One final note: Consider the written law to be the menu. If you ordered a burrito, would you be thrilled if the cook added saffron to the receipe?
Hey, Rush Limbaugh was the one who said it originally, and he wasn’t being sarcastic at the time.
What the hell are you talking about?
Judge Sotomayor's Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases - SCOTUSblog scotusblog, gives an analysis of Sotomayors’s decisions. In 97 cases in her career dealing with civil rights, she went with the establishment 86 times. She is not a threat to the man.
Since we don’t have enough Justices on SCOTUS to squeeze in an Indian, Native American, East Asian, and so on, we’ll take the Latina for now. Make more sense?
It’s a right wing media lie that Sotomayor said that one ethnic group would reach better decisions than another. She actually said it was “myopic” to think that such a thing was true.
All she really said was that a Latino woman, would bring a different perspective. They all bring their own perspective. They are human beings. There is plenty of white righty perspective on the court.
Perhaps not, but would you expect every single burrito to be identical? If not, what would be the cause of differences? I would think that a cook’s heritage, the cuisine where he grew up, the cuisine preferences in the restaurant’s area, and personal experiences drawing from decades as a cook would cause each cook to have their own personal take on what goes into a burrito.
Who scolds a cook for suggesting that his personal life experience with food affects the way he constructs recipes?
What she actually said was:
**
“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,” **
Exactly.
That quote is still out of context, but it still does not represent an assertion that one ethnic group will reach better decisions than another (and the context was really about gender more than ethnicity).
You’d think if she was such an appalling racist, a distaff David Duke or Louis Farrakhan, there’d be more than one quote establishing that, more than one out of context quote from 8 years ago.
I think it’s painfully obvious that what she meant was that different judges will have different perspectives based on their life experiences, though I will admit it was badly phrased.
I’m curious, how does this statement look to everyone?
“I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latino woman who hasn’t lived that life,”
How far would that nominee go?
That’s true. You’ve successfully proved that she’s not an appalling racist, akin to David Duke etc.
But that doesn’t prove that she’s not a minor sort-of racist, with attitudes that would not be acceptable (& would be considered Racist) coming from a white man.
Which is what the question is.
The problem with that interpretation (beyond the obvious one) is that she’s made pretty much the same statement many times over the years, using similar phrasing.
Show me the context of the statement, and quite possibly, it wouldn’t be a problem at all. Of course, you’d have to come up with a context in which insight into the experiences of a “white man” would be important when reaching a decision on the case. :dubious:
It was poorly worded, that’s for sure. But it’s taken in the background of a court which has had 115 members, 111 of which were white males. If the court had a history of being overwhelmingly Hispanic and female the quote you created would be more understandable, if still poorly worded.
Every judge brings their experience to the table, be that law school experience or life experience or work experience or a combination of all of them. For many years, that experience has been overwhelmingly rich, white, male, heterosexual and Judeo-Christian. The whole reaction from the right isn’t that legal world is shifting away from seeing the law through a bias free lens; it is that it is shifting away from only seeing it though a rich, white, male, hetero-sexual, Judeo-Christian lens.
Everyone has biases. Recognizing that they exist is what is important. It’s no surprise that a white, male nominee is never asked these sort of questions, and the President is never accused of trying to fill a quota by naming one. The biases of Roberts and Alito are just as real, but those biases are shared by the majority of those in power, and their supporters. And it is that same group of people that cries the loudest when differening viewpoints are represented, as that in some minor way threatens its hegemony.
It would depend on the context. Reversing it is cutesy, but not really meaningful, and nowhere near as clever as the righties think it is.
Sotomayor was speaking in a specific context of sexual harrassment cases, and addressing the fact that no Supreme Court decision ever upheld a gender discrimination suit before 1972:
She was saying that – on that specific issue – being “wise” might not have been enough and that she “hoped” that a wise Latina woman would have done better in that situation than white guys who have never experienced any discrimination.
In the next paragraph she also callsi it “myopic” to say that one ethnic group can’t understand another. When you read the whole speech, you see that’s she’s only saying that we should aim for a variety of perspectives on the bench, not that the poor oppressed white men should be excluded, and she sure as hell didn’t say anything racist.
I can’t conceive of a context where reversing the “white man/Hispanic woman” thing would make historical or social sense, so it’s pretty much bullshit to try act like that’s analogous, and, in my opinion, it’s immature sophistry.
You’re the one alleging racism. You prove it.
She’s made what statement many times?
I completely disagree. Claiming some sort of intellectual superiority attributed to race does not become better or worse based on who the minority is. I don’t believe the underdog (which I guess is what you are implying) gets to play by different rules, and I certainly hope a supreme court justice would not either.
My revamped quote was mostly to illustrate that, while the question of her racism may be open to debate, she’s getting a pretty free pass from the world and the media for what is, at the minimum, an epic gaff.
This is a country where someone’s entire presidential bid can be sunk for referring to someone as a (was it a Macau?) monkey, or for hooping and hollerin’ during a rally.
If the case involved a country club, I’d take the white male anyday. 
How about a context in which a white male believes they were being discriminated against because they were a white male. Isn’t this one of the exact cases and situations which is going play large in her confirmation?
Also, I think the insinuation that a woman would make a better conclusion in a case about sexual harassment is on its face very dangerous. In fact, correct if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t being involved as a defendant or plaintiff in a previous sexual harassment case disqualify you from presiding over one?