Sotomayor a racist? Oh, the stupidity!
I’m working on a longer and I hope more well-researched piece on this topic, but let me jump in with this:
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has joined Rush Limbaugh and others in attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a racist. In a recent post on Twitter, Gingrich wrote:
“White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
The sole basis of that explosive charge is a single sentence in a much longer speech by Sotomayor in 2002. In that speech, she notes that “there can never be a universal definition of wise,” then states:
“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.”
In other words, Sotomayor hopes that her life experiences would make her a better judge than someone without those experiences. On that basis, she is supposedly a racist who must now withdraw.
The stupidity of that argument is stunning.
As I noted, that single sentence comes from a major speech, available here in its entirety. The following excerpts help put the sentence in context:
“…. Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society….
I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. ….
The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
…. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald, formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases.
…. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown (v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruling that ended segregation).
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
…. Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
Quite the racist, isn’t she?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
330 comments Add your comment
Bud Wiser
May 28th, 2009
8:09 am
I fight stupidity wherever it arises.
Perhaps I should re dub myself the Caped Crusader.
Nah.
kato
May 28th, 2009
8:14 am
She is not a racist, but she made racist comments and has a racist interpretation of the law and Constitution. Just like Obama says he is not pro-abortion but voted against the born alive bill 3 times, and support pro-abortion groups, and enacted Federal funding for abortion.
So Jay or whoever, a candidate can portray whatever image they want, but once their record is made public, we can interpret where they actually stand. I am a minority and she essentially wants unqualified people to hold positions they are not qualified for meaning they will eventually be fired or QOS is diminished.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
8:18 am
Perhaps I should re dub myself the Caped Crusader.
Given your fondness for a particularly revolting feces-on-a-snack metaphor, I’d say “The Caped Cracker” would be more appropriate.
I rule Andy
May 28th, 2009
8:25 am
A little word play seems especially apropo…
“AND, I see you cannot refute my statements about how republicans herd and pet their little religious clans, taking them for granted as much as a breath of air. No problem though. I am 100% correct on that assertion until proven wrong by statistics or polling data to say otherwise.”
Change two words and viola! an untruth becomes rock solid truth!!!
Adittohead
May 28th, 2009
8:27 am
So, in reading some right-wing bloggers….the CONSERVATIVES should just roll over & play dead….Point of fact, there are 25 million conservatives without a leader with a voice to lead them…
If you are being bullied..& know you can’t win, you still put up a fight …if nothing more than to bloody the bullys nose.
Mutts-R-Stupid-especially-journalism-majors
May 28th, 2009
8:30 am
N.J. is clearly an Emory liberal arts student seeking to pass it’s self off as an expert in the human mind. Why do so many Emory liberal arts grads become psycho-babblers? Because they can do nothing else with their worthless degree. Liberal Arts students and grads should not be allowed to read scientific papers, as they are unqualified to understand the material, let alone write a summary of the findings. Embryonic development is influenced by many factors that are not reflected in a mere correlation between the measured hormone levels and the subjective opinion of the mother as to her child’s autistic traits. If it is a gender war that N.J. wishes to initiate, I am ready, willing, and able to return the fire.
Corey
May 28th, 2009
8:32 am
A bi-racial president in the oval office makes the conservative lunatics go bonkers just thinking about it. The juvenile name calling of the president is hilarious. I’m absolutely ecstatic watching them foam at the mouth. Even their favorite minority, Gen. Powell, has turned on them. Condi will never say who she voted for, but even she found it hard to contain herself when the young man from Chicago was elected the 44th president of these great United States. Name call all you want. It only makes you look like a jackazz.
the truth...
May 28th, 2009
8:33 am
Soon you will be unemployed as the AJC liberal rag goes the way of the other dinosaurs of the written press. That will be a great day for Atlanta as we no longer will have Mr. Bookman to support the liberal cause of left wing ignorance and incompetance.
Had that statement been made in reverse by any of the white males who had come before her….say Scalia, Alito or Roberts…the outcry would have been raucous and universal among the left wing press and politicians alike.
Schumer, Leahy, Franks, Biden, et al would have been screaming their phoney rightous indignation….and Mr. Bookman would have echoed it in the written word.
This choice is one more step in the slide to socialism that this Socialist president is taking our country…
danjonglee
May 28th, 2009
8:33 am
La Raza…..
willie
May 28th, 2009
8:35 am
Ok which laws do I get to break and not get charged as a white male. I mean I should have the same rights as a illegal. How about making me a judge or some high value government official because I am white. If I can not do a mediocre job then you can promote me out of that job.
Zeik
May 28th, 2009
8:49 am
This is the problem I have with gays and same sex marriage. Its governmental interference with policies of the church which does not allow such action based on the bible and tradition of marriage. Now there are churches that allow such marriages however.
