Jump to content

Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

No mention of 60% overturn rate?

Seriously, this is the problem with Wikipedia - the article is locked to not allow user editing, and there is no mention of the fact that she's had 6 of her rulings reviewed by the Supreme Court, on which she hopes to sit, and 4 of them have been overturned? Do you not think that relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is included in the article. It says: "Over her ten years on the circuit court, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases, and has written about 380 opinions where she was in the majority.[9] The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two[9] – not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years[14] and a typical percentage of reversals.[96]" I think your stat may include Ricci, which this stat doesn't because she didn't write the ruling. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
6 of her cases went before the Supreme Court for review, and 4 of her decisions were overturned. Not writing the ruling for the Ricci case doesn't change the fact that it was yet another of her strongly worded opinions rebuked by the court she wishes to join. That is a fact that bears mentioning in clearer language, and certainly without the biased qualifier "not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the reversal rate of all her decisions that she joined in, not just the ones that she wrote the opinion on? We can include that as an additional stat to the one that's there. As for "wise Latina", the article says this: "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 for its use in a 2001 Berkeley Law lecture:[112][171] "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] Sotomayor had made similar remarks in other speeches between 1994 and 2003, including one she submitted as part of her confirmation questionnaire for the Court of Appeals in 1998, but they had attracted little attention.[172][173]" That's as straightforward a description as can be made. It's up to the reader to decide how he or she feels about the remark. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
To respond to your revised post above, the qualifier is not biased. Overturn rates of appeals court judges are almost always high, because the Supreme Court doesn't take the case unless there's a good chance it will be overturned. In some cases, 4 judges have already voted to get cert, which means you need to run the table with the rest of them to win the case. If I remember right, Alito had a 100% reversal rate. Doesn't mean much of anything. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to point out the party affiliations of the only people who vetted this candidate and published her actual feelings and proof of her bias? Why is a reference to MediaMatters' off-hand dismissal of the quote necessary? The facts are very straightforward: a person nominated for membership in the highest judicial authority in the land openly expressed racial and gender bias, not once, but numerous times. Of her strongly-worded opinions that have reached the Supreme Court, 4 of 6 have been overturned. These are serious issues, buried under dismissive language and weasel-wording. By contrast look at Harriet Miers' Wikipedia page. Miers is repeatedly described as 'unqualified' and 'biased', which she certainly was - but by any rational, objective yardstick, so is Sotomayor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to pour too cold a bucket on your logic, but if you're going to count opinions that way, surely you'd have to include in the percentage the hundreds of opinions where the Supreme Court has effectively upheld Sotomayor by denying cert, essentially saying that she was so clearly correct that there is no point in their taking the case up on appeal. bd2412 T 03:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Party affiliations are given because for better or worse, reactions to Supreme Court nominations show a high degree of partisan polarization in recent times. I agree that the Media Matters statement doesn't belong; I agreed to it only to prevent an edit war, per Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 3#Media Matters and the "wise Latina" remark, and would be happy to see it removed. I see nothing about Miers being 'biased' in her article, and her nomination battle is completely unlike the Sotomayor one. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've now deleted the Media Matters statement. Besides never belonging in the first place, it's really inoperative now in light of Sotomayor's testimony and backing off of the 'wise Latina' remark today. That is to say, the Media Matters statement was constructing a defense that no one else has made including Sotomayor herself. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More emphasis on Ricci v. Destefano

Although the article does mention Ricci v. Destefano, her handling of this case needs more emphasis. Currently, the case is mentioned in passing twice, towards the end of the article (under the headings "Court of Appeals judge," and "Nomination to the United States Supreme Court").

To give this case its due importance, it should be mentioned in the third paragraph, along with the Major League Baseball and Wall Street Journal cases, and in the section, "Notable rulings."

The points that need to be made about this case are a) her ruling in the Ricci case was summary (it was less than a page long, and cited to no law or precedence for how the panel reached its decision), and b) Sotomayor's appellate decision in this case was overturned by the United States Supreme Court.

Additionally, some of the sentences seem to be editorial in nature, and should either be bolstered by citing to sources, or deleted, for example:

"Her nomination was slowed by the Republican majority in the Senate, who wanted to deny her an easy confirmation that could enhance her prospects for a later Supreme Court nomination, but she was eventually confirmed in 1998."

In general the article departs from the wikipedia standard of neutrality.

Supremecourtpick (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)S

Sotomayor did not author the opinion in Ricci v. Destefano. bd2412 T 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Because she didn't author the ruling, I agree it doesn't belong in the lead. I do agree, however, that a fuller explanation of the summary judgment -> en banc ruling -> SCOTUS sequence is warranted in the "Notable rulings" entry that deals with Ricci, since she was part of the panel that made the summary judgement. I tried to include some of this a while ago, but other editors took it out. The WP article style is to not footnote statements in the lead, but rather the same statements in the body of the text. The whole Appeals Court nomination Republican slowdown is thus amply cited in the body of the article, starting with "... but as The New York Times described, "[it became] embroiled in the sometimes tortured judicial politics of the Senate."[90]" and continuing for much of that section. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind the difference between a "summary judgment" and a "summary order." They are completely different things. A summary judgment is when a court decides a case without a full trial; this happens when one party is entitled to win even if the other party's presentation of the facts is presumed to be accurate. In contrast, a "summary order" is when the court decides a case without giving any explanation, regardless of whether it's a summary judgment or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My issue with the approach being advocated is whether we are going to discuss all controversial opinions for which she was merely on the panel, which would, of course, include all opinions that were issued en banc during her tenure on the Second Circuit. If so, are we going to identify her 100+ opinions which were appealed to the Supreme Court, and denied cert? bd2412 T 04:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)You can see here the way the Ricci description used to read. I think someone objected to the number of dates being present. Anyway, I would support an expanded description that covered the summary order [I stand corrected], the en banc rehearing, and the SCOTUS appeal. I think another objection may have been that the reader can click through the Ricci link to see the whole history, but this is noteworthy enough in Sotomayor's career that it merits text here as well. There are also some news stories that attempt to recreate the panel's internal debate (Sotomayor in the middle), but I don't know if they're solid enough to use. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I get BD2412's point, but we've already selected particular rulings based on how well known or important or consequential they are, and Ricci is clearly now at the top of the list. So I don't see anything wrong with giving it a little extra description compared to the others. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with WTR. Also, one of the key notable points about Ricci was the choice to use a summary order, and Judge Sotomayor seems to have been as involved in that decision as the other two panel members. The summary order was later replaced with a perfunctory per curiam opinion, and again her part in that was the same as for the other two panel members.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going to try to add something on this this morning, but I got caught up in the Ferraro FAC instead. This is the NYT story I mentioned on the summary order and other aspects of the case. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've now expanded the description of Ricci in the Second Circuit, per this discussion. See what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

PRLDEF? Appeals Court makes law?

No mention of withheld PRLDEF documents, or the clash of reality with Leahy's ridiculous statement that this is the "most open confirmation hearing ever"? No mention of "It is the Court of Appeals is where policy is made? I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that.". I'll retract my earlier attitude, as you seem to be honestly trying to balance the article, but the tone still remains decidedly biased with key elements missing that pretty firmly establish her own bias and lack of qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The delay in the PRLDEF documents was a minor process issue that's best included in Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination‎ if anywhere (it's a small organization that's nearly gone broke several times, it shouldn't be a surprise they have trouble laying hands on all their old docs). Note that the nomination subarticle isn't locked and you can make additions to it yourself. Same with Leahy's statement about open hearing, it's a process issue that belongs in the nomination subarticle; if we included every senatorial bloviation here the article would never end. The "policy is made" quote is borderline to add here; most sources think it's pretty clear she was talking about the kind of precedents and legal standards that appellate courts set, not the kind of social and political policy that legislatures and executive branches set. From what I heard and read of the hearings today, only Sessions discussed this quote and not at much length, so on balance I don't think it merits inclusion here unless it attracts more attention. Again, it could go in the nomination subarticle as one of the objections that was raised soon after her nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

the part that's really missing

Before I'd ever heard of Sotomayor, I did hear nearly every tv pundit (left and right) explaining that Obama's best political move was to nominate a Latin (race based selection), and preferably a woman (gender based selection). Weeks later, up pops Sotomayor's name. Yet this article makes no mention of her being nominated as the result of reverse discrimination - instead the article is about her purported qualifications, etc., as if the actual main reasons for her selection did not exist. Let's face it, a white male had zero chance of being nominated by Obama. This entire article follows along with the double-speak of political correctness. Throughout, thee is the subtext of her being a victim of discrimination, never the beneficiary of reverse-discrimination.

The real selection process went like this: "let's nominate a Latin, preferably a woman. We need to find one that we can say is qualified." That is the central issue of her nomination, but it's never even stated in this article. [19:12, July 14, 2009 71.181.242.155]

It's not stated for two reasons that I can think of: Firstly, it's your opinion, and wikipedia maintains a Neutral Point of View; secondly you would need some reliable source of information to be able to put that into an article. It might be what you believe to be the case, but that doesn't make it so. You mention her purported qualifications - you are implying that she does not have those qualifications. Which qualifications mentioned are incorrectly attributed to her? If there are some, provide evidence, and then the article can be changed. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
First, white males have constituted 106 out of the 110 Supreme Court justices in American history so far, so it's pretty hard to make the case they've been discriminated against. Second, it was pretty much a given that Obama was going to name a woman, since there was only one on the court (GWB wanted to also, with Harriet Miers), and virtually everyone on Obama's short list was a woman. But it was not a certainty that he would name a Latina, although Sotomayor was an early favorite and held on to that track. Third, you're operating under mistaken notion that it's hard to find qualified women and Latinos who could serve on the Supreme Court. Fourth, I don't think this article ever claims that Sotomayor was a victim of discrimination, as I don't think she was; even the Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge incident was a case of an obnoxious remark than employment discrimination. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
So because white males have not been discriminated against in the past (which, in itself, is false), they cannot possibly be discriminated against in the present? Do you realize how astonishingly stupid that sounds?66.184.134.26 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I assume you can provide reliable citations showing where white males amongst the Supreme Court justices have been discriminated against? Could you cite some sources for your statements? Having had just over 96% of all the Supreme Court justices in American history being men makes the argument about discrimination sound silly at best, inflammatory at worse! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) "Discrimination" is the wrong term to use in this kind of context. Presidential appointments are not meritocracies. When Reagan wanted to appoint the first woman to the court he was not discriminating against white men. When GHWB wanted to replace Thurgood Marshall with another African American, he was not discriminating against white men. When GWB wanted to replace O'Connor with another woman, he was not discriminating against white men. Presidents are free to choose appointments for all sorts of reasons, including not just ability but also ideology, demographics, politics, personal comfort, reward for past service, etc. For this article to portray Sotomayor's appointment as a story of white males being discriminated against would show no understanding of the underlying process involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

choice of words is very revealing of article bias

Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remarks are described neutrally as "a line that she used". But criticism of those remarks is characterized with the words: "rhetoric quickly became inflamed". So when Sotomayor claims that her race/gender is superior, that's not rhetoric or inflammatory, right?

