Foxy,
There is a world of difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome.
The case that defines Sotomayor's approach (and yours I'm beginning to suspect with horror) is Ricci v DeStefano.
In this case Ricci et al were denied promotion, not because they had not earned it through high scoring in the exam but because only whites and a Latino had scored high enough to earn a promotion.
No blacks had scored well enough to earn the promotions on offer.
In other words, all had equal opportunity to earn a promotion through passing the exam, but the outcome didn't fulfil racial quotas.
The exam was therefore deemed racist, even though it had been specifically designed from the outset to guard against this possibility.
Ricci sued and lost due to Sotomayor's decision.
If this is the sort of cockamamie world that people like Sotomayor are leading us into I don't want to be part of it.
If you or your child's life relied on a fireman to come and rescue you would you prefer that they were in that position on the basis of their competence or would you prefer that they had been chosen on the basis of their skin colour?

<<And if the outcomes are equal as you say - then isn't that equal justice?>>
One person works hard all their life, acting responsibly, going without and saving so that they can look after themselves in retirement.
The other person avoids work and responsibility, eats, drinks and makes merry for tomorrow they might die, ending up with nothing at retirement age.
They each had equal opportunity.
At the end the of the day, the government steps in and takes half of the first person's wealth and gives it to the other person.
Equal outcome.
Equal justice?
Maybe in your worldview Foxy, but not in mine.
Or should everybody have just been given equal scores in the Ricci exam?
That would have led to an equal outcome and therefore equal justice according to your logic.
Foxy, Foxy, Foxy...
A woman who makes those sorts of decisions and then has the arrogance to describe herself as wise, declaring that a person of "her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male" is hardly fit to serve at the lowest level of responsibility let alone the highest level.

Dear KMB,

Well, the way you explain things - it seems that
I'd better just go and do some more research.
Until I get things better sorted.

Bye for now.

Foxy: "Well, the way you explain things - it seems that I'd better just go and do some more research."

Good for you. KMB is just repeating a line he has found on right wing blogs. Sotomayor's appointment is a hot topic right now. The left wing blogs have a very different view point, of course.

It is worth knowing while you read them that in America Judges are in general a lot more "activist" than our Australian Judges. American politicians seem to create messes and leave it for the judiciary to sort out. The current patent mess is a great example. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7458#115925 It was created by the US pollies, but rather than fix it themselves they are leaving it to the Judiciary to sort out. To the US Judiciary's credit they are gradually fixing it, but it is taking a long, long time and in the mean time literally billions are being lost in frivolous law suits.

So the reality is all US Judges are activists. They have to be. But nonetheless accusing them of being activist makes great political sport, as you are finding out. However KMB is outright wrong when he says: "because activist judges are by definition progressive". Judges of both sides are equally activist: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html

If you to wanted see a spectacularly poor nominee for the US Supreme court, you could not go past George Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers. She had all the right qualifications in Bush's view. Lay preacher, member of his staff, born again Christian. But she had never been a judge in any court, predominately done corporate work and when she had appeared before a court, mostly lost. Of course KMB and George are on the same side, so I am not sure he would bring it up. Pity, as in comparison it makes Obama's nomination Sotomayor seem very tame.

Dear KMB,

Well, I've done my research - reading as many
different websites and opinions as I could
find on Sonia Sotomayor.

And, KMB, I'm afraid that you and I are going to
have to agree to disagree on this one.

After doing all that reading I began to realize
that as one web- site pointed out - 'The Supreme Court
in the past was uniformly white and male, when it
delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual
discrimination.'

Did anyone bother to question their
impartiality? Or Their 'opinions, sympathies, and
prejudices?' I doubt it. No one would dare!

Is there really such a thing as a truly objective
stance or only a series of perspectives. Doesn't
personal experience affect the facts that judges
choose to see?

The famous Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said,
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been
experience." And people's life experience will
'inform their judgements in life as lawyers and
judges. Life is more than a technical experience.'

After doing the research, I feel Sonia Sotomayor will
bring quite a lot to what was predominantly
the domain of the white male, the Supreme Court of the
US.

Sonia Sotomayor says:

"All judges have cases that touch our passions
deeply, but we all struggle constantly with
remaining impartial and letting reason rule."

I don't think you can ask any more than that
of any judge.

Excellent work, my dear Foxy.

Love the point that no-one ever questioned the impartiality of all white all male judiciary way back when that was considered the norm.

Will KMB give your post such reasoned thought?