July 12, 2009

LKL Web Exclusive – It's High Time – By Anita F. Hill

Posted: 06:38 PM ET

Anita Hill arrives at the United Nations in New York in May 2006.

It’s High Time

By Anita F. Hill

So much has been made of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court that it’s hard to know what people expect from the upcoming hearing.  For her part, I expect to see an infinitely qualified and highly prepared nominee anxious to address the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Despite her years of practice and judicial experience, Sotomayor’s Republican detractors on the committee will, I suspect, try to show that she is unfit to sit on the court.  A recent study showing that 98 percent of the time she agrees with the majority on constitutional questions will deflate claims that Judge Sotomayor’s judicial positions are outside mainstream legal reasoning.  Republican senators will be hard pressed to argue that a Justice Sotomayor would put the law on an unprecedented course given support from the Fraternal Order of Police, Louis Freeh and Ken Starr, not to mention the American Bar Association’s highest rating.

In a wider context,  Republican Senators ought to be reminded that President Reagan started the Supreme Court on the course of better gender representation in 1981 with his first nominee, Sandra Day O’Connor.  We are now in our fourth year with only one woman on the country’s highest court and Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation which would double the number of women on the court isn’t parity, but it’s a start.

For me the critical question is not whether the Supreme Court should have seats set aside for women; the one so often asked.  Nearly 30 years after Justice O’Connor’s appointment, the question we confront as a country is whether we can let go of the presumption that these lofty positions belong to men.    As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it, “Women belong in all places where decisions are being made…It shouldn’t be that women are the exception.”    Justice O’Connor agrees with Justice Ginsburg that another woman is needed on the court.  And Justice O’Connor has told none other than David Letterman that she is “very happy we’re getting another woman on the court.”  Justice Ginsburg, who knows Judge Sotomayor, went further, saying that Judge Sotomayor “will bring to the Supreme Court …a wealth of experience in law and life.”

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s professional achievements, fueled by her own intellect and initiative, position her to advance our thinking about women’s fitness to judge.  What makes Judge Sotomayor even more uniquely suited for this nomination is that the law helped facilitate many of her accomplishments.  At the beginning of the 1970s, for the most part, law was a profession taught by white men to white men.  Women made up roughly seven percent of entering classes.   Few professors were women and the overwhelming majority of law teachers were white. Justice Ginsburg recently told the New York Times that she was tenured at Columbia University because the school was trying to fulfill President Nixon’s Department of Health, Education and Welfare civil rights demands.

In 1972, Title IX issued a simple and sweeping mandate - no one could be excluded from participation in any education program or activity on the basis of sex.  Legislation that would ultimately transform high school and college athletics served as the impetus for law school admission that was truly open to all qualified applicants.  What happened was  remarkable.  From 1970 to 1979, the number of women receiving law degrees increased more than tenfold, from 801 to 10,026.  By the end of the decade, when Sonia Sotomayor graduated from Yale Law School, women, a growing number of them women of color, made up 28 percent of all law graduates.

Notwithstanding high grades and impressive degrees, many still had trouble landing the most coveted jobs with influential judges or prestigious law firms.  Judge Sotomayor herself filed a grievance claiming that, in spite of her sterling undergraduate and law school credentials, a firm refused to consider her for employment because she was a Latina.  By completely ignoring the growing pool of female job applicants, employers risked violating the protections that civil rights law provided against employment discrimination. No, obstacles to professional advancement did not all magically disappear, but doors that were tightly closed a decade before cracked open, and women entered them in record numbers.

As an experienced lawyer and jurist, Judge Sotomayor is representative of a generation of hardworking and talented women lawyers who draw on their life experiences to improve the law, and not, as some have suggested, replace one form of bias with another.  Sonia Sotomayor understands that different perspectives that result from lived experiences.  She also knows that, when interpreting the law, judges should assess “when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”  This kind of honest introspection and a true appreciation for the law are laudable judicial traits.

No longer does the argument that there are not enough qualified women to achieve some semblance of gender parity in the judiciary carry any weight.  Since Judge Sotomayor’s graduation, the number of women entering law school grew.  In the past decade women have received nearly half of all law degrees awarded.  Yet, women make up only 25 percent  of the federal district court judiciary.  If ever there was a time for the Senate Judiciary Committee to proceed with a nomination with dignity and fairness, that time is now.  Like no other, this historic hearing could determine the role of women and the court for years to come.

Anita F. Hill, graduated from Yale Law School in 1980 and is currently a professor at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management.  Her commentary is a Larry King Live web exclusive and her thoughts are her own.

Filed under: Larry King Live • LKL Web Exclusive • Sonia Sotomayor • Supreme Court

Share this on:
ng   July 12th, 2009 9:09 pm ET

I think adding Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court will be a smart move. It will definitely bring diversity to what America has come to know as a place for elderly caucasian males who are there for a lifetime. She has a law background so she has knowledge. I think President Obama made the right decision by choosing what could be the first Hispanic female, so hopefully she will be confirmed. It's time for a change.

sammy   July 12th, 2009 9:53 pm ET

Love & respect A Hill ...she looks super ! ..

mimi   July 13th, 2009 1:42 am ET

I love you my brother where ever you are, i am so sad you left so early but i always known Good people who cares for others more than them self don't live a long life i know that because I lost my mother,and she was one of a kind just like you were. thank you for your generosity and the great work , WE ARE THE WORLD SONG. which generate 50million dollars to to help Ethiopian children you saved millions of life, people u never even met, you are a great man on be half of my Ethiopians brothers and sisters mothers and fathers thank you, we love you we will never forget you and we owe you. my brother we are crying for not having you with us, but i know you are in a better place. let god keep your children and your mother safe.

chris plumstead   July 13th, 2009 5:59 am ET


Mark   July 13th, 2009 7:34 am ET

It's over time... even after Sotomayor, there still needs to be more women represented at all level of the judiciary – white men, for white men, by white men... enough is enough... we need more diversity!

Rob   July 13th, 2009 7:37 am ET

The real question isn't "is she qualified?", but rather, "is she the BEST qualified?"

The Constitution does not establish any criteria for being a Supreme Court justice, and the powers of the court listed in Sec. 3, Art. 1 of the US Constitution make no reference to anything other than law and equity "under the Constitution"; certainly no reference is made to prior experience as a trial judge.

Judge Sotomayer's nomination may well be a brilliant move by the president, and if confirmed, it may be an equally sad day for the Constitutional rights of many to correct perceived inequities of a few – a day that will last as along as she sits on the Supreme Court.

FC   July 13th, 2009 7:38 am ET

Are we really supposed to take Anita Hill's opinion of anything seriously? The Supreme Court needs constitutionalists. Not people who think fairness is political correctness.

kirby   July 13th, 2009 7:43 am ET

Anita Hill's opinion is no more important than the guy on the garbage truck and probably less informed.

Sotomayor is not a good choice to represent Hispanic/Latinos; she is NOT very bright and she will reflect poorly on us. I would prefer to wait to have an excellent candidate as opposed to just anyone: Sotomayor.

We are not puppies that can be given a bone and told to go sit in the corner. We are an important voting voice in America.

perjuryisacrime   July 13th, 2009 7:49 am ET

Ms. Hill's credibility was blown out of the water when she testified under oath that she was a Reagan political appointee, when, in fact, she was a lifelong Dem activist with similarly "Guenierian" views of race issues... except when the Black disagrees with her, and then such Black gets "lynched." Ms. Hill is a disgrace, and perjury is a crime. Only in DC does Perjury of that caliber go unpunished.

JomoDaMusicMan   July 13th, 2009 7:50 am ET

I think, Sotomayer appointment is really going to hurt R B Wade, her appointment is going to kill the right for women to have abortions. Sotomayer is hispanic, which means over 80% of hispanics are Catholic which means that this Church is against abortions. So it is logical to think that Sotomayer is against abortions since approx. 75% of Catholics agree with their Church on Abortion issues. Obama is a sly fox even though it is widely known he is personally against abortions, he could not appoint someone openly against abortions because Obama was elected by Blacks and Women Choice Groups

Ed M.   July 13th, 2009 7:52 am ET

There is no question that women and men are equally capable of making decisions in jurisprudence. And that, of course, means that, in venues where women are substantially under-represented on the bench, it's a state of unfairness that must be rectified; more women are needed.

To pretend, though, that men and women are the "same" is ridiculous. Stand at a downtown construction site and see how many women are looking through the peekholes to see how the concrete pour is going. Walk through a mall and check out how many men are gazing into the clothing store windows … even of men’s clothes!

So let’s not expect that decisions in the courts will be rendered in the same manner, regardless of gender. Both genders bring something meaningful to the table in the annals of justice - and we must embrace that. But never lose sight of the fact that they bring *different* things to that table. And be careful with it.

Henry Miller   July 13th, 2009 7:53 am ET

The single biggest role of the Supreme Court is to determine whether matters brought before it are Constitutional. This doesn't require that the Court reflect in any sense the demographic make-up of the US, it simply requires people who can read and understand the Constitution and the issues at hand. It's an analytic function, not one involving "empathy."

It is therefore apparent that those insisting on the inclusion of members of various social subdivisions on the Court, solely based on that membership, are doing so solely to promote the interests of that group.

I.e., those demanding the confirmation of Somia Sotomayor are doing so primarily because she's Hispanic and female and expected to, as she has a history of doing, bias her judgements in favour of minorities and women.

Few people in this country will object to the inclusion of minorities or women on the Supreme Court, but Judge Sotomayor's history of racial bias in both her rulings and her public comments make it clear that this particular Hispanic woman is unqualified for a seat on the Court.

Duncan   July 13th, 2009 7:54 am ET

When they started looking for a new judge, their criteria was female and latino. That Is WRONG. Sotomayor was chosen as the best available and I have no issues with her.. I have issues with the criteria used in the first place.

Looking for someone who is white and male is racism.. looking for female and latino appears not to be.

Jerry   July 13th, 2009 7:54 am ET

I agree diversity would make for a better outlook in law, but to nominate and confirm a justice to the supreme court solely on the aspiration to add diversity, I believe would be an injustice to the law itself. Many people are focusing on her ethnic background, cultural views and such, rather than focusing on the real issue.... how does this person interpret the law. That should be the only question that should be answered. We all come from different backgrounds but the law, if administered correctly, does not take those backgrounds into account. So confirming someone to the highest court in the land should refrain from that narrow minded view also, and focus on the ability of the person, the track record of decisions, and the willingness to be neutral and fair.

Gene   July 13th, 2009 7:54 am ET

Good thinking. Sotomayer, Hill, and their ilk want to judge people by their skin color, gender, and ethnicity. Shades of Dixie.

Michael   July 13th, 2009 7:55 am ET

I'm sorry....been since when did Anita Hill become an expert on Supreme Court affairs? Because she claimed sexual harassment against a Supreme Court Justice she suddenly becomes an expert in all things Supreme Court related?

John   July 13th, 2009 8:00 am ET

Another big mistake for this country.

lou   July 13th, 2009 8:03 am ET

Anita Hill is far from someone to be quoted as a good authority let alone a good example.

She is an undistinguished person who got by on the very quota system she objected to, and hides behind tenure. She made her "name" by attempting to smear a fully qualified member of her own race when he was nominated for diversity purposes. She got her job on a "diversity" basis, and not a "quality" basis and the results are obvious.

The problem with all this diversity junk is we overlook the "best" candidates for the "diversity" candidate. If the diversity candidate is the best, great. We have a win win. However, to substitute quality just to appease some social goal is foolish and undermines the overall quality of our institutions.

All you have to do is look at the condition America is in today, then look at the "diversity" candidates – including NObama – and you see where sacrificing quality for diversity gets us.

It would be far better to encourage every candidiate – diverse or not – to be the best qualified for the job. Only when "quality" is the standard, will we all win as a Nation. Putting diversity above quality only weakens us as a people.

JD   July 13th, 2009 8:03 am ET

Amazing that Anita Hill would be lauding this nomination as a sterling example of diversity and praising Sotomayor's qualifications. Isn't this the same Anita Hill who was the primary participant in the attempted "lynching" (in his words) of nominee Clarence Thomas? It was clear to most reasonable viewers that she was lying through her teeth just to stop a nominee who held views with which she disagreed. The fact that he was a black man seemed to have been lost on her at the time.

Anita Hill is a joke. CNN using her as some wealth of knowledge regarding the importance of diversity on the court is also a joke.

rp   July 13th, 2009 8:08 am ET

It is inconceivable to me that a law degree infers to some that an individual has "knowledge." Over many years I have met those so qualified that have no knowledge. Perhaps this woman is smart, knowledgeable and wise. But please don't put her on a pedestal because she is female, Hispanic and has a law degree. None of these attributes qualify her or anyone else to sit on the highest court in the land–a country of laws built around a constitution which sets the framework.

DAK   July 13th, 2009 8:09 am ET

The Sotomayor confirmation, if approved as seems highly likely based on the trend will not bring any diversity of any sort. It will simply add one more statist "living document" IDIOT to the other 8 members of the current court. Nothing will have changed. If you want diversity of opinion have a yearly lottery and draw some random citizen to serve and do this every year so that the entire SCOTUS rotates every 9 years. No legal background required – in fact members of the Bar Association should be banned entirely from the available pool.

Liberal4Obama   July 13th, 2009 8:09 am ET

Sonia Sotomayor will be an excellent judge, she is overqualified for the job, more judicial experience than any SC nominee in 100 years !, but as a woman trying to get hired for any job that shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

Ricky1979   July 13th, 2009 8:11 am ET

When did Anita Hill become someone we should listen to about Supreme Court justices?

Thomas   July 13th, 2009 8:11 am ET

Henry Miller is mistaken.

If the sole responsibility of the SCOTUS is understanding the Constitution, then the SCOTUS would be staffed by Constitutional Scholars.

A big part of the job of the SCOTUS is to interprete the Constitution with respect to the changing culture and social/legal environment of the United States. It is not just "reading the Constitution".

It is the same as with the lower courts. If all a judge needed to do is be able to read a law, we could fire all the judges and hire experienced para-legals who can read the law. However, that is not what is needed in a court. What is needed is someone trained and experienced in interpreting and applying the law.

In both cases the value of the judge far surpasses the ability to just read and understand the law.

JR   July 13th, 2009 8:12 am ET

The "infinitely qualified" hyperbole ruins credibility.

JomoDaMusicMan   July 13th, 2009 8:13 am ET

Personally, I think D'Prez OBAMA, should have appointed Anita Hill, because she would definitely nullify the vote of the Republican Marionette (Clarence Thomas). This is how OBAMA can show the people who supported him that he is not breaking all his promises to them. I, for one, is getting very impatient with Mr OBAMA, he hasn't removed the Troops from Iraq, He has not closed Gitmo and probably won't. He is bailing out Wall Street and basically ignoring Main Street especially the Black Community. MR OBAMA THE BLACK COMMUNITY ELECTED YOU. QUIT IGNORING US.

Mike   July 13th, 2009 8:16 am ET

I do not understand the idea of diversity for the court. We should not want someone just becauseof their race or where their roots are from. To strictly want diversity undermines the fact that the most qualified position must sit on this highest court position. There are other candidates that are far more qualified for this lifetime appointment.

Jack   July 13th, 2009 8:17 am ET

Diversity? What do you think Clarance Thomas is? He is racial diversity. And what do you think the four flaming liberals on the court are? They are judicial diversity. And what do you think Ruth Ginsburg is? She is gender diversity (she's a woman), political diversity (she's a communist) and qualification diversity (she should be a felon for murdering small children).

FabulousLiberalVoter   July 13th, 2009 8:17 am ET

It's so nice to see your face, Ms. Hill. I hope that life has been treating you well since "that man" treated you so poorly. I believed you from the beginning, because it was happening all the time. YOU changed this country by speaking out against a pig of a man, who STILL sits in a position of power. He is, by far, the worst judge currently sitting on the Supreme Court, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. LOL

Good luck to you! I'll be thinking of you as I watch the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice be confirmed because SHE IS QUALIFIED, not this other nonsense the bigots and sexists want everyone to believe. We know she's got big creds!

Bob   July 13th, 2009 8:18 am ET

I can't believe that you all are parading out Anita Hill on this after the nonsense that she tried to cook up against Clarence Thomas. She is a bad joke, and this just further reinforces CNN's standing as a political mouthpiece for the left.

Jack   July 13th, 2009 8:18 am ET

And come to think of it, Obama is international diversity because he's a Kenyan. (He's never produced a valid American birth certificate.)

Judge Smails   July 13th, 2009 8:19 am ET

If I were Sotomayer and heard Anita Hill is backing me, I would be very concerned. I agree with JD. Anita Hill is a piranha and plays the race card for her own benefit.

Thommy J   July 13th, 2009 8:21 am ET

Just more whining from the identity politics crowd. They don't mean real diversity, they mean diversity of appearance and plumbing; beyond that, you're expected to conform, politically and ideologically.

DAK   July 13th, 2009 8:21 am ET

This is how OBAMA can show the people who supported him that he is not breaking all his promises to them. I, for one, is getting very impatient with Mr OBAMA, he hasn’t removed the Troops from Iraq, He has not closed Gitmo and probably won’t.

Shame on you for ever thinking he would. There were only two anti-war candidates ever in the race. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

REALIST   July 13th, 2009 8:22 am ET

If a white candidate for the court made some of the same statements Sotomyer has in both the past and present they would not even be considered. You would see minority communities demanding that they not be confirmed. The reality would be that candidate would not be confirmed. However, there is a double standard that exists that allows a pass through for certain groups and not others. The media is largely to blame for this.

Robert   July 13th, 2009 8:22 am ET

Whenever the subject of Sotomayor comes up, the conversation is nearly stricly comprised of references to gender or ethnicity. Endorsing people based on their gender or ethnicity is a massive mistake. If she was worthy of the seat, her gender and ethnicity would only be a footnote. Right now it's the opposite, even her supporters barely mention her qualifications. This alone should be very telling about how honest her supporters are being about impartiality. It's blatant.

Sotomayor, along with her endorsers, also appear to have a "Set things right!!!" agenda. Some of her statements have exposed this attitude. The Supreme Court is there to jealously and viciously defend the Constitution against the Legislature, not to be an activist band of errant do-gooders, making permanent changes to the Constitution to fit the temporary fashion of the day.

Someone's gender or ethnicity should not be a factor that helps OR handicaps them. HAVEN'T WE LEARNED ANYTHING?

My wife is Spanish. My kids are Spanish. Mi encanta el idioma y el culturo. But someone's gender or ethnicity should not be a consideration when making a decision like this.

Sotomayor is damaged goods and has an agenda. She will not protect YOUR CONSTITUTION. She will promote an agenda that we will all regret.

It's supposed to be us against the government. If you don't know that, you're not a patriot. Please read our founding documents.

The government has us divided in our neat little gender and race groups now and is stealing our rights away while we battle each other over trivialities.

No matter who wins the seat or what they look like, you lose.

Gregory Boudreau   July 13th, 2009 8:22 am ET

Re:Anita Hill
I read her artilce on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing. I do agree women do have a role to play in the Judical System, Ms Hill thinks that this should be a fair confirmation hearing, which I do agree, but when you have different political parties participating in the process, you will have different pionts of view. In one case, the confirmation hearing for current Justice John Roberts, then Sen. Biden, took 23 minutes of the 30 minutes to ask a question, so if the republicans go this route, just remember the Democrats do the same. It would be nice if a qualified person is put through with out any difficulties, but that will never happen.

Steve   July 13th, 2009 8:24 am ET

I just don't get it. Who cares whether it's a woman, or hispanic, or whatever?!?! These appointments should be totally blanked out in name, age, gender, race, etc. After all, isn't the most important thing getting the RIGHT person in that position? When the President makes a nomination, all records and judgements made by that person should be revealed with all references to the person selected blacked out – that way, each person nominated will be judged on their merits alone.

I don't WANT another woman in the Supreme Court. I don't WANT another man, either. I don't WANT a black, or white, or asian, or hispanic. I don't WANT someone older than younger. What we NEED is someone qualified regardless of other facts. Period. If someone is going to speak for the law, then they should have started long before now, and whoever that person is, whatever race their origins, whatever gender or age, their past actions should dictate their future.

Rusty   July 13th, 2009 8:25 am ET

Every time we have a nominee to the Supreme Court we trot out Anita Hill. This woman's 15 minutes of fame were up the day Clarence Thomas was put on the court. I wish she would just go away already! She has nothing to offer this country.

Vanessa   July 13th, 2009 8:28 am ET

If being a Supreme Court Justice is just "an analytical function", then why does the constitution requires nine justices? The answer might be because no two people interpret any document exactly the same. That is why there is a justice system with attorneys representing both sides, a judge and a jury.

It is impossible to divorce one's life experiences from decision making. We are all fallible and see issues through our own experiences and biases. We cannot help it.

In addition, the constitution is a living, breathing document. If there was not supposed to be further reflection on its relevancy or fairness, then we would not have amendments, once again, voted on by many states, not just analyzed by one brilliant mind. Therefore, it stands to reason that since we are flawed and we allow the document to be dynamic, as was our founders' intent, it will need to be interpreted by several, not one, mind. All of those minds will be bringing to their opinions their intelligence, experiences, and, yes, ability to see how the decision affects people's lives, in order to decide wisely.

Like it or not, this country is no longer mostly white. Laws need to be fair to everybody, not just the demographic who wrote our earliest laws. I am white, and I think it is time we started facing facts. Laws are not made in a vacuum. They are made to be fair to all of the people who live under them. White privilege does exist. That, alone, is not fair.

Anyone who is really interested in this Supreme Court nominee should watch the hearings, before deciding whether Sotomayor is qualified. I will be.