[NOTE: Brothrj has made an unwarranted edit by deleting my previous contribution to this talk page. I have re-instated my words above. It's remarkable to me that someone like Brotherj appoints himself as censor on a talk page. My criticisms were valid, especially concerning the use of biased language, as cited above. Brotherj furthermore merely cites the talk page guidelines while committing his censorship, without any reasoning whatsoever. This capricious behavior should be unacceptable here.]

I agree that Brotherj probably shouldn't have yanked your comment; although it was 80% editorializing, there was some actual content related to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[second edit by me, in "choice of words..." to remove all but essential language.] 71.181.242.155 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are refering to the paragraph starting Sotomayor's nomination won praise from Democrats and liberals... and ending Some of the fervor with which conservatives viewed the Sotomayor nomination was due to the history and grievances of federal judicial nomination battles going back to the 1987 Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination.? And that the quote you are thinking about is where she said "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."? The rest of the paragraph clearly discusses the thought patterns of people to this statement - but I consider it to be written in an un-biased way.
She didn't claim her race/gender is superior - she said that someone with a specific life experience can make a better judgement than someone who has no awareness of that life experience. From what I have seen elsewhere, she does not regret the statement's sentiment, just the way it's trotted out as proof of her racism/sexism! She did not claim that being a Latina or a woman made her superior! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The inflammatory rhetoric was a reference to Limbaugh's and Gingrich's remarks right after the nomination, which even Gingrich later backed off (Limbaugh has doubled down). This is contrasted with the more measured response of senators such as Cornyn. Sotomayor has now backed off 'wise Latina' in the hearings, which I'll be adding to the article in a bit. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Implying racism?

Maybe I misread this in the article. "Some in the Republican majority believed that an easy confirmation to the appeals court would put her in a better position for a possible Supreme Court nomination (despite there being no vacancy at the time nor any indication the Clinton administration was considering nominating her or any Hispanic)," The first assumption I got was that the Republicans would oppose someone of Hispanic lineage. Perhaps this should be re-written? Anton.hung (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the Republicans thought the Dems wanted to name the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court, and were boosting Sotomayor to the appeals court in order to get her ready for the next vacant Supreme Court slot. The Republicans didn't want Sotomayor on the Supreme Court (for the same reasons they don't want her on now, and additionally because they wanted to name the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice), and thus slow-walked her confirmation process in order to make her appear less 'inevitable'. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Clinton wanting to appoint someone for being Hispanic was not referenced in that paragraph, or even that section, so I'm removing the Hispanic reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.hung (talk • contribs) 06:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right that the antecedent was missing. I've added it, making the text now: "Some in the Republican majority believed Clinton was eager to name the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice and that an easy confirmation to the appeals court would put Sotomayor in a better position for a possible Supreme Court nomination (despite there being no vacancy at the time nor any indication the Clinton administration was considering nominating her or any Hispanic), and therefore they decided to slow her confirmation.[14][90][92]" This is supported by fns 90 and 92. And again, it doesn't imply racism, just the ongoing federal judicial nomination tussle of recent times. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible discrimination in Columbia and other Ivy admissions

I have seen nothing about Judge Sotomayor's efforts to improve admissions for moderate income white males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.50.21 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To what are you referring? Source? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation controversy

I'm sure a lot of you have seen on the news about the abortion critic that shouted "What about the unborn!?" during the confirmation hearing. I wasn't sure if this should be added or not. Anton.hung (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly in the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination article (though I would doubt it), certainly not here. One invariable law of recent confirmation hearings is that nominees try to stay as far away from this topic as possible, so a protester upset that a hearing isn't revealing anything in this area has little notability. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Salary

"Living modestly" is a complete lie. Where is the fact in that? She makes $180,000 a year, her federal judgeship covers a lot of benefits, yet after so many years on the bench (and no children to support) she has little to no savings. I am not saying whether she should or should not have savings, but if she is really "living modestly", where did the money go?

The bias in this article is sickening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.113.19 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the 'living modestly' is off target and I've removed it. There have been several stories that analyze her finances and spending habits and I'll look at incorporating them. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added a cite and expanded the discussion in the article of where her money goes: "She lives in an expensive area, enjoys shopping and travelling and giving gifts, and helps support her mother and her mother's husband in Florida.[162]" And I've added what her pension will be, which is the reason why she doesn't have to worry about savings.
As for the bias that sickens you, you need to say what beyond this one point concerns you. General statements are difficult to make any practical use of, while specific points can be discussed and addressed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If the bias sickens you, change the country man, because Latinos and Latina will be celebrating for a long time. I little mexican kid in 5th grade will have a hero, we have a dream, dont worry I wont make you sit in the back of the bus... --J.Mundo (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Seriourly how care where she lives, she will moving to DC pretty soon so this edits are waste time. What do you want? Sotomayorr living in the Bronx, in the project all her life, common, get a life if this sickens you. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There have been several stories from WP:RS that analyzed her job, her income, her neighborhood, and her spending habits, as part of explaining why she has virtually no savings. So it's an appropriate topic to mention briefly in her biography. And it's still relevant even if she moves to Washington, because this is a biography of her whole life, not just "now", and she is very much a New Yorker. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What the heck her spending habit had do to with her life as a judge, do you have any scientific study. I respect you Wasted Time, but sometimes your edits drive me crazy.--J.Mundo (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a biography of her as a person. The main focus is on her professional career, but we include other aspects as well, such as her upbringing, her college years, her personal life, etc. The general media coverage of her follows the same pattern. There are (and will be more) studies of her rulings on the court, and we do point to those studies, but not everything in a biography is controlled by whether there is an academic study of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Latina - white

Since when have hispanics/latinas not been white? Are they just Spanish/white? That's how things are seen in Australia Littlest Plum (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. government generally considers being Hispanic to be an ethnic consideration, orthogonal to race; see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. That said, people often view being Hispanic or Latino in racial terms as well, including during the Sotomayor nomination (such as the Limbaugh/Gingrich remarks, or these recent Leahy comments). However, I don't think this article ever refers to Sotomayor in terms of race (other than in quotes of others); if you see a spot, let me know. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that Hispanics can be of any "race". Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican ancestry, so she almost certainly has a mix of Spanish and African bloodlines, possibly with some native Caribbean or even continental Native American ancestry. That's just based on typical Puerto Rican heritage, not any special knowledge of Sotomayor's ancestry. bd2412 T 01:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting conversation. It is true that Hispanics can be of any race. It is wrong and pure speculation to assume that since Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, that she most certainly has a mixture of Spanish and African bloodlines. As in almost every country, there are "White", "Black", "Asian", "Native" Puerto Ricans of every religious group. Most people who have no knowledge of Puerto Rican history are unaware that during the late 1850's hundreds of family's from non-Hispanic Europe such as Ireland, Germany, Italy, Corsica and France settled in Puerto Rico. See: Population and racial makeup and the corresponding wikilinks to the immigration of Puerto Rico of these groups to fully understand what the racial make up of the people of Puerto Rico are and how wrongly they have been sterotyped for years as being only a mixture of Spanish/African/Tainos. Happy editing to you all. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Political Party

Why is she listed as Independent under political party? Where is the proof for this? If there is why isn't it cited?--Harish89 (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor Berkley Speech

[moved here from User talk:Wasted Time R]
Hey, We have a black president, they had to give the latino's something right? Haha, I notice that you have done a lot of work for the Sotomayor article. Thanks, you've done a good job : )

I also noticed you reverted my edit on the Sotomayor article, though I can't say that I agree that the fact that it didn't gain much attention at the time is a good reason to remove a piece of information that is otherwise apropos. The quote is a piece of information that is directly related to the speech being discussed. If a well known person makes a speech a line from which later becomes famous, you don't simply fail to mention that when discussing the speech just because it wasn't famous at the time..

Do you have another reason for reverting the edit, that perhaps I'm misunderstanding? Andy (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The "wise Latina" remark is mentioned three times later, in the Supreme Court nomination section when it became famous. Until then it had been ignored, and introducing it with the 2001 speech would give the wrong impression regarding that. Furthermore, she made variants of the remark at other times as well, not just in the 2001 speech. The significance of the 2001 speech at the time was that it was the bringing together of all of her thoughts on being a Latina judge, and she republished it in a law review article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If qualified as originally edited "..in what has now become a point of contention..", I don't see how the wrong impression would be given. And the fact that it is stated later, to me, doesnt seem to be a reason not to mention it here, and in fact may argue more for having it here. Without mention, it is possible to read the entire Sotomayor article and not make the connection that the same speech is being discussed here and later on where the controversy is discussed. I think the argument could be made to shorten the reference to something like "..the later controversial 'wise latina' quote was made in the context of this speech (among others)" (with an anchor link to the section on the controversy) to avoid repeating the same information several times.
However I'll state again my argument that if a famous person makes a speech, a quote of which only later becomes a point of discussion, it is worth mentioning that quote when discussing that speech on general terms. The reason that I edited it in in the first place was that I was reading this section of the article related to the "A Latina Judge's Voice" and was hoping to get some context for that quote. The fact that the quote is not mentioned here was first confusing and later conspicuous. I was under the impression that I must have been reading about another speech until I dug into the references a bit to be sure it was the same speech. I have no doubt that others reading the section would experience the same. Trying to gain that context without the quote burdens the reader to make the connection.
Andy (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have no objection, I intend to readd the reference. Please let me know so that we don't end up with a second revert.
Andy (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from others first. If you add it, that will make four separate mentions in the article of "wise Latina". Someone's bound to think that's WP:Undue weight. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The other "wise latina" comment mentions are all in the context of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. If it's been given undo weight there, that is another issue.
Andy (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Our positions are both clear. I'm still waiting to hear from others, who have unaccountably become shy all of a sudden. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, an random IP agrees that the addition of another "wise Latina" reference is both WP:Undue weight and gives a false impression that the comment was an issue at the time. 118.93.56.122 (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • @ Andy: You loosed your argument, nobody care about the speech, people make speeches all the time. This is just an excuse by republicans. to oppose her, but Wikipedia is not a manual for republicans, so mentioning the wise latina thing is enough in the confirmation section. I get confused I don't remember if her name is Wise latina or Sonia Sotomayor, some Americans are so stereotypical, you need to categorize everything, sometimes is annoying. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • @J.Mundo - your point certainly approaches WP:CANVAS as well as a biased and inappropriate comment. The speech was noteworthy WP:N and yet, you're out to bash republicans. This part of the article simply needs to be related to everyone from a Neutral Point of View WP:NPV. Lets get off our soapbox and make all points of the article worth reading.Zul32 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction

There is no evidence that Sonia's mother was a member of the WAC's. Therefore, said statement has been removed. What the New York Times source clearly states is that her mother a "nurse" married a factory worker and moved to New York during World War II, that's all. This in no way means that she was a WAC., as a matter of fact this the era of the so-called "Puerto Rican Great Migration" when thousands moved to New York seeking employment. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is in the New York Times source, I think you must not have read past the first screen (it's a very long story). This link shows the whole story as a single page and it's there: "The couple met and married during World War II after Celina was discharged from the Women’s Army Corps, the WACS, the outlet for women of her generation to give to the war effort. Celina Sotomayor had left Puerto Rico at 17 to sign up, shipping off to Georgia for her training with no relatives in the mainland United States." You can also see other news stories referring to her mother's service in this search list, for example this CNN story: "Like many Puerto Ricans from her era, Celina Baez headed for the mainland at 17, joining the Women's Army Corps in Georgia." I'll add that as a second cite in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Ay Caramba! You are right and I am wrong (I must be getting old). It is a good thing that there are people like you in Wikipedia to correct the Bloopers that people like me make once in a while (smile) Tony the Marine (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem, it happens to all of us ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Another correction-- it says on the right side that she took office on August 6. In fact, she was confirmed on August 6 but did not take the oath of office until August 8. Therefore, August 8 is more appropriately the date that she "assumed office." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.158.228 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What was the name of the Republican Hispanic nominee?

Miguel Estrada. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And it was to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, although it was speculated at the time to be a stepping stone for an eventual SCOTUS nomination.The Original Historygeek (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia IT Department

There is a mistake in the article but somehow the "edit this page" tab is missing. Please fix the tab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Minister of the US (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not broken, you're simply unable to edit the page because it's semi-protected and you're a brand new editor. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

not a justice yet

She won't be sworn in until Saturday 11:00 am EDT --68.209.2.187 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. She became a justice as soon as she was confirmed by the Senate. She must take the oath "before performing the duties of [her] office," see 28 U.S.C. §453, but she holds the office by virtue of her confirmation. 67.159.85.184 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from above Sotomayor has been CONFIRMED as the first Hispanic Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Please update at once.

But she hasn't been sworn in, so she isn't technically a Justice, yet. ~ MD Otley (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. She became a justice as soon as she was confirmed by the Senate. She must take the oath "before performing the duties of [her] office," see 28 U.S.C. §453, but she holds the office by virtue of her confirmation.

That's not true: see the article on Edwin Stanton: he took the oath was confirmed and died before taking the oath , then died without sitting on the bench, and the S.Ct. doe NOT consider him a Justice. Coemgenus 20:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the SCOTUS does consider him to have been a justice; it's that the Wiki entry for past members doesn't indicate that, again, because Wikipedia 'editors' usually have no idea what thay're talking about.65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "has been" should be changed to "was" in the first/second sentence. "has been" will soon be outdated. 69.47.28.140 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care what it says, really. There's a 99.9999% certainty that she'll be sworn in tomorrow, meaning she'll definitely be an associate justice of the supreme court. Apparently, the republicans don't want to admit this until it actually happens; maybe they're planning an assassination or something? Dr. Cash (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything, but is there a law that clearly states that nominees for any position (or certain ones) take their office automatically and immediately upon confirmation (with an oath later required to DO something with the office)? It seems like that would be the case, but I'd like to see a law to that effect. Anyone got one? 76.241.87.150 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

She became a justice as soon as her commission was signed, which occurred on August 6. All federal officials -- including judges -- assume office when commissioned. The oath of office is prerequisite to exercising the powers of office, but the term begins upon commissioning. But you don't have to take my word for it -- go to http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj and look her up, and you will see that her service on the Second Circuit terminated on August 6 and her term on the Supreme Court began the same day. CoramVobis (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Images in this article

Just because those images were on a federal government website, does not mean that they were produced by an employee of the federal government (and thus public domain). Can someone verify the copyright status of the images used in this article? Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at great length, do not discuss it here, please go to the Commons to do so. Gage (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Where precisely has it already been discussed? I see this discussion, but I think it post-dates your comment here. I myself have strong doubts about the ability to use these photos, especially the yearbook one. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Cardozo was the first Hispanic Justice

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/05/26/sotomayor-not-first-hispanic-justice-cardozo-was/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonBeeble (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good for you, you have found a fringe source talking about a fringe idea. However wikipedia is not about giving fringe sources credibility. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This argument is fully addressed at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I really don't care either way. I found another source to add. However Wikipedia's page on Hispanic mentions something about being Hispanic if one's roots were traced back to Spain, or the Iberian Peninsula. Cardozo was able to trace his roots to this area of the world. Regardless of whether or not he considered himself to be Hispanic, he was of Hispanic descent making him Hispanic. I myself am of Italian and Irish descent, but because I share more traits with my Italian side, I really don't recognize the fact that I am also Irish. That does not mean however, I am not Irish. It is also fair to say, that it is possible he chose not to consider himself Hispanic, due to the times. He might today consider himself Hispanic, if he were alive that is. It has often been said the Roosevelt himself might not have ever been elected to the Presidency in 1932, had the Advent of Television we have today been prevalent in 1932. If I had known about the previous argument that took place on this issue, I would have gleefully taken part. Like I said I don't care either way, I just thought I would add some insight.--Subman758 (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read up on original research. For contentious issues we cannot take A (Cardozo traces his routes back to Iberian pen) and B (Hispanics are those with roots from Iberian pen) and conclude C (Cardozo is a hispanic), we must have C directly stated by a RS. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
By your own AP/Fox News source above, the link is supposed to be to Portugal, not Spain. And per the same source, "Kaufman said Cardozo's ancestors came to the Americans colonies in the 1700s from England and Holland, but no one has ever firmly established that the family's roots were, in fact, in Portugal." Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, it's not like the article ignores Cardoza completely. It says: "(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.[172][173][174])" This statement is enough, to my taste even more than enough. There is a jillion sources out there today that say Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic on the court if she is confirmed. We are not going to go against them and on our own decide Cardoza merits the claim. The evidence just isn't there and WP:COMMON applies here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a slight deviation from the topic here to address a point just made- the statement in the article referenced above, ...the term "Hispanic" was not in use at the time... is technically incorrect. It was in use in academia; just one example is the Hispanic American Historical Review published as early as 1918. Perhaps that should be modified to "not in common use" or some such.The Original Historygeek (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm ... this is a NYT archives search for "Hispanic" from 1851 to 1932, it returns 426 hits. So it was in some kind of common use as well, to a limited extent. Looking at the first few pages of hits, most are to the "Hispanic Society of America" or the "Hispanic Museum", but few if any seem to be describing individual people as Hispanics as an ethnic identity, which is the use in question here. The term becomes much more commonly used later; if you extend the search to 1980, you get 5,563 hits, and if you extend it to today, you get over 32,000 hits. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
How about the term "Hispanic" was not in use as an ethnic identifier [or identity] at the time...?The Original Historygeek (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me; I've made the change. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The Cardozo thing is trivia, is fringe, is old news, old tactic. Now matter what Latinos and latinas will celebrate her accomplishments. I hope some day this foot note is deletede and move to Wakopedia.--J.Mundo (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The very word "Hispanic" was invented by the US government, and applied to categorize Latin Americans originally, used less for the people of Spain. Most Spaniards I know recoil from the term; forget about applying it to the Portuguese. We should not even mention Cardozo in this article when we say that Sotomayor is the first Hispanic justice. Cardozo was a great justice, but not at all Hispanic/Latino. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, Benjamin Cardozo. Title 49, Section 26.5 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines "Hispanic American" as "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or other Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race." Cardozo is unquestionably of "Spanish or Portugese . . . origin." Therefore, according to the federal government, Cardozo is Hispanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.219.245.62 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you quoting the Transportation Code? Have the other codes edited out such language? In any case, the article could have the word changed to "Latino" or "Latina" and end this trifle if necessary. And Cardozo's family didn't retain its Portuguese culture or language. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor technical point- the term "Hispanic" was not invented by the US government, but officially adopted by it during the Nixon Administration in the early 1970's. It was already in use by academia for at least a hundred years and entered the political lexicon in the 1960's (at the latest). It should also be pointed out that the CFR cited for the definition of Hispanic is not definitive on the government on the whole. That particular section governs regulations in the Transportation Department only. The OMB for example has its own regs which exclude the Port. in their definition.The Original Historygeek (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "Hispanic" is actually quite old. It was not invented by the American Government, but the Romans. I don't usually cite wikipedia for such things, but since we're in here already... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.49.115 (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

From WEBSTER:
    * Function: adjective
    * Etymology: Latin hispanicus, from Hispania Iberian Peninsula, Spain
    * Date: 1584

