White House: Sotomayor says she chose word poorly

[WriteDown]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – The White House says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor acknowledges she made a poor word choice in a 2001 speech in which she said that a Latina judge would often reach a better conclusion than a white male judge who hasn't lived the same life.

That's according to presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs. He says he has not talked directly to Sotomayor about it but has spoken to people who have.

Critics have singled out the 2001 comment by Sotomayor for criticism. She was describing how personal experiences can affect judging. She said a "wise Latina woman" with her experiences would more often than not reach a "better conclusion" than a white male.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_sotomayor

---

Stupid comment.

[katty]

1. Sonia-don't start to back down-don't let the little brains get to you!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. And away we go...

[ananda]

3. battered child syndrome

nt

[elocs]

4. I don't think every poorly chosen word or phrase should be held against her,

but I have to admit that if she were a Republican we would be holding every poorly chosen word or phrase against her. Funny how that works.

[nomorenomore08]

5. So she chose poorly because she didn't anticipate being taken out of context?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense... :sarcasm:

[Journeyman]

7. Yes, best to restrict yourself to single syllable words, mainly articles and conjunctions. . .

to guard against any future mischaracterizations.

Though given the low level of discourse shown by the Right this week, even squeaks and grunts would be twisted to fit their jimmied narrative.

[DissedByBush]

9. She chose poorly

Because she didn't think she would be up for the Supreme Court where this racist and sexist remark would come back to haunt her.

I like most of her record though. She is very, very wrong on a couple of issues but overall not bad.

[EFerrari]

10. There is nothing sexist or racist in observing the obvious.

[DissedByBush]

11. The obvious?

That a Hispanic female can judge the law better than a white male?

I guess I'm just sensitive to racism. I grew up without any trace of it around me and only discovered it as an adult, where it disgusted me.

[EFerrari]

12. She was talking about bringing the experience of being in a minority

to discrimination cases:

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives -- no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. 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.

* * *

Your "sensitivity" may need to go in for a tune up.

[DissedByBush]

13. Yep, racist

Justice O'Connor says the wise anti-sexist words:

"a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases"

This judge disagrees.

Because she is sexist.

Do we have a white law? A male law? A female law? A Hispanic law? A black law? We used to have the latter, but we got rid of those.

No, we have one law and it is supposed to apply to everyone equally. Interpretation of the law doesn't change with race or sex. Or at least it shouldn't, or you are a racist and sexist.

[EFerrari]

14. Every justice brings their experience with them to the bench.

To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy.

If you bring with you the experience of minority, you will understand the case better than someone who has never been in that position.

That isn't racism, that's common sense.

lol

[DissedByBush]

15. Hopefully that experience won't taint decisions

"If you bring with you the experience of minority, you will understand the case better than someone who has never been in that position."

What does that have to do with the law? Juan grew up a poor Hispanic and killed someone, and John grew up a poor white and killed someone. I would hope being Hispanic wouldn't give her more sympathy for Juan than for John because she can "understand" and "empathize" with Juan. Similarly I hope a white judge would not empathize with John.

We had our days of "empathy" in courts and it let a lot of white racists off the hook for crimes against blacks. You see, the white judge could empathize with the white criminal over the uppity negro who looked at his wife a little too long.

[EFerrari]

18. What does any of your experience have to do with any task of yours?

It's what you bring to it, what everyone brings to their profession.

Empathy is not sympathy, it doesn't imply agreement but only understanding.

I never realized how much a Latina in good charge of herself could threaten the right wing. What a great choice on Obama's part

[DissedByBush]

22. Absolutely none

I don't see how anyone can bring any more or less to my profession by virtue of race or sex. I am a professional.

"Empathy is not sympathy, it doesn't imply agreement but only understanding."

I want understanding of the law.

"What a great choice on Obama's part"

It is a great choice as an attack on the right wing. I was hoping Obama would make a choice on other criteria, such as the law experience and knowledge he rightfully said Thomas was lacking. It would be refreshing to see that.

[EFerrari]

27. As Obama said, Sotomayor has more and deeper experience on the bench

than anyone else on the Supreme Court when they were appointed.

[DissedByBush]

37. She beats Alito by one year on the bench (16 vs. 17)

And their legal careers are the same length.

Anyway, with her qualifications, why is Obama harping on her race and sex?

[No Elephants]

48. Obama isn't harping on anything. The right wing has been harping (and carping) on a

single sentence, taken out of the context of her speech made some eight years ago. Someone in the media probably asked Gibbs about it and Gibbs gave this answer. That is not Obama harping on anything.

I agree that the sentence was a bad choice all around. However, claiming that Obama is the one harping on her ethinicity and gender does not seem to have any basis.

[EFerrari]

54. I haven't seen Obama harping. Maybe you could provide a link.

[No Elephants]

55. Maybe it's not what you bring by virtue of your race or gender. Maybe it's what you bring

by virtue of knowing what it is like to be treated unfairly because of your race or gender. That's a different thing.

What makes you think Sotomayor does not understand the law or have law experience? Nothing in her resume indicates anything like that.

And what makes you think Obama chose her in order to attack the right wing?


