CQ: Sotomayor repeatedly made “wise woman”/”wise Latina” remarks in speeches
posted at 9:59 pm on June 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I left this on the same topic before this is from her thesis am I the only one who sees the similarities?
This was up top in the headlines on this site.
Has anyone else read this?
http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/grading-sotomayors-senior-thes.php
the last paragraph of the article, an excerpt from her thesis.
“Fourth, she asserted that Muñoz Marín’s economic program, called Operation Bootstrap, failed primarily because Puerto Ricans continued to think of themselves as colonials. This, like the reference to the US Congress as the ‘North American’ Congress, was 1970s-trendy dependency theory rhetoric, but was wholly unsupported by the evidence that she presented in the thesis (and, indeed, by virtually any evidence that has appeared since that time).”
Why does this remind me of Black Liberation Theology?
The use of North American Congress for the US Congress the woman was born in New York she thinks that our Congress passes laws for the whole continent? She speaks as if she isn’t a citizen- separate like Rev Jeremiah Wright at Trinity Church preaching the Black Liberation Theology.
Dr Evil on June 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM
“terryannonline on June 4, 2009 at 10:57 PM”
bzzzzt! trying to play the “context” card here means that she’s supposed to turn her racism on or off depending upon the case in front of her — that would be, amazingly, even worse [!!]
Buckaroo on June 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM
There were no latino professors at Princeton when Sonia was there. That was one of her achievements, bitching about it until they hired a few. But, I believe she’s on their board of trustees now, so she may have had a hand in Salguero’s appointment.
califcon on June 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM
“Why does this remind me of Black Liberation Theology?”
i dunno — since you are the ONLY person i’ve yet seen trying to tie soto-eyore to b.l.t. — i think she disqualifies herself on enough other fronts to spare the need to have to think about rev. wrong for one more second …[!!]
Buckaroo on June 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Sorry but context does matter.
terryannonline on June 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
“terryannonline on June 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM”
only in the DISADVANTAGEOUS manner i pointed out …
[!!]
Buckaroo on June 4, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Maybe this bothers you so much because, much like Ms. Sotomayor, you are prone to repeating the same things over and over and over and over again.
califcon on June 4, 2009 at 11:11 PM
What are u talking about?
terryannonline on June 4, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Puerto Rican people are made up of three major groups, Taino which is mostly wiped out indigenous people, Spanish farmers and Blacks from the African slave trade…you all are looking for a Latina because she refers to herself as Latina but what if she is closer to a Marrano? People are paying attention to display how she looks – not her ethnic makeup.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Marrano
http://www.answers.com/tainos%20who
Dr Evil on June 4, 2009 at 11:12 PM
I wonder if this is not much more a case of an insecure egomaniac than a racist?
aic4ever on June 4, 2009 at 11:13 PM
FIFY
DrAllecon on June 4, 2009 at 11:14 PM
“Why does this remind me of Black Liberation Theology?”
i dunno — since you are the ONLY person i’ve yet seen trying to tie soto-eyore to b.l.t. — i think she disqualifies herself on enough other fronts to spare the need to have to think about rev. wrong for one more second …
Buckaroo on June 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM
What is her ethnicity or better yet is she self identifying for some kind of preferential treatment, if she isn’t Latina, she would just be another white woman jurist. (No Minority Status Advantage there) Spanish is considered white. She wasn’t born in Puerto Rico she was born in New York but it looks like she was in Barack Obama’s circle of influence, and they are like playing connect the dots. So has she ever been exposed to Black Liberation Theology?
Dr Evil on June 4, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Her assets are mostly her Greenwich Village apartment, which she bought for $360k in 1998 and which some are saying is worth $1.2 million or more. (It isn’t, maybe it was for a second at the height of the market a couple-few years ago but I know that building and… nope. Not now and not again for the foreseeable future.)
I believe she may have paid off her original mortgage(s) and taken out additional ones over the years.
