Posted on 06/01/2009 10:00:01 AM PDT by STE=Q
By now many of you have either heard about or read about the infamous sentence spoken by President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States -- Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
“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” (From a lecture delivered by judge Sonia Sotomayor published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”)
Now, naturally, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the sexist and racist overtones in her (some may even argue stupid) statement.
I wrote more about it -- “Obama Pays His Dept To La Raza” -- here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2261050/posts?page=9#9
But let’s set aside for the moment whether she actually meant the statement to be offensive in a racist, or a sexist way.
Perhaps she felt comfortable bandying such an idea about, as, after all, the theme of the lecture was an ACTIVIST one, ("Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation” -- and she was there to lecture: not to adjudicate or to discus a pending legal case.
The gist of the lecture was on affirmative action, the “Struggle” for Representation, and various “esoteric” rationales and statistics that would supposedly support the need for more Latinos and Latina’s on the judicial bench.
Perhaps her comment was one of those “esoteric” rationales that “intellectuals” are want to make.
Now there was a time in my youth when I would have considered such “lectures” as edifying but after some mental seasoning I grew to concur with George Orwell’s Observation that “some ideas are SO outrageous that only an intellectual could believe them.”
Now I’m a strong proponent of freedom of speech and the concomitant free exchange of ideas -- as embodied in the first amendment to the constitution -- so I have to ask myself if people like Justice Sotomayor should have to look over their shoulder their whole lives lest, when dealing with a question that is academic, they should say the “wrong thing” or something that is not politically correct.
The first amendment was INTENDED, after all, to protect speech that you or I may not like!
And I did not like what she said one bit, but on further introspection, I realized, that it wasn’t that she took a jab at men (I’m a man) or a jab at “whitey” (I’m white) that I found so egregious :
What angered me -- as a person with an intrinsic sense of fairness, combined with my “rich” experiences as a white-male in the new, and “improved,” politically correct, America -- was the DOUBLE standard… a standard that would allow a Latina woman to say things that a non Latino, white male, under the same circumstances, could never get away with saying.
Why SHOULD she get a pass?
Because she’s a minority?
Because she’s had a “rich” experience -- like being able to attend the prestigious Yale University Law School?
Now that’s rich!
The whole leftist juggernaut of political correctness -- that a white person shall not criticize a minority lest he/she be labeled a racist in the public square -- is based on some sort of collective “white guilt” … a guilt that most of us whites, individually, have no RATIONAL reason to share.
Of course the minority, under the above rules of engagement, can be just as racist as they like… guilt free!
The irony is that those “guilty” whites that condescendingly refuse to hold minorities to the same standards as they would hold their own self, are the real racist, and the minorities know it and deep down -- they hate them for it!
No, I won’t hold Sotomayor to a lower standard because she’s a Latina, on the contrary, if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court of The United States, I would expect her to perform at the highest level of judicial insight: as would be expected of one holding such an august post.
So is Judge Sotomayor guilty of racism or is she herself a victim of the racist and condescending mindset of the left?
I believe that both the above propositions are very probable.
STE=Q
She’s not “Justice” Sotomayor yet.
One poll last March showed 79% are "concerned" with illegal immigration, and 62% oppose licensing---proof positive this cuts across the political spectrum ---not confined to bigots, racists, conservatives, or "judgemental" Republicans. Remember liberal Hillary lost a Dem primary b/c she endorsed licensing illegals.
THE CASE AGAINST SOTOMAYOR
ITEM She identifies herself as Puerto Rican first, even though she was born in the USA. Why does an American citizen cop a latino speech inflection (if she doesn't have a hidden agenda)?
ITEM In a College Thesis, Sotomayor Appeared to support Puerto Rican Independence. Did Soto have anything to do with Pres Clinton pardoning the FALN----violent Puerto Rican terrorists who bombed US installations? (Pardoned----so that then-Senate candidate Hillary could harvest the NY latino vote).
ITEM She is a member of the racial-thought police----La Raza. They are demanding "respect and fairness." That's latino for "shut up----close your eyes, ears and mouths........or else we'll get physical."
ITEM She is looking more and more like a mouthpiece for racial minority seeking to exert raw power over the rest of us---to marginalize the majority-----something one finds in failed Third World satraps.
ITEM The fact that she and her crowd do not understand a democracy is based on three co-equal branches of government is grounds for showing her the road.
ITEM Being Hispanic is not a criteria for seating a Supreme Court Justice. More is being made about her race than her actual judicial record.
ITEM She has the same disdain for America and it’s citizenry as evidenced by Obama.
ITEM Nelson Castellanos was arrested in NYC outside his Harlem apartment, charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He was holding his keys and a white shopping bag containing about $10,000, mostly in $1 and $20 bills. That evening, pursuant to a warrant, DEA personnel searched his apartment and found over 1,200 grams of cocaine, six live rounds of ammunition, a .44 caliber revolver and incriminating notebooks. All this evidence was thrown out by District Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the grounds that the DEA agents had not provided the magistrate with probable cause to search Castellanos's apartment.
ITEM Sotomayor's the "Latino Grievances" nominee......every ruling from the bench will be ironclad to redress every latino grievance since time immemorial. Americans will be paying with our freedoms......for those Frito Bandito commercials.
