View Single Post
Old 05-29-2009, 09:22 PM   #21 (permalink)
dippin
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenturian View Post
It was printed in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal with an other article called
"Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening!" This article is not some white guy fear mongering, but La Raza memebers, of which Sotomayor is a member, cheering it on.

And would I want a democrat on the bench. Sure, if they are qualified and make decisions based on the consitution. That would be dandy. I mean, who wouldn't?[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]


First of all, it was a speech given at the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture, it was only reprinted in that journal and was not prepared for it, as you are trying to imply. As such, to try to link her to a provocative add for a DVD is nonsense.

Second of all, this attempt to claim that La Raza is somehow a Hispanic KKK is ridiculous. While La Raza translates literally as "The Race," the reason the organization has this name is because of an essay called "La Raza Cosmica," a future race denomination that would be a mixture of all races and create a place called "universopolis," where there would be no race division and no racism. It is basically an advocate group for Latinos.



Quote:
Sorry but it pretty much says that latina's make better judgements than white men.

---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 AM ----------


I guess this answers my question about whether or not you read the entire transcript. To try to focus on one sentence on a transcribed speech and ignore the context completely is not really the way to go if anyone wants to have an honest discussion about her views. I posted the entire speech, with the sections where he says stuff where she clearly contradicts what you claim she is saying, and you've ignored it so far.

As I said before, if one out of context sentence transcribed from a speech she gave 8 years ago is the best that her opposition can do for someone with hundreds of published legal opinions and judgments, who has been on the bench for 17 years, she will have an easy time being confirmed.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

The fact is, if this was the only sentence she ever said, we could have this discussion about what it is and what is means. I think that it is open ended enough that there is at least some ambiguity about what she meant.

But this is not the only sentence she ever said. In fact, that sentence is a part of a speech, and a part of a long judicial career. So the question becomes: do we have any other evidence to support the interpretation that you are making, that she is in fact a racist that thinks that Latinos make better judges?

And the answer is clearly no. She says multiple times in the same speech that the experiences of being a minority or a woman does not make one more enlightened in general, or a better judge, or a representative of an entire group of people, and that the person should not be biased by their race. And that the point she is making in her speech is that the experience of being a minority or a woman can enrich one's perspective, that one can be wise in different ways, that multiple decisions can be simultaneously wise, but that the real challenge is knowing when one is allowing that experience to enrich their judgment and when one is allowing that to cloud their judgment.

I think a debate of her views is welcome, but I think that willingly reducing the amount of information we have on her to one sentence so that people can be persuaded that she is something she has no other signs of being is really uninteresting.

Last edited by dippin; 05-29-2009 at 09:01 PM..
dippin is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360