days (e.g. this CNN story). Doing it this way (rather than in the "College and law school" section), we're portraying it as something she thinks happened rather than as a factual statement. The downside is that this will be a subtle distinction lost on many readers. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is really the kind of controversy that needs to be in the article, which I'm not convinced it is, then her "perfect affirmative action baby" comment should at a minimum be accompanied by something like The Dean of Admissions of Yale Law School at the time, James Thomas, stated that her outstanding undergraduate record at Princeton ensured her admission; her background played little role. (the ref is "nyt060609ct"). Also, her "affirmative action baby" statements should be put in some kind of context that reflects the fact that she was making an argument for affirmative action, not just telling her life story or something. I think your idea of where to put it is not bad, but I remain unconvinced that this should go in the article at all. In any case I certainly agree that it does not belong in the bio section, as though her arguments on behalf of affirmative action (using herself as an example) reveal actual information about why she got in to Yale Law (which they do not; and anyway this is information she did not and could not know). - JRtx (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this edit by User F203 – I just saw the ones after it to the lead and first section and was dealing with them. If I had seen it, I would have reverted it per the prior discussion here, so I agree with your reversion of it. As for what we do in this article, in the best case we'll get something more definitive reported on the matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

wrong question being asked....not whether she benefitted but that she said she benefitted

The question isn't whether or not she benefitted from affirmative action. The important encyclopedic information is that she said she was an affirmative action baby. This actually shows that the program can do some good and produce supreme court justices! It also was a neutral response to someone's edit that she did not benefit from it, just presenting both sides. But it seems that several people don't want any mention of affirmative action. I don't really care much about this lady or this article. User F203 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a reference to her remarks on herself and affirmative action to the "Other activities" section, as proposed above. At this point the "affirmative action baby" quote has about 10,000 google hits, so not incorporating it somewhere in the article doesn't seem like an option. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

the early history section desprately needs a rewrite, it sounds like it was written by a five year old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.243.73.14 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to be more specific? Point to two or three sentences and say what's wrong with them. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention Estrada?

Ferrylodge has added this to the article: "Republican Senators have pointed out that the Democratic minority in the Senate filibustered the appeals court nomination of Miguel Estrada, who could have become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice." with this as the edit summary: "We can leave out whether GOP will filibuster, but Estrada needs to go in for NPOV. We have Leahy ridiculing the Senate MAJORITY for merely STALLING."

The reason we include Leahy's remark is that it concerned Sotomayor's nomination. The reason I don't think we should include the Estrada battle is that it had nothing to do with Sotomayor. NPOV isn't the point here. If you were writing an article about Supreme Court battles in the post-Bork era, then yes, you'd include both these episodes. But this article isn't trying to capture Supreme Court battle history, it's just trying to describe Sotomayor's life. If Estrada had been a Supreme Court nominee and was voted down, then maybe it would be worthwhile to mention that he would have been the first Hispanic justice. But he wasn't, and the pile of "ifs" that would make him the first is too big to deal with for this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Estrada is part of this present confirmation. GOP Senators are frequently bringing up his name, and what happened to him. If that's kept out of the present article, then the present article will fail NPOV. The present article would make it sound like those mean Republican racists tried to hassle Sotomayor in 1998, when in fact the history is not nearly so simple.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If Bush had nominated Estrada to the Supreme Court it would be relevant. He didn't so it's not. bd2412 T 03:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And what happens if every GOP Senator on TV from now until her confirmation vote emphasizes "Estrada"? Do we still sweep that under the rug? And what if every GOP Senator who votes against her cites Estrada? Still irrelevant?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If Estrada becomes the main point of contention rather than wise Latina or Ricci or judicial activism or bad temperament etc., then yes I would agree that it belongs here. But so far, Estrada is pretty far down the list, mostly I would guess because 90% of Americans don't know who he is. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Many things are part of the current confirmation, but this summary section is just trying to deal with the most frequently mentioned and important of them, which so far have been "wise Latina" (by far) and Ricci v. DeStefano. I'm okay with adding something to make clear that Republicans in 1998 weren't being racist, but rather were just engaged in Senate Byzantinity, but Estrada is a tangent that I don't think we need to go down. We'll see what others here have to say. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest adding to make clear that Republicans in 1998 weren't being racist in comparison to the other party? Leahy's remark is completely out of context without mentioning what happened to Estrada. And Leahy's remark from 1998 is certainly getting a lot less attention in the media now than the Estrada analogy.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To give substance to what I said above, I did Google News search for Sotomayor in conjunction with: "wise Latina" 2,713 hits; "Ricci" 567 hits; "temperament" 565 hits; "judicial activism" 370 hits; "Estrada" 180 hits. There's likely a bunch of other things I could have searched for that would have finished higher than Estrada as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff in the present article that would get even less hits, like that her father died when she was nine. Is there perhaps some way to find a more intelligent comment from Leahy? I know it may be difficult to find one, but surely we can look for a comment that's not pure hatred and insults. What is the purpose of the Leahy quote?Ferrylodge