Gilda on June 4, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Why does a Lawyer who passed the bar exam and become a judge need to make herself sound better by tearing down other people?
People that feel the need to make themselves sound better by tearing others down makes them sound weak and not very self confident.
The more we find out the worse this picks looks.
Epic Fail
Gracelynn on June 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM
No, you wouldn’t…
FloatingRock on June 4, 2009 at 11:43 PM
She’s not married and has no kids and owes this much? Weird.
ddrintn on June 4, 2009 at 11:43 PM
American justice holds a balance scale and wears a blindfold. To remove the blindfold she’d need to set down the balance scale, and to pick it up again she’d need to add a counterweight to one side or the other.
FloatingRock on June 4, 2009 at 11:51 PM
…But without the blindfold the balance scale is no longer necessary.
FloatingRock on June 4, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Not me, but then I’m not a Latina woman, so that figures.
FloatingRock on June 4, 2009 at 11:54 PM
She was a member of La Raza FOR 6 YEARS and she repeatedly and consistently has made WISE LATINA remarks and that she is wiser than WHITE MALES AND YOU DON’T THINK THAT IS RACIST?
Not even a tiny little bit RACIST? Sounds to me like she is a RACIST and a chauvinist with a bad attitude about diversity and tolerance and color blindness. And she want to JUDGE other people.
Geochelone on June 4, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Plain and simple: La Raza members hate blacks. FACT.
Geochelone on June 4, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Hey Libs,
So much for the “You are taking her out of context” argument. She meant what she said each and every time that she said it.
Libs caught LYING again.
Geochelone on June 5, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Strangely, Sotomayor is emerging as one of very few decisions my co-workers, who were rabid Obama supporters, do not like. Even those who continue to feign (or maybe actually have) near religious devotion seem disturbed by this choice.
Maybe this will be a good thing – surely she won’t be confirmed, she is utterly unqualified to be a Justice. And now some of those who voted for him are starting to see how their “party favor” vote for Obama will affect our country – forever.
People are starting to wake up.
batterup on June 5, 2009 at 12:03 AM
G-d forbid! It was bad enough getting saddled (literally) with Madeleine Albright – and I still don’t believe her.
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 12:04 AM
I think Newt tried to make the distinction between “being” racist, and “talking” racist, when he apologized for calling her a racist. I don’t know. How often can you make a racist comment like that before you are judged to be a racist?
Dee2008 on June 5, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Bing.
Jaibones on June 5, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor certainly has a high opinion or her brain. I can’t help but wonder if she also considers herself to be pretty. If so, then we would have the incontrovertible proof that she is indeed quite mad.
MB4 on June 5, 2009 at 12:33 AM
She was not properly VETTED. What is her exit Strategy.
She needs to be probed. This reflect poorly on Obamas Judgement. Obama needs to be placed under oath to see where the paper trail ends. Sounds like profiling based on race. Thats an ethics violation. We can’t have a culture of corruption in the White House. I call for his impeachment as CIC.
Geochelone on June 5, 2009 at 12:34 AM
She probably thinks that she has a nice ass too.
Joe Bloggs on June 5, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Several comments here are latching onto the phrase “wise Latina” and launching into amateur psychoanalysis of Judge Sotomayor. They appear to have missed that this phrasing comes from a statement attributed to Justice O’Connor that a “wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion.”
More on this at http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-sandra-day-oconnor-said.html
Attacks on Judge Sotomayor based on the mere appearance of the word “wise” in her comments are misplaced.
Rev Snow on June 5, 2009 at 12:36 AM
And you, even though it [Latina] is in your own comment, seem to have somehow missed her injection of Raza into it and instead have latched onto only the “wise” part as if it were somehow stand-alone.
If you are trying to defend her, you must really try to do better.
MB4 on June 5, 2009 at 12:47 AM
That would be fine if it were true.
