Sotomayor Made Shaw Pittman Apologize for Partner’s Questions

J.D.
May 27, 2009 11:53 AM CST

So the firms stopped asking those questions and ended up with Yolanda Young… and a lawsuit.

And since we have a policy that requires individuals to state their physical appearance on applications, don’t we have a right to ask whether Sotomayor would have “been admitted to the law school” if it were not for her race? It seems pretty clear that her race is the MAIN CHARACTERISTIC being promoted by the leftist media and the Democrat Party—just look at all the headlines at your local newspaper stand; read the quotes from the Dems.

It’s all about her race. Pretty sickening. So much for MLK, Jr.‘s dream of a colorblind society.

Flag this comment

Joe
May 27, 2009 1:47 PM CST

#1…it’s not at all about her race. It’s what she’s accomplished in spite of her race and the adverse circumstances she overcame. The primary reasons she’s being considered are because of her education, (hint:Yale.Princeton,summa cum laude), extensive judicial experience, and political alignment. If it was just about race, they could could offered the nomination to any hispanic off the street. Also, Dr. King did not want a colorblind society, he wanted a society that placed the content of one’s character above all else, while “also” valuing the power and strength of diversity.

Flag this comment

Dave
May 27, 2009 2:11 PM CST

And, to follow up on the policy, who is the “we”?  Is JD a member of the Shaw Pittman firm?  And actually, is Puerto Rican heritage “race”?  I’m sure there were people in the 30s who went out of their way to precisely define what was race and what was not, but I’m not at all sure that those definitions are used currently.

Flag this comment

J.D.
May 27, 2009 5:39 PM CST

The policy, Charis, is called “affirmative action.” After a person puts their name and social security number on a law school application, they’re asked to declare their race. It’s pretty disgusting in this day and age for schools to ask about a person’s ethnicity, in my opinion, but since we’re not judged solely on the content of our character, the question about what other considerations went into allow a person into school is legitimate. I’d also like to know if the person got in because of a “legacy” policy or for sports (as far as undergraduate applications go).

Unfortunately, the left’s obsession with race and skin color requires a thinking person to conclude that a minority may not have had the educational credentials of her non-minority peers. I wish that wasn’t a possible conclusion, but with affirmative action in place, it most certainly, undeniably is. It’d be better if everyone got a job or seat in class because of their intellect, but sadly, that’s not the case.

As for Joe’s claim that it’s “not all about her race,” well, I’d recommend you walk by a newsstand. Here’s a sample of what you’ll see:

Washington Post: “First Latina Picked for Supreme Court”

Washington Times: “Obama Names Hispanic to Court”

L.A. Times: “A Latina In the Middle”

LaOpinion (Los Angeles): “Hispana a Suprema Corte”

Modesto Bee: “Latina Could Change Face of Highest Court”

Contra Costa Times: “High Court May See First Latina Justice”

Fresno Bee (AP): “Hispanic Named Top Court Nominee”

Denver Post: “Obama Nominates Latina”

If you need more, there are hundreds of examples here: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/?tfp_region=usa

I’m still looking for headlines that read, “Educated Princeton Woman Nominated,” or “Experienced Yale Nominee Heads to Court.” Haven’t seen anything like that yet.

As to Dave, yeah, “people in the 1930s went out of their way to precisely define race”—I’m assuming you’re referring to eugenics advocates and Hitler—but guess what: today liberal schools offer majors in racial studies where all you do is debate the difference between “Hispanic” and “Latino” and what it means to be “white.” Seriously, are you even paying attention?

And McLeod, as always, thanks for the intelligent commentary.

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
May 28, 2009 12:49 AM CST

Ah.  Even the newbies know JD is wrong.

