That’s not required to make me a hard dick, though it might be required to make me soft again. 
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
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.
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’.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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…
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.
I thought you might like that.
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.
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.
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.
Read all her words. With that experience. Do you dispute that having experience in something helps you to make better decisions about it?
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.
This is pretty much precisely the message I got from Sotomayer’s speech. Where do you think she disagrees with you on this?
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.
Well, if the white males on SCOTUS disagree with her decisions, they can outvote her.
I agree with her here:
I disagree with her here (bolding mine):
I don’t know how to explain it beyond what I’ve already said.
And…
Is there a point you’re trying to make concerning the OP?
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…
Your bar for “racist” seems to be apparently FAR lower for a Latina than it is for about any white Republican.