Unfortunately, the two statements are the polar opposites of each other when considered in their proper context. One is intended to reflect an absence of bias while the other is meant to affirm it. As a challenge for you, which do you think is which?
FloatingRock on June 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM
How about all the other words?
Is it okay to question Obama’s judgment yet? We’re probably still supposed to give him a chance, right?
Jim Treacher on June 5, 2009 at 12:51 AM
” Spanish is considered white”
er, perhaps, but latina is its own special category, as ANYONE who has filled out an eeo form will tell you …
Buckaroo on June 5, 2009 at 12:54 AM
IS THERE NO ONE IN THE LIBERAL GENE POOL WHO IS NOT A THEIF A LIAR A RACIST A TAX CHEAT A SALF-VICTIMIZER AN IDIOT OR AN A$$HOLE?
My God can’t they pick one person who isn’t someone you and i would refuse to lend a hundred bucks to?
BillaryMcBush on June 5, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Forget about the latina crap… she sided with the City of New Haven and enforced reverse discrimination.
cannonball on June 5, 2009 at 12:55 AM
“batterup on June 5, 2009 at 12:03 AM”
from your lips …
Buckaroo on June 5, 2009 at 12:55 AM
“BillaryMcBush on June 5, 2009 at 12:54 AM”
one could presume yer typcial koslamb was making a similar statement over the past 8 years; ‘course they would be lying and yer telling the truth, funny that …
[!!]
Buckaroo on June 5, 2009 at 12:56 AM
Maybe “Rev Snow” needs a little hint. One sounds along the lines of what a Martin Luther King might say and the other sounds along the lines of what an Imperial Wizard of the Klan might say.
Joe Bloggs on June 5, 2009 at 1:00 AM
In addition to the fact that you are simply wrong, that Sotomayor wasn’t quoting Justice O’Connor, in truth her statements abjectly challenge Justice O’Connor’s.
FloatingRock on June 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM
To simplify it a bit more for Rev Snow, Sotomayor is fundamentally opposed to O’Connor’s view of the matter.
FloatingRock on June 5, 2009 at 1:08 AM
The “wise Latina”
remarkrefrain is bad enough, but if you don’t think it qualifies her as a racist, her membership in La Raza pretty much seals the deal.And if you don’t agree, you don’t know enough about La Raza.
misterpeasea on June 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Obviously it depends on the color of your skin. But just maybe if this is brought before the American people in the right way to get there attention… some fairness will ensue and we can have one standard of what is racist and what is not. Although I have a difficult time imagining that saying anything positive about Caucasians will ever be considered neutral.
Heavens men can’t even prefer blondes anymore.
And the only racial humor allowed is about how dumb blondes are.
petunia on June 5, 2009 at 1:17 AM
What infernal serpent
Has lent her his foul tongue?
From what pit of hateful bent
Has all her racism sprung?
What red devil of mendacity
Grips her soul with such racist tenacity?
Will not those who hear all this and see her La Raza ties
Put a filibuster between her soulless eyes?
PercyB on June 5, 2009 at 1:19 AM
I thought so too!
In all seriousness, the problem with this is truly the plight of the white male. HIS “point-of-view” is becoming extinct. It certainly is not one being championed in our republic.
There are many problems with our society. There are many problems in our political arena. Many and most stem from the utter and complete destruction of the male in America via the NOW gang, and of course the evil media. Men do not know what their places are, or who they are because for about the past 40 years, we have been telling them women are equal or better than they are, and definitely not needed when it comes to the family unit.
Whether you are a White male, Latino, African-American, or Chinese; the role of the male in America is now mired in man-bras, mani/petis, and therapeutic sessions where men are to get in touch with their feminine sides. I would think Sotomayor would find todays White males to be vastly different from those she first despised way back in the 1990’s! They have been thoroughly feminized to the point women are now begging for men to man up.