Flag this comment

KC
May 28, 2009 6:49 AM CST

J.D. as you know the obsession of race and culture is a media phenomenon, however, unfortunately in 2009, there are still a number of “firsts” that have yet to be attained. Sotomayor’s distinctive nomination has as much fanfare as Robert’s nomination did a few years back. The difference: it’s coming from an administration that is overwhelming to those on the “right”.  The so called “left” emphasizes it’s importance because of the left’s tactical and strategic view to engage in inclusive policitics: appeal to 80% and let the “right” have the 20%.  It works, the electorate gave President Obama a mandate, we all knew it was about selecting supreme court justice(s), many believed that those selections would be without challenge. In that regard, certainly he would nominate candidates who have AT THE BARE MINIMUM, intellectual firepower and capacity, the other is the “fit” factor, you know, that subjective criteria many of the big firms use, such as Shaw Pittman. I guess this is where the pundits on the “right” have the most discomfort because “fit” is the catchall that’s not easily tangible to grasp. I guess she has the right “fit” that President Obama is seeking and she didn’t at Shaw Pittman.

Flag this comment

Kevin
May 28, 2009 7:47 AM CST

Color blind? Race does matter in law school admissions.  By example, in Texas, one law requires a photo so they can make sure the proper number of black students are admitted.  It also has the lowest bar passage rate in the state by a wide margin.

‘‘Do law [schools] do a disservice by [admitting] minority students who the [schools]know do not have the necessary credentials and will then [fail the bar] in three to four years? Would I have been admitted to the law school if I were not a [specific race]?’‘

As long as people make express decisions based on the color of ones skin, there will never be color blind society.

As long as individuals get a benefit based solely on the color of their skiin, then we must all presume they lack the qualifications and intellect to compete on an even playing field. Unfortunately, that is a reality that we must all recognize as truth.

Flag this comment

ABC
May 28, 2009 8:29 AM CST

To fit in with what? With the Yale personality? With the true American personality, who started from nothing and built her success? Act like a man? What troubles me most is that you guys are ignoring that the very reason law schools are required to consider race is because someone in the admissions would otherwise favor an “all-american” student from, say, Denver, CO, over a student who was born in Puerto Rico or Ghana. The law is to punish subconscious discrimination and nothing more. Do you really thing you are smarter than those students who are admitted in Texas only to fail the bar (We all know the tricks of getting an A or B in law schools.)? The law is there to say: “admissions officer, you may not say subconsciously, ‘Oh, I love kids from Denver, and these weird kids from someplace else can get admitted elsewhere.’” Besides, where I went to law school, the minority students did really well, passed the bar and only the non-minority students failed or dropped out. In fact I will admit, I am white, non-minority immigrant and in my law school some Professors told me it would be extremely hard to succeed, because the law, according to them, was such a rocket science that only regular Americans could understand it: I passed one of the most difficult bars (oh, I only studied for 150 hours by the way-hmm, I wonder how did that happen, with my accent and everything?) and I was among the top students to graduate. So, what do you guys think if I wanted to be a judge how would I fit in? For starters, I would have to loose my accent. Is it possible? Do you have any suggestions? I would love to act like Justice Thomas, so I am open to suggestions. And by the way, Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, why is one allowed to be a Texan and Ms. Sotomayor can’t be a Puerto Rican? I just don’t get that. Kevin, HOW CAN A LAWSCHOOL KNOW WHETHER A STUDENT WILL SUCCEED OR NOT? I think you are giving more credit to their “wizard” abilities than they deserve. In the absence of the anti-discrimination laws and in light of the LSAT exam (which does not test anything, not even a person’s general intelligence, it’s a reading comprehension exercise), only the favored class of people would be admitted and now we are talking about Pedigree. If you guys think that law is about Pedigree than I shall argue no more.

Flag this comment

Gumby, Esq.
May 28, 2009 9:21 AM CST

This is such an interesting exchange of opinions.  I am wondering who J.D. thinks is an appropriate nominee and what standards he thinks are appropriate in making a choice for a supreme court nominee. 

Apparently, he doesn’t believe that Judge Sotomayor has any credentials that make her worthy of this honor.  Also, his posts suggest that it is fair to presume that anyone who is non-white is likely to be unqualified to be admitted to law school.  (personally, I am green, so you know that’s how I got in).