Actually, her father dying gets 493 hits. And it's kinda relevant to her biography. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And the purpose of the Leahy quote is to show that Dems were torqued off by the situation. A parallel quote about the Estrada situation definitely belongs in ... the Estrada article. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What Leahy further said was, "What they [GOP] are saying is that they have a brilliant judge who also happens to be a woman and Hispanic, and they haven't the guts to stand up and argue publicly against her on the floor. They just want to hide in their cloakrooms and do her in quietly." So what if we drop the Leahy stupid/coward quote, and instead paraphrase: "Leahy said Republicans were using a block so that they could avoid publicly opposing a female Hispanic nominee." Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How about if we remove the unrebutted smears by Leahy from this article, and also remove Estrada for the time being?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How about we leave Leahy in, and add a Republican rebuttal to it? Back in the morning. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If the rebuttal has occurred in the last month or so, can we include it even if it doesn't get a whole lot of google news hits? I mean, Leahy's remarks from 1998 don't get a lot of hits now either.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've added in the Leahy paraphrase on GOP motivations, as above. No, a "new" rebuttal that brings in future history (Estrada) is not appropriate. That NYT story at the time didn't have any Republican rebuttals in it that I could see, and indeed that's the whole point to an anonymous hold as used by both parties, to be able to do someone in without having to do it publicly. This Google News search from sources at the time didn't turn up much that adds anything that I could tell (this was an inside-the-Beltway story, didn't get a lot of coverage, and what coverage there was is often in editorials we can't use). Except for this curious Washington Times story, saying that in order to get the Sotomayor nom moving, Leahy put a hold on Chester J. Straub, a Clinton/Moynihan nominee!? Seems very counterintuitive and unlikely, but if true would give you the contemporaneous Leahy-is-a-hypocrite "rebuttal" you're looking for. Somebody I know may have access to the full article without paying the Moonies, will follow up this evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this link, Leahy distinguished the racist Sotomayor obstruction from the racist Estrada obstruction on the basis that the Estrada obstruction occurred "in the light of day". Can we add something like that?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Estrada, since that happened well after the Sotomayor nomination process and therefore had nothing to do with it. I've now read the Washington Times story in full. The gist of it is that Leahy was annoyed that Straub -- who was more conservative than all the other judges whose nominations were being held up, but who was picked by Clinton because he had been Moynihan's campaign manager and had chaired Moynihan's judicial screening committee, and Straub was about to get unanimous consent confirmation by the Senate -- was going to get on the bench ahead of Sotomayor and gain seniority as a result. So on May 22 he either put an anonymous hold on Straub or caused a procedural delay by forcing a roll call vote when one wasn't possible (the article is a little contradictory or poorly worded on which or if both). Leahy's staffer defended the roll call by saying it was the only leverage he had, but Moynihan reportedly got steamed as you would expect. In any case Straub got confirmed about 10 days later and Sotomayor stayed in limbo, so Leahy's action didn't have any lasting effect. The article has mostly anonymous sourcing, but that was standard for its day. It also has a new and more nasty quote from Leahy on Republicans that I won't repeat, lest it disturb Ferrylodge further. But I've added this episode to the article, because it does undercut Leahy's statement about the wrongness of holds and delays. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article now implies that Leahy was accusing the GOP of opposing Sotomayor because of her race and gender: "Ranking Democratic committee member Patrick Leahy said Republicans were using a block so that they could avoid publicly opposing a female Hispanic nominee." Here's what Leahy said in 2008: "What they are saying is that they have a brilliant judge who happens to be a woman and Hispanic and they haven’t the guts to stand up and argue publicly against her on the floor. They want to hide in their cloakrooms and do her in quiet."

