Is this a racist statement?
 

"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 latina who hasn't lived that life."

It depends on the context. Are a specific white man's experiences being referenced, or is there a presumption that the white man's life experience has been richer than that of the latina?

why do you ask?

Yes. That he is white should be irrelevant, and bringing that in presents racist undertones.

The collective experiences would seem to be the determining factor in reaching that better conclusion. Experience equals a better conclusion. The races aren't a part of the statement, but are rather a reference to a context that you haven't supplied. It's that context that would determine if the statement is racist.

He's referencing Sotomayor.

..

No not experience. The quote specificaly says that one race will make one come to better conclusions. Isn't that by definition, racist?

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's a false point.

If two people - let's say, oh, a black man and a white man - are in a race and the white man takes a tire iron and beats the hell out of the black man and continues running while the black man is hospitalized and recovers and the white man then claims, "He's now just as healthy as me and has every opportunity to win this race as me!" the race is still not a fair race.

In order to make it right, and a truly fair race, the white man would have to be severely beaten with a tire iron to an extent that his injuries are comparable, or be forced to sit out an equal amount of time that the black man was out of the race.

If it's a relay race, the next baton carrier can say, "I didn't beat him. It's not my fault he's so far back," all he wants - he's still ahead because the black man had the holy hell beaten out of him and the win will not be fair, no matter how much the white man whines about it.

That is after all, what this is all about, isn't it?

So why bring race into it at all? Why not say, " I lived a rich life, something someone from a sequestered, sheltered life can not fathom. It is due to that full life that will lead me to make better judgments."

Did her life make her more wise than say Asians? Or just white people? Add into the mix the fact that she is a member of a seperatist organisation, La Raza, and her meaning becomes crystal clear. Remember, La Raza, or The Race, is by definition a racist group. Their goals, like that of the KKK is to divide the USA along racial lines.


I do not want to see this woman anywhere near the supreme court.

It's like will said. Context is everything. So while it is easy to look at this statement on its own and think that it's racist, there are certain contexts where it wouldn't be.

And in any case, who cares? What does it have to do with her ability to perform as a supreme court justice? How come all of these people who are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo concerned about her ability to properly make legal decisions are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo caught up on something that is hardly even tangentially related to her ability to hand out quality legal decisions? You'd think they'd pay attention to her actual legal decisions, because, you know, they indicate how she might actually perform after she is confirmed as a supreme court justice.

This issue is little more than cud for the cows who love nothing more than sit in their fields, eat what is given to them, and watch the world pass them by.

Instead of playing gotcha, why don't we discuss the actual quote, in all extension?

Here is the full lecture:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...text.html?_r=1

to quote the sections around where this specific statement was made:


If that is the best example of "racism" that the opposition to her appointment can do, she will do fine.

Her basic point in her speech is almost commonsensical - that one's life experiences affect one's perspective and judgment. And then she goes on to outline changes in legal perspective that have taken place as more women and minorities have been appointed to key judgeships. She is arguing against the notion that wise people will reach the same conclusion no matter what their background, and she shows how seminal decisions we take for granted today only took place as minorities and women became more prevalent in the justice system, and it is in that context that she mentions the Latina woman experience.

She goes out of her way several times to claim that these minorities and women should not judge as strictly minorities or women, and that the goal of impartiality is unreachable but must remain a goal. Her entire point is that the unique experiences of being a minority or a woman should not cloud or bias their judgment, but that their experiences should enrich their perspectives.

At no point she says that white men should not be judges, or that they are inferior judicial minds.

Racism has two basic definitions: it's denotation (that is, its dictionary definition), and it's connotation (that is, the emotion ascribed to the word).

I didn't actually look it up because I'm a little lazy with things like that, but from memory, a racist is a person who believes that certain races are inherently superior to others. By this definition, it's possible she is a racist. I don't honestly know. I don't know what goes on inside her head. I don't believe she is, but I can't say with any certainty.

The connotation of racist is that of a KKK member in a white hood and white sheet or a neo-nazi or skinhead or someone who seeks to suppress another race usually through violent means.

I don't think she fits the connotation of a racist because I don't see her riding around in the back of a pickup holding up a torch as they chase down white people leaving Whole Foods™.

I do agree with the idea that there is no room for a racist on the Supreme Court. If it comes out that she truly is a racist, then I wouldn't want her confirmed, either. However, I don't think I'm in agreement with the radical right's attempt to characterize La Raza as a racist organization or Sotomayor as a racist individual.

First, would you want anyone appointed by a democrat there?

Second, did you even read the entire speech? Do you know when and where it was given?

Of course, the statement is entirely, completely true.

A wise white man WILL reach a better conclusion... for the benefit of white men.

Again, lets see if you would like a KKK member saying that white experience trumps any Latina experience and see if its SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cool.

You should post the quote you're referencing, because the one in the OP is grammatically clear: the "richness of experience" leads to "a better conclusion", and the reference to race doesn't correlate with the conclusion. I'm sure someone with a better education in language can make this more clear, but I'm pretty sure my understanding is sound.

---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

QFT. The contrarians don't stand a chance on this nomination.

except that is not even close to what she was saying.

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?

---------- Post added at 12:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 AM ----------


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 ----------


So your are also implying that white man will make poorer conclusions for non white man. Then take your logic that latina's will make better conclusions for latinas. Which also says that Latinas will make poorer conclusions for non latinas.


And this is still not a racist statment? I mean, race is the freaken subject of her sentence!!!

thanks for dodging my question, zenturian. perhaps you imagined that will's one-dimensional reponse covered what i was asking you. but you'd be wrong.

as for your "argument"--it's curious that santomeyer's legal work isn't relevant, don't you think?
perhaps i was mistaken in imagining that a supreme court nominee should be debated on the basis of what she might have actually done as a judge. strange to see that somehow it's not relevant here.

but seriously, why do you ask, zenturian? why is this important?

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.



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.

So you are cool with members of a racist, seperatist organisation sitting on the supreme court? Who should be next, fellow democrate, David Duke?

---------- Post added at 08:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ----------


One of The Race's goals is to divid the USA along Racial lines, which is one of the goals of the KKK. If one is wrong and racist, then both are. She is a proud member of an organisation with the same goal as the KKK. I don't want her anywhere near the Supreme court.

you're joking, right?

dippin actually took care of this canard pretty well already. if you read what's already in the thread, i can't see how you'd still be maintaining your position.
the right's got nothing on her. this is nonsense shows that to be the case.

Nonsense, that about sums this up.

Comparing La Raza to the KKK? Might as well compare the NAACP to the KKK. One tries to build up the other tear down. La Raza has such leftest supporters as GW Bush and John McCain. They've had separatists funders like the Ford Foundation contribute to their organization. Calling La Raza a racist organization is at best ill informed.

And as you point out the statements she made regarding race, taken in complete context, isn't exactly racist at all. Go look up what Alito or O'Connor have said regarding race and gender and compare those comments to Sotomayor's. I think you'll many similarities. I don't remember anyone freaking out when Alito said-

Thinking that La Raza is not a racist organisation is just plain silly. How else would you describe an organisation that wants to divide the nation along racial lines?

Find a single position La Raza has taken that supports the idea that they are separatist.

---------- Post added at 08:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 AM ----------

By the way, La Raza has answered these sorts of statements before. From their website:

National Council of La Raza: Support of Separatist Organizations



http://www.nclr.org/section/reconquista/

It's pretty annoying, we're still in the "Wright is an important issue!!" mindset and it's still a stupid self-imposed distraction from more relevant stuff like, say, Didden v. Port Chester.

In her lecture she said that she disagreed with the premise that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases". She goes on to explain why with the statement "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."

Of course this is racist and of course there are many white males who probably think they would make better case decisions than minorities. I expect that decisions on cases of reverse discrimination like the New Haven Firefighters might be greatly influenced by the richness of their experience as well as the ethnicity of the judge.

So, at this point, now that the black man is healthy, because of what happened in the past, (in previous legs of the relay) the white man should now start beating HIMSELF with the tire iron. :shakehead: Just in order to even out the score, and make it a "truly fair race??"

