home

Sotomayor Confirmed As First Latina Supreme Court Justice

The vote was 68-31. In addition to all Democrats and Independents (with the exception of Ted Kennedy, still absent due to his health), 9 Republicans also voted in favor - Voinovich, Bond, Martinez, Alexander, Graham, Collins, Snowe, Gregg and Lugar.

< On The Stimulus: The Question Is Not Did It Help, But Was It Big Enough? | Springtime For Hitler >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Pop the champagne! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:13:08 PM EST


    I'm just wondering (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    how do you confirm that someone is Latina?

    you have (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    to lift the robe

    Parent
    See, now that's a good 'un. (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    forgot the (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    ba dum bump

    Parent
    Very profound! (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    Another birther? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    From your title (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:19:38 PM EST
    I assumed they had just performed some procedure!

    Parent
    Indeed they did (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:22:30 PM EST
    The confirmation process.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    congratulations to Justice Sotomayor, then, and long may she preside.  As a confirmed Latina, no less!

    Parent
    A confirmed Latina Justice (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:26:19 PM EST
    How do I know she is a Latina Justice? Because  Sessions et al voted against her.

    Parent
    Weak ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    even as pedantry goes.  

    Parent
    this may be old (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:19:53 PM EST
    6th Catholic on the bench.

    er, (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:49:22 PM EST
    with her now 6 Catholics on the SC.

    Parent
    I find it interesting (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    that there have only been 12 Catholic Supreme Court Justices in history, counting Sotomayor... and 6 of them are on the Court right now.

    Says something about the mainstreaming of Catholicism in American public life, IMO, compared to how it once was.  Anti-Catholic animus used to be far more widespread.

    Parent

    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    That gives atheists (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by dk on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:04:11 PM EST
    something to hope for I guess.  Someday...

    Parent
    not in our life times (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    I fear

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    While Protestants make up 51.3% of the population (Census Bureau, 2007), that does not cover one religion, but many denominations. "Unaffiliated" which may or may not include "atheist" are 16.1%.

    Catholics, on the other hand, make up almost a quarter of the US population (23.1%), thereby making it the largest single denomination.

    But it is interesting that they are 67% of the Court.

    Parent

    jfk (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:08:01 PM EST
    was going to convert the laws of the country as a catholic is how i remember reading some history.  Far more mainstream today than any time in history i would say.....

    Parent
    Us against them where I grew up. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    The "us" being Protestant.

    Parent
    So? (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    American Catholics hold wide and varied opinions about a variety of hot button issues.

    Parent
    A riff on "confirmation," (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:56:47 PM EST
    and a point of info.

    Interesting to me as I'm Catholic.

    Parent

    Ah, I get it (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    nice.

    Parent
    Yes, and the six (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:11:04 PM EST
    Justices seem to run the gamut of views, depending on the issue,  from Dorothy Day to Opus Dei.

    Parent
    What's encouraging about Sotomayor (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:33:54 PM EST
    is that we can hope that her views reflect the fastest-growing group in the U.S. Catholic church: the Hispanic Catholics.  Some may worry that they are traditionalist Catholics -- but these days, after the departure of so many Catholics that left the fundamentalist Catholics with much more power, the Hispanic tradition can be a very good thing.  Why?  Because the Mexican (and South American) church tradition is the social justice tradition of the church, which is what the fundies freeked about and are trying to eradicate (aka John XXIII).

    I haven't been Catholic in eons, but a friend who is a priest -- and surviving by being assigned to a Hispanic parish -- explained this to me.  It's fascinating.

    Parent

    Liberation Theology (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:07:04 PM EST
    still rings in the ears of many Latino Catholics....

    Latin America is much more left-of-center than the U.S.  It is in part about helping the pobrecitos.  There is much a greater suspicion of large economic interests...

    The wealthy are a minority and without the military to back them up will generally lose power in free elections....The fall of the Soviet Union, and with it the end of the Cold War, has made it easier to be left of center in Latin America--it is seen as less of a military threat, etc.

    Although the thought is that Latin America only tilts left on economic issues but is very conservartive on social issues, the truth is not quite that.  There is no capital punishment in Latin America--no doubt tied to Catholic traditions but still a "liberal" position.  Mexico City legalized abortion.  And, in Mexico, the Catholic Church has been severely curtailed with a whole set of laws that prevent it from being involved in the government.

    Legalize drugs in the U.S. and Latin America would be able to rid itself of corruption in due time....

    Parent

    Yes, that's it. You know (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 09:59:30 PM EST
    and explain so well much more of what my friend explained -- liberation theology, liberal positions (compared to our Protestant, Puritanical country), etc.  I don't know if this is so of Sotomayor's heritage, from Puerto Rico, but if so, it just is too simplistic to say -- worrisome as it can be -- that SCOTUS now is two-thirds Catholic, as if it's a monolithic faith in this hemisphere.  Rome may wish it so, and be pushing hard to make it so, but it simply is not so.  And Rome is far away. . . .

