Sotomayor is a racist

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Here's the FULL sentence, "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."

Hmmm, does it sound to you like MAYBE there's something that goes in front of this? Yeah it kinda does!

My GOD, you're so right - the inclusion of that word ENTIRELY changes the meaning of that sentence!!!!

Not.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Did it not occur to you that when I asked to see it, that I had in fact already seen it and knew it was taken out of context?

Hell, even the ONE sentence is truncated. Why? Because to not do so would scream even louder that that it was a statement cherry picked out of context of a larger discussion about race, sex and the judicial system.

Here's the FULL sentence, "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."

Hmmm, does it sound to you like MAYBE there's something that goes in front of this? Yeah it kinda does!

here's the entire paragraph:

"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."

put in context, its still a racist statement.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[quade 4]

Actually it does since it implies you're missing at least half of what she's talking about.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Actually it does since it implies you're missing at least half of what she's talking about.

Care to pass the lemon juice so I can bring up the invisible ink to get the rest of the sentence?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

"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."

Paul - I know what she's trying to say with this. But this quote has a couple of things in it that I find irritating from any source.

First, she said she "would hope that a wise Latina woman " would 'reach a better conclusion than a white male." In a sense, she is disparaging Latinas. She's hoping that a wise Latina woman would reach a "better" conclusion than a white male. Not a "wise" white male. It's unqualified.

It's the same thing we see in the gay debate. "Would you rather have a child go to an abusive, drug addicted, criminal heterosexual couple of a loving, tender successful gay couple?"

My second problem is the use of the word "better." "Better" should lead an adjucator to ask some questions:
Better than what?
What is better about it?
What do you mean by "better?"

See, "better" is a subjective thing. In court, "better" can mean a few different things:
Better for the defendant/respondent
Better for the Plaintiff/petitioner
Better for the administration of justice (which is often an important factor - i.e., no fault divorce "better" because the cases take far fewer resources)
Better for societal purposes (and here is the thing)

Viewed in context, Sotomayor's comments suggest that ciontext that she sees a superiority in the approach of a wise Latina versus a white male.

Personally - I think all different perspectives should provide just that - different perspectives. Such as a, "Here's my perspective on it. Here is the hidden cost you may not appreciate."

Heck, I did it yesterday: "What you are asking for. Do you think there is any way he is not gonna fight like hell so you don't? You are asking for everything, but providing no reason for all of it. We've said, 'We'll stipulate to these things' that takes care of the needs you identified."

Of course, she wouldn't budge. She lost.

See, I thought it was "better" if they had some ground rules governing their interaction that would fulfill their mutual needs. She thought it was worth it to go for the whole kaboodle. It turned out "better" for my client and "worse" for her.

I think it turned out "worse" for both because this is an issue that has a good chance of repeating, despite my client's happiness at the result.

That's what "better" comes down to. Perspective. I was the only one who thought my way was best.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

here's the entire paragraph:

"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."

put in context, its still a racist statement.

Let me ask you this, do you think she's talking about herself or trying to be inspirational to the assembled class that sat in front of her?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

>she's been on the short list for plenty long enough that her background
>and positions, as well as the background and positions of other people that
>didn't get the nomination have been studied.

Hmm. Then why didn't he know her name?

[nerd137 0]

Quote

Quote

Did it not occur to you that when I asked to see it, that I had in fact already seen it and knew it was taken out of context?

Hell, even the ONE sentence is truncated. Why? Because to not do so would scream even louder that that it was a statement cherry picked out of context of a larger discussion about race, sex and the judicial system.

Here's the FULL sentence, "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."

Hmmm, does it sound to you like MAYBE there's something that goes in front of this? Yeah it kinda does!

here's the entire paragraph:

"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."

put in context, its still a racist statement.

Gotta disagree with ya there, cowboy. I think anyone who see racism there is missing the point.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>she's been on the short list for plenty long enough that her background
>and positions, as well as the background and positions of other people that
>didn't get the nomination have been studied.

Hmm. Then why didn't he know her name?

Surely he's not expected to know *all* the 'little people', is he?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Let me ask you this, do you think she's talking about herself or trying to be inspirational to the assembled class that sat in front of her?

to answer your question, she was trying to be inspirational, but that doesn't change the fact that what she said was racist.

let me ask you this, do you think racism is ok if the target is white?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Let me ask you this, do you think she's talking about herself or trying to be inspirational to the assembled class that sat in front of her?

to answer your question, she was trying to be inspirational, but that doesn't change the fact that what she said was racist.

let me ask you this, do you think racism is ok if the target is white?

Didn't you get the memo? Only whites can be racist!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

>she's been on the short list for plenty long enough that her background
>and positions, as well as the background and positions of other people that
>didn't get the nomination have been studied.

Hmm. Then why didn't he know her name?

the man misspoke her first name? big deal. is this all you've got, bill?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Her job is to judge the laws, not people

Rarely. Her job is to apply laws to people, facts, etc. For example, if I object that a statement is hearsay, the judge will rule. If I have a trial on a partition action, it won't matter what the background of the judge is, the judge will partition it.