Lindy

a judicial scholar looked at her record at the court of appeals. She was part of panels in 50 cases where minorities claimed discrimination. Of the 50, she accepted the discrimination claim 3 times, and all three times the decisions were unanimous and joined by a republican appointed judge. The idea that she is some sort of racist that uses her judgeship to promote a reverse-discrimination agenda is simply false.

She has been part of quite a few polemical decisions in her court, but none of them involved race. If those who oppose her will hang their hat on this one out of context quote, her nomination will be a cakewalk.

Yes. Actions speak louder than words. Unless you're up for a supreme court nomination.

That's a good question. I can't say I have the answer for it. However, let me ask you a question: is it fair to say that if the black man loses, it's because he was lazy and didn't run fast enough?

Is it a fair race at all?

Yes, it is racist. If a white man had said that he would rightfully be hung out to dry. A Latina says it and there are all kinds of excuses why it is ok and how the context is taken wrong.

ANY PERSON in politics should, IMHO, should not focus on race/creed/sex/etc but on the content of character. Because politics should not be about appeasing specific groups but about ALL people and making government responsive and accessible to ALL people.

We will continuously have deep problems and issues in this country until politicians and the media decide that ALL people deserve respect.

Go to the reparations thread.... my feeling is you invest in ALL people in poverty and give them chances yet some see that as racist. Some want one group to do better than others. WHY? Is that one group better and more deserving?

For a politician to say "I can make better decisions because I'm polka dotted and have lived a life that striped people would never know" is interesting but a false statement and very prejudicial and racist. I would trust that politician less in their decisions, as they would seem radical and more likely to favor the polka dotted people even if the polka dotted people were wrong.

If a politician says, "I admit I'm from an area where my experiences may be different than others and because of that reason, I feel more capable of offering a different viewpoint, however, all people deserve to be heard fairly and the decisions made need to benefit not just the few but ALL." That's something I can agree with and trust.

One is very divisive and racist the other is honest and offers an opinion that may very well be logical and make sense.

To have a SC Justice using the divisive statement and not the more prudent one makes me wonder if 1) that person is racist and 2) shows me that is not the sign of someone out for the best interests of the many.

Can we lock this thread please? It's clear that people refuse to read the entire Sotomayer speech and are content to label her a racist and divisive based on a cherry-picked line. No one is listening to each other and we're going around in circles.

Some obviously will only look at one statement that suits their agenda as opposed to her actions in 10+ years on the federal bench.

actions speak louder than words.

Ah but that's politics. If it were a white man and a GOP president nominated him and he made similar statements.... the left and press would be all over that one statement, context wouldn't mean a damn thing.

My point above is that if you are in the political game, you have to realize that as you move up EVERYTHING you say will be looked at and dissected. You can claim "taken out of context", however, the question has to be why would you say anything so divisive to begin with?

You can have the best voting record/judgments and the respect of both parties, but the second you try to advance, people on the other side will look heavily into all your speeches, your past and so on. The second they find something they can use..... they will.

She gave them something they could use to scare Middle White Suburbia. And to some degree it is working, to some degree it is backfiring in other areas of the country.

It's called politics and it's just the way it is as one side scrambles for more power.

So lock the thread because people are doing what they do in politics and taking things out of context and trying to spin things for the advancement of their own power?????? :thumbsup: But lock the thread when it is only against your side. Heaven forbid locking it when a GOP says something and the Left decides to take it out of context and blow it up as they scramble for power.

It's not too late. We can save this thread and restore it to the forum's typically high level of discourse. Does someone have a goofy picture we can use to mock the minority party? Can someone offer an eloquent rebuttal involving the phrases 'fucking idiotic' and 'unworthy of response'?

Its "fucking idiotic" to base an opinion or draw sweeping conclusions based on one sentence from a speech rather than a body of work and judicial decisions.

Beyond that, its "unworithy of response" unless it is to add that it is making the wing nuts look ignorant as usual.

Aaaaand the thread is redeemed.

Right.... you make the decisions on what is "fucking idiotic" and what is "Unworthy of Response".

Great debate tactics and ways to promote conversation and a friendly board that is supposed to exchange opinions and ideas and respect the other.

