Sotomayor finally gets a chance to respond to the 'wise Latina' attacks
By David Neiwert Tuesday Jul 14, 2009 9:00am
Sen. Pat Leahy gave Sonia Sotomayor today the chance to set the record straight regarding the fake controversy over her "wise Latina" remarks:
SOTOMAYOR: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my remarks.
No words I have ever spoken for written have received so much attention.
(LAUGHTER)
SOTOMAYOR: I gave a variant of my speech to a variety of different groups, most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups, most particularly, of young Latino lawyers and students.
As my speech made clear in one of the quotes that you reference, I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and backgrounds always do. I don't think that there is a quarrel with that in our society.
I was also trying to inspire them to believe that they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I had. The context of the words that I spoke have created a misunderstanding, and I want -- and misunderstanding -- and to give everyone assurances, I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.
What -- the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be what I just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.
That has to be what she meant, because judges disagree about legal outcomes all of the time -- or I shouldn't say all of the time, at least in close cases they do. Justices on the Supreme Court come to different conclusions. It can't mean that one of them is unwise, despite the fact that some people think that.
So her literal words couldn't have meant what they said. She had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and impartial.
LEAHY: Well, and isn't that what -- you've been on the bench for 17 years. Have you set your goal to be fair and show integrity, based on the law?
SOTOMAYOR: I believe my 17-year record on the two courts would show that, in every case that I render, I first decide what the law requires under the facts before me, and that what I do is explain to litigants why the law requires a result. And whether their position is sympathetic or not, I explain why the result is commanded by law.
LEAHY: Well, and doesn't your oath of office actually require you to do that?
SOTOMAYOR: That is the fundamental job of a judge.
Login or Register to post comments.
she was *gasp* trying to inspire minorities? well, the GOP certainly will not take that lying down.
true enough. they will somehow turn this into "reverse racism" and scream foul - poor picked on white males (and I'm one of them)
for a "tolerance" rally to put that bigot Sotomayor in her place!
http://www.life.com/image/85938998/in-gallery...
Slam dunk.
Congrats Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor!
too.
a lot more integrity too than those fools who made that "wise Latina" meme. Seriously, she's a very strong and intelligent woman and I'm thrilled she'll be sitting on the Supreme Court. They sure can use someone like her.
But you can't pull the wool sheet off Pete Session's eyes.
(NPTID)
Nope, Sessions went on to try to beat this thing to death. He is so truly full of himself.
... that if HIS comments were enough to disqualify him as a district judge, then HER comments should do the same.
Doesn't even recognize that he speaks from hate and of a smaller world, while she is speaking of the benefit of love and life and a larger world where we recognize the gifts that each of us bring to the table.
http://images.sportsnetwork.com/misc/supreme_...
Inspiring minorities?
Deciding what the law requires under the facts?
Gee, sounds like an activist judge if I ever heard one!
evade questions on Bush v. Gore
... it's ironic in the extreme that people who are complaining about her 'wise Latina' comment, or that her ethnic background/personal experience is somehow disqualifying ...
... are among those who like to insist we're an enlightened Christian nation with years of history behind it.
of allowing Senators to grand stand in front of the cameras?
... you expected an honest exchange of ideas?
"what will you do to return all the wealth looted from the American Public the past 8 years?"
Looking good!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7FISjhfpmc
right wing blogosphere response to her confirmation will be.
Be Afraid! Very Afraid!
http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/our_badges.jpg
Andrea Mitchell had Pat Buchanan on her noon show. Pat was just about foaming at the mouth about Sotomayor. Jesus, he might as well have just said that he detests anyone but old white guys.
... until Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court was nothing but white males.
And those white males gave us judgments like Roe v. Wade (which conservatives hate), Brown v. Board of Education, etc.
Thurgood Marshall. He was appointed in 67
a George Thurogood or sumpthin like that, with the destroyers
....b-b-b-bad to the bone.
My oversight.
for president in 2012
I thought it was a pretty weak response. I think it would have done a lot of good if she would have taken the bait and explained why some knowledge of the real world does judges some good. Why one judge on a court having experience with a particular culture may inform the whole court. As far as I know, Thurgood Marshall was the first justice who had ever seen the inside of a police interrogation room, and that made all the difference.
Instead, when Sen Sessions was chasing her around about her statements on objectivity, she just said, "yeah, I didn't really mean that." I spose that's the shortest route to confirmation, but it's a shame she didn't do more with it.
Feingold tried to draw her out on it again, asking if she understood rural Americans, and she gave a weak answer on her vacation experiences. Well, serves me right for looking for a statement of grand philosophy at a confirmation hearing.
Otherwise, Orrin Hatch did a nice job of chasing her around, and she did a much better job of fighting him off. She seems very well prepared for what she's gotten so far. Encouraging.
His English is so "impecable" that he explains to Sotomayor that "the military law he is expousing......." Graham, it's ESPOUSING.
He also asks Sotomayor if she is aware of the dangers "in the world in which we live in". Graham, you never end a sentence with a preposition. It should be, "the world in which we live".
Graham, you need to go back to English class, unless of course, you're planning to run for president.
I'll start off by saying I've always felt her "wise latina" comment wasn't enough to keep her off the bench, nor should it be. I did think it was a poor choice of words and, taken literally, quite untrue.
A lot of people jumped to her defense, pointing out she contradicted that statement earlier in her speech(es) saying, basically, all people can judge impartially regardless of race and come to equally valid decisions. That's absolutely true, however (I just saw the George Allen post), I imagine George Allen probably would also have said that Indians are not monkeys... The point being, we easily forgive and forget those on our side, yet we hold our political opposites to the flame as long as possible.
Today:
"Sotomayor said her now-famous remark that she would hope a “wise Latina’’ would make better decisions because of her life experiences than a white male was a regrettable “rhetorical flourish that fell flat,’’ and does not reflect her views.
“I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging,’’ she said. “I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/...
It's obvious here that she's admitting that the verbiage used was poor. That the thought someone would first have when hearing her statement is not true, and that there was a bit of embellishment in it.
That's the argument I've used for quite some time now and yet most people here seemed to try and argue for the statement. I suppose I'm just frustrated at how blatantly partisan we can be sometimes.
Login or Register to post comments.