Leahy later elaborated about the Sotomayor nomination in 2003: "Senator Leahy was talking about anonymous holds. Judge Sotomayor was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on March 5, 1998, but anonymous Republican holds had prevented her nomination from being scheduled for a vote. On June 18, after her nomination had been pending on the floor for more than three months, Senator Leahy went to the floor to protest the anonymous hold or holds against her. Republicans refused to bring her to a vote for FOUR MORE MONTHS. Once she was finally allowed a vote, 23 Republicans voted against her, yet NONE put any statement in the record or made a statement accounting for their holds or votes."[10]

This Wikipedia article should therefore be emphasizing Leahy's complaints about anonymous holds. That was his main point, and instead this Wikipedia article is now suggesting that his main complaint was GOP racism or sexism. I'll tweak this article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The article before your change didn't say what you think it did. It was saying that Leahy said Republicans opposed Sotomayor on ideological grounds, but were afraid of publicly voting against her because they didn't want to take the heat from voting against a female and a Hispanic. In other words, Republicans weren't racist, but were afraid of being perceived as racist. However, in fact in a different quote I found, Leahy did say that you think he did. The Washington Times article previously mentioned says: "Mr. Leahy suggested the Sotomayor nomination is dogged by discrimination. "'For some unexplained reason, judicial nominees who are women or racial or ethnic minorities seem to take the longest,' Mr. Leahy said." But it's okay with me if we don't go there. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've just discovered Category:Federal judicial appointment controversies in the United States contains articles on federal judicial appointment battles going back to LBJ. We should reference these as part of giving some of the history context to the Sotomayor nominations. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now added Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies and George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies to the "See also" section. Sotomayor actually isn't mentioned in the former, because it only covers failed, withdrawn, and never-happened nominations, not slow-walked ones (which I think should be added). Estrada is certainly mentioned in the latter. But hopefully these will give the interested reader some understanding of the history and climate behind the appointment battles, and how's it's been going tit-for-tat for a long time. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The First Hispanic Supreme Court Justice?

This is arguably not the case. What about Benjamin Cardozo?Balavent (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, Cardozo's ancestors were Sephardic jews from Portugal, not Spain. So, the Federal Judicial Center simply calls him a white male.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think you can just dismiss the question out of hand like that. The question is being discussed. Try googling "Cardozo Hispanic", for a sample.

As a recent Associated Press article on the subject stated, "Some definitions of Hispanic include Portugal and Portuguese-speaking cultures; others don't".

Also, I'm not certain that the Federal Judicial Center should necessarily be considered the final arbiter. It might be appropriate to at least qualify the assertion that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic on the High court.Balavent (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, this has been discussed previously here at this talk page.[12][13]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is covered exhaustively at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. The key distinction is that Cardozo himself was not even certain of his distant ancestry - his Portuguese descent was a matter of "family tradition" which he was unable to confirm, and he did not maintain Portuguese cultural practices. bd2412 T 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To echo what others are saying, the consensus in the general media coverage and on our prior talk page discussions is that Cardoza doesn't count as first Hispanic on the court. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I went to the section on demograhics that you referred to. I've excerpted the appropriate section here:

"Benjamin Cardozo, appointed to the Court in 1932, was the first Justice of non-northern European descent. Some historians contend that Cardozo, a Sephardic Jew believed to be of distant Portuguese descent,[12] should also be counted as the first Hispanic Justice.[1] For example, Segal and Spaeth state: "Though it is often claimed that no Hispanics have served on the Court, it is not clear why Benjamin Cardozo, a Sephardic Jew of Spanish heritage, should not count". They identify a number of other sources that present conflicting views as to Cardozo's ethnicity, with one simply labeling him "Iberian". The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, widely described in media accounts as the first Hispanic nominee, drew more attention the question of Cardozo's ethnicity.[13][14][15][16] Cardozo biographer Andrew Kaufman questioned the usage of the term "hispanic" during Cardozo's lifetime, commenting: "Well, I think he regarded himself as Sephardic Jew whose ancestors came from the Iberian Peninsula."[14] The majority view is that Cardozo was white, and thus only whites and African-Americans have ever been on the Court. It has also been asserted that Cardozo himself "confessed in 1937 that his family preserved neither the Spanish language nor Iberian cultural traditions."

I think this section reinforces my view that his Hispanic heritage is arguable. As stated above, some historians contend that he was Hispanic. Cardozo's inability to confirm "Portuguese descent" does not mean that he did not possess it, and the fact that his family didn't preserve "Spanish language nor Iberian cultural traditions", is irrelevant.

