Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 1

Jurisprudence section

POV fluff? LeoO3 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That had to go.--Smashingworth 07:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone's curious, this is what the article looked like at the time that first 2005 comment was made. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of Laws from Princeton

I find it hard to believe that she received a Doctor of Laws from Princeton when there is no law school there. Where is the source? [10:46, April 1, 2007 76.80.130.214]

Looks like it's true. I guess when it's an honorary degree you can call it whatever you want. Josh (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a little off topic for this section, but education-related. I can't post this because of the protection on the article, but according to Sotomayor her undergrad degree was in History. If you think it's relevant and can post, feel free. Lamfr (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Political centrist?

Although a liberal Democrat or a liberal newspaper such as the New York Times may describe Sotomayor as a "political centrist," she is not viewed as such by conservatives. See Ed Whelan's evaluation of her in the National Review:

Highlighting the emphasis on diversity over quality in judicial selection, Justice Scalia has joked that “the next nominee to the Court will be a female Protestant Hispanic”. Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor fits at least two-thirds of the description. Plus, she’s acquired a reputation as a very liberal judge. For these reasons, she’s widely mentioned as a leading Supreme Court candidate in an Obama administration.

User:BoBo 00:59, November 27, 2008

I'm sorry, but there is widespread support in numerous solid, well-respected publications for the proposition that Sotomayor is widely considered a political centrist. The article already reflects that conservative activists call her a "liberal activist" etc., which is what conservative activists call nearly all Democratic judges. The blog post cited above from the National Review, a conservative magazine, by Ed Whelan, a right-wing lawyer, only confirms that she is a judge whom some conservative activists attack as liberal, a fact that is already present in the article. Thus, I am putting this proposition back in the article. However, as a concession, since the commenter above seems to think the New York Times is too biased a source (which, I would point out, is not consistent with usual wiki norms on this kind of issue), I'll footnote her centrist reputation instead to multiple additional sources. I'll cite the American Bar Association Journal, Cox Newspapers, _and_ the New York Times. The American Bar Association Journal alone should suffice to support this point. (Unless you are one of these wiki editors who thinks all sources are biased except partisan magazines that share your point of view.) Also, I would like to note that there is plenty of content in this article that comes from the National Review and other conservative magazines (from the supposed 'controversy' around Trent Lott calling her nomination to a vote, to the size of Senator Moynihan's role in her district court nomination, and on throughout the article); meanwhile there is NO content in this article that is sourced only to liberal or progressive magazines. Please do not remove well-sourced propositions regarding something as straightfoward as the fact that many publications have termed her a "centrist," using that word, merely because a right-wing lawyer on the National Review's blog takes another point of view that is already reflected in the article. --JRtx (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How come there is no information on her religion or on her position on abortion, or capital punishment for that matter...which all seem like substantial information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystalkeep (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The article said, "Bush appointed liberal Sotomayor in a deal that allowed a conservative judge to be appointed as well." Since the articles cites 16 sources that say she's a centrist, I changed the world "liberal" in that sentence to "centrist." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Her own words prove that the "centrist" tag is laughable. “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 208.127.106.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Reactionary periodicals like National Review (and make no mistake about their leanings) would consider John McCain a centrist, and Ronald Reagan (if it weren't for their considering him their patron saint) a liberal. Hbquikcomjamesl (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Examining the cited publications, they are mostly uniformly solid publications of the left. The New York Times, the Journal of the ABA, and the Huffington Post. These are all credible publications, but their view of the "centre" is no more accurate than that of the National Review. They are not NPOV. Indeed, the description of the National Review (a conservative magazine) as "reactionary" is interesting. Good grief. This is a mainstream conservative publication; I disagree with many things they say, but this view is very far from NPOV, and about as silly as describing the NY Times as a "revolutionary" paper, or a "far left" paper. I myself changed the wording to "moderate" rather than centrist. I think a much stronger case can be made for this. Centrist simply doesn't seem to fit. Holmwood (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is absurd in today's enviorment to expect any kind of objective source on whether a supreme court nominee is "liberal" or "moderate". Best to remove any attempt to label it one way or the other. This is especially true given the seriously flawed nature of many of the references cited for her being a "centrist". Check the dates - many are 10 years old. You could find sources that say David Souter is a moderate, if you looked at sources from years before his nomination. Just note the debate - something like "Democrats claim she is a centrist who respects the limits of the judicial role while republicans argue she is a liberal activist." Throw in some cites if you like. But please, only fairly recent ones - her judicial record 10 years ago isn't going to lead to very informed opinions. JaxElls (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

simple challenge on "unbiased sources" Name one Supreme Court nominee that the New York Times has labeled "leftist". 208.127.106.165 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, to label her as centrist and then link spam a bunch of left-leaning sources to back up the claim is disingenious. I suggest either adding support that lists her as liberal or removing the qualifiers alltogether. Arzel (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is uniform agreement that she is a centrist, regardless of what she really is. It's going to be something that people want to read about, so we should say "the NYT, ABA,... describe her as a centrist, while Fox News, ... describe her as a liberal". Then people can make up their own mind. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AP article says "In general, her rulings as a trial judge for six years and then as an appeals court judge since 1998 are in line with the liberal-leaning views of Justice David Souter, the man President Barack Obama has nominated her to replace."http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gFtUIX7x5MF3yejKGGXY_diC2pSgD98E6QA00 hard to say that AP is a conservative viewpoint.38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

I've added to the article a detailed explanation of the 1991-92 nomination process, Moynihan's role, etc. It does seem that she was regarded as a centrist at that time. While GHWB's views of her aren't reliably known, she was enthusiastically backed by Republican Al D'Amato, even though she was Moynihan's pick. She was blocked for a while before her full unanimous confirmation, but that was a Senate politicking retaliation measure that had nothing to do with her per se. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Sonia Sotomayor was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardozo

There seems to be a minor, and rather silly, edit war going on regarding whether Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic or Latino/Latina justice on the Supreme Court, if nominated. Some wish to insert the argument onto Sotomayor's wikipedia page that Benjamin Cardozo was actually the first Hispanic justice. This argument seems extremely remote and implausible based on available information. Cardozo and his parents and grandparents and great-grandparents (and great-great-grandparents and so on for a few more generations!) seem to have been born in the United States, and none of them spoke Spanish or Ladino or had any discernible connection to Hispanic or Latino/Latina culture or ethnicity as those terms are defined today. Rather, Cardozo is decended from Portuguese Jews who left Portugal, lived in the Netherlands, and then in England, before finally settling in British North America in the 1740s and 1750s. This is a pretty thin basis for calling him Hispanic. It is not even clear whether current Portuguese-Americans are considered Hispanic, let alone the descendants, many generations later, of members of the Portuguese Sephardic Jewish community who did not even immigrate to America directly from Portugal, and certainly had no connection to Spain or Latin America.

My first choice would be to just omit entirely this discussion of Cardozo, which I don't think is germane or plausible, and state that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic Justice. As a second alternative, one could state that she would be the first Latino/Latina justice (instead of "Hispanic") -- since nobody has argued or could plausibly argue that Cardozo was a Latino. As a third choice, we can keep it the way it is, with an unqualified sentence stating that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic justice, followed by a brief discussion of the Cardozo theory.

