Posted on 06/03/2009 1:34:49 PM PDT by MaestroLC
I’ve just obtained a speech that Sonia Sotomayor gave in 1994, in which she made a comment virtually identical to the “wise Latina” one from 2001 that has generated so much controversy.
And though the 1994 speech was disclosed to Republican Senators as part of her confirmation for Court of Appeals in 1998, there’s no sign that anyone objected to it in any way.
The revelation raises fresh questions as to why the 2001 comments generated the controversy they did, and suggests that the comments are not as controversial as her critics claim.
A copy of the 1994 speech was included with the questionnaire she submitted for the 1998 confirmation. A Sotomayor supporter sent both to me.
Here’s what she said in the 1994 speech:
“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”
That’s virtually identical to the comments from 2001 that have generated days and days of controversy.
Why am I not surprised?
If she made the same comments twice it’s more odious, not less.
Yes, and the three stooges were wise guys, too...
But it does mean that we have to explain why it wasn’t challenged the first time around. (My friday night margarita down the street just got harder if I also try to do it in a way that won’t make the GOP seem like useless lumps.)
They have more credibility then she does and they make more sense!! Right Bro.
"A copy of the 1994 speech was included with the questionnaire she submitted for the 1998 confirmation. A Sotomayor supporter sent both to me."But it does mean that we have to explain why it wasn’t challenged the first time around. (My friday night margarita down the street just got harder if I also try to do it in a way that won’t make the GOP seem like useless lumps.)If she made the same comments twice it’s more odious, not less.
The question would have to be, "What else was going on in 1994, which might have kept this on the back burner, or completely off the stove?" And a possible answer would be, "The Congressional Post Office and the Congressional bank scandal." You have to admit, we were pretty excited back 15 years ago about other things than a Federal judge being impolitic. Sotomayor was legitimately not that big a deal before being nominated to SCOTUS. There were bigger fish to fry.
No, it does not. She wasn't up for the Supreme Court. That's not even the argument that should be made. Go on offense.
The 2001 "wise Latina" comments, along with the "wise woman" comments, proves a pattern of thought that is contrary to what a fair-minded justice should be. It is not a mere "misstatement" that Dems can wash away now.
As time goes on and more information is discovered, her nomination becomes more troubling. It's important to expose her philosophy, even if she is a lock for confirmation.
It may be too soon to say this, but I'm getting a sense of a slow but sure backlash against this nomination as the public learns more about her.
The vetting for an appeals court nominee is less stringent than a supreme court nominee. Because the supreme court can overturn the appeals court if they try anything.
And more importantly, this shows that Obama’s claim that she mis-spoke is a lie. Unless she has been mis-speaking for a decade.
Can anyone here think of a good reason (or several good reasons) why the comment in 2001 is now raising concerns as opposed to a similar comment made in 1994 when she was not being considered for the highest bench in our country? Gee, ya think that maybe now her influence on the SCOTUS might raise the stakes as opposed to her sitting on a lower bench?
“Officer, this kid was cutting through my yard and trampling my flowers”.
“But officer, I do it every day, so why is she complaining this time?”
And that the future end of quotas, foreshadowed by Sandra Day O'Connor in her last major affirmative action opinion, is now.
Yeah. I don’t buy it and I doubt the buddies would either.
Congressional franking scandal or not - if they had her on record (the record they read for her approval!) as saying something they considered racist she should have been called on it by SOMEBODY. Even just a minor objection. Or maybe a vague grunt of disapproval. SOMETHING
Instead, they were silent implying that either it was not seen as that big a deal to promote a racist or that they didn’t find the comment that objectionable.
This just puts a nasty taste in my mouth. Especially when you combine it with that article that came out a few weeks ago about how the GOP only offered any obstruction back then to prevent her from having a totally unopposed approval in case Clinton nominated her for the SCOTUS.
As important as The Court of Appeals is, it's not as likely to garner the attention that a Supreme court nomination would... or am I missing something?
Also, we are talking about this Issue -- of race -- in the age of Obama... Obama, who is to heal all our racial wounds and unite us all... Obama, who is also the one who nominated her for the supreme court.
STE=Q
Heh. Indeed. Point taken.
A slightly smaller matter than appointing a racist to a federal appeals bench though.
Quotas will end when opposition to them does. Perverse? Yes. But it would be in keeping with other bits and bobs of civil rights legislation through the years.
*sigh* No citations - just anecdotes. That’s probably a good measure of my anger and a sign that I need to sign off for the day.
As far as the anecdotes go ... all I have are the chats with friends and neighbors. My sense about quotas is that Liberals feel they were justified at one time but increasingly believe them to be unnecessary. They do, however, take any criticism of them NOW as saying they were NEVER required and then they get a big ol’ stick stuck someplace uncomfortable and fight tooth and nail for them.
A few years ago I stopped speaking ill of Affirmative Action and merely asked questions about it. Most of my liberal friends suddenly had a lot less support for it and a few of them folded completely. I get the sense that a lot of liberals are perverse enough to take that attitude.
Thanks for the good words and goodnight =)
Perhaps because political correctness is being resisted more than in the 90's, so now it is more OK to take on a minority than it used to be.
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.