1 : of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal
2 : of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States;
    especially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin.
Cardozo was a Sephardic Jew, who's family belonged to a Portugese congregation. By definition, his family origins were in Spain via Portugal. The reason other sources are identifying Sotomayor as the first Hispanic is because half of them are looking up their info on Wikipedia (and the other half don't know the difference between Hispanic and Latino (much less the difference between Latino and Latina) FiveRings (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This issue is addressed at much greater length at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the literature explains, Cardozo was uncertain of his family origins, but his family tradition held that at least one line derived from Portugal. The issue is not the definition of "Hispanic" but the lack of concrete evidence regarding Cardozo's ancestry. bd2412 T 15:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Even now, "Hispanic" is a self-definition. Nobody asks for family documentation - the question is if you call yourself Hispanic, or Spanish-descended. Like I said, he was a self-identified (born and raised) Separdic Jew, ie, descended from inquisition refugees. FiveRings (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the claim that "Hispanic" wasn't in use at the time - when Thurgood Marshall was appointed, in 1967, the term "African American" wasn't in use either. Does that make him not the first African American justice? FiveRings (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
FiveRings, I suggest to open an account for a blog. The issue of Cardozo is dead, just check Google News. I recommend that you read the article about Cardozo: "Cardozo-biographer Kaufman, for example, questioned the usage of the term "Hispanic" in the justice's lifetime, stating: "Well, I think he regarded himself as a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors came from the Iberian Peninsula.”[18].....It has also been asserted that Cardozo himself "confessed in 1937 that his family preserved neither the Spanish language nor Iberian cultural traditions".[19] Both the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Hispanic National Bar Association consider Sonia Sotomayor to be the first unequivocally Hispanic justice.[15][18]". Lets move on with this fringe theory. Wikipedia is not about opinion but about reliable sources. (WP:UNDUE, is also a good read).--Jmundo (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Jmundo, I suggest to look up "synonym". Webster's online defines "hispanic", first, as "of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal". The book "Cardozo" by Andrew L. Kaufman (page 6) says "The family into which Benjamin Nathan Cardozo was born on May 24, 1870, was part of a distinct and well-established Jewish community in New York City. It was a Sephardic family, descended from those Jews who had fled from the Iberian peninsula during the Inquisition and had come to America via the Netherlands and England" Sephardic culture is Hispanic. There is no original research here. And there is no consensus. FiveRings (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just found a better cite: the Dictionary of Latino Civil Rights History, by F. Arturo Rosales, Arte Publico Press (February 28, 2007), page 59: "The first Hispanic named to the Supreme Court of the United States was Benjamin Nathan Cardozo of the famed Sephardic Jewish family which dated back to colonial days." This is specific, unequivocal, uses the term "hispanic", and is a RELIABLE SOURCE. FiveRings (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have personaly reviewed the information and according to either the specific or broad definition of hispanic, Benjamin Nathan Cardozo is indeed of hispanic origion. I should point out that being a practicing and descended Sephardic Jew, by definition he is from hispanic decent. Sephardic Judaism developed from Spain, which last time I checked is where hispanics are from. I will not make the change now seeing as how it is such as hot and yet new topic; however, this will need to be addressed and I will be placing a disputed article header on the article untill this issue is resolved. --Jab843 (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That is speculative at best. There is no evidence of Cardozo's lineage to Spain. Just because he was a Sephardi Jews does not guarantee that he himself is directly of Spanish decent. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is exactly what it means, if by "Spanish" you mean "Hispanic".
The question of whether Cardozo was Hispanic has now spilled over into at least four articles (this one, as well as Benjamin N. Cardozo, Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination, and Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, and will probably continue to spill unless it is capped. It needs to be resolved, finally and dispositively. The place for that discussion is Talk:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the only article that should have any substantial focus on disputed questions of the ethnicity of Justices. bd2412 T 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In this case (only) I agree with BD. This is a very topical topic, getting a lot of attention, and therefore a lot of new editors. We're going to be playing undo-pong if the discussion isn't restricted to one area. That said, however, since the matter isn't settled, and since WP policy is to respect all viewpoints, she should be described elsewhere as the first "Latina" (or first "of Latin-American descent"), not the first Hispanic. FiveRings (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Since Sotomayor has been universally reported by major media outlets as the first Hispanic Justice, I think the appropriate resolution is the one that has been undertaken, which is to report her as such with a footnote noting that some consider Cardozo to have been the first Hispanic Justice. bd2412 T 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, Jab843 is not acting in good faith. At Talk:Benjamin N. Cardozo, he summarily declared of sourced in the article that "None of the refences state anything close to what the statment attributes them to"; it took me about two seconds to provide a link to the Google Books page showing that one of those references was a direct quote from the source referenced. He is throwing out declarations without doing the research. bd2412 T 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit of Rex495 in the opening paragraph back to state that Sotomayor is the first Hispanic on the Court, but was unable to restore the Cardozo-related discussion with citations in the "Nomination to the Supreme Court" section. If someone else is able to do so, in order to fully restore the article to the previous version, I think it will be very beneficial.The Original Historygeek (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its mentiond at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Hispanic and Latino Justices, which is the appropiate article for discussing the racial make-up of the court.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

People above are claiming she is the first Hispanic judge simply because the main stream media is reporting that story line, and the assumption is that Wikipedia is to become another mouthpiece in that story line.

False.

Encyclopedia writers, that's us, are to use reliable sources. MSM mouthing the politically correct mantra is NOT a reliable source when compared with a judicially determined matter where the issue was raised and determined in great detail.

A Sepharidic Jewish man was determined to be Hispanic in Doctor Alfred Bennun v. Rutgers State University, 941 F.2d 154, July 25, 1991, Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Aug. 21, 1991.

We encyclopedia writers can see that is a far more reliable source. And it says a Sephardic Jew is Hispanic.

Cardozo was a Sephardic Jew. Therefore Cardozo was Hispanic.

Cardozo was on the US Supreme Court. Therefore Cardozo was Hispanic on the US Supreme Court.

Cordozo may have been the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court.

Sotomayor is NOT the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court.

That is not my opinion. Those are the facts based on Doctor Alfred Bennun v. Rutgers State University.

The question is, will Wikipedia use Bennun as a reliable source or will it be swamped by editors finding MSM more reliable? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your reading of the case is wrong. I have explained why at Talk:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow the article's body lost all mention of her being the first Hispanic on the court. I've added that back in, with post-confirmation cites supporting that from Fox News, US News & World Report, and the Washington Post; I could easily add 100 more. I've also restored the old parenthetical material that discusses the Cardozo possibility, and I've added Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States to the "See also" section where readers can see the longer discussion of the Cardozo question. I don't see any better approach to handling this matter in all the recent Talk about it. "First racial/ethnic something" is often a social construct, and so the "right answer" is largely what people think it is. To use a comparison, there were several baseball players of some kind of Negro background who managed to briefly play in professional baseball in the decades before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. They got through because it was a low minor league and nobody noticed, or they were very light-skinned and nobody thought they were black, etc. None of that diminishes the importance of Jackie Robinson, because he was the first baseball player publicly recognized to be a Negro and publicly recognized to be the first Negro to be playing in the league. Sotomayor is in the same 'publicly recognized at the time' position, while Cardozo never was. (And no, I'm not comparing Sotomayor's task to Robinson's, he had it many many times harder than she has.) Wasted Time R (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro needs some work

Now that she's an associate justice, the intro needs to be reworked, to cut back on the blog-like details that articles accrue when multiple editors contribute to about someone who's in the news.

Here's an example of what I mean (changes in blue):

Sonia Maria Sotomayor (pronounced /ˈsoʊnjə ˌsoʊtɵ.maɪˈɔr/ ( listen), Spanish: /ˈsonja ˌsoto.maˈjoɾ/;[2] born June 25, 1954) is the 111th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was sworn in for her current role on August 8, 2009 in a ceremony that made her the first Hispanic/Latino justice in the Court's history.
Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent and was born in the Bronx. Her father died when she was nine, and she was subsequently raised by her mother. Sotomayor graduated with an A.B., summa cum laude, from Princeton University in 1976 and received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979, where she was an editor at the Yale Law Journal. 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.
Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush, a nomination confirmed in 1992. As a district court judge, Sotomayor ruled on several high–profile cases. In 1995, she issued a preliminary injunction that ended the 1994 Major League Baseball strike. A Sotomayor ruling allowed the Wall Street Journal to publish Vince Foster's final note.
In 1997, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Her nomination was slowed by the Republican majority in the Senate, but she was eventually confirmed in 1998. On the Second Circuit, Sotomayor heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and wrote approximately 380 opinions.
Sotomayor has taught at the New York University School of Law and Columbia Law School.

The version above is just an example. The real point I'm making is that someone needs to make a pass through the entire introduction. Thanks. 72.244.201.251 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

I've shuffled the lead section so that the first paragraph only states the most essential points of who she is, and I've started a fourth (and final) paragraph to cover her Supreme Court tenure. Over time, the Supreme Court coverage may need to expand to two paragraphs, with the current second and third being condensed into one, but for now this organization should suffice. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Some odd personal things in the article; POV?

While it might be noteworthy that Sotomayor is a diabetic and has daily injections, and probably that she willingly or unwillingly provoked controversy well before the "wise Latina" speech (e.g. when alleging discrimination in college and by a recruiting law firm), some of the other personal tidbits strewn throughout the article I myself find rather POV.

Her marital status is a fact and is fine to mention, but do we need quotes about why she decided to divorce? Do we need speculations about how her long workdays might have affected her personal life? There are a bunch of these at the present moment, and while I will refrain from editing a semi-protected article to avoid the despair of having someone revert it all back, I really hope that - once she's in the job and begins to make her mark on S.C. decisions - we can prune this rather obnoxious (and ultimately, historically insignificant) stuff out.

I haven't taken the time to see what David Souter's article looks like - for all I know there are read-between-the-lines hints about *his* unattached status and what that means about him as a human being - but I can imagine some folks being more inclined to say pitying and insulting things about an unattached Latina, because she's a more marked category than plain old vanilla New England bachelor. I might be wrong - but it's hard to have totally colorless filters for viewing a colorful character.

Again, just saying, I hope the extraneous will eventually be sifted out. Her work is the main thing, so-called compelling life story notwithstanding. Thanks. Rousse (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Much needs to be edited, but, given the topicality of the topic, much will be added before things calm down. As previously noted, a best use of time is to wait a bit before doing a wp:style edit. FiveRings (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The large majority of this article does cover her work. But this is meant to be a full biography of her as a person, and that includes health issues, marriage and divorce, and so on. If you read any regular biography in a bookstore or library, they cover these aspects of a person as well as a person's professional career, as do newspaper and magazine profiles. And the sourcing here doesn't rely on speculation as you claim, but on statements from Sotomayor and her friends as reported in mainstream news media. Nor is the description here pitying and insulting; she obviously enjoys life, regardless of whether she currently has a husband. As for an "unattached Latina" getting this level of attention, I gave the same attention to the personal lives of John McCain and Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in their articles, and none of them is an unattached Latina. This is the right way to do biography, to present the person as a whole. As for the David Souter article, it does cover a number of aspects of his personal life, but doesn't do the dark hinting that you're suggesting, unless you prefer to read it that way. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

diabetes

This NYT article is about Sotomayor's diabetes management and general health condition. It seems worth quoting.

Some diabetes.org links, maybe less useful:

From WSJ Health blog:

"But doctors told the Health Blog that advances in understanding and managing the condition have substantially minimized the risk of those complications and, assuming Sotomayor wins Senate confirmation as expected, shouldn’t affect her ability to carry out a justice’s duties or likely shorten her tenure on the court. ("Sotomayor’s Type 1 Diabetes Is ‘Non-Issue,’ Say Docs"[1])

I believe it is worth mentioning this stuff.