Even if one accepts that the general consensus is that Cardozo was not Hispanic, there is a real possibility that he was, and that should be reflected in the article. If we don't mention the possibility, the article will be incomplete at best, and inaccurate at worst. Balavent (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, knowing WP readers/editors like I do, this question won't go away, so it's probably better if the article is not silent on the matter. The article now says this in the body:

If confirmed, this would make her the Supreme Court's first Hispanic or Latino justice.[20][22][27][82][146][150][151] (Some attention has been given to Justice Benjamin Cardozo – a Sephardic Jew believed to be of distant Portuguese descent – as the first Hispanic on the court when appointed in 1932, but his roots were uncertain, the term "Hispanic" was not in use at the time, and many exclude the Portuguese from its meaning.[152][153][154])

The lead still says "its first Hispanic justice", I'm not plunging into a digression there. Is this arrangement satisfactory to everyone? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a satisfactory resolution. Thank you. Balavent (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose having that in a footnote. To have it in the lead itself seems to me to give undue weight to a rather tenuous proposition. bd2412 T 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I considered that, but I thought readers would easily miss it (especially since the assertion that she's the first Hispanic has many footnotes already) and we'd end up back here again the next time a reader protested that we weren't addressing the Cardozo question. On the other hand, I agree that fully explaining the Cardozo bit takes a fair amount of text and can be seen as undue emphasis. So I'm agreeable to either approach. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What about a compromise that honestly gives both judges their appropriate "firsts"? Benjamin Cardozo can be mentioned (in the lead, so nobody misses it), as the first Hispanic justice (since portugal is part of the iberian penisula -- Latin: Hispania), and Sotomayor is the first Latin American justice. Of course this assumes that Sotomeier will be confirmed by the Senate and not withdraw her nomination, which is no sure bet given the current climate. Erich Mendacio (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This 'compromise' would be faulty, since the consensus among reliable sources is that Sotomayor is the first Hispanic justice to be nominated. There's currently 7 footnotes to this effect, but it could easily be made 17 footnotes or 70 ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Those sources are biased and confuse (as most contemporary Americans) the definition of "Latino" and "Hispanic." For too long people, mostly because of the American (North and South) media and entertainers, have associated "Hispanic" with Latin America, a la Ricky from I Love Lucy, Cheech Marin, Rosie Perez, and Carlos Mencia. The truth is that "Hispanics" are anyone who descended from the Iberian peninsula, most of whom are 100% caucasian in appearance and have nothing to do with those of "Latino" lineage.

A good example of someone the contemporary pundits and the Latinos would not feel sufficiently "Hispanic" enough is Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor, who was undoubtedly 100% Hispanic, the King of Spain, with grandparents from Castile. In short, you don't have to be a short, fast-talking, tan person to be "Hispanic." Erich Mendacio (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Erich Mendacio is a banned user. I'll leave there comments here but they could be struck if needed. This note is just to advise not to expect a reply. -- Banjeboi 03:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I have struck the comments in the way typically done on talk pages. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

10 most important cases as judge

As for rulings in general, starting on page 88 of her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire responses, she lists her 10 most important cases as judge. Someone should probably check them against the article to see if they're all there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Here they are (and, yes, as a product of a process of the United States federal government, these are in the public domain):

(1) Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc., No. 95 Civ. 2054 (SS), 880 F. Supp. 246 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (District Judge Sotomayor), affirmed, 67 F.3d 1054 (2d Cir. 1995) Nature of the Case: This action by the National Labor Relations Board alleged that the major league baseball owners engaged in unfair labor practices during the 1994-1995 players strike. Disposition: The district court issued a preliminary injunction against the major league owners, ordering them to restore the terms and conditions of employment provided under their most recent agreement with the players. The court concluded that the National Labor Relations Board, which brought the action against the owners, had reasonable cause to believe that the owners committed unfair labor practices when they revoked the salary arbitration clause and the free agency anticollusive provision in their most recent agreement with the players absent a good faith impasse. The court also concluded that an injunction was just and proper based on the possible harm to the public, the players, and the NLRB. The Second Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction order. The case was administratively closed on June 26, 2001.

(2) Clarett v. National Football League, 369 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2004) (Judge Sotomayor, writing for a panel including Judge Sack, and District Judge Kaplan, of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation) Nature of the Case: A football player sued the NFL, arguing that an NFL rule that limited eligibility for the NFL entry draft to players who were three full college football seasons removed from high school graduation constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the player, and the NFL appealed. Disposition: On appeal, the Court of Appeals ordered judgment in favor of the NFL. The Court held that the NFL’s eligibility rules are immune from antitrust scrutiny under the non-statutory labor exemption, a long-recognized rule that, in order to accommodate the collective bargaining process, certain concerted activity among and between labor and employers must be held to be beyond the reach of the antitrust laws. The Court concluded that the conditions under which a prospective player will be considered for employment as an NFL player are for the union representative and the NFL to determine, and that the fact that the NFL and players’ union did not bargain over the rule did not exclude the rule from the scope of the non-statutory exemption. Subsequent history: The Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded to the district court with directions to enter judgment in favor of the NFL. The player’s petition for certiorari was denied. On remand, the district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses on the ground that he was not the prevailing party, and closed the case.

