I’m surprised and disturbed by how many times today Sonia Sotomayor has backed off of or provided less-than-convincing explanations for some of her more controversial speeches about the role of gender and ethnicity in judicial decision-making.

Sotomayor’s most quoted comment is, “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.” Under often very effective questioning by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she essentially disavowed her statement. She explained that she was trying to play off of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s assertion that a wise old man and a wise old woman should be able to reach the same conclusion in a case. “My play…fell flat,” Sotomayor said in response to Session’s question. “It was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that’s clearly not what I do as a judge.”

A fair reading of Sotomayor’s record on the federal trial and appellate courts clearly shows that that is not what she’s done thus far. But Sessions’ questions were aimed at understanding how she would implement this judicial philosophy if she’s confirmed to the Supreme Court, where she would be far less restrained by precedent. I found it hard to believe that Sotomayor has now come to the realization that her words left a wrong impression. After all, she delivered similar lines in roughly half a dozen speeches throughout the years. Her explanation came across as dodgy at best and disingenuous at worst.

My take on that, too, though it pains me to admit I find anything from the WAPO agreable (but as to that quoted, I do).

The one thing that persistently sunk my already plummeted faith in Sotomayor in reference to a possible S.C. seat was that Sotomayor ROUTINELY dismissed further inquiry into that notorious statement of hers by casting responsibility FOR that statement onto he or she who read or heard it.

She said numerous times that it was “sad” or “understandable” “that” “it could be perceived” (”heard”) “by others” as “disappointing” and things of that nature or all combined. She casts the statement into the realm of THE PERCEPTIONS OF OTHERS’ as the problem, not as to her or the statement itself, despite saying it represented “flourish” and/or some weird “play” on the statement by Sandra Day O’Connor (who she also introduced to her ‘responses’ many, many times, in yet another attempt to redirect any focus as to Sotomayor’s deplorable statement away from her onto others).

Admitting it was wrong or misguided or whatever is not sufficient to EXPLAIN the statement as to Sotomayor’s mind. As to her mental fitness, if you will, for the Bench.

She can’t explain the statement in any lucid context and hasn’t. She’s avoided declaring it what it is: racist and sexist. She’s TRIED, instead, to excuse it, but it is inexcusable.

And Sotomayor despicably (yes, despicably) referring to it as an attempt to “instruct” and “inspire” “others” is equally deplorable because, as Senator Kyl pointed out, that IF someone was attempting to inspire, they’d have inspired by declaring that statement by Sotomayor to illustrate all that should be and was to be avoided and declined.

In other words, Sotomayor’s statement was and remains a prime example in any instructive context of just what should NEVER be admired, lauded or encouraged, and yet Sotomayor never came forth and agreed with that. She just lapsed into the Sandra Day O’Connor references and again “I have a record of seventeen years that…” which she’d repeat whenever Graham, Sessions or Kyl were too specific as to her state of mind.

Her record is mere PART of who she is but her speeches reflect the full portion of who she is as an individual and what her mind is all about. Her record reflects extremely well framed and highly regulated speech (and formulated decisions) while she’s being considered for a job that would place her above preformulated (legal precedent) concepts, into the area of actually authoring original decisions not limited to or by previous decisions by others (or, by “legal precedent”), WHICH HER SPEECHES REFLECT AND HER RECORD DOES NOT.

So taking into consideration the full range of her published (spoken and printed) speeches is significant and should not be ignored, nor minimized. Kyl, Graham and Sessions are on the right track there while the Democrats are utterly ignoring just about everything.

Schumer, Feinstein and Leahy have been disgusting in these hearings.

Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 9:14 AM

From yesterday’s hearings:

Sessions: “I am convinced that what you are saying today is contrary to what you’ve said previously…”

Sotomayor: “(justifying her oft-used statement as to) my heritage” and “life experiences” — “that’s why we seek the ENVIRONMENT (her emphasis) of our legal system.”

—MY NOTE HERE: THAT IS SOTOMAYOR DECLARING HERSELF TO SUPPORT LEGAL ACTIVISM FROM THE BENCH—

Sessions: “That is not impartiality.”

Sessions then quotes Sotomayor as having said, he reads: “‘my experiences affect the facts that I chose to see.’”

