CQ: Sotomayor repeatedly made “wise woman”/”wise Latina” remarks in speeches

posted at 9:59 pm on June 4, 2009 by Allahpundit

“Repeatedly” as in not just once in 1994 and again in 2001 but over and over in the interim, and even after. Must be an awfully important insight into her thinking for it to recur so often, huh?

Then again, like Slublog says, who among us has not misspoken the exact same phrase dozens of times?

A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.” That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her “racist.”

In addition, Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said “a wise woman” would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women’s Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.

The summary descriptions of speeches Sotomayor provided indicated she delivered remarks similar to the 1994 speech on three other occasions in 1999 and 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law.

I wish I had more sympathy for her perspective here, but as a white male, I’m biologically handicapped. Perhaps our wise women commenters, with the richness of their experience, will rally to her defense. Oh, another fun fact: According to her financial disclosures, she owes in excess of $400,000 to various creditors. I hope for The One’s sake that none of them is the IRS.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I thought she was supposed to be smart? Who keeps 30 grand in a bank account? Has she never heard of stocks, bonds, or CDs?

Vashta.Nerada on June 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Maybe she knows something we don’t know.

Daggett on June 5, 2009 at 5:39 PM

“White Men? We don’t need no stinking white men!!”

There is NOTHING about the liberal left that is wise! To declare one the wisest of them all because of race or gender is exceedingly unwise! There is always a great number of people who will come along and prove one wrong!

Driefromseattle on June 5, 2009 at 6:07 PM

This woman has such outstanding intelligence and is so elevated in common sense and logic, how can she stand to be associated with such a dunce as Obama?

Cybergeezer on June 5, 2009 at 6:47 PM

They’re “Uncle Todds.”

mankai on June 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM

We need to popularize that term so there is a negative stigma attached to it. The power of ridicule is underestimated.

moonbat monitor on June 5, 2009 at 11:21 AM

“Uncle Todds” TM


mankai on June 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Id like a definition of “white.” Ive asked for it for over 20 years… and I’ve yet to get a good answer.

I think Scalia and Alito would be surprised to find that they were Anglo-Saxons. What? They’re not “ethnic” enough for her? Spanish descendants are somehow less European than Italian descendants?

mankai on June 5, 2009 at 9:47 PM

La Raza is a Hispanic front group that foments hatred against Whitey and Blacks and Asians. La Raza is a stealth racists organization that walks a tight line. They get what they want by political strong arming; as opposed to outright lynching like the KKK did.

Geochelone on June 6, 2009 at 1:35 AM

• Lin v. U.S. Department of Justice, 2007: Dissented as a majority rejected bids for asylum from men whose spouses were subjected in China to forced abortion or sterilization. Sotomayor said the court departed from precedent when it tied an applicant’s eligibility for asylum to persecution suffered “personally.” She said, “The majority clings to the notion that the persecution suffered is physically visited upon only one spouse, but this simply ignores the question of whom exactly the government was seeking to persecute. … The harm is clearly directed at the couple. … The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population-control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child.”

Ah Hah!!!! The above ruling was written by Sotomayor! Notice that she is at least capable of admitting that abortion can be considered “akin…to the killing of a child.”
She is racially motivated in many ways, no doubt. But she is not the end of the world as a Supreme Court pick. She has the makings of another vote for the Pro-life cause. This also seems to indicate an admission that men have an emotional stake in abortion!

At this point we shouldn’t be making so much noise that Obama withdraws her!

petunia on June 6, 2009 at 1:48 AM

She looks mad even when she’s smiling.

JellyToast on June 6, 2009 at 4:15 AM

she owes in excess of $400,000 to various creditors

The obligatory implications that influence her decisions can’t be dismissed. No falling back to reference coming from poverty only to abuse credit when earning sufficient to pay her own way. This person is sick. Owing $400K does influence one’s perspective regarding bail-outs, let alone cases against the credit industry.

Outrageous up to date. Insufferable from the SCOTUS.

Her wise ass reference to female wisdom is a cheap advertisement to creditors:

Sotomayor judgments are all on lien.

maverick muse on June 6, 2009 at 8:41 AM

One would hope that a wise white man would pay back his debts in better fashion than this latina.

ted c on June 6, 2009 at 7:17 PM

Rush is unreal saying he thinks Sotomayor would overturn Roe.

So the same Rush who beat up McCain for years is now giving the benefit of the doubt to a marxist like Sotomayor who has known the dem establishment for 20 years and they know she is not pro life.

This is too much. Rush who destroyed McCain and caused hundreds of thousands of conservative purist voters to stay home in Indiana is now saying Sotomayor is pro life.

Yeah McCain was so bad he would have had Fred Thompson picking his supreme court justices. McCain was a leader in getting Harriet Miers to get withdrawn.

These so called conservative purists complain about sotomayor when they stayed home in mass because McCain didn’t meet their purity test.

So we have permanent affirmative action because of these conservative purists. Hard working firefighters get the PC reverse discrimination because of these conservative purists who put their own mind games ahead of the country’s well fare.

Yes lets stay home because McCain didn’t vote the way we liked.

If you can’t have some one who isn’t perfect it is better to have a marxist.

Oh their argument was that conservatism would be so strong if only McCain lost. Only if McCain lost then could republicans succeed in the senate.

Someone forgot to tell these purists that Olympia snowe and Susan Collins would then hold the balance and you needed McCain to veto the bills.

Conservatives have zero power with snowe as the 60th vote.

So much for McCain losing and conservatives having more power in congress.

And the other argument that with McCain losing conservatism would be so strong again like after carter.

Well Carter didn’t pick any supreme court justices.

Try getting conservatives fired up for future elections after Obama has stacked the supreme court for the next 25 years.

ryandan on June 7, 2009 at 7:32 AM

Since the Left hangs on every word Rush says, I think Rush is trying to inject doubt into the Left’s confidence of Soto’s abortion bonofides.

VinceP1974 on June 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Oh and another thing you got wrong , ryandan …

Rush and the other conservatives you’re complaingina bout, were the primary public advocates for voting for McCain and Palin.

They all knew the danger of the Obama. They were screaming Red Alert at the top of thier lungs. They all said we have no choice but to vote for McCain . I felt the same way.

Once I realized Obama was a Communist in Dec 07, I simply had to swallow my disgust the entire year of 2008 and do all i can to get people not to vote for Obama.

So what are you saying..no one had the right to criticize McCain? McCain SUCKED . he was God awful candidate.

He had so many opputunities to put Obama on the spot and he never did. McCain got on that stage at the RNC and said Fight… Fight with me.. we’ll never give up..

Well he never even started.

When the banks collapsed in Sept and he started to attack Wall Street instead of the Democrat created Secondary Mortgage Market Architecture with the GSEs at its heart, i knew the idiot was doomed.

McCain defeated himself.

Where were your precious moderates? Oh they were either publicaly proclaiming they were voting for Obama, or doing thier best to destroy Palin.

Everything you wrote is nonsense. Your thinking is very poor.

VinceP1974 on June 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM

White men contaminating La Rosa?

Is the sir name Sotomayor ethnically pure Hispanic?

MSGTAS on June 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Tell her to pay her dentist. It is immoral and unethical to steal services which is what a 15,000 unpaid bill is.
She is a bad woman.

Just as bad as tax cheats. Obama wants to tax the bejeebers out of the dentist and he can’t get any traction if the Democrats don’t pay their dentists.

seven on June 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM