Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[boloboffin]

The new rhetorical track: attacking Sotomayor as a "racist."

The Republicans in the Congress need to send these people a message: Stop Helping.

ETA: And as some have said, Sotomayor in for Souter doesn't change much at all on the Court. It's when Scalia falls over from a heart attack and Obama appoints Diane Wood that all hades will break loose.

 

[Ziggurat]

But perhaps what she was trying to "imply" is not that she thinks that it's OK to discriminate, but that a Hispanic woman might tend to have a better grasp on why it is not OK to discriminate.

Three problems with that.

First off, she said she "hopes" this would be the case: she's not simply expressing what she sees as a reality we have to adapt to and live with, but a preferred outcome.

Second, she's not simply talking about racial discrimination cases, but much more generally.

Thirdly, she's still taking a position that there are qualities intrinsic to one's race. And that is a dangerous position to take, because it is (ironically) the fundamental justification used to justify racism in the first place. There may be disagreements between her and, say, the KKK about what those qualities may be, but it still looks an awful lot like she's still accepted the fundamental premise of essential racial differences. If she does not believe that to be true, then she has done her own views a disservice by expressing them this way.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Three problems with that.

First off, she said she "hopes" this would be the case:

Why is that a problem?

Second, she's not simply talking about racial discrimination cases, but much more generally.

Evidence? Relevance?

Thirdly, she's still taking a position that there are qualities intrinsic to one's race.

Again, I should like to ask for evidence, and I should also like to point out that this contradicts your first point.

 

[egslim]

It's not a great quote, and I doubt if you'll find much in the way of a full defense of it. At the same time, I think too much is being read into it.

Quite possibly.

People who have a richer life experience are going to have a better understanding of the various issues going on in a given case.

I probably agree, but the word "richer" is vague and poorly (if at all) defined.

Latina/os, on average, have a richer life experience than whites.

Bang - an unsupported statement with a poorly defined meaning.

It's hard to disprove a statement whose meaning is so unclear. But if we agree that an education and successfull employment add to the richness of ones life experience, then on those two factors Latinos have, on average, a poorer life experience than whites.

Women, on average, have a richer life experience than men.

Another unsupported statement with poorly defined meaning. On average though, Latinas are worse off in both education and employment than Latinos.

On the other hand, maybe she only referred to herself, instead of Latinos and women in general. In which case she's arguably right: Coming from a statistically disadvantaged background, her life experience is likely to be richer than that of someone who has reached the same position from a better starting point.

Except that in this world of political correctness, to be promoted a white male has to be (perceived as) the best of all available applicants. A Latina merely has to seem good, and then her gender and race do the rest. We'll never know if Sotomayor's ability is superior to that of other candidates, but it would be naïve to assume it is. And that substracts substantially from the richness of her life experience.

Personally I'd expect her to do fine, and if not, there are 8 other justices to balance her out. But the appearance that she was selected for her race and gender hurts my confidence more than it helps.

 

[SezMe]

I think you are a liar.

Going to far. maddog may have a different perspective than you but that does not make him a liar.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is that a problem?

It's a problem with your argument about what she meant, not with her statement itself.

Evidence? Relevance?

I've seen nothing about the quote suggesting it deals with discrimination cases in particular. Evidence that she is talking about discrimination cases?

Again, I should like to ask for evidence, and I should also like to point out that this contradicts your first point.

No, it doesn't contradict the first point at all. You're missing something about what I said if you think it does.

As for the evidence, well, it's the quote itself. She's talking about the differences in judgments made by people of different genders and races, and saying that she thinks that they will make different judgments. Because those are the only qualities of this hypothetical person she refers to, we can reasonably conclude that they are the reason for why she hopes that the latina will make a better judgment than the white man, and that only makes sense if the race and gender have essential qualities to them. If she did not mean to imply this, then she should not have said what she said, but it follows rather directly from her words.

 

[maddog]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

I think you are a liar. Let me show you why:

Does everyone see your lie yet?

GreyICE does not normally refer to himself in the third person.

First of all, an honest disagreement does not make one a liar. That's a pretty harsh accusation, and I don't like it.

Second, the fact that she was speaking impersonally, or in the third person, indicates, if anything, that she intends her comment more generally. As in, ANY Latina would be better than ANY white male. Or, more likely, not "any" Latina better than "any" white male, but "in general" Latinas would be better than white males. Either way, this is both sexism and racism.

If she had said "I" will be better than "those" white males, then it is an assessment of specific people, and is not (necessarily) racist or sexist.

Your emphasis proves my point. And your accusation of "liar" is both rude and foolish.

 

[GreyICE]

Going to far. maddog may have a different perspective than you but that does not make him a liar.

No, he lied. He attributed, to a woman, a quote she never said. That is a liar. He lied about the origins of his quote. Alternatively, he lied about what she said.

If he had sourced this, we merely could say that he was credulous, but unsourced, he leaves us with no option.

Sez, this is not a point of view. This is not a perspective. No one refers to themselves in the third person naturally. Not. Ever. When you attribute to someone a quote that that person never said, you have lied. He gave us a quote. He says, directly, that Sotomayor said it. Sotomayor did NOT say it, unless she follows rules of English that are so alien to be nearly impossible (try to construct a sentence about yourself using that grammar, then say it out loud).

Would you prefer a different term? Falsehood? Untruth? Deliberate deception? Attempt to mislead?

You know what is to far? It is too far to try and create a dialogue based on a statement that someone supposedly made, when they never made that statement. It is too far to attack a woman and call her racist for something she never said. It is too far to boldly and doggedly hold to your lie.