It’s not that I want to encourage him, it’s just that his comments are more vitriol than logic or fact and I would like to understand his position stated in a more rational and neutral tone.  If you don’t like her, that’s fine, but tell us why.  Instead of just looking to start an argument, start a debate without all the hot button language.  (Can you?  Tell the truth, I think you just like to rile us liberals all up?)

Flag this comment

J.D.
May 28, 2009 10:08 AM CST

And Gumby, if you understand how Affirmative Action operates, you know that people with very low GPA’s and SAT/LSAT scores make it into schools as a result of their race. Read the recent Supreme Court case on the subject. The Court found that a person’s race accounted for more “points” at UMich. than I think even you would find acceptable.

So yeah, it’s sad and unfortunate, but Affirmative Action prevents a person from knowing whether or not a minority is academically-qualified to be on campus. I absolutely wish it were not that way. I want ONLY merit and test scores to be considered in decisionmaking.

That way, if there are not enough minorities on campus, the Left will then have to ACTUALLY focus on the problem rather than feel satisfied by promoting the failing band-aid known as Affirmative Action. The program is not a fix; it only focuses on the symptoms (low educational attainment of minorities).

Actually addressing the problem is something else entirely. That would require looking at the failing public schools around the nation. It would require looking at the broken families in the Black community (and all communities for that matter). It would require looking at the cultural influences in minority cultures (e.g. rap “music” about killing bitches and ‘hos).

If you’re not willing to look at these things, then you’re really not part of the solution.

Promoting Affirmative Action is just a lazy person’s way of thinking that they’re helping, when in reality, they’re only making things worse for everyone involved.

Flag this comment

It still happens
May 28, 2009 12:31 PM CST

I’m not surprised Judge Sotomayor was asked these questions when she participated in Yale’s OCI.  I, too, was asked these questions in the mid-1990s when I interviewed for a summer clerkship at my firm.  The partner, who was married to an auto company heir, had the nerve to ask me (during a panel interview) what I thought of affirmative action, and whether I thought I’d be interviewing at the firm without it (I had over a 3.5 GPA at my top 20 law school, BTW).  I, in turn, stated that affirmative action takes many forms and primarily takes place on the private golf courses, at the elite country clubs, and in the restricted private clubs and back rooms of this country.
He didn’t ask me any more questions, and I got the job.

Also, @ 3:  It’s not “in spite of her race.”  You can excel and be a Latina.  It’s in spite of your (and majority society’s) stereotypes of what a Latino/a is, or can be.

Flag this comment

Kevin
May 28, 2009 4:54 PM CST

PamA, I found your claim not be logical when saying that a wealthy Spaniard is not entitled to claim he is hispanic.  So, “hispanic” is a term to identify only poor people of spanish descent?  That viewpoint speaks volumes.

Furthermore, you do not really believe the grading system was “identity blind,” do you?  1) Professor gives exam, 2) Student uses assigned number, 3) Professor grades exam, 4) Professor gets name/number list from dean, 5) Professor assigns final grade.  IF you do not understand the process then it’s fair and balanced.  But, if you have a half-a-clue then there is nothing “identity blind” about the grading process. Also, many professors will discuss specific students. A few professors have told me that the views of other professors influence the grade they give to a student. Identity blind?

Flag this comment

gea
May 29, 2009 5:36 AM CST

I don’t understand “how” Kevin can claim to know the grading rules for all law schools or even the majority. Wow, what apples he has.

Also, Spanish people are allowed to claim hispanice base on how the people in power currently define it. Just because the poster did not know it, does not mean that she was espousing a “only spansh people are poor” view point. She only made a point in that people who are or look to be of european ancestry will be prompted to claim a less favored ethnic description if it is favored on law school applications.
But as a person who is non-european, let me tell you that law schools are NOT lettting people who have low gpa’s and non-european. If they were, I woul have gotten into 20 law schools rather than 3. So, again, people are speaking untruths about what law schools are doing in their admission process. You first have to close to the required grade and lsat score to be considered. There are a few schools were your chances are better, but the majority of law students are not clamoring to get into these schools. And they will remain unmentioned, but they are so called 4th tier schools.
To finish off, I think the poster who mentioned that 8 out 10 justices graduated from a top Ivy league school is more of a problem than that fact that starving newspapers try to get out attention with Sotomayer being only part european, poor and most important a woman. I can only presume that for JD and others of his ilk, that fact that the main reason she was picked is because she is a woman, but that was not controversial enough. How many woman law students are being questioned about their intention to have children during their interviews. That is a question, that the Partners really want to ask.