Forgive my saying so, but those statements seem downright bizarre, under the facts.

[DissedByBush]

70. Answers

"by virtue of knowing what it is like to be treated unfairly because of your race or gender."

What does the law have to do with that? A case of discrimination is a case of discrimination, period. But with her we know it isn't since apparently discrimination against whites is okay.

"What makes you think Sotomayor does not understand the law or have law experience?"

She is way off on the Second Amendment, a very simply stated right that shall not be infringed. The First Amendment that she considers incorporated only says Congress shall make no law, but the Second Amendment which flat-out states shall not be infringed somehow is not incorporated as the Ninth Circuit rightly ruled. Her logic is absurd.

"And what makes you think Obama chose her in order to attack the right wing?"

Someone else suggested that, not me. I think he chose her to score points with the Hispanic community.

[No Elephants]

81. What does the law have to do with being treated unfairly? You want to think about

that for another minute? Law and justice are not separate. Not trying to be facetious here, but think about it.

As far as the second amendment, I don't know what she said about it, but your statement seems way off to me. The right of free speech says it shall not be be abridged. yet, there are all kinds of limits on it.

The Establishment Clause says Congress shall make NO law respecting establishment of religon, yet we have had eight years of faith based initiatives to primarily evangelical organizations, and scads of other intermingling of church and state.

We are supposed to have freedom of religion, yet people are crying all the time that we don't. And just ask Mormons about bigamy. We are supposed to have freedom of the press, but media get sued all the time for defamation and lose.

In sum, no right is absolute; and the Supreme Court so held very early on and hundreds of times, maybe thousands of time since. Only gun enthusiasts think there are absolute rights, yet until very recently, the SCOTUS had never held the second amendment states a personal right. And to this day, that is ALL that the SCOTUS has stated. It has never stated that the right to bear arms is, out of the entire bill of rights, the ONLY absolute right. You cannot point to a single SCOTUS case, or any case, in fact, that supports your position that the second amendment is the only amendment that articulates an absolute right.

However, it is not necessary to argue the Constitution on this one, so let me drop that right now. The fact that Sotomayor has a different view of the Second Amendment than you do does not mean that she does not know the law or lacks legal experience. It does not even mean that she is "off," even a smidge. It simply means that she has a different view than you do. Obviously, she knows a hell of a lot more about the law than you do.

As far as that statement being someone else's, it appeared in your post, the one to which I responded. You said something like you wished Obama had chosen her because of her legal knowledge and experience and not to attack the right wing.

As far as he chose her to score points with the Hispanic community, I disagree there as well, but since neither of us can read his mind or heart, it's silly to debate that one.

[DissedByBush]

87. Wrong

"he right of free speech says it shall not be be abridged"

No, it says Congress shall make no law abridging it.

"Only gun enthusiasts think there are absolute rights"

No they don't. I can't murder someone with a gun, the same as a newspaper can't defame someone.

"You cannot point to a single SCOTUS case, or any case, in fact, that supports your position that the second amendment is the only amendment that articulates an absolute right."

Look at the wording. One is Congress shall not, the other is shall not be infringed. How is "Congress shall not" incorporated while "shall not be infringed" is not? The idea is ludicrous on its face and was well countered by the Ninth Circuit.

"The fact that Sotomayor has a different view of the Second Amendment than you do does not mean that she does not know the law or lacks legal experience."

And different from the decision in the Ninth Circuit. What she brings with her is a personal hatred for guns and a view that people do not have this established right.

"I disagree there as well, but since neither of us can read his mind or heart, it's silly to debate that one."

We set this one up years ago. Bush wanted Estrada on a federal court to groom him for eventual appointment to the Supreme Court. We blocked that for the express purpose of not giving the Republicans the first Hispanic nominee. Now the first chance we get we do it.

BushI put Sotomayor on the court and set up a future Democrat appointing her.

Republicans are dumb.

But at times they seem less racist.

[No Elephants]

96. Well....

"The right of free speech says it shall not be be abridged"

No, it says Congress shall make no law abridging it."





For purposes of the point I was making in my post, that is a distinction without a difference. My point was no right given by the Constitution is absolute. And there were no quotation marks around my paraphrase of the First Amendment, so it should have been clear I was not attempting a direct quote.


"You cannot point to a single SCOTUS case, or any case, in fact, that supports your position that the second amendment is the only amendment that articulates an absolute right."

Look at the wording. One is Congress shall not, the other is shall not be infringed. How is "Congress shall not" incorporated while "shall not be infringed" is not? The idea is ludicrous on its face and was well countered by the Ninth Circuit




I have no idea what you are talking about with "incorporated." I assume that comes from an opinion that Sotomayor wrote about guns, but you have not given the case name. Please don't though, because this is not a gun rights thread. Your claim was that her gun opinions show that she does not have knowledge or experience in law. You went out on a limb with that lack of knowledge and experience comment and you just refuse to go back to the tree trunk.