    Parent
    A free image of SCOTUS history (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:02:39 PM EST
    that you lawyers (and many others) may like is available here from Emily's List, celebrating Justice Sotomayor as the third woman on the court in its history.  I'm going to have to call a friend who did a wonderful rap on that when we still had only the first woman on the court: first name after first name of every justice since 1790 -- male name after male name -- finally ending with: Sandra.

    But a picture like the one linked is worth a thousand words -- or hundreds of names.  I just got it via email and copied the image to print, use in PowerPoints, etc., but tracked it down on the EL site, too, for you.  So you ought to be able to copy, print, etc., from that, too.  It's portraits of all of the justices in SCOTUS history, if with a bit more attention to the three women.  (So far. . . .)

    I'm thinking today of another poster I've       got, one of Dolores Huerta, another "wise Latina" -- the one who first coined the slogan (and so rarely gets credit for it):  Si, se puede!  Gracias, senoras.

    Very nice (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:26:23 PM EST
    I shared that image with my wife.  Every bit of progress is welcome!

    Parent
    I once heard Huerta speak at an ACLU (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    dinner at which Anita Hill also was honored.

    Parent
    Amazing. I envy you (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:40:26 PM EST
    the memory.  But then, I ne'er shall forget the evening that I got to go -- and take my daughter, young then -- see Gloria Steinem and Wilma Mankiller share a lectern.  And it was the first time that Steinem ever had a "signer," something to which I'm quite accustomed (on a campus that is the only one other than Gallaudet that credits sign language for foreign-language credit, specializing in serving hearing-impaired students, so lots of other students take it:-).  Steinem kept stopping and just watching the signer in awe.  So cool.  

    And it also was the first time Steinem shared a stage with a woman chief, which also had her in awe -- while Mankiller was a bit awed right back.  It just was . . . sheer joy to listen, to witness that kaffeeklatsch.

    Parent

    The woman who introduced Hill (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:13:05 PM EST
    went on and on, so Hill didn't have much time to speak or answer questions before she had to leave for the airport.  Tood bad.

    Parent
    Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    Bond? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    wow

    He, like Voinovich, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:10:25 PM EST
    is not seeking re-election. It seems to be a lot easier to do the right thing without having to face a Republican primary.

    Parent
    I caught him announcing it yesterday (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:14:11 PM EST
    BTD called Voinovich, though.

    Parent
    wonder what brought that on (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    am I wrong in thinking he is about the biggest neanderthal in the senate?
    MO, right?

    Parent
    he's a jerk (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:17:09 PM EST
    But as Republican Senators go, he's not even close to the worst.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    You are laughably wrong when you consider the Senate includes the likes of Inhofe and Sessions.

    Parent
    it was really a question (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    I only know what I hear from my liberal MO neighbors.

    and from that I would never ever ever expect him to vote for this nominee.

    but Im happy he did I guess.

    Parent

    still (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    I think its pretty amazing he is one of only nine republicans to do the right thing.

    have to email some of the Bond Bashers I know and see if they are as surprised as I am.


    Parent

    letter to Bond (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    The Honorable Christopher "Kit" Bond

    US Senator-Missouri

    It is with great disappointment that the Buchanan County Republican Central Committee finds the need to submit this letter expressing our discontent with Senator Kit Bond's decision to vote in favor of the appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.

    The committee fully recognizes and appreciates Justice Sotomayor's background and service, but feels her past rulings and public comments are in conflict with the appropriate role of a justice on the highest court in the land. We are saddened that a fellow Republican entrusted with the responsibility to vote on her qualifications and temperament believes otherwise.

    The Buchanan County Republican Central Committee has a long history of support for Senator Bond. Many of our members have volunteered tirelessly on his campaigns -- many since his days as Governor of this great state. It is with regret that we must condemn his announced yes vote on the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor.

    In his statement to the press, Senator Bond noted that "elections have consequences". By ascribing an affirmative vote on her confirmation as the result of "elections have consequences", Senator Bond diminishes the balance of power constitutionally provided through the Senate confirmation process. His actions deny us, the voters who elected him, those same, resulting "elections have consequences" benefits since he is abdicating the senatorial powers he earned when we elected him.

    While fully aware that Republicans lost the Presidential race in 2008, as a committee we understand that the loss does not mean we must abandon our principles as a political party by giving a free pass to those who would tear down the foundations of our great nation. Nominee Sotomayor's past statements and actions do not reflect the fair-minded values of the US Constitution, Missourians, or the Republican Party.

    We respectfully request that Senator Bond reconsider his position on this vote and cast a NO vote for the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor.