That is too far. Me calling a liar a liar isn't too far, it's the TRUTH. It's sad and pathetic the TRUTH is less palatable to you than a liar.

 

[maddog]

Going to far. maddog may have a different perspective than you but that does not make him a liar.

Thank you!

 

[marksman]

As someone who has appeared before Sotomayor, I think she's a fine pick. I think she will be confirmed and the little potshots I've seen (even the troubling statement about the hoped-for superior wisdom of Hispanic women over Caucasian men) don't make me think otherwise (and I am a Caucasian man).

But I agree with those who say she is not likely to be a luminary. Her opinions are well-written and insightful, but they don't delve into the law the way great justices -- like Cardozo, Brandeis, and Learned Hand -- could. In this respect, she is probably a good replacement for Souter who also was an astute technical lawyer more than a philosophical powerhouse.

The left wing of the Court, however, could use a "deep thinker" and a masterful rhetorician. Scalia may (or may not be) a rightwing ideologue, but he is an evocative writer, has a biting prose and although I often disagree with his conclusions, I don't doubt that he thinks hard about these issues. Alito too has the potential of masterful writer (whatever you think of his politics). Kennedy has also become a thoughtful and intellectual voice for harmony and moderation in his role as deciding vote (just as O'Connor -- my favorite Justice in my lifetime -- had been). But I have been disappointed in the prosaic abilities of the left wing of the court. Ginsberg and Breyer were supposed to be the rhetorical stars, but I've found their opinions surprisingly lackluster.

Kennedy responds well to cogent, passionate and intellectual arguments. Brennan, Blackmun and Marshall could do that on a consistent basis until failing health robbed them of those faculties. I simply don't see that level of discourse from Stevens or Ginsberg, and too infrequently from Breyer. I don't anticipate it from Sotomayer either.

I'm hoping Obama's next pick, assuming he gets one, will find someone who can serve as an eloquent legal theorician for the left wing of the Court.

 

[GreyICE]

Thank you!

Care to defend the lie? Why did you choose to pretend Sotomayor said that?

 

[linusrichard]

@marksman: Sorry, but a nitpick: Judge Hand was never a justice.

 

[maddog]

But perhaps what she was trying to "imply" is not that she thinks that it's OK to discriminate, but that a Hispanic woman might tend to have a better grasp on why it is not OK to discriminate.

And maybe she'd be right, at that.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

It's quite possible that you are correct, if her comment, in full context, is related to discrimination cases. I haven't seen the full context of the comment, though. You?

 

[GreyICE]

It's quite possible that you are correct, if her comment, in full context, is related to discrimination cases. I haven't seen the full context of the comment, though. You?

The full context would be that Sotomayor never said it.

So when you say she said it, that would kind of make context irrelevant, as there's no context where she makes a statement she didn't make.

 

[maddog]

Of course a person's life experience and beliefs will inform and impact their decisions, BUT the decisions should start with the law. How a person views the impacts of the law will make a difference, but the law itself should be central to the judges.

More importantly, it would have been fine if she had said something like "as a Latina woman [and the fact that she said "Latina" AND "woman" is a bit redundant, isn't it?], I will bring a different perspective to the court, since I have a different background than the white men, the black man and the white woman do". But to say that she thinks that a Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a white male is racist and sexist.

{additional emphasis added}

Care to defend the lie? Why did you choose to pretend Sotomayor said that?

Care to differentiate between a lie and a hypothetical? Care to apologize?

 

[GreyICE]

{additional emphasis added}



Care to differentiate between a lie and a hypothetical? Care to apologize?

No, you lied. Period, the end. I'm tired of people trying to sugar coat their lies.

We were clearly being told that Sotomayor said this. She did not. You are a liar.

 

[boooeee]

It's quite possible that you are correct, if her comment, in full context, is related to discrimination cases. I haven't seen the full context of the comment, though. You?

Full text: Link

The relevant quote is on page 5. My reading of the context is that she was speaking specifically to discrimination cases. I don't find anything especially troubling about her remarks (in that context).

 

[marksman]

@marksman: Sorry, but a nitpick: Judge Hand was never a justice.

Quite true. He is one of many great legal thinkers who didn't make it past the Court of Appeals. And folks like Cardozo who did make it to the Supreme Court did their best writing while in other courts.

 

[GreyICE]

Fair enough - I obviously (though perhaps not as obviously as I thought) stretched her exact words to make a point.

But, maybe the point is not clear enough. Maybe you feel persecuted.

Lets examine the bolded bit.

Her. Exact. Words.

Yes, clearly a hypothetical. Clearly you never meant anyone to think she said that. About herself. There was no other interpretation possible, you gave us none. But your interpretation was an utter lie! It was based on falsehoods!

This is exactly why we don't debate with quotes, but you chose to go there! It was your choice! You went into a place where lying is synonymous with breathing, and then decided to get angry when you got called out on it.

Now can you stop quoting a goddamn sentence and get back to me when you have real objections about real decisions made by a real judge on real cases?

Because reality is the opposite of a lie.

 

[maddog]

The full context would be that Sotomayor never said it.

So when you say she said it, that would kind of make context irrelevant, as there's no context where she makes a statement she didn't make.

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/05/sonia_sotomayor_and_the_economics_of_gender.php
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4703
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/05/sotomayors_wise_latina_line_ma.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/story?id=7685284&page=1
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-sotomayor-racist-should-withdraw-nomination/


What didn't she say?