Any views on this question? 130.132.165.162 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody seems to have kicked the Cardozo thing into a footnote. That seems about right to me. 71.234.233.60 (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because Cardozo did not come from a Latin American country does not mean that he was not Hispanic. As everyone knows, ethnic divisions are somewhat murky at the edges, but the best definition is someone descended from the Iberian Peninsula (which obviously includes Portugal). I will adopt the second suggestion and change the wording to Latino, which is more accurate (see Hispanic and Latino Americans) but there is documentary evidence that Cardozo was Hispanic so the footnote version is not accurate. Papercrab (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources in Cardozo's article describing him as a Hispanic. Why the controversy here? I'm removing the footnote per WP:UNDUE. --J^mundo 00:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find reliable sources for the Cardozo is Hispanic argument, so I'm fine with deleting it (WP:UNDUE). If somebody does find reliable sources for the proposition that Cardozo should count as Hispanic, then they can revive the footnote. In any event I certainly don't think this theory belongs in the text of the article, just as a matter of relevance, given that the subject of the article is Sonia Sotomayor. 71.234.233.60 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No question Cardozo was Portuguese; the question is 'are Portuguese considered Hospanic?' to negate argument that Sotomayor may be the first Hispanic justice.65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The current definition of Hispanic from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget does not include Portugal simply because Portuguese as a language *is not Spanish.* Cardozo is also not Latino because he is not from Latin America. Cordozo is Latin. Cordozo was the first Latin member of the Supreme court. If confirmed, Sotomayer will be the first Hispanic and first Latina Supremem Court Justice. This isn't rocket science, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHLister (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Small Business Administration, in addition to other federal, state, and municipal agencies, do recognize Portuguese under the umbrella term of Hispanic. This discussion has emerged on Daily Kos[1] and elsewhere so I think it is worthy of at least a mention on wikipedia.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and predominant practice is not to exclude information just because there's a good argument against that information. Like it or not, the criterion for inclusion is that sources deemed good are including it, whether there are good arguments against it or not. If newspaper reports, NPR broadcasts, and so on are saying Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic justice (and they are), that should be in the Wikipedia entry even if it's false and demonstrably so, because any argument like the above will be deemed original research by the strange standard Wikipedia practices. Similarly, if there are newspaper articles and reputable-enough news stories on cable news with pundits saying Cardozo was the first Hispanic justice (and there are), then that should also go in the Wikipedia article, and the article should mention that some are saying one and some saying the other. Arguments like that above, by the Wikipedia standard, can only appear if they are taken from some published source. So I say put both claims in the article and link to arguments for each. After all, we don't want Wikipedia to be a place where original research goes on, even if that would make more sense. Parableman (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Parableman that the media reports Sotomayor as the first Hispanic doesn't make it right when it isn't.(That AP reported Taiwan's Yani Tseng as being South Korean last Sunday, and that article being published at multiple news outlet websites, change that golfer's country of origin?) Hispanic, look up its definition here at Wikipedia, are people from the Iberian Peninsula. Which Portugal clearly is, and the Cardozo name is Portugese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry.com has a "One World Tree" (subscription) pedigree for Cardozo that says his Great-great-great-great-great grandfather David Nunez Cardozo was born in Portugal in 1640 and died in London 1724. David's grandson Jacob was born in London and emigrated to New York circa 1718. His other recorded Great grandparents had the surnames Hart, Nathan, Seixas, and Levy. Hart was Jewish per [2]. The Benjamin Cardozo article makes no reference to Cardozo being Hispanic. When he joined the Supreme Court, he was thought of as a Jew,or a Sephardic Jew, but no one has furnished any reliable source from his lifetime which called him Hispanic, and it does not seem to be a mainstream view of him. It would be WP:UNDUE weight to call Cardozo "Hispanic" and to call Sotomayor the "Second Hispanic." At this point, that is a fringe theory. Wikipedia is not the espouser of "truth" as determined by fringe theorists, but of what is referenced to reliable sources, and that only in proportion. Edison (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The book "Latinos and American Law" (2006)[3] says (p197) that Portuguese are not generally considered Hispanic. He puts claims by "some" that Cardozo was Hispanic in the same dubious consideration as claims that Scalia is Hispanic because he is of Italian descent. A2005 book "Advice and consent" by Lee Epstein and Jeffrey Allan Segal says (p 59) "some" claim Cardozo, (incorrectly said to be "of Spanish descent") was Hispanic . Another 2005 book "The Supreme Court in the American legal system," by Jeffrey Allan Segal et al, also says (p251) that Cardozo was "a Sephardic Jew of Spanish heritage" and wonders why he is not counted as an Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. A very short sentence or two treating on the question of 1st or second Hispanic justice might be appropriate and proportionate. Edison (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The blogosphere arguments that she would "not really be the first Hispanic Justice" sound much like the blogosphere arguments that Obama was "not really African American." Might look at how that meme was handled. Edison (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The original edit stated that Cardozo was Ibero-American and not Hispanic. Leonardo Alves (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor is also Ibero-American: "The term includes neither the United States (except for Puerto Rico), nor any of its fifty states...".UGA2001 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Then the Wiki entry for Hispanic needs to be amended as it includes those from Hispania and the Wiki entry for Hispania reads: "Hispania was the name given by the Romans to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula (modern Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Gibraltar and a very small southern part of France)".