When the Right on here have said those things they would get browbeaten and told that they were closed minded idiots.... but I guess since you're on the for now winning side you're better than they are.

Certainly it must be intended as either a racial or sexist comment. It is possible of course that the person making that statement may not be a racist, someone who is not racist can make racist statements (and someone who is not sexist can make sexist statements)... the person may have reconsidered their opinion, have mispoken, and so on. But if as I gather the person who said this is a judge that raises some very serious questions. It should be possible to apply the law without taking into account personal prejudice, but all human beings are fallible in this regard.

Another vote for context.

In the right context, I'd hope for the same thing.

And anyone who thinks the current members of SCOTUS are robots who only apply the law via the constitution is seriously fooling themselves

But the question to start the thread is "Is This a Racist Statement".

It asks what your belief of a single statement is.

As I said above, it's politics, bitch moan and cry unfair but when your side has the chance it does the same thing.

In politics there are no saints, there is no one above getting dirty to get what they want. To say it's only one sided is bull ship and hypocritical.

Not only is it racist, it is inflammatory - no matter who says it and regardless of context. The statement has no place in the law and has no intellectual merit. There is no doubt that one's experiences will influence decisions, but the goal of any person with integrity is to understand those influences and minimize the impact those experiences would have on coming to fair and objective conclusions. It seems that Sotomayor not only is not willing to minimize who she is and her experiences but that she thinks they actually add value under the law. They need to do more than say she misspoke or used the wrong words, we need an explanation of how she actually thinks.

You have 100's and 100's of her judicial decisions to base that on

And....we should have the right to have her answer questions about how she came to her conclusions including how she came to the conclusion that being a latina would make her better able to sit in judgment as compared to anyone else. That is an absurd statement on its face, ethnicity or race has absolutely no impact on a person's ability to process information and if she is saying she carries a bias as it applies to her job as a judge and that the bias should be accentuated rather than minimized she should resign as a judge and should not be on the SCOTUS.

{added} Perhaps they simply need to be honest and say she was pandering to her audience, which has been all too common for Obama people.

I would point back to the article/analysis I posted of her judicial decisions on race discrimination issues as well as the comparison to a statement made by Alito re: how the immigrant experience of his Italian-American grandparents influences his thought process....

...but I was informed it was deleted because I broke the house rules. Evidently one comment in a 4-5 para response (with accompanying links and a youtube vid) was taboo :eek:

We certainly dont want people to look at anything beyond the one line in a speech in order to have an honest discussion.

what is with the conservative resistance to context?
a hundred years ago, it was routinely conservatives who claimed to be oriented toward the concrete and their opponents toward the abstract.
seems that this has been stood on its head in the intervening period.


granted there are some statements which on their own are transparently racist--but these seem to me a special case, typically involving some type of derogatory word or expression.
there is no way that the sentence taken entirely out of context in the op falls into that class of statements. it's simply and empirically false to claim it does.

what it does have is a formulation that plays into the conservative canard of "reverse racism""---but since it's being floated in a rather pathetic attempt to smear a supreme court nominee--and given that her actual decisions make mincemeat of the conservative smear--i dont entirely understand why the discussion here is still happening.

more often than not, it's when a thread has passed the point of coherent discussion but continues to twitch along anyway that things grow snarky.
maybe it'd be better to read through and decide whether it's a waste of time to continue the discussion, if a point has been demonstrated or its contrary demonstrated so that the argument is effectively over--if you want to continue the discussion, but find yourself confronted with a game that's over, start another thread in which you make your argument by using a different tack.

I think the reason that it appears absurd to you is that you don't understand what she was talking about.

You mean like the rest of the actual speech where the sentence came from? If people are too lazy to read it here's the cliffnotes:

She was discussing the impact of increased minority and female participation in law, and discussed how every key case on discrimination, segregation and so on had a minority or female either judging or advocating the case. As such, he says that the idea that wise men and wise women reach the same wise decisions was false, because there are more than one definitions of what a wise decision is, and in this context of judging and discussing discrimination, a Latina woman with the experiences related to discrimination that come with the territory should (but will not necessarily) reach a wiser decision than a man who has never experienced that type of discrimination.

