Judge Soyomayor
written by Cameron Jackson cameronjacks@gmail.com
Wise people do not go around saying that they are wise. Judge Sotomayor has known for 10+ years that she might be considered for nomination to the Supreme Court. In her remarks she refers to herself as the “wise Latina” who she believes will make a better decision than a white male.
For Sotomayor to hold herself out as wise is not a wise decision. And to do so by connecting her wisdom to her racial background is dumb. That she made the “wise Latina” remarks in a number of speeches over a 4-5 year period is idiotic. It might even be viewed as a moronic decision considering that she knew she was on the list for possible nomination.
People we now call mentally retarded used to be called dumb, idiot or a moron. Those were commonly employed educational terms to describe students with low levels of functional intelligence.
For Judge Sotomayor to repeatedly say she is a “wise Latina” who will make better decisions because of her race/gender/rich experience shows a questionable level of functional intelligence. She may test smart on an IQ test – we have no information on that issue — but per her “wise Latina” remarks she can act in a dumb manner.
Getting a possibly dumb Latina on the bench may be exactly what President Obama wants. For Obama, it is all about leveling the playing field so everyone gets equality — except for Obama and close supporters.
After all, functionally dumb people should have an equal chance as a smart person to be on the Supreme Court. That is Obama’s thinking it appears. President Obama can just have Sotomayor over for social gatherings so that she learns how he wants her to vote on certain issues.
So how “dumb” is Obama? Not that dumb.
Asked questions during the nomination process about her “wise Latina” remarks, Sotomayor has tried to spin it differently. Do you think she succeeded? Or is her nose growing longer and longer?
“Pat Leahy opened the questioning of Judge Sonia Sotomayor by asking her some softball questions about her controversial speeches and decisions. In response, Sotomayor’s characterization of her “wise Latina” speech was strikingly disingenuous:
I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.
What — the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be what I just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.
That has to be what she meant, because judges disagree about legal outcomes all of the time — or I shouldn’t say all of the time, at least in close cases they do. Justices on the Supreme Court come to different conclusions. It can’t mean that one of them is unwise, despite the fact that some people think that.
So her literal words couldn’t have meant what they said. She had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and impartial.
Sotomayor employs a rhetorical dodge by focusing on how she interpreted Justice O’Connor’s famous statement that “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” She says that O’Connor couldn’t have meant that the the wise man and the wise woman will reach the same decision in every case, since judges often disagree. Rather, she interpreted O’Connor’s statement to mean that men and women have an equal capacity to reach wise judgments.
Of course that’s correct: O’Connor was saying that men and women shouldn’t reach different decisions because of their genders. But here is where Sotomayor hides the ball. Having created a diversion by talking about what O’Connor meant, she slipped in this key statement: “the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey.”
That statement is a falsehood. Sotomayor’s whole point in quoting Justice O’Connor was to disagree with, or at least express reservations about, O’Connor’s view that the judge’s gender shouldn’t affect the outcome of a case. Here is the passage from Sotomayor’s speech:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Thus, Sotomayor’s characterization of the context of her “wise Latina” remark is the opposite of the truth. She wasn’t “agreeing with the sentiment that Justice O’Connor was attempting to convey,” as she told Senator Leahy. Rather, she staked out a position in opposition to O’Connor’s. In her speech she expressly disagreed with O’Connor’s view, as Sotomayor put it, “that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.”
I’ve been on the fence as to whether Senators should vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, but this rather breathtaking dishonesty provides strong grounds to vote against her confirmation.
UPDATE: Later in the proceedings, Sotomayor couldn’t resist fudging the facts once again:
SOTOMAYOR: …I was talking about the value that life experiences have, in the words I used, to the process of judging. And that is the context in which I understood the speech to be doing.
The words I chose, taking the rhetorical flourish [i.e., “wise Latina”], it was a bad idea. I do understand that there are some who have read this differently, and I understand why they might have concern.
But I have repeated — more than once — and I will repeat throughout, if you look at my history on the bench, you will know that I do not believe that any ethnic, gender or race group has an advantage in sound judging. You noted that my speech actually said that.
And I also believe that every person, regardless of their background and life experiences, can be good and wise judges.
LEAHY: In fact, if I might…
KYL: Excuse me. Just for the record, I don’t think it was your speech that said that, but that’s what you said in response to Senator Sessions’ question this morning.
Indeed, Sotomayor said no such thing in her speech; she said the exact opposite
New York from ferry
On Rush Linbaugh show 7-16-09 he listed figures that New Yorkers will pay. For a single person making about $80 K it was a whopping amount. Checking the web for the article not all the figures given on the show are on the Internet version of the story. For more exact figures check the Linbaugh page.
July 16, 2009
Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state’s top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers.
New York’s top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent — rates not seen in three decades — to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week.
OPINION: SLEDGEHAMMER HIT TO CRUMBLING EMPIRE STATE
EDITORIAL: HERE COMES OBAMACARE
OPINION: THESE PLANS WILL REDUCE YOUR CHOICE
The top rate in New York City, home to many of the state’s wealthiest people, would be 58.68 percent, the Washington-based Tax Foundation said in a report yesterday.
That means New York’s top earners, small-business owners and most dynamic entrepreneurs will be facing new fees and penalties.
The non-partisan think-tank calculated the average local tax rate in New York State at 1.7 percent, and combined it with the 8.97 percent that high-bracket state taxpayers will shell out in 2011, when the health care plan is set to take effect. Tack on the 39.6 percent federal tax rate, 2.9 percent for Medicare and 5.4 percent for the health care “surtax,” and the figure is 56.92 percent for the Empire State.
In New York City, the top tax rate is 3.65 percent, making the Big Apple’s top combined rate even higher.
The $544 billion tax hike would violate one of President Obama’s ironclad campaign promises: No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.
Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.
The legislation is especially onerous for business owners, in part because it penalizes employers with a payroll bigger than $400,000 some 8 percent of wages if they don’t offer health care.
But the cost of the buy-in to the program may be so prohibitive that it will dissuade owners from growing their businesses — a scary prospect in the midst of a recession.
Obama took to the airwaves yesterday with ads and TV interviews promoting the need to reform health care.
As a Senate health committee passed a different version of a health-care reform bill – a milestone for the issue – Obama said on NBC, “The American people have to realize that there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
And in a Rose Garden speech, he said the “status quo” on health care is “threatening the financial stability of families, of businesses, and of government. It’s unsustainable, and it has to change.”
Asked if Obama supports the surtax on wealthiest Americans even though it would break a campaign pledge, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only, “It’s a process that we’re watching.”
Republicans in Washington and small-business defenders in New York said the House legislation would effectively place a stranglehold on businesses while running off top earners.
“Placing a big tax burden on the small-business community would rob them of the resources they need to create the jobs that will lead us out of the recession,” said Tom Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce.
“If there’s one sure way to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, this is it.”
Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small stores and businesses in New York City, warned that “in the middle of a recession, it’s a very strange way to legislate.”
“According to what we’ve read, the House health-insurance plan would have a job-crippling impact on neighborhood stores and other small businesses because they put mandates on these businesses that would prevent them from hiring people because of the cost of the plan,” Lipsky said.
Under the House plan, businesses with payrolls of $400,000 or more would pay an 8 percent penalty for uninsured workers, while companies with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 would pay slightly smaller penalties.
Adding to this burden, said Michael Moran of the State Business Council of New York, is that New York is already a high-tax state.
“Any additional taxes make New York even less competitive,” he said.
New York would become the third-most-hostile place for top earners to live under the proposed new surtaxes supported by House Democrats and championed by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).
Also hit would be individuals earning $280,000 annually and families making $350,000 a year.
The profits from small businesses would also be taxed on the back end.
Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an umbrella organization representing the city’s major businesses, said that the estimated top marginal tax rate of 57 percent for New York actually underestimates the potential impact on businesses.
That’s because it doesn’t include the city’s burdensome unincorporated-business tax, which snares many entrepreneurs.
“It could be between 62 and 63 percent,” she said.
If the House plan passes, Wylde said, “There literally, at this point, is very strong reason to relocate your family and your business outside New York.”
A lot of small businesses would be hit with the penalties for not insuring workers and get hit with the surtaxes, Moran warned.
“Many small businesses file their business taxes under personal income,” he said. “That’s the way the tax law is written. Small business, which is really where most of the job creation takes place, could be hit hard.
According to the city’s Department for Small Business Services, there are some 220,000 small businesses in the five boroughs. The agency does not keep track of how many offer health insurance.
“It’s something that’s going to kill jobs. That’s the result,” said Stephanie Cathcart, spokeswoman for the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Among the most egregious provisions of the House proposal, she said, is a requirement that businesses pay the cost of 72.4 percent of individual health plans and 65 percent of family plans.
Those that don’t hit the mark would face the payroll tax penalty.
churt@nypost.com
COMMENTS
Report item as: (required) X
Comment: (optional)
User Image
snowcloud wrote:
What would Thomas Jefferson do?
What would Thomas Jefferson say?
Food for thought.
7/16/2009 5:01 PM EDT
Recommend
Report Abuse
User Image
metsof62 wrote:
yoyo1234
You are by yourself properly named.
7/16/2009 5:00 PM EDT
Recommend
Report Abuse
User Image
metsof62 wrote:
NYC deserves to lose ANY and ALL that want to move away from it and NYS to boot ! Some cry about pensions. At least those people put years of working for the city into the system on the books paying taxes– even city taxes if they lived in Nassau or Suffolk. Look at all the corrupt businesses , politicians , Tammany Hall wannabes , adult s-ex theathers that feed organized crime. No , many would rather go after retiress or workers . Well NYC is the next Mogadishu and NYS the next Somalia. I was born in Brooklyn in 1948 and taught to work and pay your taxes and don’t dare go on social programs that take from the taxpayers unless you are dying. Een when I came home from the navy after Nam my police recruiter said et a job don’t collect the un-employment you are entitled to The city does not like laggards or goldbrickers. Not today. The city politicians crave them because for a little of your money they get guaranteed votes. The laggards in numbers outnumber tax PAYING voters . That is the fact. Think what you will but don’t let your thoughts deceive your eyes.
7/16/2009 4:57 PM EDT
Recommend
Report Abuse
User Image
yoyo1234 wrote:
“Hev wrote: We were all for your…teachers–working people.”
Oh come on now, if there’s one thing I know Southerners aren’t “all for” it’s teachers and working.
That’s why the South is statistically the stupidest, fattest, poorest section of the entire country. And proud of it!
7/16/2009 4:54 PM EDT
Recommend
Report Abuse
User Image
TheHangman wrote:
So the point isn’t just 100% about the health care issue. Why doesn’t the post just come out and say that Taxes in New York are inflated dues to Political, Special Interest and Union CORRUPTION!?
7/16/2009 4:53 PM EDT
Recommend
Report Abuse
User Image
metsof62 wrote:
Hev wrote:
Leave New York? Don’t even think about moving to the sunny south. We don’t want you here ruining our states with your liberal nonsense. We were all for your police, firefighters, and teachers–working people–moving here, and retirees who want to escape the cold. But you liberal morons who elected this sicko with his twisted evil agenda are most definitely NOT welcome. We have southern hospitality for regular ‘folk.’ But you will see the deliverance side of us if you think you can move down here and then proceed to vote for outrageous liberal policies and socialist candidates.
I’LL SECOND YOUR POST IMMEDIATELY !!!!!!!!!
7/16/2009 4:46 PM EDT
Recommend (8)
Report Abuse
User Image
metsof62 wrote:
When the government goes after the rich the middle class loses. Rich people have attorneys , tax accountants who use to work for the IRS and loop hole galore with exemptions from the tax code. Smaller wage earners $32, 000 for a family of 2 or more get tax money back and more money to bring them up to poverty level. Those who eventually get stuck with the tab are the middle of the road tax PAYERS .I am 61 and have learned one thing in those few years. Whenever Washington goes for tax money the middle of the roaders suffer. Cap and trade , health care , loss of local municipal revenue through prioperty tax loss and foreclosure. Who do you think will suffer the most from the cost of these calamities. Give me a break. I admit that I was NOT born yesterdy and received a decent education through college.
7/16/2009 4:45 PM EDT
Recommend (4)
Report Abuse
User Image
Hev wrote:
Leave New York? Don’t even think about moving to the sunny south. We don’t want you here ruining our states with your liberal nonsense. We were all for your police, firefighters, and teachers–working people–moving here, and retirees who want to escape the cold. But you liberal morons who elected this sicko with his twisted evil agenda are most definitely NOT welcome. We have southern hospitality for regular ‘folk.’ But you will see the deliverance side of us if you think you can move down here and then proceed to vote for outrageous liberal policies and socialist candidates.
7/16/2009 4:45 PM EDT
Recommend (10)
Report Abuse
User Image
TParty4USA wrote:
If you voted for Obama:
Be happy! You get to eat what you cooked.
And don’t complain! You broke it, you pay for it.
So quit whining and get ready to pay those taxes, just like Obama orders. It’s your patriotic duty.
And have a little empathy for all those voters who did not vote for Obama and his promise of “change” you can “believe in” — they are the true victims of the folly of those who enabled fundamental “change” to “belief” in one nation under Obamaism.
Heck, in this era of “fair” taxation at the expense of everything else, it would only be “fair” to allow a “hope” tax refund to all who voted against Obamaism.
They didn’t buy it then, and they shouldn’t have to pay for it now. After all, that’s only fair.
7/16/2009 4:45 PM EDT
Recommend (8)
Report Abuse
User Image
vanj wrote:
Hangman wrote:
“So only people who live in New York will only be those who will be effected? What about everyone else in the country? What state will everyone be moving to where there’s no federal tax?”
Every state has federal tax. The article addresses the combined burden of federal and local taxes on residents of NY. It addresses the potential of this causing a “straw that broke the camel’s back” scenario developing regarding high income and business flight from NY at a time NY can least afford it.
7/16/2009 4:42 PM EDT