Perhaps we should change the entry for Hispanic to read "only those who are less than two generations removed from the region known as Hispania or Central/South America, and Mexico". This will include Sotomayor and exclude Cardozo (it would also exclude a large portion of those in the US who consider themselves Hispanic). Also, it seems the word Latino is being used to try and show an ethnic difference between Sotomayor and Cardozo. The Wiki reference for Latino notes that these are synonyms. There is a lot of cleaning up to do.

UGA2001 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. Hispanic has two prevalent meanings: an ancient one (meaning someone from Hispania); a modern one, meaning someone hailing in same way from a Spanish speaking country. The article Hispanic states "Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico) is a term that historically denoted a relationship to the ancient Hispania (geographically coinciding with the Iberian Peninsula). During the modern era, it took on a more limited meaning, relating to the contemporary nation of Spain. Still more recently, the term is used to describe the culture and people of countries formerly ruled by Spain, usually with a majority of the population having Spanish ancestry and speaking the Spanish language. These include Mexico, the majority of the Central and South American countries, and most of the Greater Antilles. There are also Spanish influences in the African nation of Equatorial Guinea,[1] and the cultures of the Spanish East Indies' nations and territories, the Philippines, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands." So, Hispanic does not generally aplly to Portuguese, whatever some Portuguese-American senator do, or whatever the Federal Transportation Authority decides (unless you all want to say that Cardozo was the first Hispanic judge according to the Federal Transportation Authority...!). He was and American of Sephardi Jewish origin, not an Hispanic. The Ogre (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sephardic Jews are from the Iberian Peninsula. Those with ancestry in the Iberian Peninsula are Hispanic. Hispania refers to the whole of the Peninsula, not just Spain. Portugal's name is derived from the city name which is something like Portum Calientum (my Latin is not up to par). Go back far enough and Portuguese and Spanish converge. Just avoid the whole issue and refer to Sotomayor as the first Latina Supreme Court Justice, and there's no debate whatsoever. 130.111.163.179 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Hispanic has a modern meaning which is not related to Hispania, but to Spain and its language. And in the US Hispanic and Latino are the same - see Hispanic and Latino Americans. By the way, are you people aware that most Portuguese would consider it an insult to be called Hispanic? Because for them, as for the Spanish, that means Spanish speaker. The Ogre (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have news for you folks I don't think Sotomayor identifies with Spain, she's a light-skinned Afro-Puerto Rican who likely identifies with rural/provincial aspects of Puerto Rican culture. I don't think she's a Hispanophile, she can't speak Spanish well and has demonstrated difficulty pronouncing her last name as it should correctly be pronounced in Spanish. This doesn't detract from her achievements, I'm just trying to inform people not in the know that she would hardly be embraced as a "sister" or "cousin" by most people in Spain.--72.221.92.43 (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That raises an even more interesting question - does she have African or perhaps Native American ancestry, as many Puerto Ricans do? Under the old "one-drop" rule, if she has identifiable African ancestry, she would be considered black as well. bd2412 T 00:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

She would be the third person of significant African descent on court if I'm not mistaken.--72.221.92.43 (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I say remove the reference to Benjamin Cardozo as "Hispanic." He was Jewish--just because his paternal grandparents were of Iberian Jewish ancestry does not mean he was "Hispanic," which, in current usage, strictly refers to Spanish-speaking people and their close descendants, and cultures, and I do not believe that "Hispanic" was a prevalent, all-inclusive term in use to describe people of Iberian ancestry in the United States during Cardozo's lifetime. More importantly, what did Cardozo himself identify as? If he called identified as something that approximates our current understanding of "Hispanic," then he was Hispanic. If not (which I suspect is the case), then he wasn't. Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice as we currently use that term. Kemet 23:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That just snuck in a short while ago, and I've removed it. It's an interesting debate, but the consensus both here on the Talk page and in media sources in general is that Cardoza doesn't count as the first Hispanic. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Jurisprudence, really

I would guess that since she has been a judge for some eighteen years now, she might have, oh, I don't know, ruled on some cases? Rather than prescribing whether she is a "liberal" or a "conservative" based on what newspapers and bloggers say, how about we find out how she has actually ruled in cases that have come before her court? bd2412 T 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Editing...