If the guilt of a person is at issue, the judge will determine whether the prosecutor proved that what the person did was a crime. "The prosecutor failed to prove that the Defendant was intoxicated and therefore I find the defendant not guilty pf DUI."

But on appeals courts, the justices will often have to determine whether an error is "prejudicial" or "harmless." For this, yes, they often look at the person.

Other times (like the Prop 8 issue) justices will judge a law according to a higher law. Values do come in on the levels of scrutiny. What one judge may find rational others may not. I don't have a problem with that.

But the laws affect people. And most judges judge facts. Justices typically do not disturb findings of fact by a trial judge, but will determine whether the judge used to right law, stated the law correctly, or abused discretion in doing something.

In a sense, there is less discretion in appeals! Less of a margin for individual quirks. Unless you want to make policy.

Quote

Hey, you're handy with Lexus/Nexus (I assume). What exactly has been her history on the bench.

I don't know. I haven't had cause to read anythign she's done. And it'll take me days to find some stuff and read it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did it not occur to you that when I asked to see it, that I had in fact already seen it and knew it was taken out of context?

Hell, even the ONE sentence is truncated. Why? Because to not do so would scream even louder that that it was a statement cherry picked out of context of a larger discussion about race, sex and the judicial system.

Here's the FULL sentence, "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."

Hmmm, does it sound to you like MAYBE there's something that goes in front of this? Yeah it kinda does!

here's the entire paragraph:

"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."

put in context, its still a racist statement.

Gotta disagree with ya there, cowboy. I think anyone who see racism there is missing the point.

IF this is not a racist position, it sure as hell is a biggoted one.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

> is this all you've got, bill?

Is all you have is "she's racist?"

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

here's the entire paragraph:

"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."

put in context, its still a racist statement.

But if you add in her views in the paragraph thereafter, she sounds much more reasonable:

"I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so 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. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."

I'm not sure who the "Justice Coyle" is that she is referring to--I can't seem to find any US Supreme Court justice named Coyle, although maybe this was a past justice from a State Supreme Court? In any event, I think the original quote--whether from Justice O'Connor, the mysterious Justice Coyle, or some else--is significant in its wording:

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

(bold emphasis mine)

I STRONGLY suspect that the original speaker intended to imply that there is a wisdom that comes with age that transcends issues of gender, race, etc--and that there might be sharper differences at a younger age. These differences would therefore be relevant to Sotomayor's audience at the time (law school grads) and much less relevant now (consideration for the Supreme Court, an old man's/woman's club).

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[bodypilot90 0]

If a white man would have said something like that about blacks, what would you say?

[billvon 3,120]

>If a white man would have said something like that about blacks, what
>would you say?

If a white man said "I would hope that a wise white man with that kind of richness of experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black male who hasn't lived that life" then no, I would not consider it racist. Wise men who live rich lives generally do reach better conclusions than men who do not live rich lives, no matter what their color.

(Of course, I would be disappointed in them, because such things are not politically correct to say - and they should know better.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hey, you're handy with Lexus/Nexus (I assume). What exactly has been her history on the bench.

The snippet on FoxNews (certainly cherry picked, but all still quite valid) doesn't look so good. Maybe not quite the political opposite of a Clarence Thomas, but bad enough that I'd like to see candidate #2.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Hey, you're handy with Lexus/Nexus (I assume). What exactly has been her history on the bench.

Notably, she was in the majority on the appellate court in this case, which ruled that if an unbiased examination failed to give the right racial mix, it was ok to simply cancel all promotions to avoid promoting the people who actually passed the exam, but happened to have the wrong skin color.


For what it's worth, I think that the folks throwing out accusations of racism here are just as silly as the ones crying racism about various and sundry issues (gun control, states rights, etc).

I certainly don't agree with her on affirmative action. I don't think that makes her a racist--just someone who I disagree with.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[likearock 2]

Quote

I wouldn't consider her racist. I would consider her activist. I would also consider her brilliant. Brilliant enough to justify within herself that it's okay to make decisions based upon notions of socioeconomic class.

I do not believe that she is wrong when she says that courts announce policy. Activist courts do all the time. The judiciary should reiterate policy and not make it.

I find it interesting that people often define "activism" according to their own ideological bent. Case in point, Sotomayor's decision to back the city of New Haven against the white firefighters who are asserting reverse discrimination. Is that an activist decision on her part? I don't think so. She was affirming established legislative statute and policy by ruling the way she did. I would argue that siding with the firefighters would have been more of an "activist" position on her part.

BTW, I happen to think she made a bad decision there and should have sided with the firefighters. Judicial activism has its place and this case was one of them.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Alright everyone. Here is the full quote:

Quote

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.

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. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so 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. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Judicial activism has its place and this case was one of them.

Activism has no place on the bench. Their job is to judge on the law not what they think is right. You may hate guns so if you were a SC justice would you rule against the 2nd whenever you had the chance?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

For what it's worth, I think that the folks throwing out accusations of racism here are just as silly as the ones crying racism about various and sundry issues (gun control, states rights, etc).

There's a difference - the roots of gun control WAS racism.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Shotgun 1]

What is your reason for calling her a racist? Is it that one quote that JohnRich posted, or is there more to it?