70.90.174.101 (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Her diabetes management was already mentioned and cited in the "Other activities" section, but I've added the NYT story you reference as a cite to that. As for how long her tenure on the court will be, time rather than predictions will be the best indicator of that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Image use of File:Sonia Sotomayor 14 8th grade graduation.jpg

While I have nothing against the use of this photo per se, I am under the idea that this photo should be removed for purely esthetical reasons. The Early life section already contains two images of her and I feel the section is not long enough to support a third. It appears to just hang on the bottom of the section and intrudes on the layout of the following section. I have tried moving to image to different areas of the section but cannot find a suitable place for it. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support removing the image, as I think her yearbook photo from Princeton is just as good at showing Sotomayor in her youth to adulthood. Gage (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I also tried to improve the layout, but there are too many photos too close together. Jonathunder (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that, assuming it's able to be used (see section above), the college yearbook photo is more significant than the eighth grade photo. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put the 1976 yearbook photo at the top of the college section; that crowds the photos too much. Layout works better when it placed near the paragraph which discusses that particular year, and it fits the text better there, too. Jonathunder (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Official Sotomayor image

I've uploaded the official SCOTUS photo of Sotomayor: File:Sonia Sotomayor in SCOTUS robe.jpg. It's by Steve Petteway, who is credited as the photographer of the other justices' official photos. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 16:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the upload, I went ahead and changed the infobox photo to this one. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Also you might want to consider expanding the discription and rationale over at wikicommons. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wanted consensus on the talk page as per the comment in the infobox. I've tried to use the same description format/rationale used for the other justices on the Commons (there's no specific SCOTUS PD tag, so PD-USGov is used). --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 17:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Another picture to include later in the article. adnarim 07:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am beginning a GA review of this article. I will watch the article for a week prior to reviewing to allow for any further edits and/or comments others would like to make. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! The V-Man (Said · Done) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews

'

  • In my personal opinion without making any edits myself on this particular article, i think it is as close to GAn you could come. No big issues of any kind. i Might not be the best to review but that my opinion.--Judo112 (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
After a wider review myself i still find it suitable and worthy of GA status.--Judo112 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

GA REVIEW - Pass

I can't find any GA reason why this should not be listed as a GA. In fact, I would suggest a FAC review. Congratulations to all editors! The V-Man (Said · Done) 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews

This is great news, congrats to all the contributors. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor and corporate personhood

Seems like the first indication of Sotomayor's positions since being sworn in as a Justice: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html [20:36, September 21, 2009 67.121.144.92]

Perhaps, but as the quote in the story says, "I don't want to draw too much from one comment." Wait and see if she says anything about this in the rulings on the case. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not "Hispanic" => "of Hispanic Descent"

The correct terms for the ethnicity are convoluted, the proper phrase for the introduction paragraph is "first.. of Hispanic descent"

Please correct. [21:02, September 22, 2009 75.208.135.114]

Since your previous post here minutes earlier was "IS WHITE", I don't think you've established much expertise in this area. And there are jillions of Google hits for "first Hispanic justice". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

sonias book

what was the name of Sonia Sotomayors book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.238.48 (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

She has not written a book. What she has written is listed in the "Publications" section of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

MISTAKES IN SONIA SOTOMAYOR'S EARLY EDUCATIONAL HISTORY

I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD TO CORRECT WHAT I KNOW TO BE MISTAKES IN THE EARLY NYC RECORDS OF JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.

IN 1963 (OR THEREABOUTS) SHE WAS LIVING ON KELLY ST. IN THE BRONX AND HER FATHER WAS ALIVE AND SHE WAS MY 5TH GRADE STUDENT AT P.S. 4 ON FULTON AVE. IN THE BRONX.

HER FATHER, JUAN SOTOMAYOR, GIFTED ME WITH A SELF MADE PAINTING AT THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR AND COULD SPEAK ENGLISH THAT I UNDERSTOOD.

SHE DID NOT RETURN TO P.S. 4 THE BRONX THE NEXT YEAR AS I LOOKED FOR HER I WAS TOLD HER FATHER PASSED AWAY AND SHE MOVED.

ANY AND ALL OTHER INFORMATION TO CONTRADICT THIS IS FALSE!!!!

D. HOCHMAN WEST PALM BEACH, FL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.109.70 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your account isn't far off from the article. Kelly Street is in Soundview, and her father died when she was nine meaning likely 1963. While her father did not speak English when he first lived in U.S., by 1963 he would have likely have picked up some level of ability in it. As for her attending public school for some of her childhood, it may well be true, but we need a newspaper report to confirm that. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Uniquity

Perhaps a note should be added that she is the first justice to be female, non-caucasian and non-protestant? Of the 111 justices, 91 have been white protestant males. Star Garnet (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

More suited to the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States article, I think. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Republican Senate Majority?

In the intro to the article, it says her nomination was slowed by the Republican Senate Majority. The Republicans didnt have a majority... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.83.249 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

They did in 1997 and 1998; see 105th United States Congress. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

split article?

This article is a bit lengthy. How about doing an [Early life of Sonia Sotomayor]] (before she started her law career) and/or Early career of Sonia Sotomayor (before she became a SC Justice). Just a dew ideas to toss around.--Levineps (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not necessary, the article is within WP:SIZE guidelines and most of the biographical material is behind her (once on the Supreme Court, people's lives tend to stand still and only their rulings need be covered). Early life/early career subarticles like you propose have extremely low readership stats and are costly in terms of editor time and upkeep. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As a public official, Sotomayor has made numerous television appearances. She also has appeared (via archive footage) in documentaries and news reports. The external IMDb link is a valid link that should be added to allow those researching Sotomayor's appearances in the media. This has nothing to deal with celebrity status. I have added IMDb links to many politician Wikipedia articles and no other editor has complained. Personal reasons should not be a reason to remove valid external links That provide information and are not spam related. I have re-added the link. Please discuss the topic on this page and do not remove link until a valid conclusion can be determined on this Talk Page or via the assistance of Third Party administrators. Politicians, ambassadors, appointed officials are always in the public eye. They will continue to make appearances on television and film regardless if in person or via archived footage.--XLR8TION (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the entire content of her IMDB entry: 

Overview
Date of Birth: 25 June 1954, Bronx, New York City, New York, USA more
Trivia: Nominated by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26... more
STARmeter:  Down 19% in popularity this week. See why on IMDbPro.

Filmography
Self:

   1. "Larry King Live" .... Herself (2 episodes, 2009)
          - What Killed Michael Jackson? (2009) TV episode .... Herself
          - King of Pop Latest (2009) TV episode .... Herself

Archive Footage:

   1. "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien"
          - Episode #1.28 (2009) TV episode .... Herself
          - Episode #1.27 (2009) TV episode .... Herself
          - Episode #1.26 (2009) TV episode .... Herself
          - Episode #1.1 (2009) TV episode .... Herself

This is worthless. She didn't appear on Conan, this was just a news video of her spliced into some comedy skit. She didn't appear during any show that discussed the death of Michael Jackson. Her one well-known genuine TV appearance, in 1986 on Good Morning America in a show that profiled women ten years after college graduation, isn't even included in this entry! Her "Starmeter" says she's down 19% in popularity this week; what the hell does that mean? Is there some Gallup poll to back that up? No, it's meaningless, just a spam come-on for their pay service. Under "Trivia" it says she was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the single most important thing about her, hardly trivia! IMDB has some value for actors, but this entry is complete worthless crap and does not deserve to be linked to from this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Once again, appearances can be archived fottage. JFK did not appear in the film "JFK", but archived footage of the Zapruder film was used. The IMDb is one of the most respected and visited sites on the web. As a contributor to that site as well, administrators on that website now require valid links or specific periodical information before they will add/change a Date of Birth/Death. The same way Wikipedia asks for references, they do also. How do you know she did not appear in those episodes of "Conan"? Did you see every single episode? Once again, archive footage is also documented on IMDb.--XLR8TION (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You can't be seriously suggesting that Sotomayor actually appeared as a live guest on Conan - three nights in a row, no less. Come off it please. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Archived footage of her has appeared on dozens of TV news shows. Her confirmation hearings were telecast in their entirety on C-SPAN and large segments were shown on other cable news networks. Why aren't any of these listed? Why are two Larry King footage clips more important than dozens of other appearances on CNN? Again, her most famous interview TV appearance is completely missing. If you were looking for all the places to find video footage of Sotomayor, this IMDB entry would be the worst place to start. I get it that you're in love with IMDB, but your efforts would be better spent on improving it rather than worsening Wikipedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

←First, I have to point out, XLR8TION, that you are on the verge of a 3RR violation, having made your reversion three times in less than 24 hours, despite the fact that two separate editors have disputed the edit. So it is really you who should have brought this here without making that last reversion, which I am undoing because you do not have consensus for your addition. This has nothing to do with "personal reasons" as you allege above - indeed as one of the editors who reverted your edit, I have no idea what you're even suggesting with that comment. The fact is that many if not most political figures and people in the news may have IMDB pages, but unless they are individuals for whom their TV appearances represent a significant part of their career, I'd say the listing is not appropriate for their Wikipedia biographies. I don't know whose pages you've added this to, but that's really not a very strong argument, nor is it relevant: in fact I've checked the other 8 Justices of the Supreme Court and none of them have their IMDB link - and all of them have similar appearance histories. In fact a quick look at an array of articles about political figures across the political spectrum - all of whom have IMDb pages, some much more extensive than Sotomayor's - yields none with their IMDB page in the external links. Precedent alone wouldn't necessarily mean we shouldn't include it - but you haven't given any compelling reason to do so here, and the particulars of Sotomayor's IMDB page are ridiculous to include. Tvoz/talk 04:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Tvoz, do not use sarcasm with me. This is a civil discussion. Keep iot that way. I have re-added the link as all links that have a valid connection with the subject and documents their past history, present activities, etc., is considered valid as long as there is no underlying spam content in it. I have added the IMDB link on numerous politicians and I find it biased that editors who lean to the right (oh yes, I have observed the conservative leaning edits of some editors, I won't name names) who wish to eliminate any positive references and include only their POV links in an article. I am both Latino and Puerto Rican, and I feel elated that Judge Sotomayor is on the High Court. I will continue to positively edit her article and include links related to her, as well as removed vandalism that attacks her character (I have done it numerous times in the past). Before removing any links, please discuss topic before I open a ticket for administrator opinion. By the way, I have not reverted the article, but manually re-added the link. Please do not remove the link until this discussion comes to a point that I will have to open the request. Act civil and don't act like the member of some right-wing fringe group who wished to rewrite history in their own light. I have dealt with such editors on this site, and civil discussion followed by request for assistance is the way to go. --XLR8TION (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Your accusations of editor bias here and at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests are silly. Inclusion of IMDB links is generally of no political significance, and if inclusion of this one has any, it's to make Sotomayor look bad. It calls her crowning achievement in life trivial and suggests to the uninitiated that she appeared on a talk show to discuss Michael Jackson's death, which for a sitting judge would be highly unusual and borderline improper. But I'm not calling you a right-winger for wanting to include it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
First, where was I uncivil or sarcastic? Second, I'm, right-wing now? Not the accusation usually hurled at my long-time editing of Barack Obama and other political pages. You might check that out. Third, how in heaven's name is anyone rewriting history by removing an insignificant IMDB link that has no relevance to the career of this individual? Fourth, manually re-adding the same material is exactly the same thing as reverting - 3RR applies, and you've been asked to stop re-adding material without consensus. Finally, we are supposed to be editing neutrally not positively or negatively, so I find your comment above revealing - you are the one with an agenda, I am afraid, and while my personal opinion of Justice Sotomayor may actually be quite in line with yours, it has nothing to do with how I edit hers or any article. By all means, ask for other opinions, but stop edit warring and throwing silly accusations at long-time well-respected editors who happen to disagree with your insistence on including this material here. Tvoz/talk 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is Sonia Sotomayor a black Puerto Rican, a white Puerto Rican, or a mestizo? B-Machine (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. Haven't seen anything on her ancestry before her parents, who are/were both from Puerto Rico. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