I have no objection to civil union as you will have the same rights as married couples, except you will push the issue and lose. Once people understand that the government can essentially force the church to accept this policy you will really see how powerful Christians are except one thing, you forget other religious groups such as Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish. Next will be forcing the church or religion not to talk about sin which is the case in Canada and same sex marriage is sinful behavior however you fail to face reality, humans were not designed for this type of behavior. This is where we get the term sodomy, from the actions at Sodom and Gomorrah if you want to believe that biblical story.
Your actions will polarize the masses, its not about the Mormon church. 75% of blacks and over 80% of Latino voted for prop 8 defining marriage as between a man and woman just like Webster defines it and society has since this institution was established. You actually target a minority group in the US, the Mormon church.
Your supporters are either very ignorant or scared to challenge a major voting block for the Democratic party.
Let civil union be your marriage, however my church does not allow it either and ministers that perform this are deflocked and ousted.
You liberals always talk about separation of church and state but in this case you want the state to force the church to accept sinful acts since the time of humanity. Nobody in society can do whatever they want, Rednecks in Georgia can married their cousin.
A dad
May 28th, 2009
8:52 am
I find the issue questionable, but Bookman’s defense predictable and on cue. Can’t help but wonder how Bookie and all the other libs would react if the speaker were Scalia, and he said a wise white man might rule better than a black/hispanic/gay man/woman, etc.
What a wonderful double standard at play. Bottom line, regardless of context it was a stupid thing to say. Inappropriate to say the least. And somewhat telling, given the fact she’s going to be reversed on the “reverse discrimination” white firefighter case. Leaving the issue of racism behind, she’s simply not a good jurist who equally applies the law, and that’s what we need on the Court.
RDL
May 28th, 2009
9:01 am
Jay, I did read the entire speech, or at least what purported to be the entire speech. And the truth is, I don’t know whether I would call the comment she made one that defines her as a racist, because one sentence out of a speech, or a lifetime of speeches, really doesn’t necessarily define a person in my view. However, with that said, she clearly presupposed that a Latina woman would make a “wiser” decision about some point than a white man without such experience. Even in context, the statement didn’t seem to address any decision point where rational people would agree the the statement was correct. Unlike me, however, you did reach a conclusion that she wasn’t a racist, and the point of my comment, and my question to you, was whether you would have reached the same conclusion if the facts were as I originally stated them. You are offered up a liberal and I just wanted to learn whether your statement regarding this person was based on rational thought, or a knee jerk reaction to those other irrational people who do want to define her based on one sentence.
zeke
May 28th, 2009
9:15 am
Here is the thing! SHE WILL VIOLATE HER OATH IMMEDIATELY BY RULING ACCORDING TO HER LIFE EXPERIENCES, HER AGENDA, HER RACE, HER GENDER AND OTHER THINGS INSTEAD OF RULING ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN! HER LIBERAL AGENDA, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT SHE THINKS POLICY AND LAW IS MADE IN THE COURTS INSTEAD OF IN CONGRESS, AND, AT HER AGE SHE COULD BE ON THE COURT FOR 30 OR 40 YEARS IS REASON ENOUGH TO VOTE HER DOWN!
oldmac
May 28th, 2009
9:27 am
True, the confirmation battle will be lost. The fight against should be taken up if not for anything but to link her incompetency back to Obie as one more piece of evidence of his incompetency.
ml
SaveOurRepublic
May 28th, 2009
9:40 am
Normal @ 18:24 (5/27) – Agreed on the SC being that last point in the checks & balance process. I’m a strict Constitutionalist, and therefore hope/pray that all SCOTUS justices rule strictly by the Constitution (although that isn’t always the case). I also believe that Congress & POTUS should have unyielding loyalty to Constitutional adherence.
BTW, I don’t buy into the whole “racism”/”racist” label because it’s so misapplied & grossly overused. While I disagree with Sotomayer’s comments, they don’t “bother” me & I’d not label her “racist” (although I question her commitment to the BoR). What DOES bother me is the double standard…..had a White male judge had made similar comments, he would have been demonized to the n’th degree! Our culture has been come overly sensitive (thanks to Marxist spawned “political correctness”).
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
10:10 am
Zeke: If you can predict the future so well, why haven’t you won the lottery yet?
Well Digger
May 28th, 2009
10:24 am
Jay reminds me of a horse without the horse sense.
number1write
May 28th, 2009
11:50 am
I must be stupid. So many words here. It’s simple, ‘La Raza (THE RACE) is the Hispanic equivalent of the KU KLUX KLAN.
Sonia Sotomayor is a member of ‘THE RACE’ hate club. Bob Byrd was a member of the KU KLUX KLAN hate club.
IS IT OKAY TO GRANT OUR MOST POWERFUL POSITIONS TO HATE CLUB MEMBERS???
“…She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza.”
Ref: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
Now what if it said:
“…He is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Men’s Bar Association, the White European Bar Association, the Arian National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Arian Heritage, and the Ku Klux Klan.”
…Member of The United States Supreme Court?
Kamchak
May 28th, 2009
12:03 pm
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2009/05/28/horse_driver_crash.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxat=13
Are you saying horses are a paragon of intellect?