Sessions adds that Sotomayor has said that “about seven times in speeches” —

Sotomayor yesterday, then, declared that she DOESN’T “support that statement” (though she has said that statement many times in speeches and in written statements over a course of many years).

Sessions: “How can you reconcile your speeches with your oath that you’ve taken that requires impartiality in ALL (his emphasis) your decisions?”

Sotomayor: (lapses into her description of her statement as being “rhetorical flourish” and then goes into the area of Sandra Day O’Connor’s earlier, previous statement as to ‘hoping an old woman would make the same decision as an old man’ (paraphrased here by me).

Sessions: “Well, I can understand that as a layperson but as a Judge, I would expect you to (cites Oath and ethics involved as sworn to in that Oath)…”

THROUGHOUT THESE STATEMENTS AND MANY MORE THAT FOLLOWED, Sotomayor looked (most of the time) down at her desktop while writing copious notes and rarely looked at Sessions when and while he was addressing her. Her speech was agitated, her face reflected agitation, she made several repeat hand/arm motions of jutting her right arm out in front of her toward Sessions, opening her hand toward him with splayed fingers toward him, which she never repeated throughout the rest of her speeches yesterday, with anyone else.

I believe she’s affirmed that she’s a judicial activist and worse, she showed actual contempt and disrespect for Sessions yesterday, as also on the day before when Sessions introduced himself and gave his intro. speech.

THEN Leahy had to come to Sotomayor’s rescue and make a snide remark, a jab, to and about Sessions publicly, dismissing and demeaning any inquiry into Sotomayor’s “speeches”.

Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 9:32 AM

MORE INDICATION FROM SOTOMAYOR THAT SHE ENGAGES IN, SUPPORTS, LEGAL ACTIVISM FROM THE BENCH, despite her claim that she “doesn’t use labels”:

Graham: “Do you think that the Constitution is ‘a living, breathing document’?”

Sotomayor: “In the sense that it has survived for two hundred years” (indicates agreement with Graham’s question).

paused, then said,

Sotomayor: “…but SOCIETY changes” (her emphasis).

THAT’S EVIDENCE OF AN ACTIVIST PERSPECTIVE.

Graham SHOULD have pointed that out right then and there.

Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 9:41 AM

When asked about the wise latina comment, she should just have said that she said what she meant and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, she tried to back out of her comments claiming something that is demonstrably false, thereby making the comment all the worse.

If a wise latina makes a better judge than a white guy, she puts the lie to that statement all by herself.

turfmann on July 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM

She would have to admit that she was both racist and sexist (and, I’ll add, exceptionally irresponsible) for having made that statement, which is sexist, racist and exceptionally irresponsible.

She won’t admit the fault or defects of that statement on it’s own merits because it then defines her as being of the same characteristics for having made that statement and made it so many times over the course of many years.

Thus, she continues to declare it “a rhetorical flourish,” “a mistake,” “bad,” and things such as that as also an attempt to “play” with the remark made years ago by Sandra Day O’Connor — what I think it is is that she’s TRYING to cast aspersions onto O’Connor who was, as we all know, a White woman. Meaning, she’s laying down the FRAMEWORK or BASIS for her own horrible statement (Sotomayor is) at the desk of O’Connor, so, the wonky, wobbly Sotomayor game goes, “if it’s a bad statement then O’Connor is to blame.”

Sotomayor WON’T admit the statement is offensive, racist, sexist and generally horribly prejudiced and prejudicial because then it would mean she’d have to accept that she is such for having said (and repeated) it so many times.

Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 9:47 AM

I just hope this woman writes better than she speaks, or else we’re going to be getting some unintelligible opinions out of the SCOTUS…

AZCoyote on July 15, 2009 at 9:48 AM

TOO LATE!

“SONIA SOTOMAYOR’S PROSE PROBLEM“

From (even) a Leftwinger and a female, an analysis of Sotomayor’s prose problem.

Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 9:53 AM

One area not raised so far by anyone in these hearings is her financial personality: she has huge personal debts, out of line or out of proportion with her income. Indicates an irresponsibility beyond the normal.

This needs to be aired.

Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM

And, the obvious, this leaves her vulnerable to “exterior influences.”

Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 9:59 AM