La Raza

I did not see mentioned in the article anywhere that Sonia Sotomayor was a member of the National Council of La Raza for 6 years.I wonder why that has been omitted? Tom Watson, May 20, 2010 [15:34, May 20, 2010 72.244.62.45]

This was discussed last year, see Talk:Sonia_Sotomayor/Archive_2#National_Council_of_La_Raza. The consensus was that since her membership solely consisted of her paying the $35 annual dues, and that she didn't attend conferences or participate in the leadership or do anything like that, it did not merit mentioning. There could be a dozen organizations that she belonged to at that level, just like you and I do. Given that Sotomayor was in high positions in several other organizations, the article should focus on those. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation wrong

The article (which is currently locked) has [ˈsoɲa sotomaˈʝor] as the Spanish pronunciation of her name, which is clearly wrong. It should be [ˈsonja sotomaˈʝor]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.102.10 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

First year analysis

I was planning on adding some analysis of Sotomayor's first year once the term was over, but I have two problems with what was added today:

  1. It verges on OR, has no secondary sources, and the language sounds cribbed from one of the Supreme Court blogs out there.
  2. It's too long. Sotomayor is likely to be on the court for 25 years or more. Multiply this treatment of the first year (with still some rulings to be handed down!) by 25 and you have an unsustainable length.

I gather that the material was removed from the Supreme Court article because it was too off topic there, but that doesn't mean that it's all appropriate here ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Since I was the one who wrote it originally in the SCOTUS article, I can tell you some of the context and source. The descriptions of the cases is taken from the syllabii (not Supreme Court blogs, though they probably also rely at least partially on that), which are referenced though primary sources. The reason the material was in the SCOTUS article was as part of the "Judicial leanings" section. We did not (and still do not) have a reliable, verifiable source that identifies Sotomayor within the "wings" (conservative, liberal, perhaps swing vote) inside the Court, so the extensive description of her votes so far was in lieu of that. It was removed from there mainly for length and because it placed undue emphasis on her. As soon as reliable secondary sources are available discussing her jurisprudence, this entire thing would go out the window in favor of that, at least the way I see it (same for the corresponding section in the SCOTUS article). Magidin (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I intend to replace this with a much more succinct version as soon as the term ends and analyses of her first year are written. And as you seem to acknowledge in the text, most decisions of the court do not break down under "the commonly perceived ideological lines", so why list out the details of those few cases that do? Cases should be mentioned only if they are really important (Citizens United would qualify) and/or if Sotomayor played an especially important role in the decision. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
As to replacing it as soon as the analyses are written, absolutely. As I noted above, this summary was in the SCOTUS article because no such analyses are available yet, and even the shortened version that remains there will be removed once those analyses come in. As to the reason to list the few cases that did break down along the ideological lines, this is inherited from the fact that this was part of the Ideological leanings section in the SCOTUS article, so those particular cases that divide the Justices into the usual "camps" were more relevant (within the context of how many cases there were). This is not necessarily the case here, so absolutely redraft in the meantime if you believe it appropriate. The emphasis to be placed here is naturally different from the one there. I only started watching this page after the text was copied here, so I'm wary of changing the tone because I don't have a feel yet for what the correct tone for this page is, and will gladly step aside for those who have labored here. Magidin (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, and in light of this week's decisions, I removed most of the details and simply placed a quote from Toobin from back in March, and a quick "summary" saying that in the handful of cases in which we've had the "conservatives" (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) on one side and the "liberals" (Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer) on the other, Sotomayor has so far always been in the latter camp. I hope this is appropriate while we wait for the end-of-term analysis from reliable sources. Magidin (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems good for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now added/subtracted/reworked the recap material, based on end-of-term assessment pieces in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Some more academically-oriented treatments would be welcome as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit war over degrees in infobox

Two editors have been edit warring over the inclusion or dis-inclusion of the degrees earned by Sotomayor from her two alma maters, as listed in the infobox. It would seem to be more constructive to work on other more pressing issues and articles in WP, especially when it would appear (without digging into it) to be more of a matter of stylistic preference than substantive import. I'm neutral. — Becksguy (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This should be settled project-wide at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, and not argued at each infobox. This is the third or fourth biographical article I've seen where this is being fought over. I'm neutral as well. Although in cases like this – lawyers – the degrees are pretty obvious: the first is going to be a bachelor's and the law school one is going to be a J.D. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, MOS would seem to be an appropriate places to settle this stylistically. What helps the reader get the most from an article should be our major consideration. And also consistency across articles of the same kind. But in this specific case, I don't see either as intrinsically right or wrong. One could, perhaps, say that having the degrees listed in the infobox saves a reader from looking for them elsewhere in the article. But at the cost of an edit war and having a reviewer approve pending changes? I think not. And yes, a law school usually grants JD degrees, so that one might be a no brainer. Eveyone is invited to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Including degrees with Alma Maters in a bio listbox where I initiated a discussion on this. — Becksguy (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Becksguy for the most part but would hate to see a mandatory MOS ruling come down. If a judge or lawyer received law degrees from prestigious schools, it would be nice to see those at a glance. By the same token, suppose you had a lawyer who went to night school, recieved a degree from non-prestigious school but went on to become famous? That would catch my attention. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Nobody's arguing for removing the schools from the infobox. You can still see that Sotomayor went to Princeton and to Yale Law School, either way. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. No need to list degrees in the infobox, and this is not the case with other Supreme Court Justices. bd2412 T 00:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It WAS the case with other justices until the degrees were removed recently by an editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Miguel Estrada

The following line is generating some controversy: "Some of the fervor with which conservatives viewed the Sotomayor nomination was due to the history and grievances of federal judicial nomination battles going back to the 1987 Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination, especially Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic judicial nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who was filibustered by Democratic senators during the Bush administration."

In cleaning up an old wording of the line, I removed the word Hispanic because it was irrelevant to the filibuster issue. The reason Democrats filibustered Estrada was not because of his ethnicity but because he was conservative. Drrll put Hispanic back in and the explanation was "relevant to filibuster." Fat&Happy reverted Drrll's change, and the explanation was "relevance of ethnicity not demonstrated." Drrll put Hispanic back in, this time saying: "NYT ref: 'One whose nomination was blocked was Miguel Estrada…nominated… to …appeals court…which would have put him in position to become the first Hispanic justice'". Drrll is correct about the NYT quote, but that doesn't mean the word belongs here. The Times can say all sorts of things that may be interesting but aren't necessarily relevant to the article's assertion. Labeling Estrada Hispanic without explanation as to why it is relevant to the filibuster issue is misleading. I don't know how Fat&Happy feels about this now, but I believe the label should be removed. Comments?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Drrll - the fact is he would have been the first Hispanic SCOTUS Justice. And, seeing how it appears in the article as verified by you, it can and should be included. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The quoted comment from NYT was an after-the-fact throwaway line. It was in an article about confirmation hearings for Sotomayor, and may have been simply making the point that, absent the filibuster, he, not she, may well have been the first Hispanic member of SCOTUS. If we had proof of that meaning, it would be appropriate for inclusion in his biography, and possibly even in hers. We don't. It could also have been intended to assert his ethnicity contributed to the boycott, but we have no clear indication of that either. I see no reason to include the ethnic description, but if it is to be included, it needs some explanatory context. Possibly something along the lines of:

...especially Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was filibustered by Democrats during the Bush administration, and who would have been well-positioned to become the first Hispanic Justice of the Supreme Court if his appointment had succeeded.