She clearly does have knowledge and experience in law, regardless of whether she disagees with your notion of guns or with the 9th Circuit's notion. If she disagreed with a SCOTUS case about guns after the SCOTUS decided that case, her disagreement might show a lack of knowledge of that one SCOTUS case, though it still would not show lack of experience or lack of legal knowledge in general. Any way you slice it, you have not proven that she lacks legal knowledge and experience. And, you really have no way of doing that because, as a matter of fact, she has plenty of legal knowledge and experience.





"Only gun enthusiasts think there are absolute rights"

No they don't. I can't murder someone with a gun, the same as a newspaper can't defame someone."





No it isn't the same at all. (Tip: Resist the urge to start a sentence with "Um." A sentence that starts with "Um" is almost always wrong.)



Freedom of the press has EVERYthing to do with the content that a newspaper choosed to print. Defamatory statements are part of the content that a newspaper chooses to print. Nonetheless, defamation laws limit the ability of newspapers to print defamatory statements. Again, the point of discussing that is that no right in the Bill of Rights is absolute.

Murder, on the other hand, has NOTHING at all to do with the right articulated in the second amendment. The second amendment refers to a right to BEAR arms--which means to carry arms. The second amendment does not deal at all, one way or another, about what use you make of arms. Well, except for that bit about the militia, which gun enthusiasts pretty much ignore anyway. State and federal statutes do that, but not the Constitution.

Murder is one use of arms. Hence, murder has nothing to do with the second amendment. Therefore, my statement was that gun enthusiasts think there should be no limits on their right to BEAR arms. I never said gun enthusiasts think there should be no limits on the uses of a gun.

BTW, you can kill people by lighting a newpaper on fire and immolating them, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution, either.




Finally, Republicans, as a whole, are in no way, shape or form less racist than Democrats, as a whole, but: (1) it's a complicated subject; (2) that topic is way off the subject of the thread, which is one sentence said by Sotomayor; (3) I don't really feel like going that far off topic, so I won't go further than my general statement. For similar reasons, will not touch the other things you said, though I disagree.

[DissedByBush]

111. Incorporated

After the Fourteenth Amendment made us citizens of the United States instead of only our state it was considered that the restrictions of the Bill of Rights, or at least most of them, also apply to the states.

The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, not the states shall make no law. But through the Fourteenth the restriction is incorporated, meaning what applies to Congress also applies to state legislatures.

The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed." By the language it is even a better candidate to be incorporated because it flat-out states the right shall not be infringed, not even by whom. By the plain language that would mean shall not be infringed by anybody. It logically would also apply to the states.

Both instances were also considered fundamental rights at the time of adoption. That is another criteria for incorporation.

Judge Sotomayor has written in Maloney v. Cuomo (not even about guns) that it does not apply to the states, meaning you have no Second Amendment protection from anything a state legislature does including an outright ban. The Ninth Circuit recently disagreed in Nordyke v. King acknowledging that the Second Amendment is incorporated.

I think we agree that many rights are not absolute. Abuse of any right to the point of hurting another has always been illegal. But the government will not regulate your speech. It cannot tell a newspaper that it can't print things because they are considered too dangerous when they don't hurt anyone in themselves. Prior restraint has an extremely hard standard for the government to overcome. Prior restraint of gun ownership should also be held to such a standard.

I am not a gun nut. I am a rights nut. Judge Sotomayor has made some good decisions on rights too. This is one of her worst that I disagree on.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Not only this, but, we will have true equality when...

People of various gender and ethnicity get tapped for these positions, and nobody brings it up at all.

Till then, there's an awful lot of people patting themselves on the back for something we have yet to achieve.

[DissedByBush]

23. I hope I live to see the day

I wish Obama had appointed her without a word as to her sex or race and ignored any right wing comments about her sex and race.

That would have been a true lack of racism and sexism on his part.

[No Elephants]

57. Because the first Hispanic on the court is not a noteworthy event worth

mentioning? Because finally having more than one token female on the bench when the population is more than 50% female is not worth mentioning? Why?

We always hear about the first Italian American to have done this, and the first African American to have done that. We never hear about the fourth one or the thirtieth one, though. Once we have more diversity, people will stop mentioning these things. Until then, though, the first is noteworthy. Never mentioning it would be an affectation, as would never mentioning that Obama is the first African American President.

You'll get your wish when the time in due time. With all due and deliberate speed, in fact.

[No Elephants]

51. Or maybe the white judge was just too ready to believe the lie the white criminal told

about the black man looking at his wife too long.

I think you're helping Sotomayor with that post.

[DissedByBush]

73. You support my post even better

I think we agree that the judge doing that would be wrong.

It would be because of his sympathy with the white defendant. We know that sympathy means racism in this context.

Is a sympathy towards Hispanics somehow better?

[No Elephants]

85. The flip side of too much sympathy is too much bias. I think your example of a black man staring

at a white man's wife too long--something you were using to show too much sympathy by white males, no less--may well reflect a bias on your part. Or, at the very least, a lack of knowledge. The defense used by the white criminal that you cited--or some variant of it--was used successfully in the South before civil rights took hold. However, few, if any, black men were looking at white women at all back then. They were way too scared, knowing they might end up hanging from a tree.