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
12:08 pm
Number 1: And if it were true that La Raza is the equivalent of the Klan, they might even have a point!
Of course, it’s not, and they don’t. But don’t let that stop you!
Rachel Maddow Zaps Rush Limbaugh’s “reverse racist” remark ::
May 28th, 2009
12:25 pm
[...] read a viewpoint opposing Rush’s go here. Categories : Current [...]
N.J,
May 28th, 2009
2:26 pm
I remember George HW Bush, when he nominates Clarence Thomas for his position on the Supreme Court, citing his “empathy” as one of the primary reasons for nominating him. What a difference a generation makes.
My favorite is the current Republican judicial blather about having empathy for women who have abortions and how it might effect them later, and so it is necessary to protect women from these emotional consequences by banning the procedure entirely.
N.J,
May 28th, 2009
2:30 pm
Difference between La Raza and the KKK is that they dont wear hoods or commit terrorist acts against non hispanics. La Raza is rather more like the “Daughters of the American Revolution” than the KKK.
N.J,
May 28th, 2009
2:53 pm
Actually wrong again. The largest single demographic of hispanics in California, between 18 and 29 voted AGAINST prop 8 by 59 percent:
By age:
59% of Hispanics age 18-29 voted no; 61% of 18-29-year-olds voted no.
60% of Hispanics age 30-44 voted yes; 55% of 30-44-year-olds voted yes.
57% of Hispanics age 45-64 voted yes; 54% of 45-64-year-olds voted yes.
There was not enough data to compare Hispanics 65 and over to all voters 65 and over.
The average age of ALL Americans is being slowed by two groups. Hispanics and Asians, who have a much younger average age than that of other populations. The median age of Hispanic Americans in the United States is 27.7 years of age. The median age for the ENTIRE population is 36.5 years old. Almost a decade difference between the average age population we are looking at.
This means that HALF of the Latino population in the United States is BELOW 27.7 years of age, and 59 percent of that HALF voted AGAINST prop 8.
There is no way Republicans can somehow twist non support of prop 8 into a plus for their ability to attract Hispanics NOR turn it into an issue that will make them LEAVE the Democratic Party. A rather LARGE chunk of that 64 percent of Democrats who voted against prop 8 (64 percent against it) are Latino.
The Demographic for Latino Democrats since 2004:
Latino voters comprised 30 percent of California Democratic primary voters, an increase of 17 percent from 2004
This growth occured largely in the bottom half of the Hispanic Demographic. That is the part that is BELOW the age of 27.7. and also the portion between 27.7 and 29 years of age.
Simply put the same portion of the Latino vote that is now Democrat rather than Republican voted FOR prop 8. There were not enough Hispanic voters older than 65 to actually COUNT in the prop 8 votes and exit polls.
What is occuring is that the Hispanic vote is slowly abandoning the Republican party as the younger voters register as first time Democrats. Once a party affiliation is established, it is pretty rare that an individual will switch affiliations. This is the reason that California’s share of Democrats is so much larger than at the national average. Younger Hispanics are registering Democrat, voting against conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage, and lets face it, those at the other end of the scale are getting closer to handing over their voting rights to the Grim Reaper.
N.J,
May 28th, 2009
3:01 pm
Everyone who says they are a “Strict constitutionalist” tends to really not be so. Because a strict constitutionalist pretty much has to legislate and make judicial decisions based on what is IN the Constitution and if its not mentioned there, it isnt to be legislated at all, but remains a private right to be kept by the people. Even when it comes to STATE legislation, the states can have POWERS not granted to the federal government in the constitution, but they cannot pass laws that address the giving or excluding of rights not MENTIONED in the constitution at all.
That is, the States can make marriage laws, but they are constrained to make them under the terms and rights given to the people in the constitution and cannot make laws that deny rights that are specifically granted to the people IN the constitution.
So the idea of gay marriage is NOT at all discussed in the constitution, but neither is the idea that you can totally EXCLUDE a particular group from having that right. The best a state can do is set parameters around a right, based on traits share by ALL individuals. They can set age barriers. You cant get married until the age of. But they cannot set other barriers that deny one group TOTAl access to the legal condition and allow it to others.
will
May 30th, 2009
3:57 am
It’s time we throw out the white guys like Jay Bookman and get some minority perspectives in the mainstream media. Too often these white bread male journalists are able to cling to the white male power structure even while they pretend to espouse a political perspective that’s (oh so condescendingly) sympathetic to the struggles of true minorities. Step aside Jay and let’s let some people of color have a turn. You guys have had your chance and look what you’ve done with it. Step aside!
Political Jib.com » Elizabeth Hemmerdinger: Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten
June 3rd, 2009
9:56 pm
[...] From that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a “racist.” [...]
Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten - D.Gray-divinityNET
June 5th, 2009
5:34 pm
[...] that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a “racist.” All this is only the beginning. Some groups are now demanding a filibuster, while Professor Adia [...]
Tynyrxym
June 22nd, 2009
1:44 pm
dl3jEr comment4 ,