Thanks to those like Sotomayor, and Sotomayor herself, the male has been so bashed to pieces, we no longer regard or revere what they mean to a functioning and healthy society. It is no wonder we now find ourselves with a metro-sexual type President, and the nation on the brink of disaster. The demise of the male, or head of the family only promotes chaos. Sotomayor has never accomplished, or produced half of what the male has when it comes to saving civilizations, and leaving legacies behind to better the world.
How much intelligence does it really take to dismiss not only an entire race of people, but to also believe the bedrock, the soul of the family, the sex who shoulders the demands of mankind is not capable of having good judgement?
We are about to celebrate D-Day and all that those MEN accomplished. Sure there were females involved in WWII, and in all the wars America has fought in, but the White males of this nation had the good judgement to not wait to be drafted when their country and the world needed them, to lie about their ages in order to serve in the military, and they had the good judgement to recognize sheer evil. Not only did these MEN of all races defeat evil, but they had the intelligence to break codes, execute a plan for winning and ultimately to liberate millions from oppressive regimes. And clue to Ms. Sotomayor, they are still doing it, and I would appreciate if your Latina self would get off their backs!
freeus on June 5, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Let me try this again, since so many have missed the point of my remarks, at least some of the blame must be mine.
Scrolling back for some examples of what I was talking about…
Judge Sotomayor uses the word “wise” — quoting other judges and justices in an ongoing discussion in the legal world about whether there are, or should be, female ways or male ways or Catholic ways or various ethnic ways of performing the duties of a judge. And on the basis of that single word choice alone, she’s labeled a candidate for psychiatric treatment. That’s nonsense.
By all means question her on her judicial philosophy. Criticize her comments. Oppose her confirmation. Take sides against her and with O’Connor and Ginsberg in the discussion noted above and in the link in my first post. Leave the ridiculous fantasy mindreading leaps out of it.
You ought to do this because it is right and fair and honorable. Debate vigorously and passionately without stooping into the mechanics of the smear machine. Leave that crap to the Left to continue to discredit themselves with it.
But if that’s not compelling to some of you, don’t do it because it doesn’t work. It backfires. The surest way to guarantee confirmation is to set Judge Sotomayor up as a sympathetic victim of unfounded and unhinged smears.
Rev Snow on June 5, 2009 at 2:00 AM
What’s nonsense is that anyone could seriously entertain the idea that, given the same level of intelligence/wisdom, the physiological differences in judges would enable one to generally arrive at a better understanding of the law and its application to a situation than another. If one constantly arrived at better decisions, that judge would very likely be considered more intelligent/wiser than the one that constantly arrives at worse decisions. To try and take apart the determination of intelligence, or some theoretical “wisdom”, from its manifestation in judicial decisions is the work of an imbecile.
I mean, what is the measure of this mythical “wisdom” if not that it indicates a certain level of decisions generally being reached?
It’s laughable.
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 2:09 AM
I meant:
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 2:11 AM
If your point is that psychoanalysis of her use of the word “wise” doesn’t achieve anything, I don’t disagree, assuming that you’re not also claiming that the overall statement doesn’t mean what it clearly says… which according to your 2:00am post doesn’t seem to be the case.
However, I don’t believe that the comments you quoted can cause any real harm in the context of this blog, and it’s not at all likely that the D/R’s in the confirmation hearings would engage in such speculation.
FloatingRock on June 5, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Are you male or female? At any rate I share your indignance at the complete dismissal of “white males” abilities as wise deciders of fairness… as though they had not been the leaders of nearly the whole democratization of the world that is now democratized!
That alone proves the white male’s ability to see and value fairness to others over self-interest. I would maintain that true wisdom has been exceptionally demonstrated by white males historically. But somehow dismissed as meaningless by this particular Latina woman.
Perhaps one could argue that continually voting to share power with one disenfranchised group after another shows a degree of unselfish attention to fairness that is not truly wise.