Now a bench of judges who think (or assume) as you did in your example might need the benefit of the above information before they decided whether that white man in your example was a truthful person or whether he lacked credibilty. Could a Southern white judge in 1950 have provided that information? Maybe; maybe not and probably not. But it's highly likely that Thurgood Marshall could have.

In other words, diversity has its benefits--and they don't lie only in being sympathetic to people who share your skin color, religion or genitalia. It is as Sotomayor said, bringing to the bench knowledge gained through a particular life experience. Now her wording in that one sentence was unwise, but her speech, in its entirety, was wise.



Edited to change you're to your and other nits.

[No Elephants]

45. But she did not say "I bring my life experience with me to the bench." She said

a Hispanic woman would reach a better conclusion than a white male. That is a racist and genderist statement, no two ways about it. And, if it does not reflect how she feels, then she did choose her words poorly. If it does reflect how she feels, then she chose accurate words. In either case, the statement was unwise on her part.

A better statement would have been that a Hispanic woman brings a different perspective to the bench than many other judges may have, period. However, I am not even sure she was wise to say that because it reveals that she looks at things through a prism of race and gender. Will that make her decide some cases less fairly? It could. There is a reason that Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold.

It could also make her decide some cases more fairly, which I think is what she meant, but it would have been better left unsaid, IMO.

And it isn't as though judges don't have to be wise or choose their words carefully.

[EFerrari]

53. No, that's wrong. She expressly referred to experience

and expressly in the context of adjudicating discrimination cases.

Rick Sanchez read a quote from Alito along the same lines where he says he refers to instances of discrimination that happened to his family. It's funny that no one had an attack over that.

[No Elephants]

58. Not wrong at all. The statement in question is a Hispanic woman would reach a better conclusion

than a white man. It't that particular sentence on which I was commenting, saying it would have been better and wiser to word it differently or leave it unsaid. I never said that her entire speech was faulty. The issue the right has been raising--and the one this thread is about--is that one sentence.

As to Alito, there is a difference between saying, "My parents were the victims of discrimination against Italians and here I am a SCOTUS Justice" Hasn't my family--and haven't we, as a nation--come a long way in just one generation?" (or words to that effect) and Sotomayor claiming her ethnicity and gender enable her to make a better decision than a white male. Alito never said that being a male Italian Catholic would enable him to make better decisions than a Jewish female judge. He celebrated the success of his family and his nnation. Sotomayor was bragging on herself by dissing "the other."

Ginsburg and Obama said things similar to what Alito said. Ginsburg never claimed her gender and religion enabled her to make a better decision than a male Christian, nor did Obama claim being of mixed race would enable him to be a better President than someone who was eiher all white or all African American.

Again, it may well have been simply a poor word choice, but I cannot defend that one sentence, nor can I liken it to things that Alito, Ginsburg and Obama said about their respective journeys.

[EFerrari]

64. No, NE, that isn't what she said. She was talking to a Latino group

about Latinos in the judiciary and she said that the experience of being a woman and a Latino would probably yield better decisions in discrimination cases than those of a person who had never had the experience of belonging to two minorities, i.e., white men.

There is nothing sexist or genderist in that whatsoever. That's just common sense.

She is not bagging on white men.

And the reason you can't justify that sentence is because she didn't write one sentence, she wrote a ten minute speech that is nuanced. The sentence only doesn't make sense if you yank it out of context as the Republics are doing.

Read the speech. It's a good read, actually. Look at this:

"In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment."

She's arguing that diversity in our judicial system will make that system better. How anyone can possible disagree with that is beyond me. She's arguing that people who have experienced discrimination have something special to bring to the bench. How anyone can possibly disagree with that is also mystifying.

The big reaction that "that one sentence" is getting when the full context and content of her remarks are publicly available says much more about the expectations of her readers than it does about her. This is just the last iteration of the Republicans' "the Mexicans are coming" fearmongering.

[No Elephants]

76. One racist, genderist sentence in a speech is one too many. It was either

poorly worded, or, worse, she meant what she was saying.

If what is happening does not prove the wording was poor or, as I said, unwise, I don't know what does. She could have made all the points you find admirable without providing people with a racist sound bite. Providing one is unwise.

Saying diversity is a good thing is different from saying a Latina woman can usually probably make better decisons than a white male. I can defend the concept. I cannot defend including in the speech a racist sentence.

BTW, she did not make that statement only at Berkeley. Apparently, she made it at Suffolk Law School as well. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8439190

[EFerrari]

77. Maybe you're just not a very good reader.

And since when you do blame the victim for Republican spinning? What's up with that?

That is a lovely speech and well worth repeating. It's too bad you don't understand it.

[No Elephants]

84. Maybe you are not a very good poster, so you resort to cheap , personal shots instead of sticking to

issues.

I was going to post that I respect your views, but we need to agree to disagree. However, since I've now seen two cheap personal shots at me out of the last two posts of yours that I've read, I'll skip the respect part. We're done.

[EFerrari]

97. There is nothing cheap in pointing out that you insist on misreading her

by lifting one sentence out of a ten minute presentation.

[No Elephants]

100. That was not the wording you used, though. Wording matters (which is the point of this thread).

[EFerrari]

102. If wording matters so much to you, then hers should matter equally. n/t

[Zavulon]

93. She meant it.

I've been looking for any reason to approve of this choice by Obama because I'm very happy with him overall other than this.

So far, no luck. She's a sexist, a racist and I see a lot of her decisions that I don't like.

I also know a fair number of lawyers in DC, most of them liberals, who are all of the same opinion: she's not an intellectual heavyweight by any means, she's simply a bully on a mission.

This pick disgusts me. There were so many good candidates, and he picked her?

:puke:

[EFerrari]

98. Insults and accusations with nothing behind them. Check.

[No Elephants]

99. From that one sentence, you have no basis to decide she is sexist and racist. Unless you have some

links to something else that supports your claim, I will take it simply as an expression of your opinion. I believe that you believe what you said, but you'vve given me no reason to believe it.

As far as her qualifications, her wiki looks fine to me. And I think the American Bar Association rated her highly as well. They rate all SCOTUS nominees, so they are fairly skilled in that endeavor.

When you were a Republican, were you okay with Thomas? If so, you should be THRILLED with Sotomayor's education and experience, even if you have a negative opinion about her alleged racism and sexism.

BTW, terms like "racism" and "sexism" usually has to do with a power strucure. I know that Republicans focus on insults to the white male, but that is the traditional power structure, the group that historically discriminated against women and non-whites. White males was not the group traditionally disenfranchised and discriminated against.

Personally, I am more than willing to say that people simply should not comment on which race or gender is better or worse. However, discrimination has a history and a context and that history was not about discrimination against white males. Just sayin'

[Zavulon]

104. Well,

when I was a Republican, I didn't follow the nomination closely. It was a lot easier to be a Republican because I really didn't follow politics closely back then. Had I done so, I'd probably have jumped ship 3-4 years earlier than I did.

As for her statement, if a white male had said the same thing about a Hispanic or black female, 99% of DU would be calling him racist and sexist. They'd be right, too. Unfortunately, in today's world it seems that only whites are eligible for those tags. If a black or Hispanic shows racism or sexism towards a white, the defenders race out on their behalf.

As for your "And I think the American Bar Association rated her highly as well. They rate all SCOTUS nominees, so they are fairly skilled in that endeavor," leaving aside your snide remark about "fairly skilled," I believe the ABA also gave the same high ratings to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Miguel Estrada - so if you care to accept them or the ABA as the final authority, go right ahead. Just let me know if that's the case, though, so that I can rest assured that I'll never see you criticize a right-wing judge on a decision that doesn't go our way. I'm sure you're not a hypocrite or anything like that, so if a high ABA rating is good enough for you I assume you have no problems with any current member of SCOTUS or any of the right-wing circuit court judges who earned a high ABA rating, right?

The bias in her statement would render her ineligible to serve on a JURY, and she's going to take a seat on SCOTUS? Be as comfortable with that as you like, but don't expect everyone to be.

[ida and pingala]

90. I have to agree with your comments. Because when you start to drag race and gender into things,

it is naturally going to concern non-Latinas. A judge is supposed to set aside their subjectivity (which is based upon THEIR life experiences and no one else's).

[ProudDad]

107. Then the entire criminal-injustice system is sexist and especially racist!

But then we knew that already.

It's mainly run by white males and a few females who must act more like white males than white males do...

It's run the the cops and DAs with the collusion of judges...

The rights of the accused are barely tolerated, let alone constitute an equal in opposition to the power and wealth of the State.

Give me a whole shit-load of populist, pro-defendant, pro-civil rights, pro-justice judges to counter balance the severely distorted "system" we now have.

Although I am disturbed about her background.

She has NO defense experience -- just persocuter, judge and corporate lawyer. I hope she's able to overcome such a sick indoctrination to become just.

[twitomy]

16. Sounds like that is what she was saying..

Ya think Justice Roberts would have survived if he said a white male can make better judgements
in court cases regarding business law than a Latina woman?

He wouldve been drawn and quartered...

[DissedByBush]

17. I'd volunteer to slap the horse's butt n/t

[Hansel]

20. It would be a problem if that is what she said. But she didn't.

This is what 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."

I would hope so too, and her statement is obvious. She also continues on to say that she has to check herself as well to make sure that she makes every effort to strive to judge cases as well as those who have had experiences that she has not had. The full statement reveals her to be as open and self-aware about her limitations as a Hispanic woman trying to understanding other life experiences as she is about acknowledging her ability to understand the viewpoint of an Hispanic woman better than those who are not Hispanic women. I was actually quite impressed with her awareness and compassion.

An obvious case where this would be important is in the case of the 13 year old girl who was stripped searched in her school for supposedly hiding a prescription drug on her body. She did not. She is suing before the Supreme Court. I would venture a guess that most of the men on the court do not fully appreciate the complete and utter humiliation that such an experience would cause for a 13 year girl. This is a horribly awkward age for a girl and the sense of shame and modesty that girls have about their bodies at this age is substantial. A woman judge is more likely to understand and empathize with this and judge that the proportion of the supposed crime no where near warranted the complete degradation of this young girl. This doesn't mean that male judges can't understand this, just that they are less likely to. It doesn't make me a sexist for pointing this out. It's just the way it is.