Flag this comment

2L Student
May 29, 2009 7:22 AM CST

I’m a rising 2L at a private, regional law school.  The school’s curve is a 2.76.  I’m a white woman and have to maintain a 3.0 in order to keep my scholarship.  A couple of friends of mine also have scholarships…note our LSAT scores and GPAs are similar.  None of us had a horribly disadvantaged upbringing or an extremely privileged one.  Friend #1, a black woman, has to maintain a 2.5.  Friend #2, a Latina from out of state, has to maintain a 2.0.  Obviously, I don’t know all the criteria admissions were using in granting the scholarships, but I can say that ultimately my 1L grades were significantly higher than my two friends (maybe because I had to work harder to beat the curve). 

Approximately 8 out of 10 emails sent out by Career Services pertaining to scholarships, job fairs, internship opportunities, etc. were limited to students of a “diverse background.”  Also, I was told by career services, right to my face, that in their experience, the firm I was interested in applying to as a 1L summer intern has never taken a 1L that wasn’t a minority…so, applying would basically be a waste of my time. 

So, how am I supposed to feel about this level playing field?

Flag this comment

Dan
May 29, 2009 7:41 AM CST

#26, what is required to “earn” a nomination to the Supreme Court, in your erudite opinion? Apparently graduating summa cum laude from Princeton, getting a JD from Yale, 12 years of private and public practice, and 18 years as a federal judge with startlingly low reversal rates doesn’t qualify. Is there some additional resume line that you think is necessary for a nominee to have “earned” it?

Flag this comment

Silas Jackson
May 29, 2009 8:06 AM CST

Is all of this race madness really worth it?  We have the same fights over and over again.  Let me sum up the result:  White men bad; everyone else good; pay me money.

Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, a group that seeks to “take back” several western states.  Since we are dividing everything based upon group politics and race, perhaps we should give all of the groups their own place to play.  This would end all of this bickering and selfishness.

Flag this comment

Dan
May 29, 2009 8:23 AM CST

Since Texas and California are both states that pay more in Federal taxes than they receive in Federal dollars, I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that no one ever should listen to B. McLeod.

Flag this comment

AndytheLawyer
May 29, 2009 8:44 AM CST

Responding to B.McLeod—As a Californian, I’ll take that deal in a heartbeat.  California has the world’s 6th largest economy, and its deficit just about equals the difference between what Californians pay to the federal government in taxes, and what it receives in return in goods or services.  We’ve been a net-negative return taxpaying state for decades.  Cut us loose, and we can use that money for the benefit of Californians—NOT including the illegal aliens in California, whom we have to educate and provide health care to only because the US constitution’s equal protection clause trumped Proposition 187 during the 1990’s, according to the US Supreme Court.

Of course, if California DID leave the USA, the taxes of those remaining within the USA would more than double to make up the revenue difference.  Be careful what you wish for.

Flag this comment

J Cunyon Gordon
May 29, 2009 9:10 AM CST

Ah, lively, mostly on point discussion.  Thank you JD, for initiating it, but shame on you for being disingenuous about the focus on race and gender.  I doubt you expressed outrage when the GOP nominee for president chose the governor of Alaska as his running mate and ... lo and behold, her gender became a front and center topic.  IMHO, that was appropriate—apart from other qualification issues—precisely because it was historic.  I think none of the posters here designed a world in which 83% of the Senate is male and 99% white; where 90% of governors are male, or where 100% of the disgraced bankers are white males.  We didn’t break it, JD, and on the rare occasions where a woman or a racial minority gets a chance at one of these vaunted posts, we rightly celebrate the occasion—apart from other issues.
The problem with your grief over the emphasis on gender and ethnic origin is that you apparently assume that if either factor is mentioned—or celebrated—nothing else matters.  Gender, race and excellence can and do coexist.  To complain that the president chose her simply because she is a Puerto Rican woman is willful blindness to history and the reality of America’s white male hegemony.
Some day, JD, when half the Senate and the federal bench are female, maybe a critical mass is non-white, when Wall Street, the government, the military—I could go on and on—are run by women, we will find it remarkable that the President nominated a white man to the Supreme Court.  Ah, dreams.

Flag this comment

justadad
May 29, 2009 9:51 AM CST

Query: facts and pursuit of truth(s); or empathy?

Maybe it’s difficult when others speak speak-over/on (y)our behalf?

Consider the recent article by Thomas Sowell, “Sotomayor: ‘Empathy’ In Action,” Townhall, Wed, May 27, 2009 (FN1) referencing a decision in 2008 that was associated with Firemen who were taking an Exam for promotion—“After the racial mix of those who passed that test turned out to be predominantly white, with only a few blacks and Hispanics, the results were thrown out. . . . When this action by the local civil service authorities was taken to court and eventually reached the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sotomayor did not give the case even the courtesy of a spelling out of the issues. She backed those who threw out the test results.”

————
FN1 -> http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/sotomayor_made_shaw_pittman_apologize_for_partners_questions

Flag this comment

Dan
May 29, 2009 11:17 AM CST

You might want to include the rest of the facts, #39. For instance, it was a unanimous per curium decision, and was unsigned. Furthermore, there were three days of arguments on it - so this claim that “Sotomayor did not give the case even the courtesy of a spelling out of the issues” seems to be based not in a claim that she didn’t *hear* the issues, but rather that she (or whichever one of the three panel judges) didn’t write out an 80 page opinion to say “we affirm”.

On top of that, it’s a silly argument in any case. The parties were agreed on the facts - this was simply over matters of law, and there were opposing motions for summary judgement. Do we really need a lengthy opinion on the facts that every party involved already agree on? And in such a case, wouldn’t people like B. McLeod be complaining about Sotomayor “wasting taxpayer money”?

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
May 29, 2009 11:42 AM CST

Actually, I favor detailed opinions by judges, and do not think it is a waste of money for them to explain what they are doing in a case.  It helps people who read the opinion to understand the application of the law, and provides better guidance for future cases.  I have actually heard colleagues (particularly a couple of them who practice in the 9th Circuit), complain about the practice where the panel just affirms the result below, essentially without explanation.  It seems to me that such is a disservice to the bar and the public.  As William Penn once said, “Commonlaw should be common knowledge.”

Flag this comment

gea
May 29, 2009 6:47 PM CST

Sotomayor is amazing and an average person. Why? She is average, because she went to an Ivy League school, where thousands upon thousands are turned out every year. So, it is no big deal. It is also no big deal that she learned to love learning, since it should be obvious to us all, that poverty does not equal ignorance. There are plenty of well-educated poor people, since as long as there is a free library and junior and senior adults willing to give of themselves, there will be no barriers to education, except one’s parents and society’s belief system that equates education with money, instead of education with self-enlightenment.
What is amazing about Sonya Sotomayor is that although she had a family that supported her education, she did not have a milieu that supported education. As we all know, a flower cannot grow without watering and the right kind of fertilizer. Most parents know how difficult it is to keep their child on the straight path, when they are surrounded by unbelievers of any kind. Ms. Sotomayor managed to stitch together a support system that she created within herself, since there were not people, without to perform this task. That is what is amazing about Sotomayor! She is the long distance runner who races against herself, and not the other gal or guy. More importantly, she is the runner who outdistanced her fellow students at Yale, who were favored with the best coaches, and weekend lessons from people, who were highly invested in their pupils education.  Even if jealousy or blindness prevents you, you must catch your breath to imagine, the magnitude of self-perseverance it took to avoid the distractions, pitfalls, naysayers and the lack of a well-trodden path, walked by parents who too went to Yale, Harvard or Columbia. Having parents, who have done “it” before, is an unimaginable boost to one’s morale and imagination and makes it no big deal. For Ms. Sotomayer it is a big deal and we all celebrate the long distance runner who lights a flame for all Americans to succeed.
More importantly the reward we get as a society is reflected in our commitment to reward those who fight against odds and win. For all of us, there is a small admiration for the Rocky Balboas’ and every ethnic group has one.  I know that this will annoy my friends who did not have to struggle as Ms. Sotomeyer did and will find it unfair, that their achievements are for some reason are less noteworthy.  I understand their complaints, but any author or musician will tell you that the actor who struggles and succeeds is universally more interesting than the one who does not have to.

So, it really is unethical for European Americans to cry foul because law firms and government entities are attempting to make room at the drawing board for all of the ethnicities that make up America. Our hiring policies have reflected our immigration policies which preferred Europeans. This must stop. The whole world should be given equal treatment, not just the Irish, Scottish, Polish, Welsh, German, French, English, Italian, Russian, etc… Why, should America reflect Western Europe? In my mind there is no earthly reason why it should.
So to finish off, Ms. Sotomayer represents not only Western Europe, but the New World and possibly Africa. She represents me and you. Not just you and this gives me more reasons to want to contribute to a legal system, which reflects as a body the people it rules. We all celebrate President Obama’s choice of a Justice who is a woman! A woman who reflects, the other half of America.  She is average in that she is a woman, a Puerto Rican and that she went to an Ivy league school. But she is amazing because she was a poor woman, from a poor Puerto Rican family who excelled in an Ivy League school. If Einstein grew up in a ghetto, does that make him any less amazing? No! He would be amazing, no matter what disadvantages he may have suffered as a child. But to surmount the disadvantages of poverty is amazing, which makes Sotomeyer’s average-ness special. The one thing we all find out to our dismay is that we are surrounded by smart people who all love to learn and that is harder to shine. Ms. Sotomeyer shined as a child and up and through law school.

Flag this comment

George Sly
May 30, 2009 1:40 PM CST

J.D. Judge Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, the argument that you’ve made that she was admitted to law school on the basis of race, is rubbish.  Having read many of your comments it is clear you despise anyone who your regard as non-white. 
I happen to be a WASP.  My wife’s family came from Peru.  My father in law was an engineer.  At the time of his death he had nine U.S. patents with his name on them., but obviously since my father in law was Hispanic, you would regard my father in law as you social and racial inferior, just as you regard Judge Sotomayor as your inferior.  Based on the evidence the precise opposite is true. 
As for your complaint of judicial activism that complaint began in 1954 when the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Brown.  Judicial activism has been a code word used to denounce civil rights decsions for the last sixty years.  JD if you had your way Plessy would still be good law.  I am thankful it is not, as not only are my wife and daughter of Spanish ancestry, I have two nieces who like the President of the United States are of mixed European and African ancestry and I do not in any way believe them to be inferior to you,.

Flag this comment

R
Jun 1, 2009 11:34 AM CST

J.D. writes: “Unfortunately, the left’s obsession with race and skin color requires a thinking person to conclude that a minority may not have had the educational credentials of her non-minority peers. I wish that wasn’t a possible conclusion, but with affirmative action in place, it most certainly, undeniably is. It’d be better if everyone got a job or seat in class because of their intellect, but sadly, that’s not the case.”

Interesting theoretical point. But what the heck does it have to do with Sotomayor’s nomination?

SHE WAS SECOND IN HER CLASS AT PRINCETON!

Obviously, she personally was not an unfair beneficiary of “affirmative action.” So what is your point?

If anyone is obsessed about race here, it appears to be you. Would you be questioning whether, say, Alito got into whatever the heck school he went to because of family connections, or because of his Italian-American background? Of course not.

SHE WAS SECOND IN HER CLASS AT PRINCETON! SHE WAS SECOND IN HER CLASS AT PRINCETON!

I’m sorry I have to keep repeating that, but it’s clear it hasn’t yet sunk in to J.D. and others who seem intent on attacking Sotomayor as somehow an unqualified affirmative-action choice.

Flag this comment