ITEM She is a frightening candidate in the Thomas Jefferson sense: "When people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is freedom."
======================================
Wonder who she's communicating with? (/snic). Should be part of the nomination process----submitting her cell phone records and email messages from the date of nomination.
Sotomayor's now-famous 32 words: "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." Translated into white male-ese: "I'm gonna make those gringos pay bigtime for those Frito Bandido commercials."
I didn’t realize that this was a formal lecture, and that she published it. Normally, a scholastic gets a chance to edit a talk before it is published.
So, that pretty well eliminates Obama’s excuse, that she spoke in haste and spoke carelessly. No, she had a prepared speech, and later she had an opportunity to edit it.
Finally, she made this racist crack in response to an earlier remark by a Supreme Court justice—I’m afraid I forget the exact phrasing or who said it—that it doesn’t matter if you are a wise man or a wise woman, as long as you are wise.
Which is to say, she is deliberately contradicting or one-upping that very fair, rational, and judicious statement. That, too, was deliberate.
So, that pretty well eliminates Obama’s excuse, that she spoke in haste and spoke carelessly. No, she had a prepared speech, and later she had an opportunity to edit it.
Astute observation!
I'm sure the Obama administration is in FULL-SPIN-MODE even as I write.
STE=Q
So, that pretty well eliminates Obama’s excuse, that she spoke in haste and spoke carelessly. No, she had a prepared speech, and later she had an opportunity to edit it.
Astute observation!
I'm sure the Obama administration is in FULL-SPIN-MODE even as I write.
STE=Q
She is a member of La Raza, a racist group that hates real Americans. She will be part of the new KKK of America.
I wonder how Sotomayor feels about someone like James Madison and the other framers of the U.S. Constitution? Is there a parallel in the Latino Civilizations? So where does she get off in making this statement of unbelievable stupidity. If you want to see real injustice, go to any of the countries south of the Rio Grande and see what types of Justice Systems are there.
Now what if an outstanding candidate for the SCOTUS who is say a WASP or a Jew came out and make a statement exactly the same as Sotomayer but exchange the “Latina woman” with WASP man or Jewish man. There would be an EXPLOSION of criticism on the MSM. It would be non-stop. What a double standard!
Her statement is typical of a conquering people.
My biggest problem is that Sotonmayor seems to think one can make legal decisions based on how one feels as opposed to how one interprets the law. The US is a Republic and based on law applied to EVERYONE equally regardless of whether the person wronged is sympathetic or detestable. She seems to think she can interpret the law based on totally non-judicial criteria.
Were she a state court judge in CA and made these remarks, she would be disciplined and may be tossed off the bench. Justice is, among other things, perception. Her statement is factually nonsense, and creates the impression that she doesn’t think much of white men, or thinks too much of Latino women. I wouldn’t want to be a white male and appear in front of her.
“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”
Since when did being poor equal a richness of experience? Oh, but I guess it doesn’t count if you stay poor. Your experience is only rich if you’ve been both poor and rich. Yeah. Because poverty is a great teacher. Everyone knows being poor isn’t at all limiting. You can do whatever you want, roam the streets freely, really feel what everyone’s going through. All the great philosophers were poor, don’t you know. Everyone who ever went to a prep school followed by an ivy-league education was an ignoramous.
It is beyond me why bootstrappers think they’re so damn special. It is a wonderful thing that you were able to rise above your circumstances. But doesn’t it ever occur to you that while you were struggling, and before you rose up, other people were already up, already studying and thinking on a high level?
“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”
Oh, I forgot to add how very bigoted it is to associate being a Latina with having had a “rich experience,” meaning all Latinas have had the same sort of experience (or at least all their experiences, though different, share the quality of richness), and implying that all wise Latinas were poor at one point. Or maybe she just means all Latinas have been discriminated against, and that gives them better experience than white justices who have never faced that hardship. I’m, familiar with the myth of the moral superiority of the underclass, but the judicial superiority of the underclass is new to me.
“Justice is, among other things, perception.”
Interesting that you should say that.
My thoughts are that even IF (big if)her statement was an anomaly, she would be forever tainted.
How could any case involving whites vs a minority, that she hears, not be poisoned by her comments from this lecture?
STE=Q
I'm sure Mr. Ricci shares your sentiments.
"Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel"... Socrates
STE=Q
“’Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel’... Socrates”
Not sure how this is relevant. After all, who gets their flame kindled more often, and who has more time to feed their flame, poor or rich people?
I’d love to!
And I’d ask her one question, just one question:
Can you please detail to us which of the Supreme Court decisions you think were bad that you attribute to “white male thinking”? Please expand on your answer to tell us why a Latina solution would be better.
Thank you.
Education nowadays, generally falls into the "filling of a vessel" catagory... It's really indoctrination.
The smartest people I've ever met never attended college.
As for "rich" the word doesn't necessarily mean money.
A person may be rich in good health, for instance.
Or, as you mentioned, some may enjoy greater freedom and time to learn with out the care that money often brings.
Anyway, thanks for your insightful post.
STE=Q
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.