*sigh* I suppose it's too much to ask for that people look at her judicial record logically and weigh the facts to see how she interprets the constitution instead of just going "Hispanic good choice" or "We hate her because she was nominated by those horrid liberals!"

Yeah, while I'm dreaming I'd like the winning lotto ticket.

(not sure his opinion yet because he hasn't done enough research yet)

...so even if Obama nominated Snow White, they'd come up with...

Snow White is not qualified for this position. Everything isn't about race and gender. Chan, I suspect if Obama had nominated
Snow White you would support her no matter what.

Sotomayor is quoted as saying "...a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male..." She is also quoted as saying "...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." She has not repudiated these statements.

I believe that if any candidate for elected or appointed public office should be disqualified if he made the following statement:

A wise white male, with the richness of his experience, would make better judicial decisions than a {Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Muslim} {man, woman}.

Please choose one adjective and one noun from the above choices.

Frankly, abolishing the Supreme Court would be a better option.

Chan says:

Thanks, Lolly. Your statement," A wise white male, with the richness of his experience, would make better judicial decisions than a {Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Muslim} {man, woman}" was pretty much the prevailing sentiment in this country for about 150 years or so. We white males have had our time, and then some.
Fortunately, Ms. Sotomayor is eminently qualified to be a Justice, at least from what we know so far. That she happens to be Hispanic is icing on the cake.

Chan,

I am not saying Ms. Sotomayor is unqualified to be a justice. I am saying I find her statements offensive.

I do not understand why a Latina woman with her experiences growing up in New York would be able to interpret constitutional law better than anyone else.

If it were generally believed that gender, race, and cultural background enhanced an individual's qualifications we would be taking a major step backwards, not forwards.

I don't think you really mean it when you say white males have had their turn, now it is someone else's turn. Disenfranchising white males will hasten the destruction of the country. Do you feel you need to atone for the actions of others?

I would rather he had picked someone who is an exceptional judge who just happens to be hispanic than "A hispanic judge."

I mean she is representing ALL of us, yes?

Lolly,
I do believe that having Justices of different genders, races and cultural backgrounds enhances the decisions of the Supreme Court. After all, the Justices' job is to interpret the law. What is interpretation if not divining the meaning behind the legal code by filtering it through one's own set of experiences? A trained legal mind is but a part of equation. Life experience is another. The law is not a dead, dried-out screed, but a living organism when placed in the hands of living people. The more variety we have on the bench, the better it is for all of us. This is why the Founding Fathers settled upon nine Justices rather than just one.

Chan,
I agree with your viewpoint, but just have a clarification about your last post. The Founding Fathers didn't settle upon nine justices. The Constitution allows Congress to determine the size. There have been as few as 6 and as many as 10. Sorry to nitpick.

Chan,

The idea that we can change and improve our world is what FA Hayek called a fatal conceit. We are now looking at the crux of our philosophical disagreement.

You apparently believe that government, particularly with the right people in charge, is an instrument for good. I believe that government always makes things worse. It does not matter who is in charge, and it does not help even if government workers have the best of intentions.

I believe private property should be sacrosanct. That allows people to save and invest in a stable environment without fear of asset confiscation. Unfortunately, your living breathing Supreme Court believes it can empower governments to confiscate and redistribute property if it believes it is for the greater good.

When the justices make arbitrary rulings (based on life experience rather than the law) there are always unintended negative consequences.

By the way, the founding fathers did not specify there were to be nine supreme court justices. There are currently nine, but in the past the court has varied in size from six to ten justices. FDR wanted to pack the court with 15 justices to overturn their rulings, but the court caved in and this was not necessary.

Brent and Lolly,

I bow to your superior knowledge of constitutional law. I must have slept through that hour of my ninth-grade American History class. The football coach who taught it certainly did.

As for government always making things worse, I will cite Somalia as a fine example of how people behave toward one another without government. I would imagine that personal property there is made sacred at the point of an assault rifle.

Without government, we would have child labor, and no programs for controlling communicable diseases, just to name two things.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on our philosophies. I think we can do a lot worse than Sotomayor, whatever her ethnicity. Whether she is a good judge who happens to be Hispanic, or a Hispanic judge who happens to be good, depends on where you're coming from, and neither one of us can change that.

Chan

Regarding Somalia, a little anarchy may not be so bad. The following is from the CIA factbook cited on lewrockwell.com:

Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets.

While criminals may be wreaking havoc in Somalia, at least the government is not.

We'll have to save the child labor and communicable diseases discussion for another time.