[DissedByBush]

25. I can completely appreciate it

I agree with her decision too. I'm not even a judge. It is part of a judge's job to get educated on all aspects of the case, and understanding the horror of her experience is a logical and easy one. Not empathizing, understanding. Emotions have no place.

But if empathy is the criteria does this mean that a case of a man wronged by his ex, forced into abject poverty due to outrageous child support and alimony payments he no longer has the means to pay, could expect no empathy for his position from a woman? I would hope as a Supreme Court judge she would be able to understand and rule appropriately. But according to this logic she wouldn't be able to and would thus rule wrongly.

[toopers]

29. Actually, you are incorrect.

It is the job of a judge to preside over the evidence presented in the courtroom.

[DissedByBush]

35. That is correct

At the trial level at least. We are talking about the appellate level, except in rare cases.

It is the evidence. It is the law. It is not biased justice based on empathy for a specific demographic.

[No Elephants]

65. Emotions sometimes do have a place in the courtroom. There is a standard judges

sometimes use, often phrased as "shocks the conscience." It is not used as often as other standards, but it is mostly a visceral reaction to something. And law is not written in stone. Never has been. It changes as society changes--and that is often because how we feel about things. The law of trespass, for instance, has changed greatly because we've come to place a higher value on human life and human well-being than we do on the "sanctity" of a property boundary.

[No Elephants]

61. What if Judge Ginsburg had claimed that a Jewish female would

probably make better decisions than a Christian male? What if Roberts had said that he would hope a white male would, on average, make better decisions that a Jewish woman? What if Scalia had said that he would hope that an Italian man would make better decisions than a WASP or than a black man?

As far as a 13 year old girl, you admit that you base that on a guess. You might just as validly guess that an evangelical or Puritan male would be even more protective of her privacy and right/visceral need to keep her clothes on than anyone else.

I think we are on a very slippery path when we concede that one skin color or one ethnicity or one religion or one gender is likelier to make better decisions than another.

[EFerrari]

72. You obviously have spent more time listening to the right wing talking heads

than reading the speech.

[No Elephants]

83. Actually, I have spent no time listening to them, but your post is a cheap shot,, so I apologize

for responding with facts.

[EFerrari]

110. There were no facts in that post. Look again.

[Jazzgirl]

21. She didn't say shit that was racist or sexist.

She said nothing that was wrong for her audience.

[DissedByBush]

26. A quote for you

"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 woman who hasn't lived that life"

Would you have given Alito or Roberts a pass if either had said that?

Ask yourself honestly.

If not then you admit it was racist and sexist.

"She said nothing that was wrong for her audience."

A KKK member says nothing wrong "for his audience" at a Klan rally either.

[Jazzgirl]

30. Take shit out of context much?

Maybe you should go find the whole quote and everything she said around it. I'm not gonna go find it for you.

[DissedByBush]

62. The quote is perfeclty in context racist and sexist n/t

[EFerrari]

39. So, like Tancredo, you're comparing this group of Latina students

to the KKK?

lol

[DissedByBush]

63. A group of racists is a group of racists

I guess it makes it better for you when the racists aren't white.

[EFerrari]

69. Excuse me? So now a group of Latino law students is a group of racists?

Are they racist by virtue of being brown or because they congregate? Or?

[DissedByBush]

75. You said the context made it correct

So racist remarks are okay if they are made to other racists.

Yes, if you think you are better or can "bring more" because of your race, that makes you a racist.

I group up in a Hispanic community around Los Angeles. As a kid I thought riding around in my best friend's uncle's low rider was the coolest thing ever. Do I get to say I can bring more? Oh no, I can't, I am not Hispanic. I don't have the right skin color to empathize with Hispanics.

[EFerrari]

79. It's not about skin color but about life experience.

That you are hung up on race is your problem, not mine and certainly not Sotomayor's.

[DissedByBush]

101. I don't have a problem with race

I have a problem with people who think race makes a person different as a human being.

[EFerrari]

103. So, you don't have a problem with race except, you do. n/t

[DissedByBush]

112. I have a problem with racists

You are a racist if you treat people differently because of race.

You are a racist if you prejudge in any way based on race.

You are a racist if you ascribe any relative ability or inability based on race.

You are a racist if you factor race into hiring decisions.

[EFerrari]

113. And you're a racist if you object to people talking about their diferent experience

candidly because it is not yours.

[DissedByBush]

114. Different experiences are fine

Everybody has them. We hire based on professional experience.

Different races are not okay.

I got a good part of the upbringing of a Hispanic kid. Do I get a prize? Do I have a special experience? I bet not since I am not myself Hispanic. Like I said, I am the wrong color. I can't bring any special wisdom or insight into an issue.

[EFerrari]

119. Sonia was talking about experience, not about race.

And from your posts calling La Raza a bunch of racists and implying that I am one, no, you don't have the experience it takes to understand this issue. I agree you bring no special wisdom or insight.

[DissedByBush]

121. A bunch of racists?

They do view everything through race-colored glasses.