She then goes on to say that the real challenge is to know when that experience is biasing their judgment and when that experience is enriching it, and that no one should adopt the identity of the "Latin Judge" or whatever other minority.

Not at all different from what Alito said, but apparently the same people who are quick to deny even the possibility of racism elsewhere in this case are so hellbent as to ignore any and every shred of evidence that they are wrong. At no point does she say that minorities make better judges, and that in fact is entirely contradicted several times during that speech, which would make sense given that her entire point is that there are more than one possible wise decisions.

how dare you, sir, come upon this thread with information and context. pshaw.

Does seem a rather odd tack to take in the present heated winds.

Hm. It's funny how there is a difference between a racist statement and a statement about race. It's funny how decontextualization works.

I meant "funny" odd, not "funny" har har. :expressionless:

This is why context is important, rather than impotent.

At first it made me wary, but after looking up many of her actual judicial decisions I don't see it actually arriving in her decisions. She's thrown out many racial discrimination lawsuits, and appears that she (for the most part) stays relatively unbiased. My only fear is keeping the court to decide impartially on current laws and not attempting to legislate from the bench, but I see no impact from this quote to show any evidence of that.

I don't have a general resistance to context. Her statement is clear and stands on its own merits. Was she pandering, or does she believe personal bias should be accentuated rather than minimized as she sits in judgment? My take on this is not the standard right wing take that I have been hearing.

the problem with promoting one's race/gender/experiences is the risk of insulting those who are different. Her statement is inflammatory.

---------- Post added at 01:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------

You don't know who or what I am, so what is your basis for that comment?

---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 AM ----------

That is b.s. when it come to the law. Our goal is to live in a world where the law is truly blind. Her comment suggests we are making no progress in that regard. Are liberals throwing up the white (pardon the pun) flag on King's dream?

alito, indicated what I have said, that we all have biases, our goal with the law should be to minimize those biases.

---------- Post added at 02:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 AM ----------

How about an honest response to my question. was she pandering to her audience with her comment? That is a part of context as well as the words surrounding her comment.

How about an honest response to my comment that her statement was inflammatory? That is a part of our national context when it comes to race/gender issues.

Seems some want to pick and choose their "context" reference points. But I stand by the view that her comment was clear and stands on its own.

---------- Post added at 02:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 AM ----------

How many have involved female latina's? Isn't that the issue? In fact isn't her heritage very different than many others who are under the broader definition of term she used? In some cases the differences are very sharp ones.

It was based on the way you've misinterpreted what she said.

From what I am reading she seems to be saying pretty much the same thing.


She might be speaking to a specific audience, yes. I have no problem with tailoring your speech to a specific audience. But again, when viewed in the context of all of her rulings (actions speak louder than words) she appears to be a solid candidate.

I don't think what she said is especially inflammatory at all. Rather, it think this needless nit picking and pulling a fraction of what was said out of context is extremely inflammatory. Just as I find much of what the GOP is doing these days is inflammatory rather than inciteful.



I am glad you are resolute in your clarity but from where I am sitting your position looks rather fogged in the steam coming from the right.

Alito said that his family's struggles with discrimination made him more aware of that. A very similar position to what she said.

And who said anything about justice not being colorblind?

In any case, the way to achieve a so called colorblind society is not to pretend that we are currently a colorblind society. She raised a pertinent empirical issue: why is it that every landmark decision that reversed previous positions on segregation and discrimination necessarily had a minority either on the bench or arguing the case. And her response is that while the men who tried those cases before may have been wise, they lacked any first hand experience in the matter to fully understand the perspective of the discriminated.

And she never once claimed that these minorities then should be biased in one way or the other, and as her record shows, she hasnt been biased one way or the other.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

Claiming that hot is actually cold doesn't make it so. I (and others) am saying that you should look at the entire speech. You are the one who is picking and choosing things from what she said.

Looking at the entire speech is certainly no "picking and choosing." Refusing to discuss anything but a misinterpretation of one isolated sentence is.

Gosh, you're so helpful. That completely clears it all up.

Protip: if endless streams of questions aggravate you, you should probably stop begging them.