would be an acceptable compromise, though I still consider it unnecessarily long. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I not only agree that the compromise suggested by Fat&Happy is "unnecessarily long", I also think it just doesn't belong in this article, which is about Sotomayor, not about Estrada. I get the irony in what the NYT was saying, but it still has nothing to do with the context of the WP article. I also think it's too speculative to say that Estrada would have been well-positioned to become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The last name of Estrada is already a good indicator as to ethnicity. It's not similar to say, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice, whose ethnic background isn't readily apparent by their last names. I would still tend to agree that Hispanic belongs for both Estrada and Sotomayer. This is why Estrada is even mentioned in article, no? I dropped the soap (✐) 00:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
above troll has been indef'd. Jack Merridew 07:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether to mention Estrada in the article was discussed at length a year ago – see Talk:Sonia_Sotomayor/Archive 2#Mention Estrada? – with the result that he wasn't. Estrada wasn't a factor in Sotomayor's appeals court nomination slow-walk (since the Estrada episode hadn't happened yet) and he wasn't much of a factor in the Republican animus against her Supreme Court nomination ("wise Latina" took care of that nicely). So I really don't see what's changed between last year and now. I'd also be strongly against adding words like "who would have been well-positioned to become the first Hispanic Justice of the Supreme Court" ... that's a lot of if's and a variant of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Plenty of people have been seen as on the track for a Supreme Court nomination that never happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Based upon Wasted Time R's post, I'd recommend non-inclusion. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Non-inclusion of what exactly, the Estrada sentence in its entirety, the part that starts with the word "especially", or something else? Personally, I'd be content with removing the entire sentence as I don't think what happened to Estrada is that notable in the Sotomayor article. Might have been different had Republicans filibustered Sotomayor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I thought the discussion was only about the inclusion of "Hispanic". On the broader question, I agree Estrada isn't a big enough issue to be included in this article, especially since no filibuster of Sotomayor materialized. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any consensus on what to do? Barring some objection, I'm in favor of removing the entire comment, specifically "Some of the fervor with which conservatives viewed the Sotomayor nomination was due to the history and grievances of federal judicial nomination battles going back to the 1987 Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination, especially Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic judicial nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who was filibustered by Democratic senators during the Bush administration."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm in favor of keeping "Some of the fervor with which conservatives viewed the Sotomayor nomination was due to the history and grievances of federal judicial nomination battles going back to the 1987 Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination", which has been in the article all along and seems obviously true, and removing the rest. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
At least, that restricts it to Supreme Court nominees. I would still reword the sentence to be more in keeping with the source: "Some of the fervor with which conservatives viewed the Sotomayor nomination was fueled by the past mistreatment of conservative nominees, including Robert H. Bork (not confirmed in 1987) and Clarence Thomas (narrowly confirmed four years later)."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your wording change to include Clarence Thomas, as it reflects both what the source says and what much of the discussion was at the time by conservatives. For the same reasons, plus the fact that it was especially sensitive to conservatives at the time that Sotomayor--rather than Estrada--would become the first Hispanic justice, I think the Estrada bit should stay in. Drrll (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer "treatment" rather than the somewhat POV "mistreatment"; other than that, I concur with Bbb23's proposed wording, adding Thomas and omitting Estrada. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Aaah, treatment - so much simpler, and I was anguishing over putting mistreatment in quotes or saying stupid, legalistic things like alleged mistreatment. I still want to wait to see if anyone else agrees with Drrll.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's what Republicans and conservatives thought of as the treatment. Many libs and Dems think Bork was treated just right, and think Thomas got an undeserved benefit of the doubt. Also, it's not just about SCOTUS noms – there hasn't been a really contentious one since Thomas. As the source makes clear, it's also about appeals court nominations, first the slowwalk of the second term Clinton noms, then the filibustering of the Bush noms. That's what led to talk of the nuclear option, not anything related to the Supreme Court. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm lost. Do you want to leave the Estrada part in then because I thought you said you didn't? Perhaps you just object to the rewording, but even if we don't add what I suggested, the original wording is awkward. "History and grievances of federal judicial nomination battles" makes no sense. It may be the history of the battles but it's not the grievances of the battles. The preposition of doesn't work with grievances. The source used the word grievance but its usage made sense: "Those emotions, say people who have followed the confirmation wars, are often fueled by the sense of grievance among conservatives and Republicans who say their judicial nominees have been treated unfairly and, sometimes, disrespectfully." So, if you want to hew as closely to the old sentence as possible but correct the structural error, how about just taking out the two words "and grievances" so it just says "history of federal judicial nomination battles," etc.? That also addresses your apparent concern that this is not limited to S. Ct. noominee battles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't want to leave Estrada in, but I do want to say federal judicial nomination battles not Supreme Court battles. (Why did Ginsberg and Breyer get near-unanimous votes but Sotomayor and Kagan aren't? It has to do with the appeals court battles that happened in between.) Just saying "history of ... battles" doesn't do it justice, because the Republicans and conservatives are really, really torqued by this issue. The language has got to get that across. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
My last suggestion for the day (after this, I'm turning off my computer): "Some of the fervor with which conservatives viewed the Sotomayor nomination was due to 'the sense of grievance among conservatives and Republicans" over the history of federal judicial nomination battles going back to the 1987 Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination." If that's not satisfactory, please suggest something else, but not the original sentence with the syntactical error.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That's fine with me, but it doesn't need any quote marks within it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The phrase is a direct quote from the source article. The phrase seems long enough to merit quotation marks. Is there a WP policy on the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've replaced the current content with the phrase agreed to by Wasted Time. I left in the quotation marks because I felt uncomfortable not using them. Wasted Time can remove them if he believes it's in accordance with WP policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You can't directly copy language, but the kind of unattributed quotation you did is not a good idea either (without checking the link in the footnote, the reader has no idea who said the quote). I've paraphrased it instead. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point, although it doesn't bother me to have to look at the link. Your paraphrase is fine, although I very slightly changed one phrasing. My removal of the more specific link was inadvertent (cutting, pasting, and screwing up). Thanks for fixing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disposition of five opinions Sotomayor joined in or wrote, on which the Supreme Court has ruled.

Case 04-1371 MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., PETITIONER v. SHADI DABIT decided March 21, 2006 overruled 8-0 (Justice Alito did not participate) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1371.pdf

Supreme Court Case 06-766 NY Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres decided 1/16/2008 Overruling the Federal Second Circuit Court 9-0 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-766.pdf

Two Cases combined, written opinion by Sotomayor overruled in both. Decided June 29, 2009 Case 07–1428 FRANK RICCI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JOHN DESTEFANO ET AL. and 08–328 FRANK RICCI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JOHN DESTEFANO ET AL. Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion and was reversed on this firefighter case 5-4. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

Case # 00-201 decided June 25, 2001 NEW YORK TIMES CO., INC., et al. v. TASINI et al. Sotomayor’s court overruled 7-2. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/533bv.pdf

Three Cases Combined (the Sotomayor court’s opinion overruled in 03-1274) 03-1116 GRANHOLM, GOV. OF MI, ET AL. V. HEALD, ELEANOR, ET AL. 03-1120 MI BEER & WINE WHOLESALERS V. HEALD, ELEANOR, ET AL. 03-1274 SWEDENBURG, JUANITA, ET AL. V. KELLY, EDWARD D., ET AL. Overruled by vote of 5-4 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1116.pdf

In just 5 cases the total vote against Sotomayor’s opinions was 34 to 10 by the Supreme Court Justices. In her 5 cases the average vote to overrule her and her courts opinions was 6.8 to 2 ! Over 77% of the Supreme Court Justice’s votes were to OVERRULE opinions Sotomayor joined in or wrote!

[Author's remark to omit when inserted: This will balance the very slanted, deceptive and false view current presented by the article as it now stands. The current claim only 2 or 5 overruled is 100% false. I can find no final Supreme Court opinions that upheld the findings of Sotomayor and her court. All I see is where the Supreme Court declined to accept her and her courts cases.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.97.65 (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The article text says "Over her ten years on the Second Circuit, Sotomayor heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and wrote about 380 opinions where she was in the majority.[11] The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two[11]—not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years[16] and a typical percentage of reversals.[103]" So the statement is only about cases where she is known to have written the majority opinion, not those where she simply joined the majority or where the opinion was unsigned. Given this, the three reversals are (see this FactCheck.org piece for another source on this):
  1. in 2001, a 5-4 decision in Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko

[Found in United State Reports 534 OCT. TERM 2001 covering Oct2001 to Sept2002 It is Case No. 00–860. Argued October 1, 2001—Decided November 27, 2001 See http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/534bv.pdf News sources should never be used unless verified in the actual Court decision.Please get professional and read the decision to verify it. I do not have time to do your work. Ignoring a case where she is the one and only judge, wrote the opinion/ruling the Supreme Court overruled is covering up the quality or lack of quality in Judge Sotomayor's judicial work. Now, try understanding legal reality, if you join an opinion and do not write an alternate opinion which points out the errors or problems, & your alternate conclusions, then the opinion & its conclusion are also yours, not just the writers. When it is overruled your judicial judgment has been overruled and found wanting.24.230.53.197 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)]

2. in 2005, an 8-0 decision in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit
3. in early 2009, a 6-3 decision in Entergy v. Riverkeeper

[Hunt for this case and the rest at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx Verify that what happened is accurately reported, often it is not.24.230.53.197 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)]

While the two upholdings are (see this CNN story):
  1. from 2005, upheld 5-4 in Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh
  2. from 2006, upheld in Knight vs. Commissioner (but reasoning unanimously deemed faulty)
These figures are from the time of her Supreme Court nomination, and don't include Ricci v. DeStefano, which came later. But it's not known who wrote the (brief) Second Appeals Court decision in Ricci, so I don't think it would have been counted in this analysis anyway. They also don't count the reversal in Tasini vs. New York Times, which was her decision as a district court judge, not appeals court.
The overall context is that the Supreme Court doesn't review a case at all unless it's likely to reverse it (it generally takes four votes to review, five to reverse, so there isn't a big jump). Per this source, the court reverses about 75 percent of the cases it reviews. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
In that case, to get an accurate sense of Sotomayor's appellate jurisprudence, we would have to see the number of opinions written by her for which cert was denied. bd2412 T 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be an interesting number, but I don't remember running across a story that gives it. However it still wouldn't be the full picture. An appellate judge who writes solid opinions won't have many cases appealed to the Supreme Court in the first place. And there are probably other variables at play too, such as the mix of cases each appellate court tends to get and the era that a judge is on the bench during. So comparing 'reversal stats' across judges is a non-trivial exercise. -Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies.

My previous insertion of material here was not factual. The source I took it from got it, in turn, from a hoax. It now seems that Sonia Sotomayor did not suggest the castration of white men. Apologies to Sotomayor, to the National Organization for Women, and to Wikipedia. The original source of the misinformation was a hoax.

Jenab6 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

La Raza mebership

There is not a single mention about it in the article.--Lootsucker (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed back in 2009, see Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 2#National Council of La Raza. The consensus was that since her membership solely consisted of her paying the $35 annual dues, and that she didn't attend conferences or participate in the leadership or do anything like that, it did not merit mentioning. There could be a dozen organizations that she belonged to at that level, just like you and I do. Given that Sotomayor was in high positions in several other organizations, the article should focus on those. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI, Lootsucker was indef'd as a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Catholic?

I thought Sotomayor was a "lapsed" Catholic. Are non-practicing Catholics considered Catholic? Or would ex-Catholic or former Catholic be more appropriate?

The article discusses her religion a bit and cites to this source, which indicates that she doesn't attend mass regularly but does so on occasion. Honestly, I'm not sure that qualifies for the kind of self-identification required to include the label in her infobox and as a category (WP:BLPCAT).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
As the NYT piece says, "There are indications that Judge Sotomayor is more like the majority of American Catholics: those who were raised in the faith and shaped by its values, but who do not attend Mass regularly and are not particularly active in religious life." That's good enough for the infobox and category, which are not intended as a vehicle for cross-examination of a subject's orthodoxy. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the level of orthodoxy is not important, but how is that self-identification?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is protected, could someone with access note that the PDF link in footnote #3 is a dead link? 70.96.106.34 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. TJRC (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Larwence Tribe

No mention of Tribes thoughs on Sotomayor? Ungläubige (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean "she’s not as smart as she seems to think she is"? Because it's just one person's opinion, and only came out after both Sotomayor and Kagan were already on the court, and Tribe publicly recanted it. For that matter, this article doesn't mention Jeffrey Rosen's “The Case Against Sotomayor” article, which is better known, came out before the nomination, and covered much of the same bases. At the end of the day, it too was just one person's opinion, and had no effect, as Sotomayor got picked and got confirmed (with five more votes than Kagan got) anyway. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2012

Please change, "Sotomayor is the Court's 111th justice, its first Hispanic justice, and its third female justice." to "Sotomayor is the Court's 111th justice and its third female justice.", because Benjamin N. Cardozo was the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, from 1932 to 1938. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of credible citation sources, many from Ivy League Law School Graduates over many decades who have performed exhaustive research, which unequivocally state Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo's mother and father were sephardic Jews with Portugese roots. If you wish to read some of these citations, I will gladly oblige. Thank you. Flyingace103 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The issue is sufficiently covered and sourced in the article with attention given to Cardozo.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with TriiipleThreat. This was extensively discussed back in 2009 and the consensus is as you see it in the current article. All three Talk archive pages contain discussions of this. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2012

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's name is incorrect, she legally removed her middle name Maria. Her name should be shown as Sonia Sotomayor

Suema11 (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Can you point to something that says this? We currently have this footnote in the article:
"^ Sotomayor had the middle name Maria at birth, but may have stopped using it later in life. See Princeton yearbook image. In her 2009 questionnaire response to the Senate Judiciary Committee considering her nomination, she listed "Sonia Sotomayor" as her current name, and "Sonia Maria Sotomayor", "Sonia Sotomayor de Noonan", "Sonia Maria Sotomayor Noonan", and "Sonia Noonan" as former names. See United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary: Questionairre for Judicial Nominees, reprinted in proceedings of Senate Hearing no. 111-503, Confirmation Hearing On The Nomination Of Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, To Be An Associate Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, p. 152. Accessed February 13, 2012."
I'll be happy to modify this if he have a source to go on. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. Mdann52 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention whatsoever about Sotomayor belonging to the liberal wing in the opening paragraphs??