[No Elephants]

86. Please cite evidence that her audience consisted of racists. Something credible. A link, a quote.

[Honeycombe8]

31. I agree the sentence was racist and sexist.

She said she'd hope that being a latina female with her rich experiences would cause her to make better decisions than a white man.

She COULD'VE said she'd hope that being a latine female with her rich experiences would cause her to bring a different perspective in reaching her decisions, and that she'd thus be able to make as good as,or in some instances better, decisions than a white man because of her life experiences.

I think that's what she meant. But she's right. She worded it poorly, in speaking off the cuff.

[WriteDown]

32. You have the best analysis...

that I have seen.

[EFerrari]

36. She wasn't speaking off the cuff and she was talking about

discrimination cases.

[Honeycombe8]

40. The quote I saw said she was responding to a question on the subject.

She was speaking off the cuff.

[EFerrari]

41. The whole speech, A Latina Judge's Voice

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml

[Honeycombe8]

115. I won't listen to the whole thing. I'll take your word for it that she was not responding

to a question (were there questions and answers at the end of the speech?).

If it was a pre-written speech, then I change my mind. The statement, being racist, is reflective of her thinking.

[EFerrari]

120. Wrong. But please go ahead and continue to attack her

as the rest of the right wing nuttery is doing. I'm sure she can handle it. :)

[No Elephants]

71. I don't hink your revision is enough of an improvement. You still have her

saying that being a Latin female would enable her to make better decisions than a white male in some instances. And she wasn't speaking off the cuff. This apparently is part of a speech, and one she has given at more than one University.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8439190

[ProudDad]

108. PLEASE!!!

If you're going to quote her out of context AT LEAST INCLUDE THE WHOLE SENTENCE!!!!

“… 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.”

Or you could surprise the hell out of us and include the CONTEXT:

"In fact, when Sotomayor asserted, “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,” she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases."

So it was in the context of a limited set of cases NOT a general critique of the decision making capacity of white males vs. latina women.

Hmmm, not quite so "racist", eh???

[ProudDad]

105. Read the whole quote in context before spouting off, ok? (n/t)

[IndianaGreen]

106. How ignorant you are! Read the entire statement before passing judgment!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=452477&mesg_id=452477

Scalia and Alito made similar statements.

[24601]

82. "Out of context" is a cop-out - even suggesting that one makes

better decisions based on gender or ethnicity is offensive up there with "maybe girls aren't wired as well for math"

Would a black man make a better decision? Does it matter if it's Obama or Thomas? What about male verses female but it's Biden and Palin?

We need to focus less on groups and more on individuals.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zavulon]

122. In my experience, "taken out of context" means

"quoted accurately," whether Democrats or Republicans are involved.

Please tell me exactly how she was "taken out of context."

[question everything]

6. I wish that she did not apologize or explain any of this

She is in a good company including... Alito

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8439190

[No Elephants]

68. Seems like Gibb explained it, not her.

[downindixie]

8. uh oh! here we go again

I see nothing that she needs to apologise,but then again this is a pattern for Dems.

[AlphaCentauri]

24. considering that non of the actual judges have the experience she has

She was right

[WriteDown]

33. Probably what she meant was right...

but what she said was absolutely wrong. That's like saying that my experiences being a Native American and time spent on my reservation make me better at growing corn than any white man.

[EFerrari]

38. Nope. It's not at all. It's more like as a Native American

you understand the experience of minority.

[WriteDown]

43. No....

Her quote makes race distinctions linked to ability. I don't believe that any further than the fact that I have the ability to be in the sun for days and not get burned. I prefer Dr. King's teachings and quotes to this malarky.

[EFerrari]

44. Linked to the ability to access experience. I posted the link to the speech

up thread. It's not random, but very specific.

[WriteDown]

46. As soon as she said the word Latina...

I was done. I wouldn't want anyone to say as an Irish Caucasian either.

[EFerrari]

47. That was the theme of the event

and the topic she was asked to speak about.

[WriteDown]

49. Would have been interesting if it was a KKK meeting.

Wonder what the theme would have been then. :)

[EFerrari]

50. Are you comparing being a Latino to belonging to a hate group?

Could you clarify that? Thanks.

And here's Media Matters making the same point. You position is argued here admirably by Tancredo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSliLDRJqy8

[WriteDown]

52. I'm saying that I could care less about the theme of the evening

There are still things you should not think or say. The "theme" of the evening was the same excuse used by Trent "Birthday Party" Lott when he made his ill-fated remarks. I've heard from some of my tribesman that Native Americans are more in tune with the Earth than others. Same kind of bull hockey.

[EFerrari]

56. That people use their experience in their profession is an unremarkable commonplace.

But it looks like when brown women say unremarkable commonplaces, there is a segment of the population that is so threatened, they freak up one side and down the other.

lol

/grammar

[WriteDown]

59. Saying you grew up poor and underprivileged is great...

Saying things like Black, White, Native American, Asian is not. Its really a simple concept.

[EFerrari]

60. The ethnicity that dare not speak its name? What is this, 1955?

Baloney. Belonging to an ethnic minority can produce experience that belonging the white majority doesn't give you, just as belonging to any minority can. That's also a simple concept. So is the value of being judged by your peers -- an idea that is familiar enough in the American system of justice.

