Since this is Page 2 and many probably lost the quotation in the block of text, it is worth repeating:
Sotomayor's ACTUAL quote is:
Quote:
|
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.
|
While this quote is frequently truncated or given without context, I think perhaps now would be a good time for a lesson in subject-verb agreement. Her ENTIRE sentence, as quoted, provides two actors (nouns) who are described and given attributions (adjectives) and who ultimately perform an action (verb).
In this case, then, the first entity is a "wise Latina woman" attributed a "richness of experience" who has "lived that life" (whatever that may be is left to the reader. The second entity is a "white male" who "hasn't lived that life." In considering the adjectives and the formulation of the sentence (PARTICULARLY when referencing preceding sentences) it is clear that her point is not that being Latina causes a predisposition for 'better decisions' but actually of 'richness of experience.' She conveys before and after this quotation that many white male Justices WITH a richness of experience performed well. As an example: "we'd be myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable."
While her connotation leaves much to be desired, the quotation has a rather unmistakable meaning to those who read it in context. She is declaring that individuals with a richness of experience (whether through race, life, judicial experience or 'school of hard knocks' experience) will more often than not (in itself, a largely uncommitted assertion) reach a better conclusion. The only time race is connoted is in ancillary adjectives describing the actors in her hypothetical situation, and they form the majority of her argument ONLY if you're victim to the confirmation bias which allows you to presuppose her intent was racist.
---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Here is where I am:
"On one hand people seem to suggest that diversity based on race/gender/ethnicity is a good thing for our judicial system.
On the other people seem to suggest that in her rulings race/gender/ethnicity had no impact on her judgments.
Which is it? "
No clarification has been offered. You are correct, time to move on, because no clarification can be given.
|
Sotomayor's speech, taken as a whole, addresses those considerations equally. I heartily suggest another review of her opinion, if you have the time. She specifically addresses that it would be myopic to IGNORE that judges have important life experience which they rely on in interpreting case law, as we all do in our daily lives. She continues to argue that we shouldn't ignore those experiences, but we should mindful of our duty to determine when they are appropriate.
From her speech: "I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge
must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt,
as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------
As a final word, I do understand the neo-conserative ideal that we're all truly separate from our experience, that we're all capable of making decisions regardless of bias or presupposition, but I do not accept that position. I would be content acknowledging that a Conservative can disagree with the premise that a "richness of experience" will affect a Judge's ruling. I disagree on the basis that we're can never be emotionless robots, interpreters of the letter and the word of the law. Many meanings which are intended are not conveyed in the words of a law, and many meanings which are NOT intended are indeed conveyed by the words of the law. It is the job of a Supreme Court justice (and any interpreter, whether it be a Biblical literalist, a judge in a court of law or an arbitrator) to INTERPRET the text before them. Interpretation always takes the bias of the interpreter. As an apt example, examine the differences between different versions of The Holy Bible. Why does the King James differ so greatly from the NIV? They're coming from the same source languages (Arameic, Greek), and should thereby reach the same English interpretation, should they not? As history has shown us before and will continue to show us, humans are subject to their bias, and you cannot interpret in a truly egalitarian way. The best we can hope for is that Judges understand when and how their experience can and should be used; when it is and isn't appropriate. We also counterbalance this by staffing a Supreme Court with individuals of VARYING experience, ethnicity, gender and belief such that even in the individual failing - being inablity to determine one's own bias - it will be balanced by the remaining members of the Judicial body.