No, she is comparing a Latina woman with richness of experience to a white male without that richness. Nowhere does she say that either a Latina or a woman are better. The point she made just before was that some judges, whom she chose because there would be no dispute that they were wise, voted for discrimination due to a lack of experience with it. And she of course immediately noted that this wasn’t always the case.
The comment on sex discrimination cases shows that being a woman helps also.
Do you deny this point?
Do you deny that members of minorities have different experiences from members of majorities? Isn’t it the slightest bit possible that a male judge considering a sex discrimination case on a panel with a female judge will consider things slightly differently than one on an all-male panel?
It appears to me that she’s talking about reaching a “better conclusion” on a fairly narrow subject - specifically, cases relating to racial or gender discrimination. Which I don’t think is all that objectionable an observation. We all agree, I think, that Brown v. the Board of Education was a correct decision that overturned several decades worth of bad court rulings. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to suggest that, if the Supreme Court had someone consisted of mostly black justices, something like Brown would have been decided much earlier. Not because white justices would be dumber than black ones, but because blacks would have a more immediate and complete understanding of the effects of prejudice on the individual, and would have used this knowledge to inform their rulings.
I might agree that a more diverse court would benefit from a richer understanding of the case, which may lead them to a wiser decision as a court. 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. The difference is the individual vs the court as a whole. This is clearly racist. Now one may argue that it was a poor wording, etc., but that IS racist. And someone who believes that (leaving aside whether she actually does) does NOT belong near a gavel.
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.
I agree with her 100% that we need to accept our own biases to overcome them. I’ve been arguing that around here for a long time since so many liberals think that by virtue of being liberal that they aren’t racist/sexist/bigotted.
If she was talking about being wiser in all subjects and circumstances, sure, that would be racist. I don’t think it’s racist to say that a Latina would have more insight than a white person into issues that directly effect Latinas is racist, though. Rather, it strikes me as entirely self-evident.
That’s not a bad point, although I’d say that’s covered by the justice being “wise,” which presumably means, “aware of, and able to avoid, any biases they may have.” Whether Sotomayor is actually that wise is, of course, a separate issue.
Can you blame them? Liberal politics have defined the debate as being whoever can prove the most victimization is the group that should have the most power.
I agree with you that it’s silly for white males to try this tactic, really what should be done is make every attempt to break this tactic so that it is discredited and referred to with nothing but derision. That’s going to take a while, but we are seeing the beginnings of it, particularly with the Supreme Court deciding on the New Haven firefighters case.
Well, there might be some concern that she could compete for “Chief Bully” with Justice Scalia. But the Court seems to have survived all its previous bullies, and at least there are nine of them so the others can cushion the blow.
My best friend in high school was Warren Burger’s niece. You would hope such would be the case…my experience is that Supreme Court justices are human beings.
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.
I would say that problem is qualified by the “wise” part. A wise person isn’t likely to give it too much weight, and a wise person would generally equate with a better understanding.
She’s reiterated these statements several times over many years. I’ve heard at least three of the commentators on NPR say that it wouldn’t be a big deal, if only she’d not repeated these sentiments in speaking engagements over several years. What are those speeches? What did she say exactly? I dunno, ask the NPR guys.
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.
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.