(3) United States v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2005) (Judge Sotomayor, writing for a panel including Judges Cardomone and Cabranes) Nature of the Case: This case arose from the prosecution of Frank Quattrone, a former executive of the bank Credit Suisse First Boston, for allegedly obstructing investigations into the bank’s handling of initial public offerings of certain technology companies during the Internet boom of the late 1990s. In an effort to protect the integrity of Mr. Quattrone’s second criminal trial, after the first ended in a deadlocked jury and mistrial, the district court issued an order forbidding members of the media from publishing, during the trial, the names of jurors that were disclosed in open court. Disposition: The Court of Appeals struck down the district court’s order as an unjustified prior restraint on expression in violation of the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses of the First Amendment. Although sensitive to the district court’s attempt to protect the fairness of the criminal trial, the Court reasoned that the order unnecessarily infringed both the right against prior restraints on speech and the right to report freely on events that transpire in an open courtroom. Subsequent history: Mr. Quattrone was convicted, but the conviction was vacated by a later panel of the Court of Appeals. See United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2006). On remand from that appeal, Mr. Quattrone and the government entered into a deferred prosecution agreement.

(4) Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003) (Judge Sotomayor, writing for a panel including Judge Wesley, and District Court Judge Pollack, of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation) Nature of the Case: A prison inmate brought a First Amendment action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against corrections officials, alleging that the refusal to serve a religious feast in a high-security area infringed his religious rights. The district court granted the corrections officials’ motion for summary judgment, and the inmate appealed. Disposition: The Court of Appeals held that the that the corrections officials were not entitled to summary judgment on the grounds relied upon by the district court. The Court explained that the district court had erroneously focused its analysis under the Free Exercise Clause on the objective validity of the religious belief, instead of on the sincerity of the inmate’s belief in the feast’s religious significance. The Court further held that there existed a factual dispute concerning whether the inmate’s religious exercise had been substantially burdened and that the record was insufficient to determine whether legitimate penological interests justified the officials’ conduct. Subsequent history: The Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision. The parties subsequently stipulated to dismiss the case.

(5) In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, 503 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) (Judge Sotomayor, writing for a panel including Chief Judge Jacobs and Judge Leval) Nature of the Case: Investors filed class actions under federal securities laws, alleging that the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) failed to adequately monitor and police trading by its floor-trading firms, and made misrepresentations about the market’s integrity. The district court dismissed the claims, and the investors appealed. Disposition: The Court of Appeals held that the NYSE’s absolute immunity, arising from its quasi-governmental role in the regulation of the securities market, extended to the nonexercise of its regulatory power. Consequently, the NYSE was entitled to absolute immunity from liability based on its alleged regulatory failure to take action against the firms’ conduct. But the Court held that plaintiffs had standing to bring their Rule 10b-5 claim for the NYSE’s alleged misrepresentations. Subsequent history: The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court that the NYSE was entitled to absolute immunity based on its alleged regulatory failure, vacated the judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ standing and remanded for proceedings consistent with its decision. The petition for writ of certiorari was subsequently denied. California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. New York Stock Exchange, 128 S.Ct. 1707 (2008). For appellants: Eric A. Isaacson Coughlin, Stoia, Gellar, Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 231-1058 For appellees: Debra M. Torres Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004 (212) 859-8028

(6) Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2006) (Judge Sotomayor, writing for a panel including Judge Katzmann, and Judge Eaton of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation) Nature of the Case: A former state parolee, who had been convicted of sexual crimes involving minors, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his parole officers, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing and enforcing a special condition of parole that prohibited his possession of “pornographic material.” The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. Disposition: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court explained that even if the term “pornography” is inherently vague, the materials the plaintiff possessed – which contained sexually explicit pictures and lurid descriptions of sex between men and boys – fit within “any reasonable understanding of the term [pornography].” Accordingly, the Court concluded that the plaintiff’s parole condition was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct. Because the plaintiff’s as-applied vagueness challenge failed, and because he could not demonstrate that the no-pornography condition threatened to chill the exercise of substantial constitutionally protected conduct, the Court did not reach the question whether the parole condition was impermissibly vague on its face. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s First Amendment overbreadth challenge.

