She’s not “Justice” Sotomayor yet.
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.
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.
TYPO: are “want” to make = are “wont” to make