    If his yes vote is an attempt to leave public service with a legacy of bipartisanship at the expense of conceding his principles, we would remind him of what an empty legacy that would be. We hope that he will finish his long tenure as a public servant by clinging to the foundations that have returned him to office for so many years.

    Respectfully,

    The Buchanan County Republican Central Commmittee

    Bob Ott, Chairman

    P.O. Box 6304

    St. Joseph, MO 64506

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#51)
    by eric on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    If his yes vote is an attempt to leave public service with a legacy of bipartisanship at the expense of conceding his principles, we would remind him of what an empty legacy that would be.

    Heh, empty indeed.

    Parent

    Hold your horses (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    Al Franken has to announce the result first!

    I keep having this funny thought (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 10:01:40 PM EST
    of turning on SNL some Saturday night and seeing a skit about Al Franken being a Senator.  But who would play Al Franken on SNL?  It starts to send my mind in circles. . . .

    Parent
    feliz confirmation. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    good for her and Estados Unidos.  Hispanics represent nearly 20% of our population and it is great to see that a highly accomplished and qualified latino is on the highest court in the land....

    latina (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:26:11 PM EST
    I bet (none / 0) (#22)
    by eric on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:27:56 PM EST
    Souter already half-way to New Hampshire by now.

    Story is that he just bought a new house (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:54:45 PM EST
    Why? Because his old house couldn't contain his library!

    Parent
    Green Jetta (none / 0) (#36)
    by eric on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:02:54 PM EST
    Heh.  Not quite the conservative Bush, Sr. thought he was.

    Parent
    He's also "David the roofer" (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    (Supposedly he once missed an important phone call because he was repairing his own roof).

    Parent
    Or Senator Kennedy, (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    who has expressed regret on his vote against Souter.

    Parent
    Souter surprised lots of people (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    Though supposedly Warren Rudman knew the score all along.

    Parent
    Yes, he exits (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    knowing, I am sure, that his position is in great hands.  Hope he enjoys his new home and new pace of life in NH.

    Parent
    I find it hard to believe that there has (none / 0) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    been so much coverage over the past months of something that was such a foregone conclusion.

    I also can't believe that more Republicans didn't have the sense to vote for her. Your conservative constituents will forget in a couple weeks (just as no liberal ever held the confirmation of the likes of Scalia against all the Democrats who voted to confirm him) but many Latino voters will hold a grudge.

    I agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by bocajeff on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    The only news was the announcement, what she stood for, what her opponents say, and then the confirmation. The rest was just a show. What a waste of resources.

    Parent
    Now that this is done (none / 0) (#29)
    by eric on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    Scalia, Thomas, or Kennedy should feel free to retire any day.  Please?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 02:57:42 PM EST
    I have a feeling that none will voluntarily retire under a Democratic President.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#45)
    by eric on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    most likely it will be Ginsberg or Stevens next.

    Parent
    I think Stevens (none / 0) (#52)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    is getting close to 90.  I'd imagine not many justices in history have served once that age is reached.

    34-5 years on the Bench is a good long career there or anywhere.

    And does he wait to step down when it's an election year, or does he hold out to do it in an off-year.

    Parent

    Agreed, but how about, (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:03:08 PM EST
    in addition, early retirements for Roberts and Alito?  

    Parent
    Well, given that Kennedy (none / 0) (#59)
    by dk on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    wrote the opinion stating that right of gay people to privacy in their own homes is guaranteed by the constitution, I plan to wait and see what Sotomoyor's ideology is before making too many comparisons between the two of them.*

    *troll prophylactic:  Yes, Kennedy's ideology in other areas is too right wing, but we honestly don't know what Sotomayor's ideology is since she, like many justices before her, refused to state them publicly.

    Parent

    "troll prophylatic": good one. (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    Always appreciated (none / 0) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:31:03 PM EST
    Kennedy since his majority opinion in Roemer v Evans.  Scalia get my vote for first off to an island.

    Parent
    Oh, but Scalia is a huge fan of opera. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:32:44 PM EST
    Must be a good bone in that body somewhere.  But wait--speaking of Hitler.

    Parent
    My imagery (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:34:26 PM EST
    of Scalia runs more toward Il Duce.  Maybe it the fasces I see him holding in his hand rather than a gavel.

    Parent
    Thomas is on summer vacation: (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:30:09 PM EST
    Benjamin Cardozo (none / 0) (#54)
    by dragon527 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:16:54 PM EST
    Correct  me if I am wrong but I believe Benjamin Cardozo was the first Latino/Hispanic on the SC.

    depends (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by bocajeff on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    on how you define Hispanic. Some say it's only in Spanish speaking countries, others say it's only in Spanish speaking countries other than Spain, some put Portugal as part of it, some put Brazil in it and others don't, some even question the Phillipines.

    There are differences even within governmental agencies as to what constitutes a Hispanic. Also, how many generations in the United States until you are no longer considered Hispanic since there is no Spanish speaking going on...

    Parent

    I saw this interesting discussion (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:32:24 PM EST
    of the discussion of Hispanic the other day, a learning moment.  But then I had to wonder -- by this definition, by heritage and not by country of origin, would that make some Irishers not Irish?  So JFK wasn't Irish on both sides, because the Fitzgeralds actually were French (before they invaded the ould sod a few centuries back)?  And so Obama is not African American but Arab American, because his ancestors -- and not that far back -- were part of the Arabic emigration to Kenya?  Just wondering how far back such definitional distinctions go, how widely they ought to be applied beyond Hispanics vs. non-Hispanics. . . .  And as for the Sephardic distinction, then a lot of Hispanics in Spain for centuries aren't Hispanics, either?  Seriously, I need a solid, detailed source to explain all of this further than a few comments here can do.  I really do want to know and not offend by unintentionally calling someone Hispanic who isn't!  Those of you who do know this stuff: solid (i.e., not anything starting with wiki) appreciated.  Thanks.

    Parent
    You are wrong (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    Considered yourself corrected.

    Parent
    and in the U.S. a tomato was fruit (none / 0) (#79)
    by ding7777 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 08:40:21 PM EST
    until the courts (1883) deemed the Tomato a vegetable for import/export reasons.

    Parent
    Since we're doing corrections (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 08:45:36 PM EST
    Nix v. Hedden was actually decided in 1893.

    I have always said that if I ever get nominated for the Supreme court, I will make a pledge at my confirmation hearing to overturn that decision.  That should get them all talking.

    Parent

    If I ever become President..... (none / 0) (#81)
    by vml68 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    I will nominate you!

    Parent
    His family (none / 0) (#63)
    by eric on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:41:15 PM EST
    traced it roots way, way back to Portugal.  Sephardi Jewish but not Hispanic.

    Parent
    There are also Hispanic Jews (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:03:50 PM EST
    From wiki:
    There are also Hispanic Jews, of which most are the descendants of Ashkenazi Jews who migrated from Europe (German Jews, Russian Jews, Polish Jews, etc.) to Latin America, particularly Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Cuba (Argentina is host to the third largest Jewish population in the Western Hemisphere, after the United States and Canada)[54][55] in the 19th century and during and following World War II.

    Many Hispanic Jews also originate from the small communities of reconverted descendants of anusim -- those whose Spanish and Portuguese Sephardi Jewish ancestors long ago hid their Jewish ancestry and beliefs in fear of persecution by the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition in the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America.

    The Spanish Inquisition led to a large number of forced conversions of Spanish Jews.

    Genetic studies on the (male) Y chromosome conducted by the University of Leeds in 2008 appear to support the idea that the number of forced conversions have been previously underestimated significantly.

    They have determined that the current population of Spain has ancestry through the male line that is at least 20% Jewish.[56]

    This seems to imply there was much forced conversions than which was previously thought to be about 200,000.



    Parent
    The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 04:59:33 PM EST
    From wiki:
    The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".[14]

    This definition excludes people of Portuguese origins, such as Portuguese Americans or Brazilian Americans.

    However, they are included in some government agencies' definitions.

    For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race."[15]

    This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses.

    Still, other government agencies adopt definitions that exclude people from Spain, since there is a distinct ethnic difference (indigenous American or European American).

    Some others include people from Brazil, but not Spain or Portugal.



    Parent
    Elections Have Consequences (none / 0) (#65)
    by john horse on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:01:14 PM EST
    No Obama.  No Sotomayor.

    But not only do elections have consequences.  So do confirmation votes.  For minorities the GOP has chosen to be the party of walls rather than bridges.

    True (none / 0) (#78)
    by ding7777 on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 08:37:05 PM EST
    No 2nd term for Bush43 = no Roberts and no Alito

    Parent
    She makes an appearance in NY, but (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:05:54 PM EST
    doesn't speak.

    Image of a lfigure on a large clock in (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:15:42 PM EST
    a public place such as Herald Sq.  Makes an appearance but doesn't speak.

    Parent
    Speaks but doesn't appear in Denver (none / 0) (#84)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    When the phone call came from Denver, Sonia Sotomayor stepped into a bathroom to get away from the noise of the party in her home.

    In English and in Spanish, the new Supreme Court justice thanked more than 100 well-wishers at a LoDo celebration.

    "We're all excited about your nomination and confirmation," former Colorado state Sen. Polly Baca said to her longtime friend. "We wanted you to know how proud and honored we are."

    Sotomayor replied on the speaker phone, with the excited crowd of well-wishers circled around.

    "Polly, you know how much I love you, and how much I love your senators, who both voted for me," Sotomayor said.

    "This has been the most exciting day of my life," she added, "but what's special about it is how many people are celebrating it with me."

    Link


    Parent