(7) United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) (Judge Sotomayor, writing for the panel, with Chief Judge Jacobs joining in part and dissenting in part and Judge Livingston joining in part and concurring in the judgment); 293 Fed. Appx. 838 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order) (Chief Judge Jacobs and Judges Sotomayor and Livingston) Nature of the Case: In this criminal action, the defendant was convicted, upon a conditional guilty plea, of 242 counts relating to child pornography and traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors. The district court had previously denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his home and computer pursuant to a search warrant and statements he made to Federal Bureau of Investigation agents. The district court sentenced the defendant to 30 years in prison. The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. Disposition: The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction, and Judge Sotomayor drafted the panel opinion. A majority of the panel (Jacobs, C.J. & Sotomayor, J.) held that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, and a differently aligned majority of the panel (Sotomayor & Livingston, J.J.) held that the motion to suppress was nevertheless properly denied because the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. Accordingly, a majority of the panel affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence seized from his home. The opinion explained that the good-faith exception applied because the judge that issued the search warrant was not knowingly misled and the affidavit in support of the warrant was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render reliance unreasonable. In a separate order, the Court of Appeals unanimously held that the district court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the FBI agents.

(8) Shi Liang Lin v. United States Department of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc) (Judge Sotomayor, concurring, in an opinion joined by Judge Pooler) Nature of the Case: Three applicants, whose respective girlfriends and fiancée allegedly were victimized by China’s family planning policies, appealed the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum. The Second Circuit ordered a hearing en banc to consider the BIA’s rationale for extending a per se presumption of persecution to spouses, but not to non-married partners, of individuals who had been involuntarily subjected to an abortion or sterilization. Disposition: The Second Circuit held that the statute providing refugee status to applicants who had undergone forced abortions or involuntary sterilization does not provide those applicants’ spouses, boyfriends, or fiancés with automatic eligibility for refugee status. Judge Sotomayor’s opinion concurring in the judgment argued that, because the cases before the Court involved only unmarried petitioners, it was inappropriate for the majority to opine on whether its holding extended to spouses. In particular, the opinion explained that “the majority’s conclusion disregards the immutable fact that a desired pregnancy in a country with a coercive population control program necessarily” affected both spouses “and that the state’s interference with this fundamental right may have subtle, far reaching and devastating effects for both husband and wife.” Id. at 330. Subsequent history: The petitioners’ petition for certiorari was denied.

(9) United States v. Real Property Known as 77 East 3rd Street, New York, NY, No. 85 Civ. 3351, 849 F. Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); 869 F. Supp. 1042 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); 1994 WL 4288 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 1994); 1994 WL 4276 (Jan. 4, 1994) (District Judge Sotomayor) Nature of the Case: This case was a civil forfeiture action brought by the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) to forfeit defendant in rem, the building and real property located at 77 East 3rd Street, New York, New York (together the “Building”). The government alleged that the New York City Chapter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (the “Club”) used the Building to store and distribute narcotics. Sandy Alexander, his wife Colette Alexander, and the Church of Angels subsequently intervened as claimants. Disposition: Following an approximately five-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all of the claimants. The jury found that the claimants had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant-in-rem, the Building, was not used, or intended to be used, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a felony drug violation between October 12, 1984 and May 2, 1985. The district court issued two published opinions in connection with this action. One opinion resolved pre-trial motions. 849 F. Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (granting the government’s motion to impanel an anonymous jury in light of the Club members’ history of violence). The second opinion denied the government’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) or for a new trial under Rule 59(a). 869 F. Supp. 1042 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The district court also issued two unpublished opinions resolving pre-trial motions. 1994 WL 4288 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 1994) (denying intervenor claimants’ motion to dismiss the government’s Third Amended Complaint on the grounds that the forfeiture violates the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause); 1994 WL 4276 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 1994) (denying intervenor claimants’ motions (1) to bifurcate the probable cause hearing from the innocent owner portion of the forfeiture trial; (2) to allow them to present their evidence on the question of their innocent ownership of the Building before the Government presents its case on probable cause and to then be allowed to rebut the Government’s case; and (3) to dismiss the forfeiture complaint and to suppress evidence seized at the Building at the time of the Building’s arrest