Hi. Just wondering why neither Sotomayor nor Kagan have anything at all in their opening paragraphs that detail their decidedly liberal leanings? I think everyone would agree that these two Associate Justices are members of the Court’s liberal wing, and I’m sure there’s plenty of citations to support it. Further, it’s not like any other Justice lacks a similar description of where they stand on the Court politically speaking. Don't believe me? Observe: (taken from the opening paragraphs on each Justice's Wikipedia page)

Roberts: “He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence." Scalia: “Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing." Kennedy: “Kennedy has often been the "swing vote" on many of the Court's 5–4 decisions." Thomas: “He is generally viewed as among the most conservative members of the Court." Ginsburg: “She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the Court." Breyer: “Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court." Alito: “Alito has been described by the Cato Institute as a conservative jurist with a libertarian streak.”

Sotomayor: (nothing) Kagan: (nothing)

What gives? I’m sure it’s just an innocent oversight, right? But if so, could someone who’s logged in (and who has access to this "locked" page) please rectify this situation in order to conform to the other Justices’ opening paragraphs? Fair is fair, after all. Thanks122.25.244.97 (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added text from the article body to the lead: "On the court, Sotomayor has been a reliable member of the liberal bloc when the justices divide along the commonly perceived ideological lines." That qualifier is important because a large number of cases are unanimous, and another bunch of cases are on obscure tax or business law or similar issues and don't divide ideologically. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

ONE THING OF IMPORTANCE

Number 1- hispanic and latino are not interchangeable. Either she is Latina or Hispanic, or you must always write "the first Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Justice" instead of "the first hispanic justice". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.66.49 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The two terms mean somewhat different things, but there is a large intersection between them, and Sotomayor as part of that intersection. A Google News Archive search for her name and 'Hispanic' gets 7,400 hits, while one with 'Latina' gets 4,800 hits, so both characterizations of her are in common use. So I think it's okay if the article uses both terms as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Diagnosed with diabetes at age 7, not 8

The article that is footnoted (7) says that she got diabetes at age 7, not 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.52.131 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources have conflicted on this, including the two given here, but page 11 of her recently-published memoir says "I was not yet eight years old when I was diagnosed with diabetes." So I've changed it to age seven, and moved the other source out. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Sonia Sotomayor in SCOTUS robe.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sonia Sotomayor in SCOTUS robe.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 22, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor is an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. She was nominated in 2009 by President Barack Obama to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Sotomayor is the first Hispanic and the third woman to be appointed to the Court.Photograph: Steve Petteway
Archive – More featured pictures...

Edit request on 7 February 2013

In External links, please add this template: *Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 3 on Charlie Rose 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Seems reasonable. I've added it, using a more direct link instead of the template. (If that runs afoul of some convention I'm unaware of, feel free to reopen this request.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I folded it into the Template:JudgeLinks invocation as a parameter, which is the standard approach in cases like this. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of Benjamin Nathan Cardozo as the first hispanic supreme court judge?

From the wiki page on Cardozo:

Both Cardozo's maternal grandparents, Sara Seixas and Isaac Mendes Seixas Nathan, and his paternal grandparents, Ellen Hart and Michael H. Cardozo, were Sephardi Jews of the Portuguese Jewish community affiliated with Manhattan's Congregation Shearith Israel; their families emigrated from England before the American Revolution, and were descended from Jews who left the Iberian Peninsula for Holland during the Inquisition.[2] Cardozo family tradition held that their ancestors were Marranos from Portugal,[2] although Cardozo's ancestry has not been firmly traced to Portugal.[3] "Cardozo" (archaic spelling of Cardoso), "Seixas" and "Mendes" are common Portuguese surnames.

Dstokar (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)dstokar

Short answer: Cardozo is not generally recognized as being Hispanic (see Sonia Sotomayor#Nomination and confirmation 3).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Like TriiipleThreat said. This has been extensively discussed on past Talk pages, see Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 3#Benjamin Cardozo was the first Hispanic Justice and Talk:Sonia Sotomayor/Archive 2#Missing citation: "she would be the court's first Latina Justice" for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of the denial of Jeffrey Deskovic's DNA test that caused him to sit in jail for six years for a murder he didn't commit?

i don't know how to properly follow the guide lines to update wikipedia, nor do I have an account, but someone who does can clearly research this article : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=0 and see that this occured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.150.27 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Other than that one New York Times story, there has been no mainstream media attention to Sotomayor's involvement in this case that I can see. Thus there is no additional perspective on what she might have done differently or how unusual a different action might have been. On this basis, I don't see a rationale for including this in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
well how about this one then? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/my-interview-with-the-man_b_233852.html 174.49.150.27 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The quality of this piece is brought out by the headline "My Interview with the Man Who Spent 16 Years in Jail Because Sonia Sotomayor Denied His Appeal". Not the police who strong armed him, not the polygrapher who lied, not he himself for confessing to something he didn't do, not the jury, not the trial judge, not the first state appellate court, not the second state appellate court, not the first federal court or the attorney or clerk who messed up on the date, not the Supreme Court. Just Sotomayor on the second federal court, that's where the blame goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
dude, you asked for a different mainstream media article, and I supplied you with one. so now we have a new york times article, and a huffington post article that both go into depth about this. I think it at least warrants a small mention here. also http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/14/story_of_wrongfully_convicted_prisoner_jailed 174.49.150.27 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be appropriate for her article. If she has a history of this, that'd be one thing but that doesn't seem to be the case. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 10:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Sotomayor and another judge in the Court of Appeals ruled on a technical point of the rules that govern how appeals are made. This happens frequently, at all levels. As Justice Holmes once said to a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court who complained that the result was unjust, "This is a Court of Law, not a Court of Justice." I really don't see how this is notable enough for inclusion. Magidin (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
you have a section called "notable rulings" that talks about the baseball strike, as well as a ruling that didn't even hold up, but the fact that she kept someone in jail for years because she didn't want to let a dna test fly isn't notable enough for inclusion? that sounds ridiculous to me. 174.49.150.27 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The point is that this is not a "notable ruling": it was a denial of a request to waive the usual rules of procedure. It's something that happens frequently, at all levels. To characterize this technical ruling as her, personally, "ke[eeping] someone in jail for years" is an unwarranted exaggeration. It was not "because she didn't want to let a DNA test fly"; it was because they filed the appeal too late. And the ruling was about whether they could claim an exemption to the rule that specifies when appeals should be made. Did you bother to read the articles you submitted? Yes, this was a big deal for the person involved, but Sotomayor did not play the large role you seem to think she played. Far more relevant is the fact that his lawyer did not know the rules and failed to follow them. Why not claim that it was his lawyer that "kept him in jail for years"? Moreover, this item has not commanded sufficient notability to warrant inclusion, in my opinion, no matter how much hyperbole you throw in. 17:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC) --Magidin (Magidin didn't sign comment so I'm adding it. ─ Matthewi (Talk) •)
Correct. In the absence of evidence that this topic has attracted sustained interest from multiple reliable sources, it would be undue weight to include it here. Rivertorch (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The huffington post, the new york times, and democracy now are not considered to be a group of reliable sources? 174.49.150.27 (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
A single note in each, none of which had follow-up, published almost four years ago, is now considered to be "sustained interest"? Magidin (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with those that are saying a notation like that would give undue weight to the situation AND it just isn't the type of information that needs included. There are hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of important decisions that could be listed in the articles of just one well known politician or judges if that was the standard. If there is enough of rulings of like this by multiple judges an article might be setup for that specifically it just doesn't belong on this page. I agree with Magidin that for a sitting Supreme Court Justices, the interest in this case doesn't meet the standard. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 06:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
when you say that this isn't the type of information that should be included in this article, I take offense to that. the supreme court justices are supposed to be the fairest, and to see that she let an innocent man rot in jail for six years because their lawyer was four days late in filling out some paper work, I just don't agree that that shouldn't be included. Just having this on the talk page is enough for me, because if someone really wants to look around and study up, this is enough. Sotomayor should be held to a higher standard than the rest, and the fact that you people are just so inclined to argue against something like this is bs. there are trivial appellate court decision on this article that don't compare to something of this magnitude and the fact that everyone is arguing against it seems more like a mask than anything to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.150.27 (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't to discuss and make known what an individual person might think is important or should be known -- that's a blog. If Wikipedia reflected what the millions of users or even hundreds of thousands of editors wanted it'd be a much different website. It would be overrun with way too much information. Wikipedia is a place to, in a sense, aggregate information from reliable sources in a certain format. The information has to be weighted properly or less what do we use to decide how important it is? We can't use our opinions because that's subjective and then every editor could add anything with a few sources and the site would be overrun with too much information. Unless we use a standard approach all roads lead to a messy site. If you feel that strongly about a topic then your campaign should be for more media coverage, not undue coverage on Wikipedia. Also, you could research all of her decisions and start an article just for that, as long as you actually cover a lot of decisions. But, I'm sure you don't want to do that, you just want this case mentioned about her. The reason there is probably little coverage is because judges apply the law. If the law is bad, including the time a lawyer has to appeal, that's not the judges job to fix unless there is a law against bad laws. Regardless of whether you have an important point or not, it's not appropriate for this article. Again, Wikipedia has to be objective and stick to a standard way of working. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, you (user 174.49.150.27) are impassionately talking about justice. But the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal are not courts of justice. I remind you again of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr's quote: "This is a Court of Law, young man, not a Court of Justice." Your complaints are better directed at the legislatures that impose such rigid time limits (part of things like the Anti-terrorism and effective Death Penalty Act), rather than at the judges who apply the law. To give you another quote to ponder, here's Ulysses S. Grant: "I know of no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." In the long run, strict application of rules such as this is likely to bring forth a better law thanks to miscarriages of justice like this one. Magidin (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Source Update

The following official notice from Yale would be a better source article to her receiving her honorary degree http://news.yale.edu/2013/05/20/yale-awards-10-honorary-degrees-2013-commencement Manifestdestiny (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Afro-Caribbean ancestry

Why is no mention made of Ms. Sotomayor's African ancestry? Judge Thomas isn't the only person of African ancestry currently on the court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guadania (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 16:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonia_Sotomayor/Archive_3&oldid=1079007528"