JomoDaMusicMan   July 13th, 2009 8:31 am ET

You people are knocking Anita Hill, she is more qualified than Clarence Thomas. What has Thomas did on the supreme Court but agree with and support any and every project that supports the Republican Agenda. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to have some opinons. If the Republicans put forth a Bill to re-instate lynching of Blacks, Thomas would vote for it, and his opinion would be "since blacks did not pull themselves up with their own bootstraps, I've turned their bootstraps into a rope for their hangings"

Matt   July 13th, 2009 8:33 am ET

This isn't about diversity or getting a slice of the pie. It's about confirming qualified and constitutional minded individuals into our supreme court. This should never be about whether she's the first hispanic woman on the supreme court. I'm tired of this cliche and over played topic. I don't care if she's hispanic, I don't care if she's black, it doesn't matter. I think this writer is being a pompous racist in the nicest terms possible. Who has honestly and officially stated that positions similar to the supreme court are only for men, or more so white men in at least the last 10-15 years? I honestly think the argument is used nowadays to smuggle in either underpar candidates or those who will do what you tell them. Sotomayer has made it this far because of affirmative action (as she's stated herself) she can try to earn at least one position without it.

DikShuttle   July 13th, 2009 8:34 am ET

I agree more women on the Supreme Court would be nice. I could do with a fair and unbiased Judge, however, not someone who believes in quotas and reverse bigotry for appearances sake.

I'm willing to give the hearings a fair shake, but if what her detractors are saying proves true, no way she should be on the SC.

Jomo, if you think he was your candidate you might be surprised. He serves his financial backers the same way all the candidates do.

jim   July 13th, 2009 8:36 am ET

Please show me where in the Constitution the Supreme Court is entrusted with "interpreting the Constitution with respect to the changing culture and social/legal environment of the United States"

LT. ROBERT   July 13th, 2009 8:36 am ET


Celina   July 13th, 2009 8:37 am ET

Empathy as a criteria for choosing judges is wrong.

It reminds me of Southern Jim Crow judges that 'empathized' with white litigants, is that what we are? This was wrong wrong wrong then, this is wrong wrong wrong now, this is wrong wrong wrong always.

The principle of it is wrong, democracy is not about retribution, it's about advancing the classical precept of liberty to paper and paper to law, the standard we must continuously strive for is that justice is blind!!!

mary   July 13th, 2009 8:37 am ET

And the pendulum swings - we cannot and MUST not add a woman to the Supreme Court just because she's a woman. To try and 'fill' what are percieved to be inequities by adding another woman, is just as wrong as eliminating them. We must always, always, always take the most qualified, period - no matter gender or race.
Palin's bid failed because we women did NOT appreciate the pulling of the 'rabbit' out of the hat trick by John McCain -- we women are smarter than that. This Supreme Court nomination is a VERY serious matter, not to be taken lightly and not 'forced' to 'fill' a quota.
I hope and I pray that the vetting is done completely, and may the BEST candidate for Supreme Court justice, ultimately be nominated and placed.

SensibleFella   July 13th, 2009 8:38 am ET

Unfortunately this leftest not of the main stream Clinton appointed judge will undoubtedly get her seat on the bench.

A very sad time for America as this begins the Obama infiltration of the ultimate in our justice system. The primary problem is that this will be the lingering damage long after he's gone in 2012 and may very well exceed the damage he's doing now in the long term.

The 60% of Americans who voted Obama in, and are now realizing the mistake, will ultimately pay the price via this nomination.

As for Anita Hill, just another "grab" at publicity. Her opinion is inconsequential.

J Elsner   July 13th, 2009 8:39 am ET

Oh brother! This woman's hypocrisy is astounding.

Jason   July 13th, 2009 8:41 am ET

How about we put up the best qualified person to sit on the Court? Sotomayor's comments definitely raise concerns about how she will rule on cases. The Law should work equally for everyone and judges should decide cases based on desired social outcomes, that is the job of the Legislature not the bench. I am sure there are very qualified, unbias minority candidates out there...she is just not one of them.

midwest mark   July 13th, 2009 8:41 am ET

Why does anyone bother asking a lying pawn like Hill anything about politics? Is it not 100 per cent predictable that she will spout the leftist/feminist/"reverse racist" point of view like some Barbie with a pull string sticking out of her back? Does she even have a choice? Anita, please leave us until you have an original thought!

David   July 13th, 2009 8:42 am ET

If the law is the law no matter what...then why would you think that diversity is a needed thing? It shouldn't matter at all but ya'll try to make it a race card thing...racist!

BrianG, Sugar Land, TX   July 13th, 2009 8:43 am ET

My concern is that the white male establishment in Congress is so afraid that they will be treated equally (or commonly, as the case may be) just like persons of female gender, color and/or ethnicity that they will try to road block this very qualified person.

The Supreme Court for centuries leaned toward the white majority in its decisions. It is not racism or reverse racism that Sonia Sotomayor represents, but rather the dread that white people will be treated as injustly as they have treated others.

BTW: I am a white, middle aged, middle class male and look forward to Judge Sotomayor on the Bench. It's about time!

Joe Calo   July 13th, 2009 8:43 am ET

Sotomajor, The Best choice ever made to be selected for the Supreme Court PERIOD. You can talk all you want but the credentials are there. You can not changed that no matter how hard you tried. BEST SELECTION EVER>

Mike Smith   July 13th, 2009 8:44 am ET

You have to love Anita Hill talking about anything. She is a man hating woman who views things through the prism of her dillusions. I recognize that while I dont like Sotomayor's seemingly biased ruling she will definately be confirmed, but come on CNN get someone better, it really makes you appear biased against conservatives!

1234   July 13th, 2009 8:46 am ET

Does it really matter how diverse Supreme Court Judges or any ruling body looks? The main goal here should be equality through how they rule and how they think not how they look. I could care less if you are black, white, purple, yellow, orange or whatever – as long as you can make a ruling that is fair and unbiased. You people reporting on color and its importance in progressing America make everything worse. Where racism was previously on the decline in many areas, it is now a big part of everyones lives everywhere.

Terry   July 13th, 2009 8:48 am ET

Well, well, well! A voice from the past. Do me a favor Ms. Hill, stay out of it. Judge Sotomayor’s credentials will speak louder than your support. This is a woman who clearly belongs on the court. Frankly, there should be four women on the court, and eventually a majority. Whether a Supreme Court Judge is male or female makes little difference, if they all follow the constitution.

Ug   July 13th, 2009 8:48 am ET

Diversity in the supreme count is NOT what we need. What we NEED are people that will uphold the Constitution of the United State! We do NOT need people that attempt to legislate from the bench. It is our legislators jobs to legislate. It is our Supreme Court's job to ensure the created laws comply with the Constitution.

Having said that, I am certainly not opposed to having all walks of life represented in our country's highest court. However, let is NOT be blinded by the apointment of a minority just for the sake of appointing a minority. Whomever gets appointed should be one that will uphold the Constitution, REGARDLESS of political correctness.
Sotomayor has already proven agreesive against the 2nd amendment. What other amendments is she against?

Don't be dumb blind sheep! Obama, you can do MUCH better than this!!!

Kristi   July 13th, 2009 8:49 am ET

Both of these women represent everything that is wrong with this country. The message here is: let's pander to hispanics and minorities just because they are minorities not because they have accomplished anything. There are hundreds of better nominees but they can't be considered now because they are not a "minority." Welcome to obama's America...

Hmm   July 13th, 2009 8:57 am ET

Setting aside seats for women? Let's think about this. The Supreme Court justices are nominated/appointed by the President. WOMEN have just as much of a say in who that president is. I get tired of hearing how it's about time we have a specific race or gender filling an ELECTED position. If that was the goal it would have happened a long time ago, but fortunately, as was the case with the election of the current president, people still vote for who they think is best.

What's disturbing about Sotomayer is she pushed equality aside and went the route of racism by saying it's okay to throw out qualification examinations if some magical number of minorities don't pass the test.. It scares me that we would appoint ANY individual to the highest court who doesn't rule on the gounds of equality for all, opting to push a personal agenda instead.

This country needs to stick to qualified individuals in various positions and forget about quotas. When you use quotas instead of qualifications, then you are discriminating based on race. It's insane to believe in this day and age, corporations are more concerned about race/gender instead of profits. There's not a leader out there who says they'd rather lose revenue and appoint a white male over greater earnings by appointing the most qualified person to a position.

Joseph D   July 13th, 2009 8:58 am ET

Diversity at all costs! Yep hire and remote based on color. Scum whites get to the back of the line.

If someone works hard and passes a test don't reward them. An African American who speaks gutter language will get the job even if he/she don't know "nothing".

Racism through and through!

mike trout   July 13th, 2009 8:59 am ET

The selection and appointment to the Supreme Court should be based on qualifications and ability only. Political correctness, special interests and race should never be considered. If an appointee refers to themselves as anything other than an Ameircan (not African, Mexican, Hispanic, etc) they should never be considered.

Rob   July 13th, 2009 9:00 am ET

I don't see one specific reference to what qualifies Sotomayor beyond her gender in this whole article. If you really want to move beyond gender bias and racism, then the conversation on qualifications can't be based on those issues since it immediately segregates that nominee based on those facts.

Jerry   July 13th, 2009 9:00 am ET

"Diversity" has NOTHING to do with correct interpretations of law. Enough of this nonsense.

barrister   July 13th, 2009 9:01 am ET

As an attorney it troubles me that people are so concerned about the gender and racial makeup of the Court. That should not even factor in when nominating or confirming a nomination. The law should be blind. By pushing the race/gender issue, we are trying to make the court a political tool. That is not its role. It exists to interpret the law. It should not be used to advance issues that we think are important. If Sotomayor is the best individual for the job, then so be it. We should all want the best people on the Court, not just a diverse Court. If you take the position that she should be confirmed because she is a minority woman, I would urge you to go take Government 101 again.

Rex   July 13th, 2009 9:03 am ET

Who is Anita Hill?

David   July 13th, 2009 9:04 am ET

She is representing the law and nothing more...that is all her job is and supposed to be...nothing more.

If she tried to add anything to it she would be stepping outside of the idea that a judge rules by law and not by feelings...duh!

So how can she bring anything but her knowledge of law to the table? She can't and is not supposed to try to either.

maddawg   July 13th, 2009 9:04 am ET

lol....a lawyer that has knowlege of anything meaningful.


this world would be a much better place without the lemmings of iTardedness that call themselves lawyers!

and from what i've read, heard and seems this new nominee will put SEVERE BIAS into the supreme court.

yea....that's what we need....another joke on the USA to lead us into the future of despair!

Aware530   July 13th, 2009 9:06 am ET

To ng I completely agree with your statement. This country has been run by Caucasian males in every aspect. When it comes down to the most important entities in the US such as congress, being president, supreme court justices etc they need to be a reflection of the people whom they are governing! The US is made up of many people of different backgrounds. Why is it that Caucasian males are still largely present in these different areas which are important in developing the US?

Zack   July 13th, 2009 9:08 am ET

I think the point that is missed when people talk about diversity on the supreme court is that the SC is not part of our representation in government. We do not vote on SC members and their loyalty is not to any group or constituent. They are to be the strongest advocates of the law itself and social context is not supposed to sway them. They are only to take into consideration the facts presented, the intent and meaning of the law as written and judge from there.

We could have an all female black SC and the only thing that would matter is their loyalty to the law. I do not say diversity is a bad thing: it is simply neutral in the context of the SC. It is completely fair to challenge Judge Sotomayor on her comments that many view as socially biased. If congress is the convinced that her allegiance in the courtroom is only to the law itself then she should be seated. The fact that she is Latina should not move anyone to support her, nor make them hesitant to support her. The only issue is her advocacy of the law as is written by the legislators.

Brandon   July 13th, 2009 9:08 am ET

This nomination is fine and would certainly go far toward increasing diversity on the high court, but let's face it, as long as nearly every justice has to be from Harvard or Yale, that's not too diverse is it? Instead, let's try appointing someone with a degree from a state school or a smaller, liberal arts university. We certainly like to shout "diversity" from the rooftops, but that can't happen until we get some non-Ivies on the court.

lou   July 13th, 2009 9:10 am ET

Just in case you have missed it, America is finally waking up to the garbage Hill and her ilk spew in the media. I believe, or at least I hope NObama was the last losing social experiment we will have to endure for a LONG time to come.

Anita Hill and her pubic hair Coke can made a joke out of Oklahoma for allowing her to slither into our educational system just because they needed a minority to fill a slot. Since the time she got the job, she has been singularly undistinguished and had it not been for her backfired kinky soda commercial during her testimony, would today be just another tenured face in a picture on the wall. The only reason she still has a job is because of tenure, NOT qualifications.

Hey, Anita, have a Coke and a smile...........

Tillyosu   July 13th, 2009 9:10 am ET

So let me get this straight:

Anita Hill, who was instrumental in almost derailing the nomination of the nation's second Supreme Court justice, is now calling for diversity on the Court?

Shallower words were never spoken.

robjon   July 13th, 2009 9:11 am ET

personally the only person I'm hearing from is obama, it seems like none of his women are saying or doing anything

David   July 13th, 2009 9:12 am ET

UG is dead on the money right about this. It doesn't matter if they are m/f or any color or race.

Do they uphold the constitution and will they do it as correctly as they can.

I look at it like this...when I watch a football game, I don't care about the race or color of the refs but rather that they get the call right...they are not on the field to do anything but get the call right and see that the game is played fair and let the best man win.

Chuck/   July 13th, 2009 9:12 am ET

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the US Supreme Court needs Constitutionalists. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Anita Hill's level of veracity and integrity may be questionable. And yeah, yeah, yeah the qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court judge, as enumerated in the Constitution, do not make any mention of utilizing "empathy."

But if everybody interpreted laws or music or art or literature the same way, we'd all have the same opinions of those things. Guess what? We don't. There are plenty of deciding factors (cultural and educational factors jump to mind) that assist us when asked to intrepret. So I like the fact that a woman candidate, who has lived a life parallel to millions of other US citizens who are not White males, is being nominated. Let's see how this this nominational hearing plays out – she may in fact be unqualified.

Dr. Mary Fraser   July 13th, 2009 9:13 am ET

Well said, Dr. Hill. Thank you!

BIll Clinton   July 13th, 2009 9:14 am ET

CNN must really be desperate to have Anita (the Pill) Hill giving commentary. Sotomayor is nothing more than a racist piece of politically appointed garbage who is should not be confirmed.

SillyT   July 13th, 2009 9:15 am ET

This lady (Sotomayor) has no business on any bench (especially the supreme court).

she has stated that the bench is "where real law is made". Did you get that?

As far as Anita Hill being quoted on is kind of like asking Newt Gingrich a question on ethics...a really bad joke.

Term limits for all federal judges and congressional representatives!

norm   July 13th, 2009 9:15 am ET

I agree that it is time for a hispanic to be on the court. Too bad the democrats did not allow it when the republicans tried it a few years ago. It is also too bad that MS. Hill can't remember that.

gl   July 13th, 2009 9:16 am ET

Wow. Very little of what has been stated makes any sense to me. Regardless of any decision that is made, and by whom, it is made certainly (hopefully) with respect to what the law states, but also based on the judge's upbringing and principles. If the best qualified candidates had gotten positions throughout the course of time, we probably wouldn't be here in the 21st Century trying to inject diversity in places where it should have resided all along. Also, when hiring for a position, do you want the person with the 4.0 gpa who only knows that one subject and related items, or would you rather have someone with a 3.4 gpa that has a very good grasp of the subject, but also knows how to relate, and possibly interpret, on other issues. If all doesn't go well, would the 4.0 student know how negotiate or navigate another course of action?

Trust Pres Obama. We don't know if he is the most qualified candidate, but he is the one that was elected. Besides, he's only been in office for not even seven months. How much could any of you have accomplished in that amount of time? You don't seem to realize that what he is doing is trying to stop and reverse a speeding train. Any idea how hard that is?

Michael   July 13th, 2009 9:17 am ET

Last I heard, Anita Hill was a law professor, which makes her much more qualified to opine about a SU\upreme Court nominee than the Rush Limbaugh's ditto heads who have never read a Supreme Court case in their lives.

Jim   July 13th, 2009 9:19 am ET

She may be notionally qualified, but clearly was NOT selected based on her qualifications - she was chosen because she's:
– Female
– Of a minority that democrats want to ensure more votes from
– Liberal
– A sufficiently sympathetic character that she won't be anywhere nearly as hard pressed on her views and record as a white, male, heterosexual would be

So, she's the nominee of the 'protected class'

markiejoe   July 13th, 2009 9:22 am ET

The appropriate question isn’t “is she the BEST qualified?”, since that is a highly subjective question and one that is impossible to determine.

The appropriate question is which of the perhaps dozens of equally qualified individuals is a good choice for this time and place in history. And sorry white males, it is not your time or place to have another Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is time for a qualified female first and foremost to be added to the U.S. Supreme Court (and probably the next two or three appointments also) and it certainly won't hurt in this year 2009 A.D. to add another minority presence to the way-too-white panel.

So good luck to the very excellent and needed choice of Judge Sotomayor. Long may she rule.

Rick McDaniel   July 13th, 2009 9:22 am ET

I remain opposed to having that many people on the court, from a single religious faith. I oppose on the basis of a real and present danger to the separation of church and state, as the balance of power could too easily be influenced by the Catholic Church.

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 9:23 am ET

Agree with (almost) everyone else, why is Anita Hill considered relevant? Were no other perjurers/slanderers were availible the day this was written? If they have stooped to asking for Anita Hill's blessing, they must be really short of qualified legal endorsements.

Dave   July 13th, 2009 9:23 am ET

Having listened and remembered well her "testimony" and allegations during the Clarence Thomas hearings, it was not surprising to see her paid opinions here. She can spout all she wants, she's just trying to hitch a ride on another nominee. Parasites don't impress me and hopefully don't impress others.

Todd   July 13th, 2009 9:23 am ET

So an old white male liberal is being replaced by a not quite as old Puerto Rican female liberal. And all we can talk about is how it makes things more diverse. Umm, hello people. What counts on the Court is knowledge of the law, a respect for the true meaning of the constitution, and a diversity of thought, not of color or gender.

If the Court were made up of 9 black lesbians (which would be zero diversity), I would be fine with that as long as they actually stuck to what the Constitution plainly says, rather than engaging in judicial activism and "making policy" through the Courts.

russ   July 13th, 2009 9:24 am ET

So who died and transfered their 15 minutes of fame to Ms. Hill. White, Black, Hispanic.....what will be the next "minority" of choice? I have not seen any groundswell for the left-handed or handicapped or Native Americans or ...... Gee, can we all just drop the quota thing?

Alan   July 13th, 2009 9:25 am ET

Though I do not agree with Sotomayer on all issues I am not convinced she is a terrible choice nor the worst choice that could have been made by Obama. I would say however that Anita Hill has no business tellling any of us who should sit on the supreme court. Her blatant attempt to derail the nomination of Clarence Thomas is still one of the most ridiculous and shameful testimonies ever heard.

ME   July 13th, 2009 9:25 am ET

What about Miguel Estrada? He was even more qualified but was never let to even come to a vote.

Michel Cloutier   July 13th, 2009 9:27 am ET

Change takes time. Those newly-minted law grads will eventually make it to the Supreme court in due time. Avoiding affirmative-action nominees will ensure that the best candidates of all ethnic groups sit on the bench, instead of people that just 'look' right. Unless, of course, law schools also practice affirmative action, which would mean that the system is already loaded with under-qualified people.

EJ   July 13th, 2009 9:30 am ET

Sotomayor would not be Obama's pick for the Supreme Court if she was a white male. And any white male who would have said that a "[wise white male], with the richness of [his] experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a [Latina] who hasn't lived that life" would never make it through the confirmation process.

Ed   July 13th, 2009 9:33 am ET

There should be no race, gender, sexual preference, democrate, republican, liberal or conservative "preference" or allocation" to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. There should also be no "diversity" requirement to be "politically" correct. The one and only criterior should be to nominate and select the best judges with the best judical backgound in the nation. A backgound of interpreting and administering law based on the law that is written, not in accordance with a personal or ideology bias. The supreme court should be the best of the best, not the best women, black, hispanic, white or whatever.

Frankly I am getting tired of this forced diversity for the sake of diversity – it should be excellence to reward the persuit of excellence. You can can force diversity to be "politicially correct" but you cannot force excellence – that has to be earned and it should be earned.

Rodboy   July 13th, 2009 9:34 am ET

It is a shame that we think that people need to be the right gender or color to respresnt us LEGALLY in the court. It is difficult to believe that people act differently at work than home. So a person thinks in their heart so they act with their lives.

MW   July 13th, 2009 9:36 am ET

The thing that Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s critics in the Senate seem to be totally ignoring is the very thing that they profess to be concerned about – namely the wording of the U.S. Consitution! The document provides that the power to appoint Justices to the Supremet Court rests exclusively with the President of the United States, with "the advice and consent" of the Senate. Note that it does not say with the APPROVAL of the Senate. If the President's pick is qualified for the seat, then the Senate has absolutely no basis to do anything other than to vote to approve the appointment. All the rest is simply political grandstanding as its worst! So much for so-called "Conservatism"!

rd   July 13th, 2009 9:41 am ET

Its sad to think that some people have something to say about the diversity issue first and the qualifications issue maybe. It looks like Anita Hill and like minded people have chosen to ignore the diversity represented by Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and think that somehow a white male judge is somehow automatically less judicious. It really shouldn't be about race at all – should it? I think that people that focus on race for any reason are doing everyone a great disservice by focusing on what make us different instead of what makes us Americans.

Mayte   July 13th, 2009 9:43 am ET

Who cares what Anita Hill thinks? She is not qualified to give any opinion. Her only claim to fame is that she tried to defame a Supreme Court nominee because he was a conservative. Clarence Thomas, a black man with a story at least as compelling as Sotomayor's, if not more so, was a great addition to a diverse court. She chose to present tawdry low-class unsubstantiated accusations of sexual-harrassment from years past, after she had continued to work for this man and NEVER made a single complaint until he was placed in the light of scrutiny from Congress. His nomination inquiries did not center around his qualifications or opinions, but around Ms. Hill's disgusting allegations that were unproven, unsubstantiated and smelled quite foul. Anita Hill is the epitome of hypocrisy, used as a willing pawn by the left. She is a nothing.