User:JRtx has basically edited major portions of this article and has engaged in argument about the article on the article's talk page. (see above). The User's contributions appear to be nearly solely on this article also. There is a strong possibility that this user might be Judge Sotomeier herself. In any case, this user's edits should be watched closely. Yardleyman (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This article is edited and "watched" by several editors. You are making strong allegations about Sotomayor, remember that WP:BLP is clear about adding contentious material to biographical articles. --J^mundo 04:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless Yardleyman has further evidence of COI the tag should be removed. Mere suspicion isn't sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Highly unlikely that someone with the workload of a federal appellate judge would be spending much time editing their own Wikipedia article. Much more likely to be a mere partisan. bd2412 T 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that Yardleyman was subsequently blocked as a sock. JRtx has a sporadic editing history that predates his/her first edit on this article by two years. Chance that Sotomayor edits this article herself is zero! Really successful people don't do WP editing ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Father: Occupation and Education

Sotomayor's father's occupation has been variously reported by print news sources as: manual laborer, factory worker, and tool-and die maker. Definitely possible that all three were true at various times, but we need to resolve the discrepancy or remove the info about occupation. Also, it seems unlikely that a tool-and-die maker truly had a "third grade education." This highly-skilled occupation typically requires math skills well above the primary school level as well as a 4-5 year apprenticeship. Someone who left school after third grade but then acquires additional education does not have a "third grade education." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.13.48.8 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This New York Times profile from 1992 - http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/25/news/a-breakthrough-judge-what-she-always-wanted.html?&pagewanted=all - seems to be the source for "tool-and-dye worker with a third grade education." You are right that various other sources have said factory worker, manual laborer, etc. 71.234.233.60 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So, teach the controversy. Report everything and note the disparity that exists, to the extent that it does, unless one source or another is proven wrong. bd2412 T 19:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans are NOT IMMIGRANTS

That's like saying Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to Kansas immigrants. Scarykitty (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the New York Times recently issued a correction on this matter. see the bottom of this page. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=3 71.113.252.54 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth and not a state. Puerto Rican's are immigrants my brother. Its like saying someone was born in California to Guam immigrants. Puerto Rican's have the choice every so often to become a state, a nation or remain a commonwealth. Por favor, lea mi hermano. CashRules (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Puerto Ricans are NOT immigrant...period period period!!! My dad was born in Puerto Rico and came here, skipped customs and immigration, and has NEVER held any green card, you moron. They pay US taxes and have presidential voting power if they claim mainland residency. Please go back to 4th grade when this was taught. 65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and no. What date was your father born? From what you say, I assume he is not aged over 56. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, to quote the article, persons "born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States". Hence, even if Sonia Sotomayor had been born in Puerto Rico (on the date of her birth, 1954-06-25) she would have had citizenship of the USA. Yet, as she was born on soil of the USA (in the Bronx) there is no doubt of her being truly "American" and it is incorrect to call her "Puerto Rican". It is, however, correct to say she "has Puerto Rican ancestry" or, equally correcty as her article says, "is of Puerto Rican descent". As are you, who ever you are.- Peter Ellis - Talk 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

IF they claim mainland residency... IF! is the key word! They don't vote for president for a reason. PR is a commonwealth not a state. Native American's such as Iroquois are American citizens as well, but have a psudeo status different from Puerto Rican's, but a psudeo status as well. CashRules (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And could you further help us by telling us which grade you learned civility in?  Frank  |  talk  19:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, just flaunting the doctorate in Latin American politics again...65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Library of Congress, Puerto Rican's are immigrants. Please look up Unincorporated organized territories. Flaunting your doctorate? i.e. Essjay [4] CashRules (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts is a commonwealth, too - what is your point? ErikHaugen (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

different type of commonwealth. Look up Puerto Rico. Massachusetts is a state and a commonwealth. PR is simply a commonwealth.

Wrong (again). Enough, just give it up. PR's are not immigrants, period, explanation point. And yes, MA, KY, VA, and PA are ALL commonwealths; HOWEVER, since they signed the constitution as a states in the 'United States' they are treated as states, but legally commonwealths. PR, Guam, Mariana Islands, etc., have never signed as a state. Just give it up...65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans are born American citizens, and have the same right of free travel among the states, commonwealths, and territories of the U.S. as any other American citizen. So, they are not immigrants. End of argument. In any event, Ms. Sotomayor herself was born in the Bronx in New York City.Alinnyc (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, immigration need to be accross national borders, or even any borders at all... Puerto Ricans are not aliens in the United States, but they are immigrants in the same way that if an Oregonian goes to live to New York, he is an immigrant.

People who move within a single country are migrants not immigrants. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the immigrant issue. Neither she, nor any other Puerto Rican, are immigrants in any sense, no matter which definition you unilaterally apply. And she was born in the US anyway! The constitution only bars non-US born people from attaining the presidency or vice presidency. It's totally moot from even discussin it.65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of her cases

Unlike some of the other people mentioned as Supreme Court candidates, there is minimal discussion of her cases and opinions that she's written. Looking around the net, I did see one at SCOTUSBlog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/ Anyone have any thoughts on whether it would be appropriate to add a link in the article? An alternative source for the same information? This is the kind of information that I came here trying to find. Mdfst13 (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a link to the article sounds good. It looks like a pretty thorough and detailed article. What I think we should generally avoid is plucking out like one or two cases and saying these are the "major" "notable" cases for judging her appellate jurisprudence - that's highly, highly subjective and very prone to political manipulation by those who like or don't like the judge. (I think it's fine to link to a specific case that is notable because it was NEWSWORTHY, like the baseball and vince foster cases already in the article that she decided as a district judge. But it's hard to say what were the big cases for understanding her jurisprudence.) So a link to this (and any other articles like this) would be good.128.36.122.110 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - Scotusblog is no ordinary blog. It's cited by law professors and courts. I think they have a whole series on this judge's jurisprudence, and it would be worth linking to each of the posts. Will Beback, who just deleted Mdfst13's link, is an admin, so if he has views on this perhaps he'll post them here? - 96.233.30.146 (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sloan v. Truong & Polgar?

On 5/18/09, "Kayokimura" added this: "Sam Sloan vs. Paul Truong and Susan Polgar, 08-5813-cv, decided May 8, 2009" and called it a "notable case." I was curious, so I looked it up. I could not find any such decision by Judge Sotomayor in Lexis or Westlaw (the two main legal databases). The case has something to do with an election inside a chess federation. The trial court dismissed the complaint and it does not look to me like a particularly interesting or notable case anyway. If Judge Sotomayor has actually decided this case, then maybe "Kayokimura" can provide a link to her decision or a correct citation and also some reason why this is "notable." 128.36.122.110 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Catholic?

Is she Catholic? That would give the SCOTUS a Catholic majority for the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.66.236.56 (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, SCOTUS already has a Catholic majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas.The Original Historygeek (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

...

TIME.com has said that it is not clear whether she is a practicing Catholic. The sidebar on this main page should not note that she is a "Roman Catholic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.84.152 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This Boston Globe story is currently being used as a source for being raised Catholic. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

She's a 1972 graduate of Cardinal Spellman, a large Catholic high school in the Bronx. Does not prove one way or the other that she's a practicing Roman Catholic, of course, but she did have a Catholic education.74.72.224.4 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

...

I've removed from the article that statement that she would be the 12th Catholic justice on the Supreme Court. Per the Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Roman_Catholic_Justices article and section, it's too difficult to get a precise count, as there were justices who converted to or from the religion before, during (Clarence Thomas), or after their time on the court. And the exact count isn't that important, as clearly she's not a pioneer in this area. I did leave it that she would be six on the current court, as this is well-sourced enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We get to a point of diminishing returns. She would, of course, be the first Catholic woman (and the first divorced woman, and will extend New York's record number of appointees to 14 Justices, and be the 9th Yale Law alum). bd2412 T 01:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hot button political issues

Considering the large amount of views this page is going to get in the following days/weeks (like it or not, when news breaks people come to wikipedia first) does anyone think it appropriate to tastefully add Sotomayor's opinions on hot button political issues. It seems to me that most people really only care about where a prospective judge stands on abortion, gun control, and gay marriage; and generally dont care about the other 'boring stuff.' I think someone who knows where this judge stands (I sure dont) should add it in as this is what people will come here to read. Thanks guys. Peace and Love from Dayton, Ohio --75.187.83.247 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)