(10) Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000) (Judge Sotomayor, dissenting from a decision authored by Judge Jacobs and joined by Judge Michel, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation) Nature of the Case: A father sought an order compelling his wife to return their minor child to Hong Kong under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. The district court entered judgment in favor of the father and issued the order. Disposition: On appeal, the majority held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the child to Hong Kong because a ne exeat provision in a Hong Kong custody order (which provided, with limited exceptions, that the child not be removed from Hong Kong without leave until she attained 18 years of age) did not confer “rights of custody” on either the father or the Hong Kong court. Judge Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the ne exeat clause gave “rights of custody” to the father within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the father’s petition to return the child to Hong Kong therefore should have been granted. Judge Sotomayor concluded that the mother had breached the father’s right of custody by removing the child from Hong Kong without the consent of the father or the Hong Kong court. Subsequent history: The father’s petition for certiorari was denied. On remand, the district court dismissed the father’s petition for return of the child and closed the case. The federal courts of appeals are split on the question whether a ne exeat clause can confer “rights of custody” upon a parent. A number of the decisions addressing this issue have cited the Croll majority and/or dissent. See Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702, 718 n.13, 719, 720 n.15, 721 n.16, 722 nn.17-18 (11th Cir. 2004) (following the Croll dissent); but see Abbott v. Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081, 1087 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding, with the Croll majority, that ne exeat clauses do not confer “rights of custody” upon a parent); Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491, 500 (4th Cir. 2003) (same); Gonzalez v. Gutierrez, 311 F.3d 942, 944 (9th Cir. 2002) (same). A petition for certiorari raising this question is pending before the United States Supreme Court. Abbott v. Abbott, Docket No. 08-645. Legal opinions in the United Kingdom and South Africa have analyzed the Croll decision and favorably discussed the dissent’s reasoning. See Sonderup v. Tondelli, [2001] 1 SA 1171 (CC) at 22-24 (S. Afr.); In re D (A Child), [2007] 1 A.C. 619, 628-29, 634-35 (H.L.).

Cheers! bd2412 T 01:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So are any of these missing from the article? All this legalese is a MEGO to me ... that must be why I abandoned being a pre-law student ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

From the above we are missing (4) Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003); (5) In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, 503 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007); (6) Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2006); (7) United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008); (8) Shi Liang Lin v. United States Department of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007); (9) United States v. Real Property Known as 77 East 3rd Street, New York, NY, No. 85 Civ. 3351, 849 F. Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); 869 F. Supp. 1042 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); 1994 WL 4288 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 1994); 1994 WL 4276 (Jan. 4, 1994); and (10) Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000).

It's entirely subjective but I think Shi Liang Lin is particularly important (finding that a Chinese man should have an opportunity to seek asylum because his wife could be forced to have an abortion if they returned to China), as is Croll (offering in a dissent what is essentially a "father's rights" interpretation of an international treaty on child custody). Cheers! bd2412 T 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. You're right that it is subjective, and I suppose we should be guided by what other third-party sources have considered her most important cases, and not what she does. And this Reuters story noted that she didn't put Ricci on her top 10 list. But we could certainly include the two you're mentioning. I'm also inclined to include the Hell's Angels case, because it's the one of these that occurred in her district court and it probably has some visceral interest for the reader. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a lot of third-party discussion of the Hell's Angels case, other than this NYT story at the time, which focuses on the jury ruling and only mentions the judge, and this NYT profile from the following year, which says "Last September, she allowed the Hell's Angels motorcycle club to keep a Manhattan building it owned and called the Government's evidence of drug dealing there 'rather scanty indeed.'" but doesn't give the context where she "allowed" anything. From the description above, that's a reference to her denying the post-trial motion for a judgment against the jury verdict or a new trial? That denial would seem fairly routine to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose her own estimation of what her most significant cases were is a glimpse into her sense of priorities, but I frankly feel that there's an element of political 'signaling' in the list. She puts a famous baseball and football case at the top, and has two separate cases where she nailed people who committed child-sex related crimes. bd2412 T 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're likely right on the political calculation. It's best we use the accumulation of third-party sources to determine what her most important cases and rulings are. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree (although I'd be surprised if the media didn't pick up on reporting some of these cases based on their presence in the list). bd2412 T 17:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that third-party sources are better as far as which are her most important cases -- although frankly to some extent, it's just a matter of making our own judgments as editors about notability, a subject on which Wikipedians always seem to have their own views (for example, we are currently listing a couple of intellectual property-related cases that I think are of relatively marginal importance, but other people think they're important, so that's fine - I suspect that intellectual property has more interest among Wikipedians than some other subjects like complex financial regulation). I wouldn't read anything at all into Ricci not being on her own top-ten list because her list is entirely of opinions she wrote, and in Ricci she didn't write an opinion (she was just a member of the panel) although you wouldn't know that from reading much of the news coverage! We should be sure to be careful to specify which opinions she actually wrote, which ones she joined as a member of the panel, etc. Of the cases from her list that we don't have, I think BD2412 is right to flag Shi Liang Lin v. United States Department of Justice as one that looks important and maybe we should include. It touches on hot-button issues related to abortion AND immigration and it went en banc. JRtx (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: the Washington Post has a piece on Sotomayor's record in key cases where the court was divided. The list includes Pappas v. Giuliani (already in the article) and Gant (discussed in the section above), as well as the following:

• Hayden v. Pataki (2006) (felony disenfranchisement versus the Voting Rights Act)
• Hankins v. Lyght (2006) (age discrimination by a church having a mandatory retirement age)
• Galarza v. Keane (2001) (exclusion of Hispanics from a jury pool)
• Brown v. City of Oneonta (2000) (race-based questioning "sweep" of a town where a woman was attacked by a black man)
• Parker v. Columbia Pictures (2000) (firing of an employee injured on the job under the Americans With Disabilities Act)
• Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive (1999) (discrimination alleged by a woman deemed to be delusional)

We should probably look into including some of these as well. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I did earlier include a brief summary of that story's examination in the "Judgeship" section. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bumping this up to avoid auto-archiving before the discussion is resolved. bd2412 T 06:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the following Supreme Court Ruling where Judge Sotomayor's UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT was reversed 9 - 0 and decide if a judge that violates the law brought before her and violates all the outstanding Supreme Court precidents when ignoring what that law says, should even be considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. v. LOPEZ TORRES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 06–766. Argued October 3, 2007—Decided January 16, 2008 Read this Ruling at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-766.pdf

This is infinately more revealing of her judicial character than the other cases placed here! 24.230.54.5 (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)HK Hanson

Actually, your characterization of that case is completely incorrect. Here's the decision that Straub, Sotomayor, and Hall actually rendered:

Appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John Gleeson, judge), holding that plaintiffs demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on the merits of the First Amendment claim, enjoining the indirect primary election and judicial nominating convention for the office of New York State Supreme Court Justice, and requiring that party nominations be settled by direct primary election until the New York State Legislature enacts corrective legislation.

We hold that the District Court acted within its allowable discretion in concluding that plaintiffs demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim. We further hold that the District Court acted within its allowable discretion in enjoining the direct primary election and judicial nominating convention, and requiring that party nominations proceed via direct primary election until the Legislature enacts a new nominating mechanism.

So, where exactly in there is she violating the law laid before her? All she and the other judges are saying is that since there's a definite chance that the plaintiff will win her case, the District Court did not act incorrectly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to including the case, but I'm having trouble finding WP:RS secondary sources that discussed it at the time. There's this WSJ blog entry, there's this web page here, another one here ... not much to go on, no real news coverage. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I read through the case, and the opinion was written by Judge Straub, not by Sotomayor. I suppose it's relevant that she joined with the panel on this, but it was a unanimous panel. Also, there is no "e" in precedents (and no "a" in infinitely) so I am given to wonder what exactly the anon posting this comment knows about the law at all. bd2412 T 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I guess the lack of solid secondary source commentary on this case, even in the light of Sotomayor's nomination, indicates that it's not especially noteworthy in terms of Sotomayor herself. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CRS report

CRS has put forth an analysis on Sotomayor which looks very useful. It can be found here - [14]. Remember (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added it (by looking at the summary – I didn't slog through the whole thing). Wasted Time R (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Javier Sotomayor

Moved to Talk:Sotomayor (disambiguation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheiv (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Chain of Recommendation

Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau recommended Sonia Sotomayor to Senator Daniel Moynihan, who (with the approval of Senator Alphonse D'Amato) recommended her to President George H.W. Bush (Bush Sr.) as a Federal trial court judge in 1992. --Michael Steuers (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on this NYT story, the first step in what you wrote is an oversimplification. Morgenthau made a call, but also a partner at her law firm (Botwinik) and his friend (Gribetz) already knew her and had helped her get onto Sonyma, and they made calls to Moynihan as well. And Gribetz ran the judicial search committee for Moynihan. So it sounds like Morgenthau was the least important of these three in getting her the position. The Moynihan/D'Amato judgeships apportionment arrangement is already described in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

It seems that Sotomayor's sentence "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," quote didn't make it in this article. Sometimes (not always, though) things are only NPOV on Wikipedia if they are the majority's POV. [15] Invmog (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, the quote is in the article:

The strongest criticism of her nomination came from conservatives and some Republican senators regarding a line that she used in some form in a number of her speeches and that became best known from its use in her 2001 Berkeley Law lecture:[109][168] "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."[12][169]

And then later, the article says:

A June 12 Fox News poll showed 58 percent of the public disagreeing with her "wise Latina" remark but 67 percent saying the remark should not disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.[182]

In other words, if you had done a text search for 'wise Latina' you would have found it twice. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)