Noelle   July 13th, 2009 9:44 am ET

Well written and articulate article. I agree, as a country we are still a long way off towards having the Supreme Court reflect this country. There are many talented Asian, Black, Latino Americans, men and women . jurists who have served thier country well. Still, my concern is the undercurrent of nominations and public service in general. That is, the politics of personal distruction beginning with Ms. Hill, now aimed at Mr. Ricci by the far left and towards Gov. Palin. That is the great debate we need. Public service should be our greatest reward not a pinata. In todays' climate I have no doubt the founding fathers, imperfect men, would have been swept aside and the greatest document every written, the Constitution, would never have been written and who knows where we would be.

Rifleman   July 13th, 2009 9:44 am ET

So it's all about females and Latinos, eh? Is this what all that carping about "diversity" and "cultural sensitivity" have done to E PLURIBUS UNUM? That we're no longer about THE LAW but about how we FEEL about women and Latinos and blacks? How would you like to be in court and have the magistrate rule according to his/her FEELINGS? What if (s)he FELT BETTER about the opposing party than (s)he did about you? What if (s)he ruled based on his/her likes and dislikes instead of the facts and THE LAW? What if the decision handed down against you because (s)he was more "sensitive" toward the other party? How many of you Socialist-Liberal/Democrats studied HISTORY instead of SOCIAL SCIENCE? How many of you have read - much less studied - the Constitution? What does the rubric, "equal protection before the law" mean to you? Does is cut only one way: in favor of this or that group? It's not about KNOWING or THINKING. It's a case of wholesale idiocy fomented and encouraged by CNN based on MAKING PEOPLE FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES. It's a gaggle of idiots, determined to destroy the Constitution and this nation.

Joe   July 13th, 2009 9:45 am ET

Diversity over qualifications…not the way to go. I find in very disturbing that supporters of hers are greatly concerned with letting people know they think she’s “Puerto Rican through and through” instead of AMERICAN (she was born in the USA). Why is it so hard to put the most qualified person for the job, in the job no matter what race they are? After all, she did rule that 4 white fire fighters couldn’t receive promotions due to the color of their skin.
I grew up a minority white in Irvington NJ which is 92% African American. I come from a broken home where my mother worked over 12 hours a day to support me and my brother. I when to school with them, sat next to them in class, played together at lunch time and visited their homes. The fact that I was white didn’t mean anything to them and our differences meant even less to me…until I got older. I was denied 4 government jobs because I wasn’t a minority. African Americans received an extra 10 points on their civil service test because of the lack of good schools in the area…ha…what about me…we were in the same classes TOGETHER and I got nothing. Where does all this end?!?!? I found a good job working in a warehouse and I WORKED my way all the way up to a Manager…took me 25 years, but I did it…I did it without welfare, food stamps, rent credits, programs or anything else from anyone…just HARD WORK!

Jimmy   July 13th, 2009 9:46 am ET

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an excellent choice for the Supreme Court. You bunch of racist fail to read the facts. Anita Hill's comments were appropriate and correct. Her facts are vindicated. Unfortunately, you right wing radicals are opposed to anything that moves us beyond the Jim Crow South and your scream for a "Christian nation".

The disgrace is the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. He has not had a single relevant opinion since he was appointed. His most recent opinion, siding with the school board over strip searching a child, was his low point. Unfortunately there will be many more low points for him. Anita Hill was correct. He is unfit for the Supreme Court.

The Courts are to keep current with culture and change in society and fairly apply the law. The 1892 ruling that America was a Christian nation, although a gratuitous statement unessential to the Court's actual ruling, would not have been included in any opinion in today's conservative Supreme Court. That is how society and culture affect the decisions and how we have changed since 1892. The Constitution is a living document that is open to interpretation. If it were a document of laws, why even have a Supreme Court?

The law of the land was segregation in the South for one hundred plus years. Did the law make it moral or legal? You conservatives stand on law as a black and white guild to the exclusion of any opinion but your own. That's why your party lost the last election and will continue to loose until you recognize tolerance and that includes tolerance in the law too.

Gary   July 13th, 2009 9:47 am ET

Now lets see, Anita Hill did all she could to deny the court a black man, but now she thinks it is time for diversity. I say we start taking her by her word when she actually accomplishes something other than living off fake claims.

Al Linderman   July 13th, 2009 9:49 am ET

What Ms. Hill is failing to understand is that Republicans do not have an issue with her being a woman; their issue is that she is a raging liberal. Most conservatives, myself included, wonder what kind of changes she would bring to interpretation of constitutional law; I think most Republicans would have much less issues with a female conservative nominee. So, again, her political views are the issue, not her gender.

ikC   July 13th, 2009 9:50 am ET

Sotomayor may be qualified to be in the legal field but the Supreme Court for life? I don't think so, she has made some scary remarks about what the role of a judge is (she has stated that the court room is where law is created, wow!). Is it time for another woman? Yes, but a well qualified woman who looks after the best interest of the Constitution of the United States, not one who will be looking out for a select group/groups.

Jack   July 13th, 2009 9:50 am ET

Will you people stop perpetuating this idea that race, sex, or any other trait is any sort of qualification for the supreme court. It is not.

Mike   July 13th, 2009 9:52 am ET

"infinitely qualified" _that_ is really great writing.

ruben   July 13th, 2009 9:53 am ET

Anita Hill is nothing more then a bigot if you support Racism you
Are a RACIST !!!!!!

B. Gibbons   July 13th, 2009 9:59 am ET

What a bizarre idea. We don't need DIVERSITY on the court, we need the consistency of LAW. The high court makes sure that the Law is applied EQUALLY and that is called justice. Basing decisions on anything else is called UNJUST.

Equality and justice is servers by uniform laws. Once that's bypassed then all you have is chaos and "whims" of the court.

kate   July 13th, 2009 10:01 am ET

Vanessa clearly represents the most intelligent opinion on this matter.
in reading all of the comments I could not help but notice the abject tunnel vision of the male comtributors. Being a supreme court justice is definitively not resticted to a black or white perspective on the Constituion and it's translation, like all things in life it is a subjective area. Thank you Vanessa for your eloquence and reason.

barbara joan zeitz   July 13th, 2009 10:04 am ET

While is may be true as Anita Hill pro-offers that: Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment may advance our thinking about women’s fitness to judge, I ponder, whose, if anyone's, appointment advanced our thinking about men's fitness to judge? Something to think about.

Mark   July 13th, 2009 10:05 am ET

The goal of the court makeup should be 4 men, 4 women and the 9th judge's gender should depend on the availability of the best legal mind in the country, ie, sometimes it will be a man and sometimes a woman.
I think this will be easier to accomplish as more and more women become members of the legal profession. I also think ethnic diversity should be the goal. One black and one hispanic are about right for their participation in the population of the U.S. One asian should be added.
I say "goal" because it should not be mandated. Still the most important qualification is legal brilliance. That should be the 1st cut and it may be that from time to time, ethnic or gender balance will have to give way because of the people available.

mike   July 13th, 2009 10:07 am ET

If the republicans say NO to it, than it must be good for the people.

john   July 13th, 2009 10:09 am ET

Are we being diverse for diversity's sake or are we being diverse because we truly want to put the right people in these jobs? I thought the whole reason for the fight for women's rights and equality for all groups was so that everyone will have equal opportunities. It just feels as though we're being forced to accept people in positions just because they're of diverse groups. This is not meant as a prejudiced statement. It just seems as though forcing to hire someone, no matter whatever sex or race, does everyone, including the person, a disservice.

Adam   July 13th, 2009 10:12 am ET

Why should "diversity" and "life experiences" be necessary in this position? I am not saying that the court should be filled by white men. What I am saying is that the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the law, not legislating from the bench.

John   July 13th, 2009 10:12 am ET

Is this icon of liberal fraud and deceit still around?. Anita Hill is not a hero, she is a coward. She allowed herself to be used to play the "victim" role to try and destroy the Thomas nomination because of his political beliefs. It was about nothing more than that and anyone who contends otherwise is deluded. This woman's opinion on the current nomination process and the court's makeup is irrelevant.

jim   July 13th, 2009 10:14 am ET

anita hill? Really?

Charles   July 13th, 2009 10:14 am ET

Very well stated, Vanessa. Every Justice brings his/her own perspective in helping to interpret the law in the manner in which they believe best safeguards our society. Thus, it is only natural that Sotomayor, if confirmed, would undoubtedly rely on her personal experiences in making certain judicial determinations. That's the point.

This doesn't mean that the ideas of strict constitutional interpretation and ruling with empathy are not mutually exclusive. If they were, then the Court's unanimous Brown v. Board decision never would have happened.

While I believe the media has overwhelmingly injected Sotomayor's race and gender into the discussion of her potential nomination, we as a society cannot minimize the importance of diversity. Sotomayor is simply a reflection of contemporary America, and, despite what many staunch conservatives believe, many of her decisions reflect modern-day mainstream American views.

Furthermore, I simply can't understand why there is this incessant need to question whether she is "qualified" to sit on the Court. Why do we only use the word "qualified" mentioned when discussing the merits and/or experiences of minorities and/or women? I don't ever recall any individual, let alone the media ever once using this word when discussing Justice Roberts' SC nomination. Now, we have an Ivy league educated constitutional scholar that has served on every level of the judiciary (more judicial experience any other current Justice), and folks don't believe she's QUALIFIED? If anything, she's OVERqualified.

Jim   July 13th, 2009 10:15 am ET

Saying you need to be from a certain ethnic background or gender to make a good decision is a racist comment. What we need on the Supreme Court is the best qualified individual, regardless of skin color, sex or religous persuasion, who will properly weight the constitutionality of laws and rulings brought to the court. Anything beyond that is trying to impose a political correctness to the selection process, which will lead to a weak Justice who will not articulate decisions nor cast votes to ensure the constitutionality of decisions by the court.

Steve   July 13th, 2009 10:15 am ET

Why is anyone still paying attention to what this woman says? The court HAS diversity. It has both liberals and conservatives and centrists. The nations highest court is not a place for racial quotas nor is it a place for affirmative action. Sotomayor is CLEARLY an affirmative action pick and therefore not the most qualified candidate. The American people deserve the most qualified individual, NOT the most qualified Hispanic woman.

Gary David, Maine   July 13th, 2009 10:20 am ET

Through the nomination process we'll find out if Sotomayer is thought to be qualified. If she is deemed qualified she'll be appointed. The nomination process raises all the questions everyone brings up and then discussions bring results. The "Process" works, it always has and always will. If not Sotomayer then someone else. Let the "Process" begin.

Think about it   July 13th, 2009 10:22 am ET

Every Justice brings his/her own perspective in helping to interpret the law in the manner in which they believe best safeguards our society. Thus, it is only natural that Sotomayor, if confirmed, would undoubtedly rely on her personal experiences in making certain judicial determinations. That's the point.

This doesn't mean that the ideas of strict constitutional interpretation and ruling with empathy are not mutually exclusive. If they were, then the Court's unanimous Brown v. Board decision never would have happened.

While I believe the media has overwhelmingly injected Sotomayor's race and gender into the discussion of her potential nomination, we as a society cannot minimize the importance of diversity. Sotomayor is simply a reflection of contemporary America, and despite what many staunch conservatives believe, many of her decisions reflect modern-day mainstream American views.

Furthermore, I simply can't understand why there is this incessant need to question whether she is "qualified" to sit on the Court. Why do we only use the word "qualified" when discussing the merits and/or experiences of minorities and/or women? I don't ever recall any individual, let alone the media EVER using this word when discussing Justice Roberts' SC nomination. Sotomayor is a constitutional scholar that has served on every level of the judiciary and you people don’t think she’s QUALIFIED? Give me a break. She’s probably smarter than all of you put together.

Gilly   July 13th, 2009 10:23 am ET

It is a joke that CNN runs an article written by Anita Hill. Is Tawana Brawley writting for the crime section?

Alex in IL   July 13th, 2009 10:23 am ET

Excuse me – isn't this the same Anita Hill who claimed sexual harrassment against Clarence Thomas? Ms. Hill has no credibility. Why is CNN even giving her the time of day?

JEAN   July 13th, 2009 10:23 am ET

every night on larry king its about poor MJ. just live him god give him a chance to rest in peace stop all this talking about him noww every one has some thing to say bad about him well he never hurt a child or did he touch a child you need to understand his life he was a good man with a big heart and every one took from him all the time you know that larry you went to never land ranch he cant even rnp now because every one lies about him and it hurts me to see this so sad.

Alex   July 13th, 2009 10:23 am ET

Anita Hill is a waste of 6 feet of air on earth. Why CNN would even think about getting a publishing any statement from her is beyond me.

Tim   July 13th, 2009 10:24 am ET

I see that CNN has dug up Anita out of obscurity. She road Judge Thomas's coattails and would be nowhere if it wasn't for him. All of the other women that worked for Judge Thomas testified that her allegations were totally baseless. She could not prove any of her lies and she was held up by the state-run media as telling the truth. She has absolutly NO credibility, so it is not surprising that CNN would give her some. As for Judge Sotomajor, she should be accepted or not based on her judicial record only! Whether or not she is white, black, hispanic, male, or female should NOT matter, and you people should get past that. Activist Judges have NO PLACE in a court room period! They are there to make sure that the law was followed, not to make up new law as they go. Judge Sotomajor's record shows that she has a history of having her rulings overturned by the Supreme Court. That is enough to show that she is not qualified to even be a judge, let alone be on the supreme court.

Sniffit   July 13th, 2009 10:24 am ET

I support Sotomayor because she is qualified, period. Neither race, ethnicity, gender nor skin tone are qualifications for sitting on the bench...nor is it prerequisite that people feel "represented" on the bench. The whole concept of "representation" on the Court does a disservice to our country's legal institutions by implicitly accepting, and even encouraging, that judges behave as though they are not insulated from popular, majority and/or political they are supposed to be (i.e., that's why it's a lifetime appointment).

And who asked Anita Hill anyway? Does accusing a former nominee (who was eventually and unfortunately confirmed) of making pillow-talk at you in the office count as qualification to blabber your opinion about the Supreme Court and Constitutional law to the world? I'll have to remember that. Screw all these law school loans and 12 hour days...I'm gonna go get myself sexually harrassed.

SC   July 13th, 2009 10:26 am ET

Equal Rights should mean – The Human that is best qualified for the position gets the job. Saying that a woman or a minority should get the position is Descrimination. Wake up World.

Mike   July 13th, 2009 10:26 am ET

It's high time for Anita Hil to get over heself. Her opinion should count for nothing in the debate over a Supreme Court nominee. Maybe the question that should be asked: "Is this candidate the best judge available for the job, or the best female Hispanic judge available?" Of course, we all know the answer and to say otherwise is politically incorrect.

Paul   July 13th, 2009 10:28 am ET

You are kidding, right? Since when does it make sense to put someone on the court simply based on gender or race? I believe in equality across ALL aspects of life. Equality means that a person is selected for their position base on merits alone and not on any other factor. To select based on gender would be sexism, as would be the case if you were to argue that 'x' positions should be reserved for women. Such a concept opens pandora's box and violates equality. For example, if you were to argue that there should always be two women on the bench, then what about other 'diverse' parts of the population? Should we ALWAYS have a black? What about a percentage of seats for Latinos? What about a seat for Native Americans; aren't they the most underrepresented and mistreated class of folks in American history? We will need to add more seats to the court!
My point is that any nominee, whether it be to a private, political or judicial position, should be judged solely based on their merits. If that means that there are only men on the bench, then so be it. I would be just as accepting if the bench were dominated by women.
I don't know anyone who thinks, as Ms. Hill implies some think, that men are better judges than women. That is an antiquated and obsolete way of thinking that does not dominate the American society at this time.

TYBAR   July 13th, 2009 10:29 am ET

There should be no litmus test for the Supreme Court, be it Abortion, Political Views, or Race.

I voted for Barak Obama not because he adds diversity, but because he was the best candidate for the job. I believe that Obama is making the mistake of viewing his election as a mandate for diversity.

There is no doubt that Sotomayor is qualified, as are a number of candidates, but let's all face facts, she was is politically safe (and politically astute) nominee. Aren't we all a bit tired of 'politically astute' decisions being made for the American people? Isn't it that type of decision making that attributed to us being in the current state of decline?

I'm not arguing against the appointment of Sotomayor, she is clearly qualified. I'm simply a bit concerned about the nomination of Sotomayor.

And, as a side comment, who really cares what Anita Hill thinks?

Steve   July 13th, 2009 10:29 am ET

Anita Hill ... !! Is this reporting or is this digging up someone from the past who likes to complain & accuse? Anita Hill ... you've got to be kidding! Whose next, Jimmy "Peanut Head" Carter? Give me a break!

Joel   July 13th, 2009 10:29 am ET

There has been diversity on the Supreme Court for years! Nearly half are considered liberal, and nearly half are considered conservative. Some are strict constructionists. Some favor the application of foreign jurisprudence. The notion that the Supreme Court is not diverse is ridiculous! Unless, of course, you are shallow enough to believe skin color diversity matters more than jurisprudential diversity.

Sheila   July 13th, 2009 10:30 am ET

We cannot forget that Ms. Sotomayor is an active member of a racist group, La Raza (The Race). This is no different than the KKK. There is no place for racism and race-protectionism on the U.S. Supreme court. Let's not forget that millions of our ancestors fought and died for this Constitution.

Bob   July 13th, 2009 10:30 am ET

I was quite surprised to see that somehow Anita Hill had been elevated to the level of political commentator. Frankly she has about as much experience and relevance as my teenage daughter does - but my daughter doesn't have a CNN/soap-box platform to pontificate from.

CNN loses more credibility each time it pulls one of these bone head stunts. Apparently the editors are enjoying summer vacation.

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 10:30 am ET

What makes Anita Hill an expert on the Supreme Court. Besides making a claim of harassment on Justice Thomas. I really don't see any expertise that would make her opinion news worthy.

Eric   July 13th, 2009 10:30 am ET

This is Soooo sad. I have seen what her people have done to the city of my birth (NYC). They and the bretheren of our President have reduced the quality of life here to the lowest common denominator. We are now a "sanctuary city". This is liberal code for breaking the law with the aid and winking of the government. Next thing you know the pledge of allegence will be in spanglish. You folks (MArk most notably) are naive or just plain ignorant. all will get what you so richly deserve. Good luck.

Sheila   July 13th, 2009 10:34 am ET

Anita Hill testified before the Senate and said, "He asked me, is that a pubic hair on my coke can?" That single statement thrust Ms. Hill into the spotlight and she has leveraged an entire career based on it. However, do we really want her passing judgment on who would make a good or bad Sct justice? I think not!

Steve   July 13th, 2009 10:35 am ET

Let's see ... Obama appointed her with his full backing and support. BLUNDER! The stimulus package is another Obama blunder! Go to Israel and not support them 100% ... aniother Obama Blunder! Have a white male American say what she said and you'd have RACIST written all over it! Of course Congress is going to see if she is fit to be called a Supreme Court Justice ... !!!

I just wish that all candiates would be held to what they campaigned on and if they cahnged or failed ... boot 'em!

Carl   July 13th, 2009 10:35 am ET

To those of you think that Sotomayor isn't RACIST,THINK AGAIN.She will try and make her own laws and NOT UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.Look at the case about the white firefighters .Watch what I say.After she is on the supreme court then it will be too late.

Jeff is Dumb   July 13th, 2009 10:39 am ET

Good point, Jeff. What are her credentials? Well, she has a law degree from Yale. That's a good start. And she's teaches on law matters at a school of social policy. That's also pretty good. Now, she's not some ape pawing at a keyboard like you, but she still seems well-positioned to comment on issues like this, what say?

steve in k.c.   July 13th, 2009 10:39 am ET

At the end of the world, I think it's important that we had diversity along the way.

Larry   July 13th, 2009 10:41 am ET

Hey, how come there have never been any "Gay, Red-headed, Aetheist, Eskimo Midgets (GRAEM)" nominated to the Supreme Court?? I smell oppression and discrimination! GRAEM's have feelings too! Seriously though.... if a candidate is properly trained to interpret the law, then their skin color/gender/background is rendered completely obsolete. If you think not, and think that skin color does matter, then you (like it or not) are a bigot. HARD FACT: Blacks did not elect Obama. Even if 100% of blacks voted for Obama he would not have been elected without White (and other) support. Given that nearly 98% of Blacks voted for him (and nearly half of Whites), it is again clear that the Black vote was totally biased....... you don't think Blacks voted for Obama for his policies, do you (most, when polled, could not explain what Obama's plan was)? Black racism is soooo blatant and sad. Most watch BET while riding in their Mercedes/Escalade/BMW to participate in "oppression" protests.

Sasha   July 13th, 2009 10:42 am ET

Whether you consider her a victim, or one party in a he-said-she-said dispute, we can all agree that this propaganda does not belong on the front page of CNN. This is LAUGHABLE.

mary   July 13th, 2009 10:42 am ET

Carl, I agree with you. Racism goes two ways, Sotomayer has proven it. The constitution is the constitution, period. If she wants to 'do feel good things' then she should go be a volunteer -

Terry McCormick   July 13th, 2009 10:43 am ET

I realize that comparisons are not always realistic, but Canada'a Supreme Court currently consists of five men and four women. One of the latter, Beverley McLachlin, is the Chief Justice.I may be wrong but I think the numbers a few years ago were five females and four males.

Patrick   July 13th, 2009 10:45 am ET

Who cares what Anita Hill thinks? She is lucky she wasn't sued for slander by Thomas.

