T1 nominated for the Supreme Court

I'm watching the press conference for the new Supreme Court nominee and was interested to see that Sonia Sotomayor was diagnosed at age 8.   Now, this isn't a post to start a political fire storm!  I just think it's great to see a type 1 in such a high powered position.  It sounds as if her diabetes is going to be a topic of discussion during the vetting process so I, for one, will be watching closely to see if they distinguish type 1 and type 2 and if the stigma we all face will be a barrier to her being confirmed.  Here is a link to one article I ran across...  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/sotomayors-medical-histor_n_203032.html


It is frustrating to see people like Howard Ball - a type 2 - claiming to have such absolute wisdom on all diabetes-related medical 'facts'.  The truth is that if she has a good history of maintainence and A1Cs that are in line with medical recommendation that his claim "that she will not become a viable possibility" is baseless and without merit.



It does make you feel good to see a type 1 in a position like this. Maybe we can finally see the differences between type 1 and 2 in the media?

Thanks for this post.  I was just reading CNN.com's story about her nomination and didn't realize that she was a T1 diabetic.  

Being a T1 should be off the table.  Sotomayor has been a federal judge for 16+ years (6 as a district court judge, 10+ as a circuit court judge).  If being T1 were a legitimate impediment to serving as a federal judge, it should have been brought up during her first confirmation hearings.

While it would be great to have a T1 on the Supreme Court as proof that T1 is not an impediment to achieving great things, I have to reject her.  During a 2001 speech at Berkeley, she said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”  If John Roberts were to have said "I would hope 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," he would have been properly rejected.  And unless we are into double-standards, we should also reject Sotomayor.  A Supreme Court justice's job is to interpret and apply the law regardless of the social standing of the parties before it.  That's why the Greek goddess of Justice Iustitia typically wears a blindfold.

Very disappointing to me as a T1 and as a lawyer.

the jdrf made an announcement about it http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=111980

Thanks for the link Gina - the second paragraph was exactly my point -  "According to JDRF, Ms. Sotomayor represents another important role model for people living with diabetes.  As a result of clinical advances and research progress, people with type 1 diabetes can have full and successful lives.  Role models show children with diabetes that they can achieve anything in life, even growing up to be Olympic Gold medal winners, Oscar-nominated actresses, Ironman tri-athletes, leading business CEOs, and now Supreme Court nominees."

There are many out here who think they will be limited with what they can accomplish and I was hoping people could see this as a positive that we shouldn't let diabetes slow us down!  Thanks again.

OH MY GOODNESS... Read this latest article by the TIMES, Her Diabetes will it be a handicap? http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1900962,00.html

Wow - thanks for that link too Gina.  Jay was right that it shouldn't even be on the table.  Just that she be judged on her record not whether or not she has Type 1.  I have no problem if she gets rejected, just don't make it because of Type 1 diabetes......

yea and now, if she does get rejected it is totally going to be because of the diabetes. Even if they say its not.

If she is rejected it will more likely be because she was nominated by a democrat president and the republicans can throw enough mud to get her not approved.

She should be evaluated on her legal mind and the following shoud have no bearing:

1. T1 Diabetes

2. Gender

3. Ethnicity


You would think they would want the best possible person to do the job and not worry about those things. I am really curious to see how this all ends up.

I've been following what's happening with Sotomayor too.

Gina- Thank you for the link to the Time article.  It brings to light how little T1 is understood by the layperson.  I wonder who wrote the article and where they got their information?  They refer to insulin pumps and say that pumps are permanently implanted under the skin (the pump itself isnt' implanted, and the infusion sets aren't permanent either!).  They keep pointing out that complications are going to get the best of her (things like heart problems which can happen to anyone)... while completely ignoring the fact that a more immediate concern might be having highs or lows on the job, which could impact her judgement.

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

So far, the only article by a major news outlet that doesn't discourage her from the position because she is a T1.


[quote user="Ashley Kay"]

So far, the only article by a major news outlet that doesn't discourage her from the position because she is a T1.



I read the article.  A couple of things stuck out to me.  First:

"Sotomayor, who would be the first type 1 diabetic on the high court if confirmed, was "religious" about monitoring her blood sugar levels, said Rudy Aragon, an attorney in Miami, Florida who attended Yale University Law School with Sotomayor."

Sonia graduated from Yale in 1979.  The only way she could have religuiosly tested her blood sugar back then was to go to a doctor's office.  Maybe he's been around her since like 1988 or so though.

"Key to Sotomayor's chance of living that long, said ADA's Robertson, would be her blood-sugar control. The endocrinologist and professor of medicine and pharmacology at the University of Washington in Seattle said that, if he were vetting the candidate, he might check the results of her A1c tests -- a measure of long-term blood-sugar control.

Typically, people in Sotomayor's socioeconomic group would score a 7 to 8 percent on the test, with a nondiabetic scoring about 5 percent.

If the test result came back 13 percent, "you'd say how responsible is this person?" he said."

So if someone is not a diabetic and wants to be on the Supreme Court, would they test their cholesterol to see how responsible this person is?  Is it OK to be a diabetic on the Supreme Court, but only if you're a good diabetic?  In my mind, it is only slightly less discriminatory to say diabetics can only be on the Supreme Court if they're good diabetics, than to say diabetics can't be on the Supreme Court.


times got quite an earful via email from me about that article :)

[quote user="Carrie"]

times got quite an earful via email from me about that article :)


What did you tell them?  I'm curious.