[WriteDown]

66. Sweet, so obviously there are better minorities for the job...

Like a Native American juror. A Native American juror's experiences definitely trump any latina's experience. In fact, as a race, they are almost extinct and have almost ZERO presence in American politics. I hope Obama considers this.

[EFerrari]

67. No, because it's the experience of being in a minority

not the particular minority that she's talking about. She uses Latina in her example because she is a Latina talking to Latinos when she gives the speech.

[WriteDown]

74. Why is that?

Some minorities are far worse treated than others. Why are you drawing these arbitrary lines?

[EFerrari]

78. You're drawing arbitrary lines. I agree with Sotomayor

that the experience of being in a minority gives you access to a unique perspective. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

[WriteDown]

80. So Black, Asian, Native American....

are all equal because they're "minorities?" Spoken like a true majority holder. Sheesh.

[EFerrari]

92. No. Their commonality is that in this society, all of those groups

have the experience of being in a minority.

[No Elephants]

88. Yet, I have seen you post at LEAST a dozen times about being Native American.

[WriteDown]

89. Being a Native American is what it is...

but it doesn't make me a better juror at all. Doesn't make me a better corn farmer either. Makes me a better tanner though.

[No Elephants]

94. Yes, but you don't post about being Native American in the context of

tanning. It is always in the context of more serious things, yet things where stating your origin is not required or expected.

My point is, either something is relevant or it isn't. You seem to think being Native American is somehow relevant to posting on a message board. You've never seen me posting about my ethnicity, gender or orientation "out of a clear blue sky," yet I have seen you do that. Unfortunately, I cannot recall a specific post, but I do recall being surprised. Not surprised that you are Native American--I got that after the first time I saw it. But surprised that you had posted it because the discussion did not require it.

I am not saying anything is wrong with your having posted it. (And, I am not trying to pick on you, either.) I am just trying to make the point that you must find some relevance or I would not know your background, just as you don't know mine. So, for you, maybe being in a minority, or that particular minority, affects more than tanning.

[WriteDown]

118. See post 117.

Responded in the wrong spot.

[WriteDown]

117. On some things...

Being a NA gives me some perspective. I was called a half-breed by some of my own family members when I was young so I understand discrimination. But being an NA would not make me a better chemist, doctor, or juror.

[ProudDad]

109. You should get a job at faux noise then

that's how they do it.

They latch on a partial quote or one word and blow it up out of all proportion, shut off all rational process and deny any context.

Your last statement would fit right in...


Freakin' Democrat circular firing squad...

[AlphaCentauri]

91. Sotomayor maybe bilingual and has a long carer in the judicial system

experience must be a plus.
Native americans farmer may know and have the experience to grow corn but since they are isolated in the reservation with luck of funds, they may not be able to compete with a less experience farmer that gets it share of the 60 billions subsidize that the US expend every year for agriculture.

So to see Sotomayor braking many ethnic, educational and professional barrier may just turn her more experienced than other professionals like her that didn't have to deal with such a barriers.

[IndianaGreen]

dupe n/t

[IndianaGreen]

28. Gibbs is a stupid white man

Obama should can his ass and put someone competent as his press front person.

Dumbass Gibbs should have read this:

Commentary: Judge Sotomayor is not a racist

By Sherrilyn A. Ifill

The offending section of the speech is this: "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." This passage inspired Gingrich, former speaker of the House of Representatives and potential 2012 presidential candidate, to call Judge Sotomayor "a Latina racist."

To lift one statement out of Judge Sotomayor's eight-page speech without examining the context and substance of her remarks, is an example of the kind of shoddy character assassination that I suspect will dominate this judicial confirmation process.

Judge Sotomayor's speech is, in fact, an excellent meditation on how the experiences of judges might affect how they approach aspects of judicial decision-making. It explores the important, and too-little examined reality that judicial deliberations can be affected by a judge's background, perspective and experience.

In the next sentence immediately following the passage above, Judge Sotomayor says, "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society."

Could she have been referring to Buck v. Bell, the 1927 case in which Justice Holmes -- widely regarded as perhaps the most brilliant justice in the Supreme Court's history -- upheld the state's plan to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old white woman, who was accused of being congenitally retarded. Buck's main crime seems to have been the fact that she'd had a child out of wedlock.

In any case, Justice Holmes upheld the sterilization order, emphatically and coldly stating, "three generations of imbeciles is enough." Does anyone seriously believe that a woman, and especially a woman of color "with the richness of her experiences" would not have "reach a better conclusion " than that adopted by Justice Holmes in 1927?

In fact Buck v. Bell is the perfect example of how a "wise old (white) man" got it wrong in a way that a woman judge or a racial minority most likely would not.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/28/ifill.sotomayor/index.html

[steven johnson]

34. Every judge uses their life experience -- like she's abnormal? nt

[EFerrari]

42. She was also speaking into the topic of Latinos in the profession.

That was the theme of the event.

[fishwax]

95. I think her comment was fine, and I don't think she needs to back away from it