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.
These were the words spoken by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in 2001 during a speech in Berkeley, California. The speech, as well as other issues, has prompted some people to wonder if Sonia Sotomayor is racist.
Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), former Speaker of the House, opined on her past speech saying, “Imagine [if] a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a [L]atina woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. [A] Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) of the Senate Judiciary Committee disagreed with Rep. Gingrich’s notion that Sotomayor is a racist; “I don’t think that’s an accurate description of her.”
When Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) of the Senate Judiciary Committee was asked by Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer if he thinks Sotomayor is a racist, Sen. Kyl responded, “I’m not going to get drawn into characterizations before I’ve even met her.”
New York Times columnist David Brooks was also a recent guest on Face the Nation where he discussed his research on SCOTUSblog pertaining to Sotomayor. He found that of the roughly 100 cases involving alleged racial discrimination that Sotomayor oversaw during her judicial career, “in about 80 or 90% she denied the claim of racial discrimination. Which says to me… she’s not hyper-racial, she’s not driven by identity politics.”
However, when firefighter Frank Ricci – the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano – claimed racial discrimination by being denied a promotion and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (after losing in the federal district court), Judge Sotomayor denied his claim. The Washington Post wrote that Sotomayor’s decision “was devoid of legal reasoning for affirming the decision of a lower district judge, a curious dismissal for a case that represents significant questions of law and the Constitution.”
Washington Examiner columnist Gregory Kane called Sotomayor a "white-male basher" because "of a recent trend to bash white males at every opportunity."
When Sotomayor served as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a member of National Council of La Raza – the largest national Latino advocacy and civil rights group in the country. NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has described NCLR as “a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.”
Because of her words and actions on the bench, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wonders about “her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preference.”
With these facts taken into account, can Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor be called a racist?
For more information: Read the opinions of Marylanders about Sotomayor at the Baltimore Sun's talk forum . Also, see the video and headlines below.
- Dr. 'Tiller the baby killer' gunned down at church
- Controversial CatholicVote.org commercial airs during ‘American Idol’
- Should Obama have only considered a woman as Souter's replacement?
Comments
Scandelicious - but I'm sure there are more important things to worry about.
Well, her words were taken drastically out of context. Perhaps whatever she was speaking of in the terms of a white man not being able to come to a better conclusion than herself may have been understandably applicable. Perhaps she was speaking for an citizen who's had a hard life - and whoever was opposing her was a white man born into affluent society, while she was not, who was not able to sympathize with said citizen. She may have been pointing out that her background and Latina heritage (one that is oft, unfortunately, persecuted in the US) had given her leverage over the white man in terms of experience.
The short answer is no. With respect to her comment that you opened with, it's not unreasonable to believe that a white male judge will more easily emphathize with a white man, just as Sotomayor will more easily empathize with a Latina woman. Call it a shortcoming if you like, but we empathize more easily with the situations that we have experienced personally. This doesn't mean that she is unable to follow the letter of the law, but it means when faced with a case like New Haven, she will be more inclined to consider minority rights.
I'm not sure who authored the Washington Post article either, but to claim that the New Haven case was "devoid of legal reasoning" is sheer ignorance. She was one on a unanimous panel that ruled in favor of the so-called non-existent legal reasoning. The concept of "disparate impact," is well-grounded in legal reasoning.
I'm interested to see how many republican votes she gets.
Indianapolis Liberal Examiner
She said that a wise Latina would make a "better decision." Better for whom, I might ask? For Latinos, at the expense of everyone else? This is the problem with this nominee, and with identity politics in general. We need to return to colorblind rule of law. Kitty, the law is the law. If you abandon it for "sympathy" and "rich heritage" considerations then you are opening up a huge can of worms and regressing our society to rule of man, not rule of law.
"NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration." And I've been accused of being a terrible bowler (I have a 160 average). So what? Where's the proof? Can reporters look for proof rather than piggybacking off of comments made by people with a particular agenda?
Her comments were at the least. I do believe that her other comments make me believe she is a Latino Supremacist.
Kitty, no amount of SPIN can remove her intent of those words. I love how Obam,a and his mouthpieces are telling us all "what she meant to say"!
Bull! "Empathy" is leftspeak code for "I will rule as I feel fit" and "the bench is where policy is made".
If you would like to read what she actually said in context, you can view my Examiner post under Atlanta Politics
Raul: Read -
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10623
And the article I wrote was an impartial and objective piece showing both sides of the argument.
No she is not a racist I have seen what she says and there is nothing racist about her but she is misunderstood she grew up in a gated community in new York and was really smart as a child I think that the ones that call her racist are racist themself because I always hear white and black politicians saying negative things about each other almost in a subliminal way like Hillary Clinton this seems to be prejudism from my perspective and beleiving negative things about latinos if someone in America has a Latin flag up it isn't because they think they are better it is because they are proud of what they are with respect to America we have to stop being so racist I was the same way and didn't even realize it until I looked at myself when I visited Mexico I was even shocked by how nice there were you know there are good people and bad people in every race there are latino criminals and Latino police.we have to grow up and stop discriminatingwhentherelareinnocentmotherstryingtofeedtheir
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!