Protip: when your main mode of arguing consists of only asking questions, every statement begs questions.

Yes, I am confused.

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? What was her point?

Not a big fan of the Socratic method, are we?

I agree, though, it is more geared toward teaching than it is debating.

Then they are both wrong.

I am also confused by the logic used to rationalize issues. If a conservative did it or said it then it is o.k., I think not. From what I understand about Alito's comment was that he did not include words like "better", I could be wrong but I think that is at the core of this issue. I admit that everyone brings their heritage and culture with them.

However, when it comes to the law, heritage and culture should have no importance. I can understand if McDonald's puts a female latina on its board of directors if the company is trying to grow in that market, but when it comes to the law - justice should be blind.

Is her point acceptable?


Again, see my questions above. What value is her heritage and culture if it plays no role in her rulings what was her point? If it did play a role, is that justice?

What about empathy to those who might see the comment different than you? I understand some not seeing the comment as inflammatory, but on the other hand, I see why many do. Is she failing the "empathy" test? Or does "empathy" only apply to certain groups.

There is no doubt she is qualified based on education and experience, I doubt she did not know the importance and impact of her words. Based on that I doubt she is surprised by the reaction. Based on that some of us deserve a more detailed explanation of her views on this issue, and it is not nit picky.


I am not clear on what she meant, nor am I clear on what her intent was. I agree I am in a fog, that is why I am asking questions. that is why I want her to clarify this issue.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

I think she said that she would make better decisions because of her ethnicity and genders. I am not getting that Alito said that.

Perhaps it is just a pipe dream of mine.


I think that is faulty logic. It is disturbing if that is how she connects the dots. I think it is an insult to many historical people who had the courage to do what is right in the face of social and political pressures.

So, what was her point?

I really can't claim to know but based on the rulings she actually issued I'd say it isn't what you seem to think it is/was.

ace, i believe that the text which surrounded the factoid presented as if it were a problem of some kind in the op has already been posted. the way you work out what she meant is that you read the text. you know, check out the context. this isn't rocket science.

geez, you'd think that reading in context was going to give you a rash or something.

Take a nice hard look at that thread you abandoned and you'll discover that this advice is misaimed. When you don't put much effort into explaining your position, you're going to get questions. That's just how it goes.

It ain't just that thread.

I know you have opinions. It would be nice to be able to engage them without having to infer them from the direction of your questions. It's kind of a cowardly way of arguing... I'm not saying that you're a coward, just that you argue like one.

Interesting way to answer the question. I came to the conclusion that her words where b.s. and that she was pandering to her audience, simply saying what she thought they wanted to hear. I think she takes her role as a judge seriously and I can not imagine she actually believes that ethnicity/gender has anything to do with a jurist coming to just decisions.

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

If it was that simple in this the age of obama speak. For example what did obama mean when he talked to lefties in S.F. about those people clinging to their religion and guns. What did that mean? Obama people seem to talk in code to certain audiences.

And, if it was so, so simple why can't I get direct answers to my simple questions?

I love these 'gotcha quotes' that the right decried all during the campaign when directed at their candidates but embrace wholeheartedly when it's directed at the opposing party.

ace---at this point, we're entering the outer reaches of the endgame of this debate. you've been presented with more than enough information and arguments from a variety of folk to effectively rebut your position. it's hard to say what your motivation is in refusing to see the tactical situation you're in---maybe because there's no particular rules of debate here so folk can decide as they like where things are. but to my mind, your position is entirely untenable and debate is finished.

maybe start another thread using different (hopefully, for your sake, stronger) material, or introduce something else.

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.

It ain't just that thread in which I don't exemplify your criticism?

It would be nice for you to both explain and back up this criticism, but that would involve me asking you questions and I don't see that going anywhere. I'm not saying you're a coward, and a pretentious one at that, just that you persistently avoid stating your ideas clearly like one.

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:

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 ----------

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.

I don't mind the Socratic method when a professor is using it. It can be a motivating/challenging way to learn.

I think that in a discussion about, say, smoking bans it is a bit out of place.

