Reading Sotomayor’s 2002 “wise Latina” speech gives us real insight into this nominee. In this speech, she clearly states that judgements derive not from an objective consideration of the law and the facts of a case, but rather are inescapably colored by the experiences, culture and gender of the judge. This isn't even negotiable. It’s presented matter-of-factly as an axiom.You can read the whole thing. Being that I'm trying not to take this seriously -- for fear I might again succumb to another outbreak of Obama-Induced Tourette's Syndrome -- my question continues to be, what's her problem with the North Bronx? Is there some kind of North Bronx civic association that could point out that she's playing borough identity politics?
I have a distinct feeling that in today's academic legal community, this is not even a contentious viewpoint. It's just us non-legal experts (and presumably retrogrades like Scalia) who still think that it's possible to start from the law and the facts of a case, and arrive at a judgment based on established principles in both. . . .
Netenyahu's speech to Congress - Yesterday, Prime Minister Netenyahu made a great speech at AIPAC (the *unfiltered *speech is here). Today he followed up with another one to Congress:
2 hours ago