But that would mean valuing the power of one’s own particular ethnic/gender group over the fairness of sharing of power. And that has been discovered by white males (again the leaders in this realization) as wrong, although not yet appreciated by the most prominent of wise Latinas.
But it is late and I always get a bit wacky at late hours.
petunia on June 5, 2009 at 2:28 AM
Heavens to Murgatroyd!
“Physician”, heal thyself!
You accuse others of engaging in “amateur psychoanalysis” and smearing and yet you seem to be doing precisely that yourself. I hope that does not have to be explained to you as you can just simply read for yourself what you wrote that I blockquoted above.
Plus, it is pretty clear that you are trying to divert attention away from the main subject, which is her clear racism. Not going to work.
MB4 on June 5, 2009 at 2:39 AM
You are correct. And that’s how it ought to be done. Attack Judge Sotomayor’s ideas, not her. Argue that she has wrong ideas about important subjects relevant to her duties on the bench. On that basis, oppose her confirmation.
You can do (and most commenters here have done) that quite well without any need to toss around the “Her mommy didn’t hug her enough” garbage.
Rev Snow on June 5, 2009 at 2:53 AM
My original point was far simpler than that. As distasteful and unhelpful as I find the smearing, the more obvious problem was that the smears don’t even make any sense once you know the word “wise” does not originate with Judge Sotomayor in this discussion. She’s just tossing back the “wise Latina” parallel to the “wise man” and “wise women” formulations in earlier comments in the ongoing conversation on the subject.
It’s silly to suggest that Judge Sotomayor’s word choices reveal her to be crazy. It’s obviously moronic to suggest that the word choices of others do so.
Rev Snow on June 5, 2009 at 3:16 AM
Absolutely astounding! You seem to have learned absolutely nothing and there are a whole number of comments that have explained it quite well, such as the following one.
MB4 on June 5, 2009 at 3:33 AM
That is like one person, say Martin Luther King, saying that, “We should have equality” and another person, say the head of the KKK or The Race saying, “We should not have equality” and then you trying to defend the head of the KKK or The Race by saying that the word “equality” does not originate with the head of the KKK or The Race in this discussion.
Unreal.
MB4 on June 5, 2009 at 3:40 AM
There are many parallel tracks from which to oppose her. The track through which she rose had nothing to do with wisdom (neither in its use in theoretical judicial debates nor in its lay interpretation) but rather depended on her physiological characteristics and history, totally divorced from any role in adjudication within a written law. She will have to defend herself on that track that brought her to this position, even though it is irrelevant to her duties on the bench. That is, merely, a textbook example of the concept of intellectual fairness.
She could easily use such “reason”, herself, in deciding a SCOTUS case. This is the whole quest for empathy. I don’t know if her mother hugged her enough, but questioning her emotional state is certainly an allowed angle of debate from our side, since she is trumpeting her emotional landscape as some sort of added benefit that is supposed to enable her to better perform a task that is not supposed to include any emotion, at all. I say that these bits of psychoanalysis are more than fair game.
And with liberals, white liberals, at least, it’s usually their fathers that they have major problems with.
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 3:45 AM
Unless I’m mistaken, Rev Snow isn’t specifically disputing that the comment was racist, only that her use of the word “wise” doesn’t necessarily indicate that she has emotional problems because she was evidently borrowing the word from O’Connor’s prior statement, (even though the two statements have opposite meanings).
FloatingRock on June 5, 2009 at 5:25 AM
Harriet Miers. (I guess that is how her name is spelled, anyway.) The MSM will never report is straight. If she isn’t confirmed, the media will evoke W’s mistake and whitewash IT to give Obama a pass. Although, it will be fun to stack the media’s treatment of Miers/Bush and Sotomayor/Obama together.
Is this appointment finished, though? Certainly she can’t get the job, right?