Claudette Siar   July 13th, 2009 10:45 am ET

Senator Hatch (R) in his opening statement at the hearings this morning, has already made President Obama's case for Sotomayor's confirmation. (He stated that President Obama (then Senator) Obama had layed out his standards in earlier hearings on appellate judges.) This was followed by the american people electing President Obama to make these choices, need we say more, confirm her and get on to healthcare, war and our ecomony. Ms. Hill is correct it is time for diversity on the court and just to move forward. She is well qualified and any more that 3 hours spent is a waste of congress.

Mike Cunningham   July 13th, 2009 10:48 am ET

The entire premise for this article is short sighted. Having diversity on the bench is great. Absolutely great. But diversity should not even be a consideration. The only consideration should be the ability to interpret the Constitution, the body of federal and state law, and all the ensuing jurisprudence.
Is Sotomayor qualified? Probably.
Is she the best qualified? Probably not.

rolandotx2   July 13th, 2009 10:48 am ET

Who cares what Anita Hill, the liar, thinks? As far as women on the high court or anywhere else, let's get the best qualified person, regardless of gender. The only reason I don't oppose Sotmayer is because if she is rejected Obama will just pick someone worse.

J Williamson   July 13th, 2009 10:49 am ET

Clarence Thomas forever embarrassed himself (and showed how uniquely unqualified he was) when he ranted-on about "high tech lynchings." I still lament the idea that no Senators had the guts to take him on – it an embarrassment for them too. I wish Miss Hill all the best!

Latigo   July 13th, 2009 10:50 am ET

What is all this talk about diversity anyway? The Court is pretty diverse I think. There are white males, a black male, an Italian male, a Jewish person (woman), and until Sandra Day O'Conner retired, another woman (white and probably Christian. So what is the problem? Anita Hill is simply being political. Her argument is flawed unless of course, her goal is to have only a single male on the court and make sure that everyone else is neither white nor male. How about an Asian while we're at it or a Moslem? Or perhaps a Buddhist or an atheist? Or a mixed race person with the “correct” percentages of difference races?

Should the determination of Court justices be based on affirmative action or their qualifications? This is political correctness gone mad! Certainly not good for the country where justice is supposed to be blind and should be for all to get equal justice.

mike   July 13th, 2009 10:51 am ET

Stop deleting my comment. This is a joke that Anita Hill is writing about anything. She should be ashamed; and so should CNN.

Edwin Pagan   July 13th, 2009 10:51 am ET

Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed. "Nuff said.

Tim   July 13th, 2009 10:52 am ET

Senator Hatch should follow Senator Specticles lead and change to a Democrat. He is a sellout and you people in Utah need to vote him out. For that matter, ALL career politicians need to go.

Hurray for Diversity   July 13th, 2009 10:52 am ET

Enough of this "MALE, PALE and STALE" The supreme court should be a reflection of us as a nation and WHITES will no longer be a majority in a few years.

Gary S. Hart   July 13th, 2009 10:53 am ET

The senate hearing will answer most, if not all of the questions. Presupposition suggests that the hearings are unnecessary. Let us hope and pray that the right decision is made.

jeb   July 13th, 2009 11:05 am ET

"High time for diversity on the court?" That's precious, absolutely charming, considering Anita Hill's only claim to fame is doing everything she could to keep the only black justice out of the court.

Kim   July 13th, 2009 11:07 am ET

And just who cares about what Anita Hill has to say? Didn't she get her 15 minutes in the 80s?

Hurray for Diversity: So, then will whites be the minority? Does that mean we can get all the benefits for a change.

Larry   July 13th, 2009 11:08 am ET

See, the racists such as "Hurray for Diversity" raise their ugly heads. "Diversity" is about experiences... differences of the mind... not the sole requirement of differences in skin color/gender. "Hurray for Diversity" reminds us all that "White Bashing" is not acceptable..... lets take a page from the Blacks and go picket at his/her house. "Hurray for Diversity's" belief system is clearly at odds with itself. What a joke. A racist wrapped in a the PC blanket of self-labled "diversity". Be careful "Hurray", debating with minds more advance than yours could lead to smoke pouring out of your ears. 🙂

Gerald Detzel   July 13th, 2009 11:08 am ET

Who is more irrevelent than Anita Hill or Larry King?

Mike in SA   July 13th, 2009 11:08 am ET

Anita who?

I mean really...other than testifying against Clarence Thomas, what has she done? Her career "achievements" speak for themselves in their absence. She is a very, very unremarkable legal mind who, other than a very brief timid step into private practice, went directly from law school to government administration and stayed there. She has, to my knowledge, never argued a case in court much less ruled on one. Using her's as an expert opinion is really an exercise in "how low can you go" on the standards scale and surprising, even for CNN.

clevelandindian   July 13th, 2009 11:14 am ET

Appointing a candidate based on what they look like usually leads to mediocraty. Usually, choosing the politically correct means that the best person was not chosen.

Imagine if GM had always hired based on qualification as opposed to whatever they used as a basis.

Gracie   July 13th, 2009 11:15 am ET

No one knows Michael Jackson but his children, family and close friends. Clearly he was misunderstood by the world he gave so passionately to. The parasites who attached themselves to him and sell untrue stories to the tabloids for their last grab at a buck did not know him or care about him. I don't understand why people want to hear and read tabloid trash, why they buy into it. It seems to me they have nothing in their lives to care about. We know why the tabloids want it, to sell stories and it doesn't matter to them if they're true. I'm still reeling about the National Enquirer checking Brook Shields' mentally impaired mother out of a nursing home, but that is the kind of behavior people who crave these lies create. There is so much we can do to help others and feel better about ourselves, rather than live in a world of gossip.

The Doctor   July 13th, 2009 11:15 am ET

Who is anita hill? I mean who cares for her comment!

Christopher   July 13th, 2009 11:15 am ET

I am dismayed that so many are swept up in the "diversity" cry, that they gloss over what they don't understand: That the person nominated for such a powerful post must be the BEST qualifed person, who BELIEVES in the Constitution as written, and WITHOUT a personal belief or agenda that will interfere with his/her opinion based on the law. I don't want any less for the Country than this.

Mike   July 13th, 2009 11:19 am ET

Is this the same Anita HIll who was used by the Democrats to discredit the only black Supreme Court Justice. I guess when the Republicans put up minorities it's discredited but when the Dems do it it's justice.

Anita Hill or Larry King question. I think it's a tie, they both or worthless.

RR   July 13th, 2009 11:19 am ET

what doe she know about what is right? She tarnished the reputation of a Supreme Court nominee even though she had NO evidence, NO witnesses, and NO proof that Justice Thomas had done anything wrong.

A lawyer should no you don't make allegations without proof.

She's a disgrace and should be ignored.

wilson   July 13th, 2009 11:22 am ET

Why put too much emphasis on her famous quote "wise Latina" controversy when YouTube have other more damaging videos where she was giddily talking about "making Policies" through the court ! The court is the branch that adjudicates, and was never assigned the power to make policies ! It is the Legislature that makes laws by which policies are set and then for approval by the Executive and subsequent enforcement. She then tried to backtrack in the video after realizing her discussion was on tape. That is the kind of deceptive character she is and wants to carry on and enforce her secret agenda !

Kevin from Colorado   July 13th, 2009 11:23 am ET

I hope to God this raciest isn't confirmed. Since whites are the new minority when can I get some of these govt handouts and cheap loans that others have been getting for so many years?

WisconsinMAN   July 13th, 2009 11:23 am ET

It's time for me and my brothers to join the klan! The country has gone down hill!

william   July 13th, 2009 11:31 am ET

I don't understand how we can become lost in the story of Sotomayor and not pay attention to her judical activism. How can we even consider a person when 4 of her 5 cases that have made it to the supreme court havee been overturned. In the latest case the supreme court belitted the 3 judges, Sotomayor being one, for the over reach. If we keep going this way your going to find government in every part of our life's. We were found on Checks and Balances not our current Checks and Checks system.

Josh W   July 13th, 2009 11:32 am ET

Wow! The Democratic Party's hired gun speaks again. I would expect a slightly less vacuous article, but then again, considering the messenger, this is probably the longest string of logic she has been able to muster since her participation in the hearings of yore.

Sue   July 13th, 2009 11:33 am ET

You were Diverse, Anita. Look what it Got You!!!

Zack   July 13th, 2009 11:33 am ET

Simply talking about parity defeats the whole purpose! When we do not even have these discussions, *then* we will have parity. As long as there is ever talk about how many women or how many blacks are in some group, then we all fail.

Mike O   July 13th, 2009 11:36 am ET

Diversity didn't seem to be important before for her when she did everything to block Thomas. And I heard no such proclamation from her on Estrada being blocked by the Democrats. Nor come to Sarah Palin's defense during the misogynistic attacks on her.

It appears diversity is only acceptable for those of liberal persuartion; minorities that dare have conservative views are fair game for castigation and false accusation.

Rocketdog   July 13th, 2009 11:40 am ET

Sotomayor’s being Latina does not make her a more qualified candidate and we definitely do not need a racist on the court to balance it. After reading allot of her past comments it is very clear that she is unfit.

Food For Thought   July 13th, 2009 11:41 am ET

If you're in the majority and promote from within despite more qualified applicants then you're "racist". If you're in the minority and promote from within despite more qualified applicants, it's called "diversity". Gotta love "equality when it suits one's needs".

chris   July 13th, 2009 11:41 am ET


Please just watch the hearings today!!!

Ron   July 13th, 2009 11:43 am ET

This was beautifully written by Anita Hill. Thanks for the fine article.

SK2 DELAWARE   July 13th, 2009 11:43 am ET

This woman is a racist, who will let her background and history influence her decision making process on the most important cases in this country. I believe she is qualified on paper, but her actions and decisions have proven in the past that she interprets the law based on her "feelings" and "experiences", not on the "LAW". We can not afford to have this woman catering to one demographic while discriminating against another. Reverse discrimination is still DISCRIMINATION. Just ask the firefighters in CT. Another of her rulings that were overturned.

Geroge of the Jungle   July 13th, 2009 11:44 am ET

Anita Hill was nothing more than a woman scorned. The Dems used her to TRY to bring down a great Judge. It did not work. I still thisnk she is a piece of &%$#

bpin   July 13th, 2009 11:45 am ET

The point that is being lost in the ploitics is can Sotomayor be a fair judge, especially in view of the fact that the Supreme Court impacts US citizens daily lives. Her record indicates that she has ruled in the past with bias and she has even indicated that publically. She has indicated that it would be difficult for her to be fair.

It does not matterr though. She is going to be confirmed for political reasons,not because of her judgemental traits. The confirmation is just a waste of time and taxpayers money.

leigh   July 13th, 2009 11:47 am ET

JD, Clarence Thomas is a pig and I believe he did what she said.

MH   July 13th, 2009 11:48 am ET

Wake up people! Sotomayor is clearly a racist with a personal agenda. She is anti Constitution, anti freedom and anit American.

ron   July 13th, 2009 11:49 am ET

Anita Hill still can't get over the fact Clarence Thomas married a white woman and not her. Where was her call for diversity when he was going through the process? Where was Pat Leahy's tribute to Thomas as a true American success story. It all comes down to who's ox is being gored doesn't it?

Tim   July 13th, 2009 11:49 am ET

To Larry (July 13th, 2009 10:41 am ET) who said...

"...if a candidate is properly trained to interpret the law, then their skin color/gender/background is rendered completely obsolete."

Really? Then why is it so important to you that the court be made up of white men?

And... "Most watch BET while riding in their Mercedes/Escalade/BMW to participate in “oppression” protests."

OK, I can't stop laughing at this one. You might as well have written... "I am a bigoted hick racist white-trash bumpkin with a third-grade education from Buttcrack Hollow, Mississippi".


Rita   July 13th, 2009 11:51 am ET

Sheila, as I recall the KKK was a group of white men who rode under cover of darkness with their identities hidden and tar /feathered, hanged and killed blacks. I don't know a lot about La Raza but I doubt they have the same agenda.
Senator Session sits on the Judiciary Committee and he was denied a seat on the federal bench due to racist remarks. An interesting turn of events!

Mark Lederer   July 13th, 2009 11:51 am ET

Anita Hill would be a good pick for the Supreme Court. She had enough guts to stand up to the pervert Thomas.

Trent   July 13th, 2009 11:53 am ET

This country is becoming too PC. Diversity should not be an issue. The only thing that should be of concern is that the justices that represent the U.S. Supreme court are experienced, balanced and the most knowledgeable of U.S. law. It should not matter what race, gender or religion they are.

quantum   July 13th, 2009 11:54 am ET

This "wise Latina" will make a fabulous Supreme Court judge – we need her. And, I hope someday Anita Hill is appointed as well.

white man   July 13th, 2009 11:57 am ET

Gender parity is and should be a priority, but there will never be true gender parity because .......and here's a shocker, women and men are not the same. More men will hold positions of power because women are not expected and usually don't stay in the workforce full time thoughout their careers. Experience is everything and you can't give a person a job just because their a women. Men are the real workers in this life and women are the real caretakers, not that they should'nt try to acheive anything, just dont expect it handed to you just because your a women.

JK   July 13th, 2009 11:57 am ET

Diversity = Racism.

The expressed need for "diversity" implies that every member of the supreme court is a racist. To say that they need a black or hispanic to represent those views unequivocally states two things: That whites are incapable of doing so AND (ergo) that blacks and hispanics can only think like blacks and hispanics. Both are insulting to these accomplished and highly-educated individuals.

As far as "high time". I think I remember a person of color by the name of "Thurgood Marshall"? The phrase "high time" means "well past due". It can't be "high time" if something has already been accomplished. And, as an aside, he was an exemplary judicial mind.

timmer   July 13th, 2009 12:00 pm ET

I guess after reading the column and subsequent posts we need to re-define diversity in the dictionary and limit it to only differences of race or ethnicity–forget the trivial things like thought....
Ms. Hill noted a recent study that showed the nominee's agreement with the majority 98% of the time. I guess that 2% variance comes from the Latina genuis that everyone else other words that argument goes both ways...if she is with the majority 98% of the time what makes her so special?

Tommy Mack   July 13th, 2009 12:01 pm ET

Having Anita Hill give advice on Supreme Court nominees is like Ted Kennedy giving driving lessons. Justice Thomas, anyone?

tony   July 13th, 2009 12:01 pm ET

when it comes to a persons qualification to serve (in any elected or appointed office) I find the issue of race and gender to be irrelevant and of little worth. I also hold those to taut it in little regard. maybe I am alone in this but I believe a person should be judged for good or ill by their thoughts and deeds and not by gender or race

BrianMEMPHIS   July 13th, 2009 12:02 pm ET

Wow all the comments acting suprised that CNN would trot out someone like Anita Hill.

I wasn't suprised. I would be suprised if CNN did air my comment (both here and on TV). You continued your fine history using RINOs, hacks and others to make the case you are an even handed media outlet.

Congrats to CNN for conducting another political hatchet job.

danny boy   July 13th, 2009 12:03 pm ET

I think she'll do fine as a SC justice. But anybody with a brain knows that had she been a white male with a background like hers...."he" would not be approved. Diversity is long as it dosn't dilute the quality of leadership in our country or in the courts. We need the "best" people regardless of their gender or race. If that means all black women fine...or all black men fine...or all "white" women...whatever. But getting rid of the white male in this country will not by default make us a better nation. I always ask the question, be it cuba, puerto rico, south american, Russia...whatever, did the people from those countries make a "better" place to live than the white men did for the USA? White men are not saints....but they had the total power.....and allowed others over time...perhaps too much time...but still allowed others to share in that power. But we do not need to be another mexico. Speak English and embrace our culture...otherwise we'll just be a large 3rd world country someday

ks   July 13th, 2009 12:03 pm ET

Why does anyone care what Anita Hill thinks? All I remember about her is that she wanted the world to know that she slept with a high-profile, important person. AND that she followed him wherever he went like a love-sick puppy. He got the job anyway, no matter how hard she tried to knock him down.

Neil   July 13th, 2009 12:03 pm ET

This is beyond funny. Anita Hill tried to stop Clarence Thomas from getting in (you know...the black judge) so maybe she is just anti male. Its clear she has an agenda and this whole article is just a load of crap.

JD   July 13th, 2009 12:04 pm ET

we can not give up on qualificaitons in the name of diversity. This judge has been overtruned too many times on appeal due to her misunderstanding of our laws. She also seems to be rather biases to be nice about it.
We need to get past her and on to someone more qualified for this possition. Race should not have anything to do with an appointment to SCOTUS, your understanding of our laws and fair and equal application of them should.

Robert   July 13th, 2009 12:04 pm ET

Yeah, we definitely need more diversity. The court has too many racist old white men on the court who fail to make enough liberal leaning decisions. She'll be a GREAT pick as a Latina who knows how to favor the little man despite her obligation to the Constitution to remain neutral and follow the strictest interpretations of our laws. Lets hear it for Sonya!!

John Cordeiro   July 13th, 2009 12:04 pm ET

Well said, FC! Why are we listening to this woman? CNN is fast becoming a supermarket tabloid. Anita Hill, Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend, for Pete's sake? These are people whose opinions we should care about! There as bad as the Democrats – thinking with their hearts and not their heads, worrying about "feelings" and such tripe.

cris   July 13th, 2009 12:05 pm ET

sotomayer is a disgrace to america and honest hard workers and unborn children!

king   July 13th, 2009 12:06 pm ET

Yes..please elect this reverse racist! She is just one more handfed american who received her shot because of her skin color.. just like those new york city firemen that she sided with.

All those in favor of changing the rules so those that fail tests can receive promotions based on their skin color.. a blatant confirmation of inferiority is all that is.

Doug   July 13th, 2009 12:06 pm ET

Once again statements that would be considered racist by a white person is totally acceptabe in the mainstream if a minority says it. This country is done we will be so racially divided by the end of 2012 this country won't be able to operate. Good luck, I'm taking my money esle where.

Reggie   July 13th, 2009 12:07 pm ET

You people on here kill me when you say she is not smart enough for the job . . .she was #1 in her class at one of the most prestigious colleges in the country if not the world? If that doesn't prove your intelligence what does? More importantly where did you go to school?

The majority of people who hate her nomination are white men . . .heaven forbid they can't control everything. If you listen to them they are the minority in the country . . . .wake up guys, your not . . .not yet anyway . . .

jdc   July 13th, 2009 12:07 pm ET

Diversity is racist. The implication is that unless your black or female or whatever as long as your not a white male then your racist. The same line of sick thinking got us Obama and double digit unemployment. America pull your collective heads out, your not a racist country, your not evil. You have made more advances in the issue of race then every other country combined. Start accepting that your a great country with great people and you dont collectively hate anyone based on thier color or gender.

Dimslie   July 13th, 2009 12:08 pm ET

Diversity? You already had a woman, 2 Jews, an Irishman, 2 Italians, and a black guy. What does this notorious liar and character assasin think is missing, the Taliban?

Andy   July 13th, 2009 12:08 pm ET

Why do we care what Anita Hill thinks in this matter? Is this news.

I am done finally with CNN online. I am going to reuters for my news. How about next time use a source that matters.

Mike   July 13th, 2009 12:09 pm ET

i'd be interested to know if the percentage of women on the Supreme Court is vastly different than the percentage of women judges. If not, then maybe women should look to themselves as the culprit of an unbalanced Supreme Court.

Stef   July 13th, 2009 12:11 pm ET

She is not qualified to be a JUROR let alone a SCJ.

1. She says she shouldn't say it but court is where policy is made.
2. She believes feelings and fairness are more important than laws.
3. She has demonstrated racism.

Based on any one of those three examples, she is NOT qualified to interpret and judge according to the Constitution. SCJs are appointed for LIFE. The Supreme Court is not a place for "feelings" or activist judges. The one branch of government that should NOT be clouded with activism and ideology IS the Supreme Court. Activism and ideology drives our legislative and executive branches. Balance and power for the people is kept safe in the SC. It should stay that way for all of our sakes. If you don't write and sign laws, your ideology is irrelevant. Ideology IS BIAS.

Johnny   July 13th, 2009 12:11 pm ET

anita tried to destroy a fellow african american judge because of her far left ideolgy. she has no credibility here.

PoliticallyIncorrect   July 13th, 2009 12:12 pm ET

We need judges that interpret the constitution & nothing else whether they are hispanic, white, black, asian, etc.. The statements by others in this post stating that the last thing we need is another old white male on the bench shouldn't even be the issue. If there has ever been a place in our political system where we must be color blind the judicial branch is that place. Instead, people must focus on the judges record in adherance to the constitution.
The people who make the comment that "not another bald white guy" seem to forget that this country was forged by a bunch bald white guys. Those are the men who wrote a constitution that made it possible for what we see today with judge Sotomayor. Although the country has had dark spots in our history, the constitution has always prevailed. The constitution has helped all people regardless of their race. Again, this is the same document a bunch of old white guys wrote.

Met   July 13th, 2009 12:15 pm ET

No one cares what Anita Hill's opinion might be. We have become so messed up in this country. It doesn't matter if the nominee is white, black, latino, male, female, etc...What matters is that person's ability to accurately apply the US Constitution to matters presented to the Court. So, you put someone on the Court to celebrate "diversity". So, what does that guarantee us? Absolutely nothing. Putting someone on the Court in order to appear politically correct is absolute insanity.

There is only 1 thing needed in this search....THE most qualified and best candidate, whomever that might be.

Henry Melito   July 13th, 2009 12:15 pm ET

Why do people insist that Hispanics are people of color-
They are caucasion and after slaughtering many natives, were responsible for nearly all slave trade that occured here in the Americas.
She is neither minority nor of color.
Race should not even be brought up anymore.

ron40   July 13th, 2009 12:17 pm ET

The 2% of the time she has been against the second amendment and individual rights over race. I don't see any thing great about her.
She just adds to Obama's anti constitutional admins.

Yippee!   July 13th, 2009 12:23 pm ET

I love Anita Hill's comments regarding Sotomayor. Great job! I believe Sotomayor will receive this high honor, and there's no doubt that diversity is needed. She's super qualified, and brings a different perspective to the table. Besides, the US is fast becoming mostly people of color so it's necessary that the voices of Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. is well represented in all facets of our society.

Travis   July 13th, 2009 12:25 pm ET

Why aren't you crying about having every ethinicity along with gender be part of the SC? Hell, while we are at it let's add equal amounts for gays, vegetarians, etc. Let's make the SC 500 members large and make sure to have an equal amount of every ideology that exists in America. I think we've gone long enough with an Amish female on the SC, I am so disgusted. 🙂

Trevor   July 13th, 2009 12:26 pm ET

I really liked the following comment:

"Justice Ginsburg recently told the New York Times that she was tenured at Columbia University because the school was trying to fulfill President Nixon’s Department of Health, Education and Welfare civil rights demands"

That seems like a form of Affirmative Action. Maybe it's not such a bad thing after all, if that's the only way to achieve equality.

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 12:27 pm ET

Anita Hill is part of the problem. The question about this nominee is can she fairly and accurately interpret the laws of this land. This is not about diversity nor gender.

This nominee has a habit of determining fairness in the law, based upon how an individual was raised, or what neighborhood they live in. Judges do not make laws. That role lies with voters choices, not presidental favor.

ertha rizas   July 13th, 2009 12:28 pm ET

I will always admire Anita Hill for standing up for what is the truth.

Brian   July 13th, 2009 12:28 pm ET

Anyone who believes that the intelligence of one race is above another should not serve – its that simple. Her own comments that a wise latina woman would somehow be more intelligent than a white man simply show how her view of others that are not of her race are warped. I would put her views only slightly higher than a typical racist who believes all blacks should be "swinging" from trees. People of this day and age need to realize it is not about race, but about right and wrong. Can someone simply apply the constitution of this country without looking at a persons race – that is what I expect, what we should all expect and what Sotomeyer can't deliver. I don't need someone else trying to tell me what she meant – I simply look at the words that were used – the same that I would expect others to look at me.

Steve   July 13th, 2009 12:29 pm ET

Diversity is fine as a social goal but it really has nothing whatsoever to do with jurisprudence. Can't we just admit that Sotomayor's nomination is benign racism and live with that?

Chris512   July 13th, 2009 12:30 pm ET

Mark : "still needs to be more women represented at all level of the judiciary" - Fine by me, as soon as more women show up with the required skills and can be given the position based on that and not their gender I'm all for it.

ng : " It will definitely bring diversity to what America has come to know as a place for elderly caucasian males who are there for a lifetime." - "diversity" should be irrelivent in the supreme court if the judges are sticking to the constitution and law and not basing their rulings on peoples sex/ethnicity.

While Sotomayor seems like a nice person and all her speeches and actions have made her unqualified to even be a juror so how can she be a judge? And what I mean by that is she has shown racial bias on more than one occasion during her carreer which should disqualify ANY judge from sitting on the bench.

The hypocracy in all this astounds me, imagine if you will Sotomayor was a white woman making speeches about white experience and blatently wanting to give unqualified whites jobs over qualified blacks/latinas everyone would be having a cow and this person would be laughed at for even thinking about being on the supreme court.

Racism is racism no matter which side it comes from and even though someone can have a illustrious carreer it can come crashing down through one racist comment especially when it is intentional.

scn   July 13th, 2009 12:30 pm ET

Wow, it is absolutely incredible how narrow minded and judgmental people are. Pres. Obama is doing a fabulous job with what he was given. Was Rome built in a day, to coin an old phrase. Not even 5 mos and folks are blaming him for all the ills of the world. Okay so CNN used Anita Hill for an on said she was judge and jury. Abortion and stereo typical..find something new to come up with to say Roe vs. Wade would be over turned. Who really wants to abort a pregnancy ... do you think it is a hobby...something for sport. I think avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is how we should veiw the issue with available options if necc... and again how does any of this go to her ability to sit on the supreme court. So far all I have heard with her actual court cases is how middle of the road she is 98 % of the time. Find a real issue to complain about.

J A kovachi   July 13th, 2009 12:31 pm ET

Anita Hill did the right thing. Thomas got away with it. She may of been a Democrate, but her intent was to not let his actions go unnoticed. If you watched his gestures, expression and hands you could see he was caught. To bad we did not get the justise we deserve, we lost and he won. Reward the guilty and punish the innocent. Who's in power? The Bush/Cheney power grab proves that thing must change. Misquoting facts or create your own (FACTS), dose not as Rush, Sean & Beck do solve problems. Bush left Obama a mess and to correct the problem is not and easy task. Cheney should hope we he doesnot reap the Maddoff results. Bush, Cheney, and John Bolton are only minutes away from justise. They are not pure. Anita Hill was right and bold, but we the people lost that one. Cheney and Bolton used the CIA to get the swisted results they wanted and the Iraq war was the results. Haliburton, was Cheney's Maddoff investment scheem, just like the Oil Companies Closed Door Meetings he held. We the people lost and we are all paying the bill for the misguided plans and messes created. Obama's working hard to straighten the messes, and he deserves our support. All the republicans say they have the answers to the problem. They created the problems, and say they love this country, but all the love is greed.

Dave   July 13th, 2009 12:31 pm ET

It should be noted by all the nay-sayers on this site that in the course of Sotomayor's career, she has presided over 3,600+ court cases. Only 7 of those cases made it to the Supreme Court for review. In contrast, before Chief Justice Roberts was appoint, he only had about 360 cases under his belt.

Everyone who is against her seems to imply that the law is absolute and not open to interpretation. If that were the case, why do we almost always have a 5 to 4 split? If the law were so clear, only unanimous decisions would be rendered, and appeals wouldn't be considered.

Do women bring a different perspective? Yes. Same goes for Hispanics. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a national publication that gender does indeed play a role. In the case of the high school girl who was strip searched for the suspicion of having Tylenol on her (it was an accusation by another classmate), O'Connor rightly contended that the men on the Supreme Court might not comprehend the emotional impact that such a strip search has on the psyche of a teenage girl, whereas, a woman would better understand the violation of her rights AND dignity. So, there are instances where gender and race can help bring a perspective where legal precedent alone does not answer some issues.

Sotomayor will make a great Supreme Court Justice.

P. Martin   July 13th, 2009 12:32 pm ET

How about just picking the best most qualified constitutionalist– wouldn't that be a great idea

P.T. Byrd   July 13th, 2009 12:33 pm ET

There is absolutely no doubt, and mark my words on this: Sonia Sotomayor *will* be appointed to the Supreme Court. It's guaranteed and in the bag - Republicans best not be stupid and try to denigrate this latina. It would be more prudent for them to expend their energies trying to clean up the images of their adulterous colleagues and their deflated image in general.

Zack   July 13th, 2009 12:33 pm ET

What does skin color and sex have to do with interpreting the US Constitution? Does having a non-white skin color and being a non-male mean that you have a more diverse upbringing and diverse experiences? The fact that skin color and sex is a part of the argument for Sotomayor's to be appointed as a Supreme Court Justice is a slap in her face (Sotomayor) and is a slap in the face of all Americans. I believe that Sotomayor's appointment should be based on her court rulings. Pretty straight forward.

Just goes to show how politics uses RACE and SEX to further a political agenda. What's even more interesting is to see how far the media has truly become a corporate puppet, willing to lose integrity and objectivity. In the end let's not forget that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and anybody who sells celebrity sleez photo's, are in the "news" to make money, bottom line. The media will sell crap, unless the American public demand more. America! Turn off your TV's

Ken Pasco   July 13th, 2009 12:34 pm ET

Anita Hill didn't try to destroy Judge Thomas – He was sexually harassing her and she spoke up about it. Good for you Anita!

DBM   July 13th, 2009 12:36 pm ET

I don't know where all these people get the idea that the Supreme Court is supposed to be a representation of the nation's populace. The Supreme Court is (supposed to be, anyway) a representation of, or the voice, if you will, of the Constitution of this great land. Its role is to keep in check the Executive and Legislative branches which are, incidentally, themselves more representative of, and responsive to, the citizenry. So the Supreme Court is actually supposed to keep us as a people in check, not capitulate to every whim of society.

Supreme Court Justices should be evaluated solely on their qualifications: constitutional knowledge and integrity being the highest on my list.

frank l kinney   July 13th, 2009 12:37 pm ET

diversity? special interest member of la raza? the unqualified in the name of diversity? racial quota's? affirmative action? civil rights? sotomayor is more qualified in thinking than a white man in judgements on law and order? RACIST! putting her judgement above another race statement RACIST! this is diversity talking? DIVERSITY thats a hot one! yes diversity in education? crime? civil rights? appointments quota's affirmative action results! unqualified? diversity ACLU? CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLES RIGHTS? hate crimes justice? NEWNATION.ORG? diversity crimes on whites justice? education? crime? reality of diversity civil rights live today? numbers and victims of one races crimes on another plus civil rights protection questions? like equal civil rights rights questions? justice? diversity? naacp? aclu? southern poverty law? egual in the law protectors? seems they all over look hate crimes by people of color on whites? diversity civil rights but not the same for whites justice? federal goverment jobs discrimination quota's? EDUCATION? sotomayor the brain on equal civil rights judgement? white firefighters discrimination lawsuit opinion? which she was over ruled? member of special interest diversity group of LA RAZA? makes her qualified on what? diversity? la raza supports what type of people? foreign law breakers who have entered united states by breaking the law? she is member of this group who supports criminal behavior? supreme court NOMINEE pick? ku klux klan member would be racist nominee? yet la raza is not? illegals committing rape abduction child molesters murders fraud la raza supports this group of illegals activities in america? sotomayor is a member of this group of extremist ????? mexican ku klux klan hate group LA RAZA member? reality is a mother. independent nation. AMEN.

SotoSoto   July 13th, 2009 12:39 pm ET

To all of you who are questioning Sonia's qualifications, please know she has more judicial experience than Chief Justice John Roberts. Not to mention her outstanding and accomplished education backgrond.

To you she's just a colored woman. Shame on you!

Trevor   July 13th, 2009 12:40 pm ET

In answer to some of the comments on this topic, true justice cannot be achieved if the people who are applying it lack diversity. We all have biases and prejudices, it's human. One way to fight this is through diversity in all of our institutions. The Hispanic population is very large and growing and needs to be adequately represented. Currently there are no Hispanics on the Supreme I'm not sure how anyone could construe this nomination as racism.

scout   July 13th, 2009 12:45 pm ET

Anita Hill is so irrelevant.

MIke Houston   July 13th, 2009 12:45 pm ET

But I wonder if a conserative woman was nomanated ,would she be celebrated as a woman Justice. I think not. Shame on the hippocrites!

Bea   July 13th, 2009 12:47 pm ET

I remember A Hill too well. She did not nor does she have my respect. I think her comments about Judge Thomas were so deceitful and she was on a stage set for her "fame". Her opinion still does not have credence with those of us remember the horrible way the Democrats treated a truly qualified black man for the supreme court. She pops us again for her minute of fame.

Christina   July 13th, 2009 12:49 pm ET

It seems that many Americans need a lesson in ninth grade vocabulary. Empathy is not sympathy. Sympathy is feeling sorry for someone and perhaps favoring that person. Empathy is a person's ability to see a situation from someone else's perspective. All judges should already be using empathy in every court decision to understand both the plaintiff and the defendant's positions. This protocts against bias and aids impartial reason; it does not inhibit impartiality. If Sotomayor is in fact empathetic (and I believe she is) it will make her a realistic, unbiased Supreme Court Justice.

Al   July 13th, 2009 12:49 pm ET

Anita, will you marry me?

mw   July 13th, 2009 12:49 pm ET

Anita Hill exposed Clarence Thomas for the guy he was but the Republicans still got their "antiaffirmative action" token on the Supreme Court, He was FAR from best qualified. Sotomayer is more experienced, accomplished, and qualified. The President gets to make the pick of a qualifed appointee. The President is the pick of the majority of the voters in the last election. Sotomayer WILL be confirmed. All the hate speech will not change reality. Obama WON. Democrats WON. Democracy is still operating.

Josie Edavettal MD, PhD   July 13th, 2009 12:50 pm ET

There should be a legal mandate to have half the supreme court and also the elected legislative branch as women. The legal mandate should also extend to representation of minorities in these same branches of goverment to the extent that they exist in the population. I believe this should extend to all facets of society including careers. I don't see and Indians in the NFL, and I think the NFL pays absolutely no attention to the demographic breakdown of society. Even though sports is not as vital to society as government they apparently sign players on an 'flat world' archaic ideology of 'merit' and 'skill'. These organization require 're-education'. Obviously when the messiah said "judged by the content of their charactner not the color of their skin" he was talking in double speak and meant the opposite. Someone should inform the backwards fundamental (almost evangelical) sports world not to take the spoken word literally and apply the meaning as described by todays learned scholars.

confused in MA   July 13th, 2009 12:52 pm ET

Times have changed since the Reagan era so hopefully the senate will use its brains this time and elect a very qualified person, that being Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Unfortunately we still have the "good ole boy" network and they will try and overrule any woman who tries to get into their circle.
Anita Hill was exceptionally brave in coming forth with information regarding the oddities of Thomas, but as we all saw, he got in no matter what. Time for a change people!

Jim   July 13th, 2009 12:52 pm ET

Slavery is the Original Sin of the history of the United States of America, and racism, such as that voiced by the critics of Judge Sotomayor, is the legacy of the national hatred of people of color. Dixie will never die so long as some white folk attempt to mask their hatred behind the code word of "conservatism."

Dan D   July 13th, 2009 12:53 pm ET

Interesting how right wingers complain about diversity and empathy on the high court. They try to reason that the Consitution does not allow for diversity and empathy. Of course in their perfect world, the court should only seat angry old white republican men compassionate of the rights of for-profit institutions over individuals... except, of course, the individual rights of those that want to possess automatic handguns. Anything to disrupt that "balance" is seen as unconstitutional.

lablue   July 13th, 2009 12:55 pm ET

For all judges it would be nice if appointments weren't political and even more importantly if their hearings by the committee's weren't politicly motivated as recent hearings have been.

Unfortunately the Democrats have a surprisingly poor and shamefull record in this department that is worse than what they as a party have portrayed Republicans as being. What they have done in their personal attacks of Judges, Bork, Thomas, and Alite as nothing short of shamefull.

I believe that the partisan known as Anita Hill is mistaken for very obvious reasons in regard to how the Republicans can approach Sotomayor but I would hope that they would be much more civilized as they have proven to be with the nomination of Justice Ginsburg (whom they could have easily raked over the coals) than the Dems have shown themselves to be.

To me, as long as Sotomayor appears to be well qualified however all nominees are generally very well quallified. Her personal story is of no conciquence although very heart warming. I do not believe that is a reason to consider her for the bench position nor should it be for any other justice. It should be the body of work and clarity of thier rulings that give us insight as to how they will handle things.

Given the undeniable fact that Sotomayor has some very controversial rulings I hope that she handles herself well in explaning them and becomes a credit to the Supreme Court.

Thank God Anita Hill was unsuccessfull in an attempt to thwart Justice Thomas from his appointment to the court.

As for the significance in history of Sotomayor's appointment, I don't see much if any other than it being strictly political. The Hispanic angle isn't worth considering. She is Puerto Rican and not of Mexican heritage which is why so many Hispanics "do not" identify with her but that shouldn't matter either.

Hopefully one day partisans from both parties won't be ruling the direction of the country.

CSM   July 13th, 2009 12:56 pm ET

"In the past decade women have received nearly half of all law degrees awarded. Yet, women make up only 25 percent of the federal district court judiciary."

Although I agree with Ms. Hill's overall thesis regarding appointment parity, the fact that males and females have reach law school graduation parity in the past 10 years says nothing regarding the proportionate numbers of qualified males and females for seats on the federal judiciary. The experience generally expected of a federal judge is far beyond 10 years, so the apt comparison would be percentages of female law school graduates 20 to 25 years ago.

Tka   July 13th, 2009 12:59 pm ET

I well remember the Thomas hearings and how brilliant, beautiful, calm and truthful Ms. Hill was. She is my hero. The fact that Thomas was placed on the court was and still is, a travesty. Agree absolutely that the Supreme court needs more women. Hopefully, President Obama will keep nominating women as vacancies arise. The GOP are at an all time low, especially last week, with Coleman, Palin, Ensign and Sanford leading the parade. One hopes their words fall on deaf ears as they are, thankfully, in the minority. Sotomayor will be a wonderful addiction to the court and Justice Ginsburg sure could use another woman.

Diversity?   July 13th, 2009 1:01 pm ET

Yale and Princeton....Where's the diversity? It's clear race is a major factor in the appointment. If it was really about diversity, then one would think people would be up in arms about where the nominee received their education and the path they took to the Supreme Court versus their gender or racial heritage. I'd much rather have a justice who has a different background than the others, and wasn't another graduate from one of a few different schools teaching the same theories/interpretations of the law. Nothing "diverse" about it.

Patrick   July 13th, 2009 1:02 pm ET

Why would CNN bother publishing the opinion of Anita Hill?

Her only claim to fame was her attempt to thwart Conservative Nominee Clarence Thomas from being selected to the high court.

Famous by no work of her own, she is the political version of Paris Hilton.

Rufus   July 13th, 2009 1:05 pm ET


So am I to believe that laws are bias?

Or is the Supreme Court moving away from the interpreting the law to judgement affirmative action.

JimH   July 13th, 2009 1:06 pm ET

After all of the CHANGE we are seeing with President Obama's diverse way of looking at things, I'm beginning to think that more diversity isn't exactly what this country needs! As a matter of cold hard fact, the foundations upon which this great nation was built came from a long line of white European christian leaders. It turned out to be such an awesome country that it attracted people from every race, creed, and national origin from around the globe to want to live here. However, why does it suddenly become such a good idea to CHANGE all of that, to reflect the desires of various immigrant groups? I think we need to be very careful with whom we entrust the "keys to the kingdom". Legislating from the bench, with an emphasis on discriminating against American-born white males, are probably CHANGES that we can do very nicely without!

Mike   July 13th, 2009 1:07 pm ET

"true justice cannot be achieved if the people who are applying it lack diversity."

Are you kidding me? That is where people miss the boat in the United States! We have too many judges who try to rule based on their "opinions" and experience. You don't legislate from the bench! YOU APPLY THE LAW THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN! NOT TO MAKE UP YOUR OWN BASED YOUR BACKGROUND

timmer   July 13th, 2009 1:07 pm ET

How come you @#$%^ never post my comments?

Erik S.   July 13th, 2009 1:10 pm ET

Anita Hill? She's a joke, who cares what she thinks about this? He big shining moment is trying to drop a dime on Clarence thomas, get real.

Shay   July 13th, 2009 1:10 pm ET

God Bless Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation!

philip   July 13th, 2009 1:10 pm ET

Bravo Anita Hill!
Had anyone been listening to you years ago we would not have a misogynist, clueless, liar on the Court.

god bless america   July 13th, 2009 1:14 pm ET

I guess I have a few issues to pick here, mostly with left leaning folk.

1. Since when the constitution is a living breathing document? Show me those words in constitution. Tne only way to inspire "living and breathing" (i.e., change thayt some of us can believe) is thorugh an amendment, which is not function of judiciary, but rather our elected officials.
2. Assuming that constitution is indeed living and breathing allows twisting of the constitution to suit transient purposes, whatever they may be, without using the only constitutional mechanism to change the constitution (see amendments).
3. Is Sotomayor an affirmative aciton pick? Who cares. She recommended herself enough by getitng onto law review at yale. Even if the admission was handed to her, getting on law review was not (I believe that only top 15-20% of a class get onto law review and the exams are graded fairly: just by glancing at the exam answers, professors do not know the names of the students whose exams they grade)
4. Is she going to be a good SC pick? No idea. She certainly knows the law, she's certainly bright and hardworking, but her integrity has to be questioned. Again, any white man saying that he would be a better (mind you, not different, better) judge than a latino woman would not be qualified. Ignoring these remarks clearly establishes double standard, which is unacceptable.
5. Who said that diversity of colors (private parts) is an important goal? Proponents of that idea have to agree then that people of one group canot be fair to members of other groups.
6. Why liberals always use the word "angry" in conjunction with "white males"? If anything, the loudest ones are the liberals (see Sheehan, Cidney, Pelosi, Nancy, Jackson, Jesse, Sharpton, Al).
7. Why people assume that opposition to Sotomayor will create problems for republicans with women and latinos? Smearing of Palin and Estrada did not have that effect for liberals. Or is it there a double standard in play?

Stacy   July 13th, 2009 1:15 pm ET

Why in God's name do I care what Anita Hill has to say about the Court??? Her claim to fame is accusing Justice Thomas of sexual harassment....which sunk to high heavens. Why don't you ask the guy selling hot dogs on the corner what he thinks....same status.

Mark   July 13th, 2009 1:16 pm ET

I am baffled by Ms Hill's comments. Her entire diatribe speaks to her assertion that "It's long past time for another woman on the Court"... And in the same article she speaks of discrimination against women nominees. Well, which is it Anita? Either we discrimate against men by requiring that we appoint a woman or we somehow are discriminating because we don't "rubber stamp" the current nominee BECAUSE she is of the politically correct, long needed gender. You can't have it both ways!!!

Elena   July 13th, 2009 1:17 pm ET

There are several qualified candidates at any given time for this position – BEST is subjective.

Obama chose from a pool of very highly qualified people, and picked the person he felt was best given the current political climate, the current make up of the bench, etc. Obama thought that a woman and a minority would be appropriate, thought her political leanings were in line with his, and picked her.

That's not WRONG, that's just how our system works, and it's how all other justices were picked. Republican presidents pick more conservative justices, and that's not wrong either, as long as the person picked is qualified.

If Sotomayor is found to be highly qualified, people's personal opinions on who would have better are a moot point, it's Obama's personal opinion that matters, and we elected him to make these decisions for us.

god bless america   July 13th, 2009 1:17 pm ET

Patrick, well said. "anita hill is the political version of paris hilton" Amen

Trevor   July 13th, 2009 1:19 pm ET

I just want to say that fact that we're able to have this discussion shows just how wonderful a place the US is. I'm Canadian, and we would rather hide behind a veil of political correctness rather than have a discussion like this.


Unfortunately application of the law is rarely an objective pursuit, as US, and world history clearly shows. 50 yrs ago, judges in the deep South interpreted the law quite differently than their counterparts in the North. Even today, minorities still often face different experiences when it comes to application of the law, although this may more likely due to economics. In any case, Judge Sotomayor has shown that her credentials and experience are equal to anyone who has been nominated or appointed, in my lifetime.

Eileen   July 13th, 2009 1:21 pm ET

Diversity is an attack on whites, as can be seen by the racist remarks on this site. Sotomayor is a disgrace and not the best qualified candidate. Just like Obama.

Missie   July 13th, 2009 1:21 pm ET

First of all,

Anita's article was well written and pointed out some very important facts. Her opinion is just as credible as anyone other contributer for CNN. It is ashame that some have put down her comments.. obviously just because of 'who she is' rather than the experience, expertise, and insight she has to offer.

On the other hand, I am concerned about Sotomayor. I don't know how she will address certain women's rights issues. For some reason, I haven't warmed up to trusting she will contribute positively some issues that are of high interest to me. I guess I have to trust the President's decison on this. We'll see what happens.

One last thing, to 'JomoDaMusicMan' (and others here); Obama wouldn't have made it in office if it weren't for the white vote. His election into office was not just a 'black and women' thing.. it was a 'better America' thing. 🙂

Kris in AL   July 13th, 2009 1:32 pm ET

This discussion about the number of women that SHOULD BE on the Supreme Court identifies those who care about that number as those who think a woman or black or whomever bring something to the Court that can be used in the decision making process........ I thought the Court was supposed to rule whether the issue before it was constitutional and/or in keeping with the laws that are on the books?

Obviously there is a split in th country between those who want the courts to make law and rectify wrongs that the Executive and LEgislative branches have failed to do and those who support the courts refereeing a conflict over interpretation and implementation of laws.

Joan Opyr   July 13th, 2009 1:32 pm ET

The personal animosity directed against Anita HIll is remarkable. Seventeen years after she testified against Clarence Thomas, she's still being called a liar, a bigot, a racist, and a fool. Anita Hill is a distinguished Constitutional scholar, a graduate of Yale Law School and a tenured professor at Brandeis University. Of course she's qualified to comment on the Supreme Court and on this nomination. As for her testimony against Clarence Thomas, the fact that Thomas denied her allegations and chose to call that a "high-tech lynching" does not make her testimony untrue. His confirmation by the U. S. Senate was not an acquittal. Given the fact that there were other women waiting to testify to the same treatment, women the Senate Judiciary Committee chose not to call, I'd say the end result was a travesty.

The end result? Justice Thomas' undistinguished career on the Supreme Court as Antonin Scalia's echo.

Robert   July 13th, 2009 1:34 pm ET

I remember doing a report in high school on the Clarance Thomas hearings in 1991/92. Talking about drama! Actually is was nasty high drama I still believe Anita Hill. I wish she could have brought Thomas down. She came close.

Jordan in Stone Mountain   July 13th, 2009 1:43 pm ET

Let's stop kidding ourselves. Jeff Sessions is an old school southern bigot. - the purest example of Republican you'll ever find. The hatred he's heaped upon Judge Sotomayor just reassures me Obama has made the right choice. Anything that upsets the bigots in this country must be a good thing.

Teacher in SC   July 13th, 2009 1:43 pm ET

This comment list is filled with the anger of Anita Hill haters. People, do your homework. You are remembering the venom of David Brock from his American Spectator article and first book on Hill which he later recanted in his book Blinded by the Right. He described that first book as a "character assassination" and apologized to Ms. Hill.

She testified against Thomas only after information from her interview with the FBI was leaked to the media. This interview was probably part of the vetting process by the FBI on Thomas. It was not her intention to testify nor to be in the spotlight. I watched those hearings and recall vividly that I was watching someone telling the truth and was moved particularly by her family and background.

She is on the faculty of Brandeis University as of 1997 and was awarded their First Amendment Award by the Ford Hall Forum in 2008.

You can find the above information quickly by simply googling her name and checking Wikipedia and Amazon. If you didn't do something as basic as that before posting, you apparently aren't interested in the truth. Sad.

WBN   July 13th, 2009 1:43 pm ET

As any knowledgeable person know, the question is not whether the nominee is a man or a woman, but whether he or she believes in following the constitution or dismantling it. The current nominee's record and repeated comments show her to be the latter of the two. She will be approved in Obamaland, but she should be voted on with respect to her rehard for the constitution and its defined roles for the three branches of government. To Anita Hill, everything revolves around gender, liberal agenda, victimhood, etc.

adam   July 13th, 2009 1:43 pm ET

Palin=Bush stubborn and stupid

phillip   July 13th, 2009 1:44 pm ET

Adding Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court is a lesson in racial affirmative action and a slap in the face to Justice's Ginsburg and O'Conner. Though neither Justice is a woman of "color' they have both made indelible marks on the nation’s highest court. Sotomayor brings only the legacy of racism and special privileges to the court. Ms. Hill’s famous acting at the hearings for Justice Thomas have forever demeaned and belittled the appointment process for the Supreme Court.

Informed   July 13th, 2009 1:46 pm ET

Sheila July 13th, 2009 10:30 am ET

We cannot forget that Ms. Sotomayor is an active member of a racist group, La Raza (The Race). This is no different than the KKK.

Sheila, you have got to be the most ignorant person on the planet. FYI, La Raza is NOT a racist group. It is a term and idea that acknowledges the heritage and historical mixing of various people of Hispanic and Native American descent, such as Mexican-Americans.

So don't even think about trying to compare this group to such hate organizations as the KKK, Aryan Nation or any other hate-based organization where racism is truly the core of these groups' missions. Sotomayor is NOT A RACIST!

CNN, I don't even know why you post such nonsense from these idiots. Truly scary how narrowminded and ignorant some people are...

R.J.   July 13th, 2009 1:49 pm ET

Race and Gender shouldnt matter when deciding who the next justice to serve on the nations highest court is,this latino woman who would more often than not make a better decision than a white male,should be consitered on her merit, the statements she's made, and her rulings. For me she puts to much emphasis on race,and her lifes lessons to be a fair and just pick for the court.Her ruling on the ct. firefighters was completely wrong in my humble opinion,which showes shes definantly bias,because she herself is a product of affirmative action.She's admitted to getting to where she is by affirmative action there fore showing she's unable to make un bias judgments, she get a big no go from this hispanic citizen!

Bob from Dallas   July 13th, 2009 1:52 pm ET

Hip Hip Hooray! Now let's get us a Klan member and a Neo Nazi on the court so we will cover all our bases!

TomGlock   July 13th, 2009 1:56 pm ET

Sotomayor's previous multiple comments about how a Hispanic woman would more often than not come to a better conclusion than a white male, immediately disqualifies her from the bench. No other discussion about anything else is needed. Context is not necessary. For the record, I would feel exactly the same way if the races were reversed.

I am certain she will be confirmed, however. It is a sad time to be a republican. However I am patient and have full confidence that the current climate of liberalism is wearing very thin with the American populace. A price will be exacted for the liberal lunacy running rampant right now.

John Buchanan   July 13th, 2009 1:57 pm ET

Anita Hill is right agin. But what about the Southern white mail gang who want 1859 and all that ? Sessions indeed. Kyl and all belong to the outhouse of intellect.

Macalba   July 13th, 2009 1:58 pm ET

If Justice is blind, why the call for diversity? Or are we saying that the "best qualified" candidate has to be a specific ethnic background, which in turn cancels out the term "Best Qualified". Demanding "diversity" for equality is a mutually exclusive act – like turning on the light to see the dark. Diversity as a goal is as repugnant as "racial purity" was back in 1930s Eurupe.

Barney   July 13th, 2009 1:59 pm ET

Add my voice to the list acknowledging Anita Hill's ridiculous lack of qualification to comment meaningfully on this topic.

gmcbride   July 13th, 2009 1:59 pm ET

Ms. Hill I think has missed it – Who is against Judge Sotomayor due to the fact she is a woman? I think Ms. Hill must be blinded her gender based agenda. I believe the reason many are agains Judge Sotomayor is due to statements and rulings she has made not her sex!

Janice   July 13th, 2009 2:00 pm ET

Let's not talk about diversity. Let's instead talk about who will be the best for a job. I don't care about color or sex. What I care about is someone who will be a justice. Someone who will rule on the constitution but not from a subjective stance. This country's constitution is brilliant. We should not leave it for interpretation but we should be ruling on the laws as written

Marc Gerber   July 13th, 2009 2:01 pm ET

Ms. Hill...about the only person I'd feel better seeing nominated than Sonia Sotomayor would be you.

lou7200 Tulsa   July 13th, 2009 2:02 pm ET

If Anita Hill is in your corner, that alone should put everyone with a ballot in this, on edge.

This woman is nothing more than a Quota Babe and a throwback to the old Equal Opportunity system that spawned her ilk.

America and Oklahoma would have been far better off if she had to compete for her now-tenured position on the basis of her merits. Instead, America will always be subjected to her sputum because of a Coke can and her crazy imagination.

She can't even get another job because no one wants her, and she's so unskilled she clings to her tenure at the expense of the students she is forced upon. Unlike Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill is a loser.

JumpJoy   July 13th, 2009 2:03 pm ET

I wonder if the Republicans Senators who are focusing on that one comment, would bother to delve into the comments of other members currently on the Supreme Court.

I believe ANITA HILL. It is absurd that Judge Thomas is even on the Court.

It seems that the only time we have severe scrutiny of every spoken word or action, is when a woman is up for a high position.

usa99   July 13th, 2009 2:03 pm ET

Justice Thomas IS diversity. Dummy!

frank thomas   July 13th, 2009 2:04 pm ET

The far right wing nuts are at it again, they do not want an activist judge unless they are right wing activist, now if only enough conservative judges retire,like jim crow thomas and the court can have at least a 6 member of liberal judges, Sonia Sotomayor will be a terrific judgem

bill   July 13th, 2009 2:06 pm ET

Hey Philip, Souter stepped down so the liar is gone. Shay; God cannot bless this confirmation according to you liberals. Remember? Separation between church and state? Or is it just more democratic dribble about ignoring principles when it furthers the existing agenda?

ja   July 13th, 2009 2:06 pm ET

what a revelation, and appointments should not be lifetime, appointment should be nomore twenty-five years, and with maximum age being seventy-five, in life there is a time and season for all things

Bonny   July 13th, 2009 2:07 pm ET

Yeah, screw qualifications and all that nonsense, let's go full out affirmative action and get people of every race on the court! What a joke.

Adam in San Antonio   July 13th, 2009 2:10 pm ET

Maybe I'm not qualified to speak because I'm not a wise Latino woman, but I would like to think the Justices would be evaluated based upon their knowledge and ruling based upon the law and the Constitution. Their gender and race should have no direct factor in their decisons. Remember, Lady Justice has a blindfold for a reason.

David   July 13th, 2009 2:11 pm ET

Regardless of the contents of her statement, I have one question...why is Anita Hill being given a forum for discussing her opinions on a supreme court nomination? While I am sympathetic to her regarding her alleged mistreatment by Clarence Thomas, how does having been sexually harassed by a sitting justice give her comments on Ms. Sotomayor any more relevance than anyone else's?

Dale   July 13th, 2009 2:11 pm ET

She wants diversity when the judges are liberal. Didn't Clarence Thomas increase diversity on the court? What transparent hypocrisy.

Mike   July 13th, 2009 2:12 pm ET

"In any case, Judge Sotomayor has shown that her credentials and experience are equal to anyone who has been nominated or appointed, in my lifetime."

Ya, that's why the Supreme Court overruled her in the firefighters case.

Ryan   July 13th, 2009 2:12 pm ET

"It will definitely bring diversity to what America has come to know as a place for elderly caucasian males who are there for a lifetime."

It is this kind of thinking that is the problem. WHO CARES if the nominee is white, black, purple, green, orange, male, female, etc?

Her job isn't to be "diverse". Her job is to interpret the law as Congress intended and within the bounds of the Constitution. That's IT.

Stop playing the race card! It is IRRELEVANT

DuncanDwyer   July 13th, 2009 2:13 pm ET

perjuryisacrime – You seem to be either confused or intentionally misleading in your remarks. You say that Hill somehow committed perjury by saying she was a Reagan appointee. Your justification for this claim is that she was REALLY a die-hard liberal. How exactly do those two things equal perjury?! The fact is that she was both.

You are absolutely right that Anita Hill is extremely progressive. She will be the first to tell you that. One's actual ideological stance has nothing to do with who appoints them or hires them (which is more appropriate of a term here). Bill Clinton appointed many, many lawyers and judges who turned out to be fairly conservative in their legal approach. Would they be perjurers if they stated that Clinton had appointed them? Your argument just doesn't make any sense at all.

Alfred Hussein Neuman   July 13th, 2009 2:13 pm ET

To SC Teacher, it was a case of her word vs his word, and when I watched Anita's testimony, I was struck by the fact that Anita do not do anything about this harassment during all of those years and continued to work for Justice Thomas. I didn't believe a word she said. I was also amazed at how NOW treated Justice Thomas so badly, but gave clinton a complete pass on the many women who came forward against him – including more than one who alleged rape. It's politics as usual. The extreme leftists will support Sotomayer regardless of her views or qualifications.

Liberty   July 13th, 2009 2:13 pm ET

So now the term "diversity" seems like code for it's OK to be racist against white males or it's OK to place someone in a position because of the color of their skin or ethnic background rather than based on their accomplishments. This country is no longer a place for white male high achievers. When we quit because of your racist promotions based on "diversity" the country will grind to a halt. It's coming and if you don't believe me take a trip to Cuba or any other socialist "dream" state. But then "who is John Galt anyway?"

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 2:15 pm ET

We've become a country that promotes diversity over qualifications and integrity. We've become a Country where it is promoted for us to prop up and support those that are unwilling to prop up themselves. We've become a country where it is better to support minorities at the cost of those more deserving. We've become a Country where liberalism is taking hold and getting a strong grasp on society be it those looking for a free hand out, or those from wealthy families that feel the need to feel bad about their families success.

We've elected the first "black" man in office. Congratulations. We've done so at a cost to those more deserving. He's serving a dangerous agenda.

The racism roles are in reverse in this country now. I've seen VERY deserving white males get held back in order to put lesser qualified minority or women personel into those positions. iIve seen a man whom has spent 20 years in an obviously racist church voted into the presidency, now promoting an obviously racist woman into a position of high power in the name of diversity. We're already being held back to prop up the minorities, and now people are being put into power that can even make the situation much worse, and have a track record to prove it.

is this really wise America? You may see it as fixing a glaring problem in America. I see it as taking a glaring problem in our Country and flipping it to the other side without actually fixing the problem.

For the first time since World War II has more than one state in the U.S. saw fit to issue Bills of Soverignty. We're now at 36 States in the U.S. working to get soveriegnty bills passed, 7 already are passed (Only one state since WWII has issued such a bill.). If you think there isn't a problem in our Country right now that is as dangerous as it has ever been, climb out of your hole and open your eyes. Obama will bring this country to its knees, but there is a VAST majority out there that isn't going to let that happen. 36 states out of 50 are working toward declaring soveriengty. Horray for them. At least I know the majority isn't going to let the minority bring them down without a fight.

S Callahan   July 13th, 2009 2:17 pm ET

Should this be God's will she will be appointed without long drawn out nonesense....She IS a good choice and just taking the time to do some reading can open one's eyes to that.
Surely, as I have planned, so it will be,
and as I have purposed, so it wil stand. Isaiah 14: 24

Liberty   July 13th, 2009 2:18 pm ET

Women tend to make decisions based on emotion over reason. This is always the worst way to make decisions and the rest of us will pay.Go ahead and let the Pelosi's of the world make all the feelgood decisions with no repsect to consequences but in the meantime i am pulling all my money out of the US stock market as I no longer have faith in this country's ability to make rational decisions.

Eileen from Portland Maine   July 13th, 2009 2:21 pm ET

kirby July 13th, 2009 7:43 am ET

Anita Hill’s opinion is no more important than the guy on the garbage truck and probably less informed.

Sotomayor is not a good choice to represent Hispanic/Latinos; she is NOT very bright and she will reflect poorly on us. I would prefer to wait to have an excellent candidate as opposed to just anyone: Sotomayor.

We are not puppies that can be given a bone and told to go sit in the corner. We are an important voting voice in America.
Why do you feel the need to pretend you are something or somebody you are not? Are you so submissive that you don't have the courage to admit you are a white anglo saxen female?

RV   July 13th, 2009 2:22 pm ET

How about Anita Hill for Supreme Court? We will get diversity and balance on the bench!

Charles   July 13th, 2009 2:22 pm ET

Cannot believe so many stupid guys...
All judges have their own opinions – whether you like it or not. They all rule from the bench!
"Best Candidate?", no one can define what does it mean by "Best". My "best" is not your "best". So don't try to argue with that nonsense.

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 2:22 pm ET

Yeah Callahan, it's a wonderful idea to put a person in that postition that supported the throwing out of promotion test scores because too few minorities passed those test, therefore allowing the promotion of less deserving individuals while holding back those that should have been recieving their promotions.

Wise move! Let's just dumb down eveything in this country so that those incapable of excelling on their own can get more of a free ride.

The racism roles in this Country are reversing at a rapid pace. I can guarantee you WE WILL NOT STAND FOR IT!!!!! This will just add fuel to a brewing fire.

David   July 13th, 2009 2:23 pm ET

If a white male was being considered for this position, and it was found that, in his past, he'd said that he "would hope that a wise white man with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” he'd be crucified.

Racism is racism. It doesn't matter which racial group you're a part of, or at which racial group your derision is aimed. There's no such thing as "reverse racism",'s all the same, and it should all be treated the same. I abhor racism in all forms, and I feel that all racists should be painted with the same brush, regardless of their minority status.

Just for the record, I'm a centrist independent who votes Democratic more often than not, and who voted proudly for President Obama.

Jason   July 13th, 2009 2:23 pm ET

Anyone suggesting that we need diversity is missing the whole point of diversity. Diversity isn't something to be forced, or mandated. Diversity should be allowed, and unrestriced... not forced.

I'm going to suggest a radical mindset, see if you follow: Let's choose the best qualified people for these positions (Supreme Court, and any other appointed position) simply based on merit, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. But I guess that's not "equality" to some people.

Or we could start bussing senators into different districts

Alma Perkins   July 13th, 2009 2:23 pm ET

Anita Hill it's been a long time . I just want to say YOU LOOK GREAT

jason   July 13th, 2009 2:25 pm ET

"Notwithstanding high grades and impressive degrees, many still had trouble landing the most coveted jobs with influential judges or prestigious law firms. Judge Sotomayor herself filed a grievance claiming that, in spite of her sterling undergraduate and law school credentials, a firm refused to consider her for employment because she was a Latina. By completely ignoring the growing pool of female job applicants, employers risked violating the protections that civil rights law provided against employment discrimination. No, obstacles to professional advancement did not all magically disappear, but doors that were tightly closed a decade before cracked open, and women entered them in record numbers."

In other words.... Female Latina lawmakers in this case are the best thing since sliced bread, infinitely qualified, but for god's sake... not so great where they can stand alone on their own merit and buck the affirmative action bandwagon.
The conclusion she came to in the firefighter case is WRONG... and I have serious doubts about her bias and priorities. On the other hand, at least minorities can blantantly wear their racism on their sleeves these days and not have to become infinitely skilled at masking it like their white counterparts.

R Martin   July 13th, 2009 2:28 pm ET

If men and women are equally capable of jurisprudence, then why is there a "need" for more women on the bench? This statement would be true if women were more jurisprudent than men. Likewise, if Latinos, blacks, Asians, etc., were more jurisprudent than whites, then the statement would be true that more minorities were needed on the bench. The only conclusion to draw from such statements is that some political agenda is sought to be met by diversifying the make-up of the court. If the court remained within the strict bounds placed by the Constitution, and we truly thought that jurisprudence knew no bounds based on race or gender, then such ludicrous statements such as a "need for more (fill in the blank) would be viewed as what it is. We need judges who follow the Constitution, regardless of who they are.

Mike   July 13th, 2009 2:29 pm ET

David, no I'm sorry... racism is not racism in this country... You are only a racist if you are white... and if you are male all the better. Just look at Geitner's comments, blacks betting on whites is not ruled racism yet.

Plus 2   July 13th, 2009 2:29 pm ET

Judge Sotamayor will be a great justice. She is intelligent, thoughtful, and open and has real life experience, things that are not true of the inbred, hateful Republicans. She is right that a black woman justice, virtually any woman is virtually guaranteed to be better that a white male justice. May justice flow down like a river while she is on the Court. Now you know why having sixty mattered.

Kathryn C Joyce   July 13th, 2009 2:30 pm ET

Sotomyer is eminently quaiified for the court and she is a remarkable person as well. Our country and the law will benefit from her appointment.

Also, Anita Hill is a professor of law who took a huge risk to her career in accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. She is an example of courage. Many people,including me, believe what she said implicitly and think it is Clarence Thomas who was the token, is the least qualified of the justices, and remains a bitter and angry man.

I suggest reading Jeffrey Tobin's recent book The Nine.

L . B .   July 13th, 2009 2:31 pm ET

Those in the know understand that Justice Thomas,prior to appointment to the Supreme Court, had several clerks of color in his office and on his staff.He now will have none.An unpleasent effect of the Anita Hill incident.If anyone has quashed diversity,knowingly or unknowingly,it has been Anita Hill.She fabricated her story and is no better than the woman who pushed her car loaded with her son's into a river and blamed it on a Blackman.
I see that Sotomayor addresses her past much more friendly than Justice Thomas and I am encouraged that she will continue to follow that compassion. As all eyes are on her now you should take all of your pictures because when she is "in" you won't see much of her.

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 2:31 pm ET

I agree Mike, apparently the only people capable of being racists in this Country are White Males. That amazes me. Rev. Wright isn't considered a racist, but he clearly is. Rev Jesse jackson isn't considered a racist, but he obviously is. Sotomayor is not considered a racist, but her comments, and rulings have proven that she is.

If you put the same sort of mind sets that the above people have and put them in a white man, he's be treated like he was a Nazi.

SC Dem   July 13th, 2009 2:33 pm ET

I love how all these small minded conservatives try to counter Sonia Sotomayor record. Many have posted ridiculous ideas that she is not qualified. She graduated at the top of the class in Princeton not to mention Yale Law School. I guess when a Hispanic succeeds in these passive-aggressive racist instutions it is not good enough. Maybe she should have received her law degree on Mars so that Republicans can feel better trying to rail road her. In addition, the constitution doesn't put qualifications on who should be serving. However, having diversity and an adequate representation of the population would be a tremendous step in the right direction. The alternative is a homogenous population of older white males, I'm sure we're getting a lot of different perspectives in that group

Matt   July 13th, 2009 2:33 pm ET

There are many "qualified" judges that could be on the Supreme Court. Has anyone stopped to think that some other "more qualified" judge might have refused Obama's offer to be on the court?

I disagree with Rob; the real question;

Is she qualified? Yes.

AT   July 13th, 2009 2:34 pm ET

If she performs how I believe she will, I'd say it's a great day for the USA! It's time that someone brings common sense to the judicial system of our country and not decisions based on political party interests and representations. I suspect her decisions will be based on America, not Democratic or Republican bias. In time we'll see.

SC Dem   July 13th, 2009 2:37 pm ET

To second this point as I reread some stupid comments. White males don't need to address their white maleness it is understood! Take a sociology class or two or try reading a book. When you have denied acess to certain groups for extended periods of time, made laws from preventing their social mobility and treat them as sub servient than you need policy i.e affirmative action to right those wrongs. Yes, we should nominate great qualified people, but if groups are traditionally underrepresented then we should correct that as a progressive society. I believe some of these commentors should try to go back in time to pre-civil war in the south, their ignorance would fit in nicely with the environment!

AT   July 13th, 2009 2:40 pm ET

@ Duncan: I agree with you on the race and gender criteria – so much of the past election, which was overwhelmingly won by the ignorants voting just to have a black man take the presidency. I know many blacks that didn't care what he supported, but they voted for him just because they wanted to see a black man in the oval office. Personally I think he's doing a great job so far, but the fact remains that the majority of "minorities" [read majority, no longer minorities] could care less and used their personal agendas to decided who won the presidency.

Skip   July 13th, 2009 2:42 pm ET

Judge Sotomayor's experience and education make her more qualified than clearly half of the men presently on the court. The courts present hero's of Judge Sotmayors detractors Thomas, Alito and Scalia present a boring time for those unfortunate enough to have to clerk for them since all of their decesions on any given issue are predictible. The high court appointees should represent the best and most engaged legal minds we have to offer such as Sotomayer. It should not be a position for those who see it as a opportunity to rubber stamp right wing ideology.

god bless america   July 13th, 2009 2:49 pm ET

SC dem, I disagree with the premise that the country would "need policy i.e affirmative action to right those wrongs". All that is needed is lack of interference rather than a crutch. Minorities that are most successful today are those which never relied on affirmative actions. Lets think about it: Irish, Jews, Asians made great strides. At the same time, the groups which were extended a helping hand have been relying on this helping hand as a crutch to their own detriment. I also suggest reading relevant books by Thomas Sowell... I believe that the book's title is "Affirmative Actions around the world"

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 2:53 pm ET

SC Dem

Your ignorance, and others just like you will be what brings our Country to it's knees. Diversity in lieu of qualification, and fairness does nothing to promote equality. If anything it does just the opposite. When I have to take a backseat to someone less qualified then me, then you can imagine how that makes me feel. I should not have to suffer for the problems of the passed.

You want equality, then make it equal. Right now, IT'S NOT EQUAL FOR ME! And that my friend really fires me up. Call me ignorant if you wish. You'll see. Let's keep cruising this liberal road. We'll see where the Country ends up. My guess --> In ruins.

god bless america   July 13th, 2009 2:54 pm ET

Skip, why "predictable" is a minus? And who said that clerkships are for entertainment of the law clerks? Predictability in the application of the law is a good thing.

WhiteGuyWithABrain   July 13th, 2009 2:55 pm ET

The controversy surrounding Sotomayor's confirmation highlights a lot of the inherent bias that Americans fail to recognize tints their perception of our justice system.

If personal opinion about issues is irrelevant as a judge, then why does the court so often split on ideological lines? The answer is obvious: "the Law" is not so clear-cut as most Americans would like to believe, and anyone who says otherwise is being ignorant of judicial precedent and what it means to be human. When Sotomayor (taken out of context) said that she hoped a Latina woman would reach a better conclusion, she squarely hit a nerve for many white Americans and in doing so exposed the sense of white entitlement that exists to this day in America.

The unstated assumption behind Sotomayor's confirmation is that it is a good thing for the Supreme Court to reflect the diversity of America. No matter how much Republicans try to spin this issue, this is by no means a precedent set by Obama; indeed, both Democrat and Republican presidents have been doing this for decades. As America's attitudes toward minorities and women have changed, so has the court, with the appointment of Catholic justices, Jewish justices, African American justices and female justices. Given this precedent, I think most would agree that it's high time we have a Latina justice. Is this being "color-blind" and "gender-blind"? No, but we do not live in a "color-blind" society and pretending we do so is not only to ignore the long history of American racism but also to turn a blind eye to the stark truths about the relationship between poverty and race.

The so-called "color-blindness" and "gender-blindness" of the law that opponents of Sotomayor purport to support is a double-edged sword; you can't attack Sotomayor for her proclamation of identity and then fail to do so when a white justice is being confirmed. Ever notice that race is only an issue when someone's not white? This is the misguided notion that "white" is a baseline and anything else is "reverse racism". If Sotomayor's pride and engagement in her Latina identity is irrelevant and grounds for a vote of nay, then similarly a justice's religion should also be grounds for disqualification if she/he were to say "my faith has been an important part of my life and my system of values" (separation of church and state anyone?).

But we don't believe that, do we?

MB   July 13th, 2009 3:07 pm ET

Wake up White people; minorities in this country are chomping-at-the-bit to gain the majority. Why? Because the majority, in every aspect of life, albeit a single celled organism or a person, is a desirable place to be – from viruses trying to assimilate in a host, to human beings trying to assemble political influence and power, to have the majority is to have an advantage.

White people need to be concerned with keeping the majority by way of immigration reform and/or other avenues that will stem the flood of immigrants (legal and illegal) entering this country. I personally want what the ethnic special interest groups want: individuals, who look like me and have my best interest at heart, holding positions of power. The “White man” is being vilified, just read some of the comments on this blog. We, as White people, must stop prostituting our country out to minorities because in 50 years we will wake up and realize that our political leaders have betrayed us for their own personal gain.

I know it is fashionable to equate White pride with racism but save those charges for a different venue. I love my race, I love my White skin, I want White children and I want to see White people holding positions of power in this country; that does not make me a racist – that makes me, and others who feel like me, one-in-the-same with every ethnocentric special group currently trying to advance their agendas.

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 3:15 pm ET

It's fine people, we'll keep putting people like her into postitions where we can make it easier to put the White man in the backseat, and make him suffer for the failings to do what was right IN THE PAST. We'll allow those less deserving a position above him because we have to make up for THE PAST. We'll stand up those unwilling to stand themselves up to make up for failings IN THE PAST. I need to be made to feel guilty about my success because someone IN THE PAST was unable to do so for themselves, it's obviously somehow still my fault.

We'll reverse this whole racism thing and put the shoe on the other foot. Good for America!!!! Or is it? If you think so, then you are too ignorant to realize the box you are about to open. The first time she makes one of those "Give to those less deserving because those deserving are White." decisicions you will start seeing groups coming out of the woodworks that I prefer to not see rising. There is a storm brewing in our Country right now.

And anyone who says "So far Obamas doing a great job." automatically will have their comment ignored because they plainly are unable to use any form of common sense. He's dangerous for our Country, and making things worse by the day. Hope Mexico will accept refugees.

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 3:29 pm ET

People, the issue is that the double standard being used to prop her up is the same double standard being used to force qualified white males to take a step backwards in every work force. It's not fair, it's not equal, and it's not diversity. It's discrimination by definition, only the shoe is on the other foot.

If a white male had made similar comments as Sotomayor he'd have been dumped like a ton of bricks. But she's being propped up, even celebrated. THAT'S NOT EQUAL, THAT"S NOT FAIR, THAT'S NOT DIVERSE!!!!! Are some of you people too *&^% blind to see that?

But this os OK huh? Because of the passed in the U.S. we have to put up with this, even though those of us alive today had nothing to do with it, we should suffer for it? Keep it up people, keep it up. The end result isn't going to be pretty.

Jeff   July 13th, 2009 3:30 pm ET

Congratulations, let's start to rebuild hate where it was previously dying.

Dr. Richard Stafford   July 13th, 2009 3:40 pm ET

July 13th, 2009 3:35 pm ET
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
As a white male, I indeed bring to my own work the perspective of all my life experiences as a white male…that’s what I am. But I learn from females and those of other races and cultures, too. When Sonia Sotomayor says she is bringing to the Court her rich experiences as a female, Hispanic judge and attorney, that’s a fact! So, what’s the beef?
Do we question a white, male justice who may have brought his own perspectives as a white, male judge…and then made decisions that may have benefited his own gender and race? Why do we make “white/male” the baseline…when it souldn’t be. The Constitution is gender and race blind; the Senate should ask questions beyond gender and race while confirming Sotomayor.

Dr. Richard Stafford
Atlanta, Georgia

god bless america   July 13th, 2009 3:54 pm ET

Dr Stafford, the beef is that she believes that being Latino and female make her superior judge compared to white males. If I say that being jewish improves my judgment compared to that of latinas, simply because I am a jew (or for that sake, pakistani muslim). This is a belief in racial superiority which is abhorrent if the holder of the belief is a white person. The same standard should be applied to non-white people.

Joe Calo   July 13th, 2009 4:53 pm ET

Anyone that refer to a minority as non-white is by many standards is a RACIST( latino,Mexican and Argentinian are sometimes more WHITE than Many so called white.

Brian Macker   July 13th, 2009 6:11 pm ET

Sotomayor has made racist remarks against whites, is anti-male, and ruled for discrimination against whites. I guess that shows what "diversity" is all about.

When diversity in the form of a black lawyer named Clarence Thomas appeared then Hill was all against it. Why? Because his political opinions did not match Hill's extreme leftist views. She should have been cheering him on if this was about "diversity", instead of fabricating claims about him. For the same reason these leftists are always against diversity when the representative is not of their ilk.

These socialists have already had a profound impact in driving this country to an unfree society. The current economic conditions were caused by governmental intrusion in the form of the FED, GSE, CRA and other socialist institutions.

god bless america   July 13th, 2009 6:38 pm ET

Joe, by your words, judge Sotomayor is a racist. She clearly distinguished "white" and "latinos". Otherwise, her remark that latina would make better judgement more often than white man does not make sense. So latinos are non-white. Are you implying then that some mexicans (argentinians, colombians, venesuelans, mexicans, etc) are not latinos?

Beth Sage   July 13th, 2009 6:59 pm ET

Wow!!! I haven't seen this much 'hate lit' since Obama ran for the Presidency!! I have to admit being very surprised at how vituperative these comments have become.
I personally find Anita Hill to be highly intelligent, well spoken and very courageous American woman. Pray tell, what did she have to gain with her questions of Clarence Thomas several years ago?
It appears some memories ARE filtered ONLY by personal perspectives. How sad is it when, for all intents and purposes, NOTHING'S changed on Main Street U.S.A!! BIAS, BIGOTRY & RACISM continue to be alive & thriving.

tristan   July 13th, 2009 9:17 pm ET

I think the doctor injected mj a little to much.

Julius Warthen   July 13th, 2009 9:27 pm ET

They consider me as African American, if I had the oppotunity to go to Yale University I know I would have learned other wise. I get tired of black, hispanics and Asians talking about the past tense. They still don't understand why bad things like that happen. Member of the skull and bones know the real deal that why they didn't allow the blacks to be apart of they secret society. Let as us what so called African American named after a man Africanus, Scipio

ronnie patrick   July 13th, 2009 9:28 pm ET

I pray that the Republicans give her a very hard time so that Rush and his Republicans can feel the pain at any election they enter. Why do you think all of the dirt that is being revealed on the Republicans is happening at this very moment. It is because big Rush wished Obama would fail and now look who is failing. Sotomayor will make it and that is a fact. Now about some of the terrible comments made on this blog is shameful. You stupid white people have not learned one thing have you. You are falling like flies going to jail for stealing billions and billions of dollars ,killing your families, having extra affairs on your wives, raping your daughters,mothers, running drug rings, and the list goes on and on. I would rather be an ant with three days of life then to be white. Dr. Stafford I stand by your comments. Thanks for writing something that is sound and not all of that random foolishness. The white man is going down by his own hands and we the American people are just standing by watching you fall like flies. Continue to play hate your days are numbered white man.

god bless america   July 13th, 2009 9:36 pm ET

my god, and people say that whites are racists? if anything, blacks are even biggest more foul racists nowadays

ronnie patrick   July 13th, 2009 9:42 pm ET

Go sit in a corner Kirby you are not very bright. There are so many whites on the bench for life and was in the past also that should not be there or have been there to include other judgeships in this free world. Get a life you sad foolish white people. I am ashame of you .Everyday we read or hear breaking news it is about you and the horrible crimes you have committed we laugh everyday at you.You make big , big news everyday. During terrible things not only to others but also to yourselves. Campus killing at universities, high schools, malls, churches, just to name a few. Your race is sick and I do mean sick. Your time is over and praise God for it.

Mahrose   July 13th, 2009 9:51 pm ET

Where is Miko Brando these days? He should be a wealth of information considering his relationship with MJ. Why does my gut tell me that something is wrong here. I sincerely hope that the Jackson family receives some answers soon so they can move on withthe grieving process.

Pooya   July 13th, 2009 9:52 pm ET

There is no correlation between being a great intellectual and being a great human. Michael was a great artist but that does not mean he was an exceptional human being. So please trying to paint him as a great artist rather than trying to make him a saint, A champion of civil rights, an extremely great person who dedicated his life to public service.
Real heroes were the parents who adopted 12 kids, mostly down syndrome, whom have been brutally murdered. These are the people to take our responsibility to take care of these kids. Isn’t it fair to think who takes care of those poor kids who can not take care of themselves because of their physical conditions whim unlike Jackson’s kids may have no grandma to take care of them with millions of dollars in their trust!!!
Isn’t it fair to have a word about their murder, future of their kids, social crime rather than 24/7 speculation about Michael Jackson. Please show there is some journalism still there.

Gina   July 13th, 2009 9:53 pm ET

Judge Sotomayor will bring a new life to the Supreme Bench but so what she said what she said, it doesn't demean her qualifications!

LaLa   July 13th, 2009 9:53 pm ET

LARRY – YOU DO MICHAEL JACKSON COVERAGE BETTER THAN ANY ONE! Please Stay on the case until we find out WHO KILLED Michael Jackson! Don't let all the Racists Posts at Fox News discourage you in your coverage and CNN will blow Fox News Ratings out of the Sky!

ronnie patrick   July 13th, 2009 9:55 pm ET

God Bless America : what makes you think I am black? For your information I am white. You need to go figure that out. Not all whites are as stupid as most whites are that is to include you.

wally from ohio   July 13th, 2009 9:55 pm ET

I am sorry that Ms. Hill was unsuccessful in getting Clarence Thomas removed from Supreme Court consideration. Clarence Thomas is the most ill equipped, stunted Supreme Court Justice in recent history. One of the troubling aspects of the Republican Party is its propensity to select intellectual midgets to carry forward its agenda. Its chooses people like Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas who know they are in over their heads and thus feel obligated to carry out the GOP agenda out of gratitude more than belief.

Bonnie Slaven   July 13th, 2009 9:59 pm ET

Michael Jackson murdered..... more like assisted suicide! He surely knew the risks involved with using those heavy duty drugs.

Robert Greer   July 13th, 2009 10:06 pm ET

I agree that when sympathy or empathy are used to decide the party with the best legal case may lose. As with affirmative action, the most qualified candidate my be denied the possition. How would a person like to be the white guy denied a promotion because no black candidates qualified. Those tests are not perfect, but they the most objective measure of knowledge. We need the very best candidate period!!!

elizabeth   July 13th, 2009 10:10 pm ET

Anita Hill's comments were not informative; she had not done any research on Sotomayor nor did she has she had any special direct experiences to share. Why have her on the show? How shallow...

Moms Hugs   July 13th, 2009 10:20 pm ET

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Judge Sotomayor a UNANIMOUS "WELL QUALIFIED" rating – the HIGHEST RATING given by the Committee's 15 members, who judged Sonia Sotomayor to be of exceptional ability to be a Supreme Court Justice!

The ABA Federal Judiciary Committee gave Judge Sotomayor its highest rating based upon her INTEGRITY, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE AND JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT for the Supreme Court.
Only 3 ratings ("well qualified" – "qualified" – "unqualified") are given based upon the ABA's long-held criteria. All but one of the current Supreme Court Justices have received "well qualified" ratings (the ABA rated Clarence Thomas as "qualified").

The ABA Standing Committee does not take into account a nominee's philosophy, political affiliation or ideology. While the criteria of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament are the basis for the Standing Committee's evaluation of all federal court nominees, the Committee's investigations of Supreme Court nominees are particularly rigorous and the peer-review process is structured to achieve impartial evaluations. The significance, range and complexity of the issues considered by the Supreme Court demand that nominees appointed to the Court be of exceptional ability.

The ABA, founded in 1878, has provided evaluations of judicial nominees since 1953. The Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary consists of 15 members – 2 from the Ninth Circuit, 1 from each of the other 12 federal judicial circuits and 1 member-at-large – appointed for staggered 3-year terms by the President of the ABA based on their reputations for professional competence, integrity and devotion to public service. Each member of the Standing Committee spends roughly 1,000 hours per year on a voluntary basis to provide this vital public service.

MB   July 13th, 2009 10:29 pm ET

@ Ronnie Patrick
Your ignorance and lack of education are evident by your inability to compose a grammatically correct sentence. How can any person take you seriously? Note: the question is rhetorical.

Eddie Bazor   July 13th, 2009 10:31 pm ET

All women owe you a debt of gratitude for the stand you took during the c.Thomas hearings. In the mid 1950ies I was a college professor and I was apalled that the men in high positions would attempt sexual advances toward me, a single, nonflirtatious women. Until Anita Hill came forward to try to make the selection committee aware of the questionable practices of the nominee I had never been able to reveal to anyone what had happened to me. It took me 35 years to say anything, and that was to my closest friends . She was extremely brave to be grilled the way she was, and for no personal gain whatsoever. Even though CT was still appointed, she served a great cause.

Moms Hugs   July 13th, 2009 11:10 pm ET

The true travesty is the character assassination of Professor Anita Hill for having the courage to tell the FBI investigators her experiences as a subordinate of Clarence Thomas. Her statements were given (under threat of perjury) in response to investigators' questions regarding similar allegations made by other women. She alone was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee as a result, and again was required to answer their questions under threat of perjury. She was (& continues to be) castigated for telling the Committee what she and other women had told the FBI investigators about Clarence Thomas' behavior at the EEOC.

Many people, attorneys included, experience similar bad behavior on the part of superiors, which present significant risks to one's career if reported. Prof. Hill did what any rational person does under those circumstances – her job – while she searched for other positions. Prof. Hill had very high academic & professional standing to be hired by any university law school – a career she worked hard to attain.

As it was, her life was turned upside down. David Brock finally came clean years later that the American Spectator paid him a lot of money to make up dirt about Prof. Hill if he didn't find any & he did just that. However, the damage done to her, professionally & personally, was so extensive it could not be undone... especially so many years later.

It is so easy for people to spout off in comment sections, but not so easy to walk in another person's path through life. I sincerely hope many of you will reconsider your opinion of Professor Hill, an esteemed Constitutional legal scholar at Brandeis University .

RoseParvin   July 13th, 2009 11:18 pm ET

I would like to see Judge SotoMayor accepted and spend the rest of her time serving the law and the American People! I would also pray that she does not participate in the denial of me after they have made sure she too sounds just like me with my identity and my deserving honors! But I must believe in goodness in human nature after all the bad I have seen for 12 year hoping with the like of the Judge and Anita Hills a fine attorney and the like of her we can resolve much that is a problem!

Robert   July 14th, 2009 12:38 am ET


Ricky Dhami   July 14th, 2009 12:46 am ET

Hi everybody, I just wanted to say that I believe Michael was not murdered because I don't think any type of murder could lead to a cardiac arrest, and Michael probably would've said something about a murderer while the ambulance was taking him to the hospital.

This is NOT Kim Jong ILL   July 14th, 2009 1:03 am ET

Judge Sonia Sota Mayor is misunderstood like Michael Jackson, the Republicans are bitter and they want revenge, even if it means taking out Judge Mayor, by all means necessary.

Beverly   July 14th, 2009 1:18 am ET

Ms. Hill I applaud your past bravery as well as all your accomplishments. To place yourself in the line of fire in such a public forum with the "Good Old Boys" shows a courage that is to be commended. Just because Clarence Thomas was appointed in spite of his CRIME does not mean your allegations were not true. It shows yet one more time how our justice system does not always work. I appreciated your comments on the show and here on this blog. I feel confident that Judge Sotomayor will be a wonderful asset to our Supreme Court. She is a very qualified nominee who so happens to be hispanic and who happens to be a woman. Seems like whipped cream on apple pie to me, not necessary but it does make the pie that much better.

Skip   July 14th, 2009 2:02 am ET

god bless America

I agree that predictability in the "application" of the law is a good thing but judges don't "apply the law. Police officers and prosecutors apply the law. Judges "interpret" the law and predictability in interpreting the law in not good since any given situation has its own unique set of events. This requires an intelligent, engaged and open mind, not someone who will just rubber stamp the side that falls in line with their ideology.
Clerkships are not for entertainment as you seem to think. Supreme court clerks should have the opportunity to assist with the rendering of diverse, high level and thought provoking decisions. An experience they are not presently getting under the more right wing leaning members of the high court.

Leonia   July 14th, 2009 4:05 am ET

How can people say the children cannot be raised in a black family because they are white. michael is the son of Mrs Jackson isn't he black ? even though his skin color changed I asure you he is still black. I'm an african american was a foster parent i adopted all of my children two white one mix mexican and white two full mexican and two black all got along very well and they are grown now and they are brothers you or no one can tell then they are not brothers. along with my three birth children. all 10 of my boys stick together

Horace   July 14th, 2009 4:57 am ET

Don't let a bad judge in! If she is going against discrimination cases,she doesn't need to be put in. I don't care what color she is ! If she is going against discrimination cases,what does that tell you? She for big business ! I'm not totally against big business but when the court gets with big business against the little men and women because they are just that, big business, then we need to pick our
our judges carefully. Go find another hispanic for judge! All you folks who have been foreclosed. Remember the difficult judges who help foreclosed your house next time you vote ! We seem to foreget these guys,what's up with that ?

god bless america   July 14th, 2009 7:52 am ET

Skip, lets not assume what the other person thinks unless it is written.
I will have to note that I am a bit confused by the distinchtions you make with interpretation and application of the law. The law is the law, it is written, so we look at written words and legislative intent if the meaning of the statute is unclear from the words of it. When you note that "any given situation has its own unique set of events" do you mean factual events? If yes, then you trying to APPLY the law to a set of facts, which are unique, I agree. But even among unique sets of facts, certain trends and/or certain important facts are in common. If it were otherwise, the power of precedent, or stare decisis, would be nil.
I also have to disagree that predictability in statutory interpretation (or interpretation of constitution) is a bad thing. If today law means one thing and in a week law means something else, then how would I know what the law means in three days? And if society does not know what is allowed and what is forbidden, then the decision-making in the society is paralized to a certain extent.
Next, I disagree with the idea that the law clerk somehow get less meaningful experience if they clerk for the right wing judges and not left wing judges. The fact that the judges are thought of as belonging to a "wing" implies certain ideology in judges' decision. Looking at the supreme court, the only judge whose clerks get valuable experience is Justice Kennedy.

tommymack   July 14th, 2009 12:24 pm ET

When Alberto Gonzales was nominated to be attorney general by George W in 2004, only 6 moderate Democrats voted to confirm his nomination. Where were all the Hispanics screaming "racism" at the liberals who all voted "no" on his appointment? You liberals are such a bunch of hypocrits, it is no wonder every major poll shows the number of Conservatives now out number those who call themselves "liberals". Larry King has lost it completely. Inviting Anita Hill to comment on anything is a travesty. Asking her to comment on Supreme Court Justices is a disgrace. Larry, you became irrelevant when man first invented the wheel - which would have been when you were in, what, about fifth grade?

vickie G.   July 14th, 2009 4:18 pm ET

I'm disgusted with the confirmation of S. Sotomayor, truthfully there's a need for some changes. Those old guys wants her to make one statement and that's be extra cruel on blacks and give them the maximum sentence. I'm sure if Ms. Sotomayor would make a statement similar to my words, the confirmation would soon come to an end.

mel   July 14th, 2009 9:04 pm ET

We will miss you Michael Jackson God bless your soul and your family. you have done good things to this place we call earth than anyonle else i have known. you will in everyone's heart forever. it is sas what had happened the whole world could not believe it, even in my country Ethiopia everybody cried their eyes out for you because you were one of a kind, and we have never forgotten what you have done for us. You are simply love. But let us not worry even if if we wanted you here with us you are in a better place know. Rest in Peace Mr. Michael Jackson there will never be another human being like you.
God Bless you and everybody.

A. Bell   July 14th, 2009 10:42 pm ET

If af similar controversial comment such as Judge Sotomayer had been made by a man he would not be appointed to the Supreme court.
CT should NOT have been appointed.

Jennifer   July 15th, 2009 9:39 am ET

While it is clear that Judge Sotomayer, a Princeton undergrad and Yale Law School graduate and experienced federal judge, is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court, Republican Senators continue to harp on a few comments Judge Sotomayer made in speeches. Is this because her record and credentials so obviously qualify her for the bench?

As I watch the hearings, in addition to the pounding so many males are giving a woman, not unlike that given to you, Professor Hill, I am struck by the presence of only two out of 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee being women themselves. The "pounding" and attempts to try to induce "a meltdown" and, therefore, show Judge Sotomayer as an unfit nominee drives home the point that sexism in the Senate and in the legal profession is still rampant and more women need to be placed on the Judiciary Committee, just as there needs to be more women on the Supreme Court itself.

Mike   July 15th, 2009 11:30 am ET

Jennifer I am going to overstep my bounds right now.I know it, but I'm going to anyway. I really don't know you so take it or leave it...

Jennifer, were you so outraged at how the liberal bias media, Democrats and other ugly women alike pounded unmercifully, unjustifiably and in a mean spirit of just spewing hate towards Sarah Palin? And continue to! Where were all your women's rights groups to protect and look out for her? NOWHERE TO BE SEEN! The just and rightous women of the world looking out for "ALL" the women are nothing more then a bunch of hypocritaes and bigots! If we like you, we have your back... however if you are strong, bold and have conviction and values you are on your own.

If this applies, WEAR IT! If not disregard... Judge your own actions for yourself!

Southern Man   July 15th, 2009 1:20 pm ET

I am baffled as to what effect or interest anyone could possibly have regarding Anita Hill. I mean she really is nothing more than someone who opposed another proposed Justice. It is quite irrelevent as to what her opinion is.

That said, Sotomayer regardless of her education had demonstrated over the many years her true feelings. The "few comments" Jennifer describes were comments not made on just one or two occassions but rather comments made on multiple occassions and again reflect her true feelings about the Constitution and how the law should be applied. Her answers in these hearings are well scripted and well rehearsed. The comments at these hearings do not matter, much like when a politician is running for office. They say what needs to be said to get elected.

Skip   July 15th, 2009 3:48 pm ET

god bless America

Your analysis of semantics proves my point that we need open minded and intelligent judges such as Sotomayor who understand the nuances in the definition of words as they apply facts on the high court. The "richness of her experiences" gives her the unique ability to look at any situation and render a "diverse" intelligent and open minded opinion. The battle for and against her nomination is about fairness for all against a continued deference to the desires of a privileged class of men. Justices Thomas, Alito and Scalia represent maintaining the status quo at all costs. Sotomayor represents opening up the judicial system so that most Americans can feel they have a fair chance under the eyes of the law.

The founding fathers created the Constitution as a fluid document. Stare Decisis has an important role but the founding fathers knew that it should not apply in every situation. Judgments based on Stare Decisis have been for the greater good and also have institutionalized further oppression of our citizens (Plessy v Furgerson). The court that rendered that decision had no diversity and thought that they were adhering strictly to the constitution. A mindset in which the right wingers of today feel that each person that sits on the high court should have.

The right wing loves to hold up Justice Thomas or Sarah Palin as their proof that they are embracing diversity. The appointment of Thomas was an insult not only to minorities but to all Americans and tarnished the legacy of Thurgood Marshall. Talk about Affirmative Action!!! I don't always agree with Bill Maher but he stated it well when he said that the Republicans found the only black man that didn't like black people. Sarah Palin just does not have the intellect, experience, demeanor or world view to be President or Vice President and not only most women but most Americans know this.

James   July 15th, 2009 4:04 pm ET

Skip, not Michael Jackson was the other black man who didn't like black people... give me a break on the Republican bashing. If the Republicans do anything for minorities it's politically motivated and shallow... AND THE DEMOCRATS DON'T!?!?!? I remember how the minorities loved Bill Clinton, "he was the first black president"... once stated. Now look at how minorities bash him. Both parties doing things for... wait a second, hold on, can you handle this Skip.... POLITICAL REASONS! And I'm sorry Dems have done very little in the last 20 years to help minorities. All people, not just blacks, do you know what you can do to do better... GET OFF YOUR BUTTS STOP MAKING EXCUSES AND GET MOTIVATED! AND YES THAT INCLUDES DURING THIS BAD TIME!

Nada Holtzclaw   July 15th, 2009 4:47 pm ET

Thanks , Anita Hill. Wonder how much longer these Republicans can ask her the same question? She's enduring it well. I bet her Mom can hardly endure it though. It's because the Republicans are so determined to oppose Obama in everything he tries to do. If Congress would cooperate our Country could make great advances. " A house divided against itsself cannot stand."

god bless america   July 15th, 2009 4:59 pm ET


Again, I have to disagree with you on a few issues.

1. You write "we need open minded and intelligent judges such as Sotomayor who understand the nuances in the definition of words as they apply facts on the high court."
I am not sure if Sotomayor is such a judge, considering her admission (only when she was pressured into it) that the so-called "wise Latina" phrase was a bad choice of words. Also those words that courts (of appeal??? not sure) is where policy is made also do not resotate well.

2. You write that "[t]he “richness of her experiences” gives her the unique ability to look at any situation and render a “diverse” intelligent and open minded opinion." What does it mean? I think it would be better if the opinion is fair, rather than diverse. And if we talk about "richness of experience" shouldnt we mention Justice Thomas whose life story is as rich as Judge Sotomayor's? Shouldnt we also mention Miguel Estrada whose richness of experience is even greater (siince he arrived in the US only when he was 17)? Or "richness of experience" is reserved only for left wing leaning judge nominees?

3. You write that "battle for and against her nomination is about fairness for all against a continued deference to the desires of a privileged class of men." How was her decision fair to Frank Ricci? And how is a principle that discrimination is wrong regardless of the race of a victim and a perpetrator is a continued deference to the desires of a privileged class of men?

4. You write that "Sotomayor represents opening up the judicial system so that most Americans can feel they have a fair chance under the eyes of the law." Why would they feel so because of Sotomayor? Because she is Latina? Because she is a woman? Because she is left-leaning? Again, lets get back to Ricci.

5. "The founding fathers created the Constitution as a fluid document." What is the authority for that proposition? The fluidity in constitution is supposed to be achieved by one mechanism and one mechanism only: amendment. The authority for THIS proposition is in constitution itself. Other than that, it is legislation from the bench, which is a role of our elected officials.

6. You mentioned that the Plessi court reached this decision and the court had no diversity. If you're implying that the court reached this decision BECAUSE it had no diversity, then I would say that Brown v Board of Education decision ("separate but equal" doctrine unconstitutional) was also reached by old white men, so diversity does not matter that much.

7. You're stating that the appointment of Thomas was an insult to all americans and tarnished the legacy of Justice Marshall. Justice Marshall, in arguing "Brown v Board of Education" stated "That the Constitution is color-blind is our dedicated belief." –Plaintiffs' brief in Brown v. Board of Education. Justice Thomas supports this assertion by repeatedly and wholeheartedly applying the 14th amendment in a color blind fashion. If anything, Justice Thomas keeps the legacy of Justice Marshall's most powerful statement.

8. Saying that Justice Thomas does not like other black people is something that Bill Maher would say, but it is incorrect, again. Justice Thomas is all for letting black people to succeed or fail on their own merits, rather than allowing "soft bigotry of low expectations" and providing the crutch of affirmative actions. How is it not liking them?

If anything, affirmative actions hurt blacks or other supposed beneficiaries, as a group. On a historic level, I notice that successful ethnic minorities never benefited from affirmative actions. Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Indians were never beneficiaries of affirmative actions. On individual level, minorities admitted under affirmative action programs are more likely to fail in an educational institute. "Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study" by Thomas Sowell. At the same time, minorities succeeded in endeavors which did not require affirmative actions: sports, entertainment. On a society level, affirmative actions breed mistrust and resentment from whites who were rejected for the advantage offered to minority applicants (acceptance, employment, promotion etc). While an argument that affirmative actions just level th eplaying field is possible, it is not very persuasive, as the playing field is never leveled: if it were, I'd be tall, dark, handsome, smart like Oliver Wendell Holmes, play football like Tom Brady and date Giselle Bundchen.

3. With regard to Sarah Palin, well, it is an interesting subject. She has enough intellect to learn everything she needs. She needs only time. With regard to experience I will have to agree: she has only slightly more experience than Obama, and Obama is failing miserably. So probably she will fail, but not as miserably.

4. As to Sarah Palin being a token female, I will have to remind you of Sandra Day O'Connor (appointed by Reagan) and Condi Rice (appointed by W). Why is it that when a woman or a minority is appointed by a republican, she is "a token" minority or woman who is not a true woman or minority, while when appointed by Democrats, it is "a breakthrough." A little consistency please

Skip   July 16th, 2009 1:16 am ET

god bless America

This debate has veered off course from Michael Jackson to Bill Clinton. I will attempt to get us back on track.

Consistency will never be acheived until there is consistency in the selection of minority candidates by both parties. Look at the true intent in the selection of minority candidates for high profile positions along party lines. You mentioned Condi Rice and Miguel Estrada while they both have the "richness of their experiences" to draw upon they choose not to and join the monolith of right wing thinking without consideration for the affect that this ideology has on the majority of Americans. They are both extremely intelligent, hard working and more than qualified for the positions which they have been appointed but by the same token they must not veer from the party line in any way lest they be vilified as Colin Powell has for actually speaking with an independent mind. Therein lies the difference between minority appointments from the right and the left. Appointments by the left or center are free to speak their minds and actually initiate "fairness" in their actions which help others who are less powerful.

The privleged class would have others believe that "hard work" is the only measure of succuess while they enjoy the benefits of legacy appointments, good ole boy networks, secret societies and good ole fashion racism. They scream reverse racism when there are attempts to level the playing field while ignoring the benefits they have received from "reverse affirmative action". I feel for Mr Ricci as losing a promotion to a qualified minority although they scored lower on a test is devasting however no more devasting than being qualified and laughed at then having your applcation thrown in the trash because you dared apply for a job. Or no more devasting than being impaled with a broom handle because you dared to visit a friend in a neighborhood in which you were not welcome. Of course the privliged class will say they would be attacked if they went to the ghetto or barrio but guess what so would other minorites if they did not live there. Actually the minorities would be attacked quicker and more violently than a white person because any criminal worth his salt knows they would get less time for attacking a minority. The ghetto and barrios have a "crime" problem not a race problem. Judges like Sotomayor understand this.

As a member of a family whose patriarch was a friend and confidant of the late Thurgood Marshall I assure you that the appointment of Thomas to take his place was an insult on so many levels. One of which you pointed out. Thomas applying Justice Marshalls words to insure the continued status quo of the priviliged class is certainly not what Justice Marshall intended.

Actually the court that rendered the Brown v Board of education was a more diverse court. Diversity goes to more than just race as you say "old white men" there is also diversity of experiences and thought.

The left sometimes to their detriment have never been a monolithic force of true believers which vote as one block. Hence "blue dog" democrats, congressional black caucus, hispanic caucus etc. The point is this is representative diversity which is good for all Americans.

How much more time does Sarah Palin need to be ready for high office? She is in her fourties and her leadership abilities should be blindingly apparent by now. Her experience is that of a Governor of a State that has less people than the City of Chicago and certainly less than the State of Illinois of which Obama was a senator.

You say that succuesfull miniorities never benefited from affirmative action. I'm not sure how you define affirmative action but those minority communities you speak of banned together to become a powerful force to win economic and political concessions (affirmative action) or they already were succuesfull in their own homelands before coming to the United States. Historically when native americans and blacks attempted this in their homeland their communities were bombed (Tulsa, Ok Rosewood, Fl) and burned down. The best and the brightest of their communities were hung, burned at the stake or shot and their communities "ethnically cleansed" thru the rape of their women. In case you are wondering all of this occurred here in America and not too long ago. (The last lynching was in 1986, the impalement occured just last year)

Judges like Sotomayor have the historical knowledge and perspective to understand that the past has a bearing on the future of us all.

As gentlemen we will have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinions and have openly expressed agreement with some of them. You however have not agreed with anything I have written and therein lies another difference between the right and the center and the left. Only thru compromise, open minded thinking and respect for others can we move forward together as a country. Ideals which I feel have been lost by many on the right.

Mike   July 16th, 2009 9:24 am ET

Skip, we are not living in 1960 anymore. It's a different world and people are not oppresssed like they once were. Is there racism still, yes. There always will be. People will look at someone with long hair and think I'm not hiring that person. However we are a long way from where we were.

1. We need to be Americans first and everything else second.

2. If we continue to look at hiring people because of race or gender we are going to continue to be second, third, and fourth in the world. We need to hire the best qualified person available.Period!

Skip   July 16th, 2009 11:57 am ET


I totally agree with you that we should hire the best qualified. The problem is that sometimes the best qualified is a minority and they still don't get hired or promoted.

Right wing politicians have used "Affirmative Action" as a battle cry for so long to get votes that unfortunately people now believe that any minority in a position of authority, prestige or power received that position thru affirmative action.

In reality affirmative action programs are rare and are only in place where an institution has shown a historical pattern of not hiring, accepting or promoting minorities.

The reason why America is is losing ground on the world stage is not because of hiring practices but goes directly to education. We are not educating our youth and I mean all of our youth well. The way we educate our kids with some getting a good education and others substandard (primarily minorities) is like sending our troops into battle and only giving half of them weapons to defend themselves.

The right wings war on science and art education does not help either. These two subjects alone account for a lot of creative and innovative thinking.

True people are not as oppressed as they once were but wealth builds up over time and true wealth passes on from generation to generation. If a group has not been allowed to gain wealth or had their wealth taken or destroyed then this affects future generations.

I am a bit more optimistic and believe that racism can be overcome and you hit the solution right on the head. We do have to stop thinking of ourselves as Aryans, skinheads, Klansmen, etc and start thinking of ourselves as Americans.

"Together we stand and divided we fall"

JC   July 16th, 2009 2:47 pm ET

God Bless America, you call your self this. Why not I walk on water.
Conservative or racist?? which one you fall into I know RACIST.

Mike   July 16th, 2009 6:28 pm ET

Skip: "I totally agree with you that we should hire the best qualified. The problem is that sometimes the best qualified is a minority and they still don't get hired or promoted. "

There are alot of reasons that people get passed over that one would think are unjust, not just minorities. America has made GREAT strides in giving opportunities to minorities over the last several decades. You are NEVER going to eliminate people being judged unfairly... whether they are Jewish, Italian, Black, Hispanic, Oriental... etc... We are never going to have "utopia" on this issue.

So when does the in your face this is an atrosity that needs to be elminiated attitude going to calm down... I'm only 41 years old but after hearing it for the last couple decades and seeing the improvements made it's getting old and tiring to listen to. People need to stop whinning and start standing up and overcoming road blocks in front of them... and black people are not the only people with challenges in life.

Christina J.   July 21st, 2009 2:04 am ET

Well said Ms. Hill, I agree 100%

cindy   August 2nd, 2009 5:49 am ET

I love seeing how intimidated these men get knowing a women gets to make important decisions..and even worse a women of ethnicity........Goes to prove that yes women are held back from men like these with innate fears of women with power.

Mike   August 3rd, 2009 12:10 pm ET

Cindy... Were you saying the same thing about Sarah Palin or just being hypocritical like every other womans movement group?

John Boyle   August 5th, 2009 8:41 pm ET

No. Sotomayor should not be allowed on the Supreme Court because of her racist comments. Everyone should be judged by their comments, this woman is a racist.

JC   August 6th, 2009 10:26 am ET

Kirby that is not hispanic, that might come from the KKK please. Sonia Sotomayor is over Qualified. To many uneducated people can not understand the educate. Go Sonia Go. Makes us proud Puerto Ricans

JC AKA Porolo   August 6th, 2009 10:28 am ET

Go Sonia GO

Shirley   August 7th, 2009 9:48 pm ET

Ms. Hill, I am so glad if any one you are the one who wrote this article. I remember back when Judge Thomas was being nominated, I was glued to the tv listening, and i just want to let you know, I believed you then and still do. Wouldnt it be nice if you were appointed lol All the best to you.

Comments have been closed for this article

Keep up to date with Larry

Follow him on Twitter

Become a fan on Facebook

Contact us
Go Behind The Scenes


LARRY KING LIVE'S Emmy-winning Senior Executive Producer Wendy Walker knows what it takes to make a great story.

With anecdotes, provocative emails, scandals, show transcripts and insights into Walker's long working relationship with Larry King, her new book PRODUCER issues readers an invitation to listen in on the most intriguing conversations on the planet.

Order from:
Barnes & Noble

King of Hearts

Larry King's King of Hearts

Saving a heart a day is the goal! Learn more about the Foundation and it's efforts to help the uninsured

Visit the Larry King Cardiac Foundation.

subscribe RSS Icon
Powered by VIP