# Sotomayor: Maybe a Racist. Definitely an Egomaniac. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 16, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269 "2009-07-16T21:54:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/61 "2009-07-17T21:02:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A strict dinner and a show minimum. No exceptions. Well, not very many. That’s not required to make me a hard dick, though it might be required to make me soft again. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/62 "2009-07-17T21:02:48Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > You would hope such would be the case…my experience is that Supreme Court justices are human beings. I have no doubt they are. But some human failings are more serious than others. I don’t see much to choose between this and the kind of stuff my grandmother used to say - “you know what those colored folk are like”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/63 "2009-07-17T21:17:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, if you start to equate “wise” with infallible, or omniscient, wouldn’t that hold for the white male, as well? There are many aspects of a case. assuming one’s ethnic background might give one a clearer view through one prism does not meant that they have the same appreciation of all other views of the case. I’m not equating wise with those things, at least as far as i’m aware - i’m equating being wise with making wiser decisions, which generally seems to be the idea. And that’s the point; there are no omniscient or infallible people, so even the wisest person is liable to miss things, either in facts or in recognising biases in their own judgement. If you have multiple different viewpoints, there’s more of a chance you can cover each other’s blindspots, as you say. > [@](#): > > Again, I can buy the argument that a diverse court helps ensure that the court, in total, would have a greater appreciation for more aspects of a case, but that doesn’t equate to the individual. I have this odd notion that people of different races are basically equal in ability. Now, if you’d like to offer evidence that supports the idea that Latinos or Latinas or Woman are more intelligent or wiser, as a rule, I’d be happy to hear it. Thanks for that insinuation. The point of covering each other’s blindspots is that it’s important in cases where multiple viewpoints are in error in some way. But it’s as possible that there are cases where some don’t have a blindspot, or at least have it such that it cannot be aided by the other viewpoints avaliable. If the base assumption is that people are of equal wisdom - as it should be, of course - then the only difference that will affect their judgements is personal experiences. If your team is a wise chess player and a wise non-chess player, then a case on fraud will likely benefit equally from both their views. But if it’s a case on chess, then the chess player likely will have more knowledge to bring forth, since all being equal they can understand the subject better and the player’s mistakes will be the same as the non-players’. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/64 "2009-07-17T21:28:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Being able to better see one aspect of a case does not necessarily equate with one generating a wiser decision. It’s just as likely that she/he give it too much weight. Also, you are assuming that being a member of a group automatically equates with a better understanding of the case. I don’t buy that. Okay, that’s fine, but I’m not trying to convince you that her opinion is right, merely that her opinion is not racist. While there are many possible objections to the idea that the person with the best insight into the issues facing members of a particular group are members of that group, I don’t think the idea itself is racist, as there’s no element of it that places one group above or below another. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/65 "2009-07-17T22:10:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But her point is not that the body of the court would be wiser in total, but that she, by virtue of being Latina would be wiser than a white male. She’s not discussing herself, though. If she were talking about herself at this point in the speech, you’d still be wrong but you’d at least have an argument. The context does not support the idea that she’s praising Latinas to praise herself. (I’ll grant that she said Latina instead of Latino because she’s Latina.) > [@](#): > > Also, it’s quite possible that someone with her background might make a less wise ruling, based on her bias. Which I think played a role in the firefighters’ case. What New Haven did was unfair, but the issue Sotomayor was ruling on was whether or not Title VII was violated and they had a right to sue, not whether or not New Haven made the right call in tossing the exam results. I’m not sure how I feel about it, frankly. The firefighters got screwed. I think they probably had a right to sue, but if New Haven had made the opposite decision, they also might have been sued, which is not right. And if you think she was prejudiced by race, you’ll have to explain why some of her white colleagues agreed with her. The two judges who heard the initial appeal with Sotomayor - Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack - are both white. I’m not going to look up the race of all 13 judges who were involved in the case, but suffice to say not all of them are of Sotomayor’s ethnicity, even though seven of them agreed the lower court made the correct decision. Believing Sotomayor is prejudiced against white people is like believing Obama is prejudiced against white people. If you really think they have a problem with them, you have to wonder why they chose to work with and around them for their livelihood, and in Obama’s case, to represent them and depend on them as voters. If they really don’t like white people you think they might, yunno, not want to be with them so much. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/66 "2009-07-17T22:50:45Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > Everyone knows the infamous quote by now, so I won’t repeat it. > > Never mind the Latina part, but what kind of conceited gasbag seriously refers to herself as “wise” in a public lecture? I guess you have to _believe_ it in order to function as a judge, but it takes a special kind of person to come right out and _say_ it. Criminy. If I were the Solicitor General, I’d be praying for some kind of scandal to break and ruin her nomination, just so I wouldn’t have to argue cases in front of her. And why is that, exactly? It sounds to me like you want her to keep quiet about her talents. Would you expect the same from a man, regardless of his race or ethnicity? No doubt throughout her career as a female and a Latina, she has faced hostilities that these white men know nothing about. I don’t see this as a Latina issue at all. I see this as a powerful and strong woman facing down a bunch of Old Guard. They don’t like this one bit and this is all they have found to hound her about. She is no less qualified than any other member of the Supreme Court, in fact, in some ways she is more qualified. I hope she makes it and raises hell on the bench, by which I mean she rules impartially, but with her hard found wisdom. Perhaps she could serve as an example for others on the bench, Scalia for a start. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/67 "2009-07-17T23:10:44Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Okay, that’s fine, but I’m not trying to convince you that her opinion is right, merely that her opinion is not racist. While there are many possible objections to the idea that the person with the best insight into the issues facing members of a particular group are members of that group, I don’t think the idea itself is racist, as there’s no element of it that places one group above or below another. I think her opinion is wrong. I also think the idea she expresses is racist. Guess we disagree. Well, there;s a first time for everything… ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/68 "2009-07-17T23:14:42Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m not equating wise with those things, at least as far as i’m aware - i’m equating being wise with making wiser decisions, which generally seems to be the idea. And that’s the point; there are no omniscient or infallible people, so even the wisest person is liable to miss things, either in facts or in recognising biases in their own judgement. If you have multiple different viewpoints, there’s more of a chance you can cover each other’s blindspots, as you say. As I’ve said more than once, a diversity of viewpoints, I think, helps ensure that the court—as a whole—will reach wiser decisions. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Thanks for that insinuation. I thought you might like that. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/69 "2009-07-17T23:22:48Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What New Haven did was unfair, but the issue Sotomayor was ruling on was whether or not Title VII was violated and they had a right to sue, not whether or not New Haven made the right call in tossing the exam results. I’m not sure how I feel about it, frankly. The firefighters got screwed. I think they probably had a right to sue, but if New Haven had made the opposite decision, they also might have been sued, which is not right. And if you think she was prejudiced by race, you’ll have to explain why some of her white colleagues agreed with her. The two judges who heard the initial appeal with Sotomayor - Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack - are both white. I’m not going to look up the race of all 13 judges who were involved in the case, but suffice to say not all of them are of Sotomayor’s ethnicity, even though seven of them agreed the lower court made the correct decision. I understand what her ruling was about. That doesn’t mean that the “richness of her experience” did not play a role in her opinion. > [@Marley23](#): > > Believing Sotomayor is prejudiced against white people is like believing Obama is prejudiced against white people. If you really think they have a problem with them, you have to wonder why they chose to work with and around them for their livelihood, and in Obama’s case, to represent them and depend on them as voters. If they really don’t like white people you think they might, yunno, not want to be with them so much. I don’t think that’s right. Someone could be prejudiced against black people and still want to play in major college or pro basketball. If someone wants to be a judge in the U.S., they’re going to have to be around white people a good part of the time. Do I think she is an outright racist? No. Do I think she believes in some sort Latina superiority? I can only go buy her own words. Now, I’m very willing to have those words excused as being badly chosen on that particular day, if she hasn’t repeated them. But the statement itself is plainly racist. Just change the quote to come out of a white male’s mouth. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/70 "2009-07-17T23:22:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think her opinion is wrong. I also think the idea she expresses is racist. Guess we disagree. Well, there;s a first time for everything… How is it racist, though? How is the idea that being a member of a group gives you better insight into the needs and problems facing that group racist? How is it even particularly controversial? > [@](#): > > As I’ve said more than once, a diversity of viewpoints, I think, helps ensure that the court—as a whole—will reach wiser decisions. How is that materially different from what Sotomayer has said? Why is it okay to say this about a group, but not about the individuals who make up the group? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/71 "2009-07-17T23:44:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > How is it racist, though? How is the idea that being a member of a group gives you better insight into the needs and problems facing that group racist? How is it even particularly controversial? > > How is that materially different from what Sotomayer has said? Why is it okay to say this about a group, but not about the individuals who make up the group? Let’s say, that an ultimately wise omniscient judge would determining that a particular case had 12 things that had to be taken into account. Let’s say, pretty much any well-trained judge would take into account 7 of those things. Let’s say one of the issues has to do with being a Latina. Well, a Latina would pretty much ensure that that aspect gets the consideration it deserves. And as she is part of a larger panel, the panel benefits by her experience. But while she may have special insight into that one aspect (where others might come up short), she does not have ALL the experience of ALL members of the court. Some will be black, rich, poor, the victim of a crime, a disabled person, etc. So, just because a justice brings a particular “richness” that helps the court as a panel, that does not mean that the appreciation she might have of one particular aspect of the case means she will arrive at a wiser decision. The point is that no one person will have a full appreciation for all aspects of the case. In this regard, diversity is helpful. But just highlighting one strength does not mean that she/he is better/wiser on balance. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/72 "2009-07-17T23:46:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > . > > These are _her_ words. She thinks that a wise _Latina_ would _more often tha_n not reach a _better_ decision than a white male. Read all her words. With that experience. Do you dispute that having experience in something helps you to make better decisions about it? > [@](#): > > Differently, yes. Better, no, not necessarily. Really? The experience of being discriminated against wouldn’t help anyone understand the issues better? That’s different from ways of interpreting the law, of course, but unless you think that judges can be replaced by computers, judgment and experience are going to have an impact. She’s saying that one has to be careful not to allow that to override what the law says, but it will have an impact, and a good one. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/73 "2009-07-17T23:51:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s say, that an ultimately wise omniscient judge would determining that a particular case had 12 things that had to be taken into account. Let’s say, pretty much any well-trained judge would take into account 7 of those things. Let’s say one of the issues has to do with being a Latina. Well, a Latina would pretty much ensure that that aspect gets the consideration it deserves. And as she is part of a larger panel, the panel benefits by her experience. But while she may have special insight into that one aspect (where others might come up short), she does not have ALL the experience of ALL members of the court. Some will be black, rich, poor, the victim of a crime, a disabled person, etc. So, just because a justice brings a particular “richness” that helps the court as a panel, that does not mean that the appreciation she might have of one particular aspect of the case means she will arrive at a wiser decision. The point is that no one person will have a full appreciation for all aspects of the case. In this regard, diversity is helpful. But just highlighting one strength does not mean that she/he is better/wiser on balance. This is pretty much precisely the message I got from Sotomayer’s speech. Where do you think she disagrees with you on this? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/74 "2009-07-18T00:04:47Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > And why is that, exactly? It sounds to me like you want her to keep quiet about her talents. Would you expect the same from a man, regardless of his race or ethnicity? No doubt throughout her career as a female and a Latina, she has faced hostilities that these white men know nothing about. > I don’t see this as a Latina issue at all. I see this as a powerful and strong woman facing down a bunch of Old Guard. They don’t like this one bit and this is all they have found to hound her about. She is no less qualified than any other member of the Supreme Court, in fact, in some ways she is more qualified. I don’t think she’s nearly that revolutionary or confrontational. I think the whole tempest comes from conservatives just waking up to the fact that they lost and they can’t expect to get enough judges on to overturn our rights. One Republican adviser on the Court said in the Times that it was okay to appoint a moderate judge to fill a moderate seat, but if a conservative judge retires Obama should appoint a conservative judge - as if there was a guaranteed conservative seat or something. Odd they didn’t believe that when appointing their judges. There was an interview with Justice Ginsburg in the Times last Sunday. I haven’t finished it yet, but she did say that being a beneficiary of affirmative action does have an impact. She was the first woman given tenure at Columbia Law School, and that this was strictly because the Nixon Administration pushed law schools hard to finally give some jobs to women. I think it is rather harder for male justices to deny discrimination exists when sharing the bench with someone who suffered it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/75 "2009-07-18T00:15:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > These are _her_ words. She thinks that a wise _Latina_ would _more often tha_n not reach a _better_ decision than a white male. Well, if the white males on SCOTUS disagree with her decisions, they can outvote her. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/76 "2009-07-18T00:30:29Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > This is pretty much precisely the message I got from Sotomayer’s speech. Where do you think she disagrees with you on this? I agree with her here: > [@](#): > > However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. I disagree with her here (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second,\*\* 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.\*\* I don’t know how to explain it beyond what I’ve already said. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/77 "2009-07-18T00:31:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, if the white males on SCOTUS disagree with her decisions, they can outvote her. And… Is there a point you’re trying to make concerning the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/78 "2009-07-18T00:39:36Z")
Oh, I made the point I wanted regarding the OP in my first post to this thread. The simple recognition of reality (that Sotomayor, if confirmed, will be but one-ninth of the court) is something I threw in for free. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/79 "2009-07-18T00:46:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Oh, I made the point I wanted regarding the OP in my first post to this thread. The simple recognition of reality (that Sotomayor, if confirmed, will be but one-ninth of the court) is something I threw in for free. …Okay… ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269/80 "2009-07-18T00:50:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think her opinion is wrong. I also think the idea she expresses is racist. Your bar for “racist” seems to be apparently FAR lower for a Latina than it is for about any white Republican. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-maybe-a-racist-definitely-an-egomaniac/503269.md?page=5)