Mommypundit on June 5, 2009 at 6:16 AM
Well why the hell not? You think that’s going to stop those spineless Republicans? It didn’t keep them from rubber-stamping Geithner, did it?
gryphon202 on June 5, 2009 at 7:24 AM
She’ll get the job. Count on it. No one is less happy about that fact than I am. Sometimes you just have to hope that people will do the right thing, whether it ends up making a difference or not.
gryphon202 on June 5, 2009 at 7:26 AM
I honestly question the sanity of any white person, men in particular, that still call themselves democrats. Let’s just be honest – this identity-politics game is set up to them last, and they’re too stupid to realize it. How can anyone actively support racism and sexism against themself? It blows my f*****g mind!!!!!!!1
moonbat monitor on June 5, 2009 at 7:28 AM
-
Or white woman who would have white males sons…
RalphyBoy on June 5, 2009 at 7:49 AM
You’re not playing the devil’s advocate, but more like the deranged morons advocate. The left loves to scream equality until they don’t. Her experiences as a latina woman has nothing to do with following the constitution.
csdeven on June 5, 2009 at 8:07 AM
I wonder if she has every used the word “wise” in any other context that doesn’t include race or herself?
csdeven on June 5, 2009 at 8:14 AM
Haven’t been in a public school lately, have we?
bluelightbrigade on June 5, 2009 at 8:38 AM
I’ll ask you again, since you didn’t answer the first time:
Would you consider the following statement to be racist?
“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 woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
Is there any context in which you would not consider it to be racist, and if so, what would that be?
holygoat on June 5, 2009 at 8:48 AM
As a NYer, what turns me off about S&M is her machinations on PROPERTY RIGHTS. This is frightful in a city essentially by a cabal of autocrats who control the news. Please forgive the link drop of my favorite local blog.
Another gotdam tyrant. It happens slow and the slope is icy. AMMO UP
LibertyBoyNYC on June 5, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Your statement is troubling here. You do not seem to understand the purpose of a judge. It isn’t to use ones experience to judge cases but to use the law. If the law says that evidence proves a person guilty than he/she is to receive a consequence. Not that a judge uses personal experience to decide if they receive a consequence.
shick on June 5, 2009 at 9:19 AM
If you owe 400K to creditors the odds are the government is near bottom as to whom you will be paying first. Looks like we are about to enter Geithner territory. Do we really wish to have a SCOTUS justice beholden to the mercy of her creditors to this astronomical sum?
eaglewingz08 on June 5, 2009 at 9:26 AM
BTW it looks like the ‘wise latina’ is not so wise in terms of financial acumen. Maybe she should be spouting the other Puerto Rican maxim, “Act British, think Yiddish”?
eaglewingz08 on June 5, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Here’s an interesting tidbit I just read over at Newsmax…
My first thoughts were
1. Is this just another example of failed vetting?
2. Since Rahm & company are so adept at subterfuge, did they throw Soto out thinking she wouldn’t pass. Then they have their real pick waiting in the wings. Citizens won’t be happy at GOP if there is a second messy selection process, so perhaps second pick would get through easier and/or GOP would get bad press.
Of course, Bluedogs have to be involved somewhere in this matter, but again it may be a way of the WH getting leverage against those Dems who are starting to back away from The One.
Unfortunately, looks like a win/win situation for Obama.
gobblemom on June 5, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Sotomayor’s “wise latina” remark is, IMO, not meant to convey that she feels she is smarter, or better, or more capable of interpreting law than a white man – but that she will employ “empathy” rather than logic in her jurisprudence. She is saying that, as a member of the “downtrodden”, she will ensure that “social justice” prevails.
This is exactly what Obama wants in a SCJ. All racist arguments aside, this is enough reason to block her confirmation.
swash_plate on June 5, 2009 at 10:14 AM
the racist judge will join the racist administration.
workingforpigs on June 5, 2009 at 10:35 AM
People who are actually wise do not go around announcing/promoting their wisdom.
BL@KBIRD on June 5, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Not with this comment, the one she’s said so many times in different contexts. She once said it in response to Justice O’Conner’s remark that a wise man and wise woman would reach the same conclusion.
Look, she may not be racist, but she certainly thinks Latina women make better judges. I don’t know how that isn’t racist, but that’s not really my problem.
Esthier on June 5, 2009 at 10:41 AM
As a Wise Caucasia myself, I would say she is reaping what she sowed.
PattyJ on June 5, 2009 at 10:42 AM
She was born in New York that isn’t Central America that isn’t South American that is U.S. SOIL! What makes her a Latina? Puerto Rican isn’t an ethnicity. I named the three ingredients that go into a Puerto Rican national Spanish-White Taino indian and Black- From African Slave Trade…show me the LATINA! Oh and Sotomayer may be of Portuguese descent -NOT Hispanic. This is the problem with Cloaking -Donning Identities is she self identifying? Did she pick LATINA because that will get her preferential minority treatment? Hispanics are a larger minority than Black people now in this country.
Spain is in Europe so is Portugal (NO LATINA HERE) and Portuguese are not considered Hispanic. Oh look here- even Andrew Sullivan makes the same case.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/defining-hispanic.html
Dr Evil on June 5, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I am sure a wise Latina woman with $400K in debt reach a better decision on cases regarding financial companies.
Clark1 on June 5, 2009 at 10:50 AM
The woman is obviously a gyno-supremacist, not necessarily a racist. I hear that at their meetings they eschew plain white sheets and prefer those fabulous Tommy Hilfiger florals – embroidered eyeholes a must.
lonesomecharlie on June 5, 2009 at 10:57 AM
They’re “Uncle Todds.”
mankai on June 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM
It’s been 15 years. I don’t have kids in school either. But I hear the horror stories from those that do. I’ll make sure my genetically inferior white kids (sarc.) don’t grow up wanting to run around apologizing to everyone and hating themselves.
moonbat monitor 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
I think this is the conservative problem…LOL
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090605/sc_livescience/conservativesaremoreeasilydisgusted
tomas on June 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Though we probably all make offhand comments about what men or women do better, expressing in serious terms that either men or women are better at a position like judge is simply repugnant. I presume Sotomayor is a feminist. If she seriously thought about it for a moment, I’m sure she would see the hypocrisy of her words. Especially if she is half as “wise” as she apparently fancies herself.
evergreen on June 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM
It’s the fact that she’s said it over and over again for decades that makes many think she doesn’t see the hypocrisy of her words. I don’t know what other conclusion a fair-minded person could come to other than the fact that she’s a identity-politics-obsessed ethnic loyalist/bigot.
The statements she made would have destroyed the career of any white man in her position. And it should for her too. She has no business being on the SCOTUS.
moonbat monitor on June 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Dr Evil on June 5, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Sotomayor is using racial identity as a tool in the same fashion that Obama dons affiliation to Islam and Christianity, merely to advance themselves up the power chain of command and authority in order to be punitive and authoritarian, and dissolve the Constitution to solidify their positions.
maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM
AP:
“Perhaps our wise women commenters, with the richness of their experience, will rally to her defense.”
Happy to do the honors here. I’m sick and tired of being expected to applaud the “historic” ascension of women I despise to high office (See: Pelosi, “Thank you Nancy”). SCOTUS isn’t supposed to represent the people, it’s supposed to represent the Constitution. If someone wants to do me a favor, clone Robert’s brain and put it in Ginsberg’s body.
JM Hanes on June 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM
csdevin
The only other context of “wise” was to dispute O’Connor’s, referencing O’Connor’s lack of wisdom for being gender blind.
The fact remains, Sotomayor though mixed race, is not Hispanic. Being of any ethnicity is obviously not equivalent to being racist. But claiming to be something you are not, particularly for selfish reasons, is a character flaw that America does not deserve in our Supreme Court to ruin our lives.
