Robert Barnes noticed it, and then I noticed that he’d noticed it, when I wrote this:

And, as Robert Barnes points out in today’s WaPo, although diversity could have been furthered on the Court by appointing someone who had graduated from a public university (a mindboggling eight of the present group attended either Harvard or Yale), or someone who didn’t come from an appellate court background (all the present Justices have that history, the first time this has ever been the case), that type of diversity is not considered important. Appealing to women and Hispanics most definitely is.

I wouldn’t suggest anyone run out and nominate someone from my entirely unknown undergraduate school, then a branch campus of Michigan State, but apparently no one with a degree from, say, the University of Illinois or Oregon State is qualified, and neither is someone from a law school like Minnesota or the U. of Washington, both fine schools.

But I don’t see a rush to nominate people whose college and law school experience is “more like America.” I wonder why.

Alito said again, “And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.”

Primo has an issue with reading comprehension.

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account…

I wonder whether you really don’t see the difference, since it is so clear. Also, the sort of argument you mount here, including the quote, has been already been discussed ad nauseam on many boards throughout the blogosphere; I would imagine you have seen the responses there, and know exactly what they are. Nevertheless you thought to put the Kos talking points here as well and hope for the best.

Or perhaps I’m misjudging you (after all, since I’ve never been a primordial vegetable, maybe I can’t understand where you’re coming from). So, just in case you haven’t seen the response a hundred times, I’ll give it a go.

This is what Alioto said, in response to a query during his confirmation hearings from Senator Coburn of Texas when asked to counter criticism that he’s uncaring as a judge (emphasis mine]:

Alito:…when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant – and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases – I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

Shorter Alioto: I care, I’m human. I think about those people. But I never let it affect my actual legal judgments, despite that.

It’s a completely different kettle of fish from Sotomayor. In response to a direct question, Alioto was trying to say that, despite the fact that he is unbiased in his decisions, he’s not a cold and uncaring human being. The context, background, and what the person actually is saying about empathy and the law, could not be more different from Sotomayor.

Also, I missed the part where he said he hoped that, as a white man, he would make better decisions than a latina woman. Maybe you could do a search and find that quote as well, because that is the pulsing heart of the Sotomayor matter.

You say you can’t? Pity.

But as I said before, my guess is that you already know all this.

http://neoneocon.com/2009/05/27/judging-judges-the-wise-latina-the-white-man-and-justice/#comment-110573