I don't think your problems with the things I say stem from a lack of clarity on my part. Clearly we have ideological differences, you and I. And no, it ain't just the thread where you "don't" exemplify my criticism. Though it is interesting to note that your opening question exemplifies the type of debating style I'm attempting to avoid, in that you're clearly feigning ignorance with a question and your question is phrased in such a way so as to betray your contempt for whatever you're pretending to be ignorant about.

The thread I abandoned wasn't the our first conversation. We have a rich tradition of me saying something, you pretending like you don't understand what I'm saying so that you can ask a question about it. Then when I answer your question, you just respond with another question, ad infinitum, until I stop responding.

The reason I abandoned the above-mentioned thread is that it finally dawned on me that there isn't any point in attempting to have a discussion when my every response is going to be met with some form of "but why?" I feel like the crime of filling innocent threads with terse, line-by-line rebuttals is some a waste of everybody's time. Call it personal growth, I guess.

I mean, we've gone over this same track for abortion, cigarette bans, landlord racial discrimination, etc. Now I guess we're going over it with respect to my response to aceventura's aversion to context.

And you're deluding yourself if you think you can pass off your questions as some sort of honest effort to get beyond some sort of lack of clarity on my part. The questions you frequently ask often drip with the kind of derision that would be completely out of place if all you were trying to do was understand my perspective. Beyond that, your questions are typically leading, which to me means you think you already know the answer to them and are asking them to point the conversation in a particular direction. Presumably, the fact that you think you already know the answer to a question is due in part to the fact that you feel comfortable in your understanding of the statement that inspired the question, no?

Now, I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. You're clearly intelligent, passionate and thoughtful. I'm just trying to explain to you why I'm not particularly inclined to engage you in message board discussions.

Sure, I'll cop to an instance of annoying style there. I do indeed have contempt for a style that responds to "Uh, that very thread counters your criticism" with "That's not the only thread that supports my criticism!"

Nah, excepting that one snipe above, I can't remember an exchange between us where that was the case. It's not a matter of pretending, it's a matter of getting your unstated assumptions, headwork, and leaps into the open. When, for instance, you call those gay marriage falsehoods 'convenient', you're making an implicit claim as to whether opponents in general earnestly believed those falsehoods. And you're making that claim without being bold enough to outright say it, detail it, and defend it.

I'll point out again that my posts in that thread weren't exactly as homogenous as you portray. Consider that maybe the other posters were doing something that you weren't.

You take issue with derision now? (Crap, did it again.)

It's entirely possible that you have some new angle on an issue that I hadn't yet considered and it would honestly be easier to see such an angle if you weren't so averse to my questions. In the interim, though, apparently shallow thinking phrased in shallow ways will tend to strike me as shallow. And here's a personal stake for that last issue: your shallow statement amounted to the idea that many of my friends and family are bigots, with all the ugly things that term connotes.

Yes, that direction is the unstated - possibly unexamined - parts of your argument.

I won't complain if the light is shone on mine.

I'm not all that hurt by an attempt to rationalize a dodge via deflection - just annoyed.

Soooo anyone else have anything to add to this thread? :)

against what rules? this isn't labeled a Pub Discussion....

I was suprised to learn George H.W. Bush nominated her to the Federal Bench in 1992.

I don't think it's surprising, and if people weren't trying to focus only on this nonsense about half a sentence, I think there is enough about her to discuss, which should surprisingly create some real issues for the most partisan among us.

Despite being somewhat liberal, she seems to favor a very narrow reading of law and precedent, which in turn has led her to be overly deferential to the executive. Not surprisingly, in her most controversial cases (Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Doninger v. Niehoff, Didden v. Village of Port Chester) she sided with Bush appointed judges on upholding certain acts.

speaking about sotomayor's full statement in context:

of course it's racist. her statement acknowledges differences in race (and gender) and carves out a role for racial considerations in the judicial process. it's dishonest to say anything different.

but the left has never rejected racism. on the contrary, their ideology demands we treat people differently based on their race. they only reject racism that conflicts with their political and social goals.

recognizing that there are differences between the experiences of different groups is not racism.

What's more, perpetuating differences between racial groups (or passively allowing them to perpetuate) IS racism, even when done under the guise of post-racism.