I argue the case for blind justice, blind to race, gender, and socio-economic status. I’m not asserting justice blind to age, although I am not satisfied with the practices set by precedent. I am arguing for the application of justice blind to precedent. Precedent of bias against the supremacy of the Constitution’s urtext should not be recognized as a refinement, but as clouded judgment. Precedent deserves contextual value, sometimes meaning that the precedent no longer applies for the same excuse progressives make: that was then, this is now.
maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:10 PM
well, those white men who are still democrats are wimps plain and simple. they feel bad that other people/races have had their feelings hurt and want the entire world to have a great big group hug and sing songs and get along and shove rainbows up their asses.
Ghoul aid on June 5, 2009 at 12:17 PM
A fool that knows himself to be a fool, is wiser than a person that believes himself to be wise.
darktood on June 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Since she refuses to take it back, or to alter what she said, she is resting her case on the basis of consistent hypocrisy as her convoluted virtue. She’s not even willing (or able) to argue why she still takes her stand as a bigot as a badge of honor rather than a scarlet letter of shame.
As if America feels any guilt. Guess what, folks. America already confessed any sins and made recompense. After repentance, the guilt is gone. This is the 21st Century, and any recompense justice required was paid for in full during the 20th Century. No need to keep up payments on a loan paid in full unless by choice, certainly not by force. I don’t subscribe to higher taxes to cushion Obama’s or Sotomayor’s lust for authoritarian power.
Judge by qualities of character and deeds in accordance to rule of law. Keep it simple.
maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I am a female.
You know yesterday VDH had and article in PJM which talks about how the postmodern Libs ignore Truth, and substitute empathy clap trap along with anything else they pull out of their asses. I started thinking this is what they have done to specifically the White Male in the past 40 years. This is what Sotomayor has done her entire legal career. These people completely erase actual historical facts. I am fed up with men being trashed when history reminds us they should be celebrated.
Clue to Conservative women, as you fight back against the Dems and RINOS in order to save our nation, and therefore your families, we might want to add in the male species. They are under assault by the Left, and this Administration seems to be on a jihad against them.
freeus on June 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Clear and compelling reasons to question Soto-eyesore’s nomination:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/05/27/sotomayor__empathy_in_action
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/06/02/out_of_context?page=full&comments=true
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/06/03/out_of_context_part_ii?comments=true#comments
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/06/04/out_of_context_part_iii?page=full&comments=true
Sweet_Thang on June 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I am a wise woman but, unfortunately, not Latino. I’m unclear if the richness of my experience makes me wiser than Latino males though or only wiser than white males. I’m unclear how I rank with Asian or African-American males or females as well. However, since white males are obviously lacking in the ‘Richness of Experience’ and ‘Wisdom’ department, I am frankly shocked that Obama would appoint them to such high ranking posts as VP, Treasury, Defense, etc. etc.
Keli on June 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Now THAT’s a big amen! Just look at how white males are portrayed on TV: Archie Bunker, the lovably stupid racist doofus, or Al Bundy, the butt of endless derision from wife, kids, and friends. Not exactly the quintessential male role model that young boys should aspire to become.
Because of this liberal assault, I don’t watch much TV, so I have no current examples. But in my own defense, I believe that’s a GOOD THING!
Sweet_Thang on June 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM
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
She was vetted completely. Sotomayor is most likely a repeat of Obama: a hard-core, neo-Marxist intent on bringing full socialism to America, masquerading as a moderate Democrat in order to achieve a position of real power. I have little doubt that Obama knows who most of those people are, and is looking for every opportunity to appoint one to any top position available.
Ideological purity is the primary qualification they’re looking for. Judicial quality only appears on the list of qualifications as a means of slipping her past the Senate.
philwynk on June 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM
How much proof is required before a person identifies themselves as a toxic bigot?
dogsoldier on June 5, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »