Sometimes I wonder if we hear what we want to hear. As I've listend to NPR, I wouldn't say that they're all over it like it was the Second Coming. On more than one show, I've heard some real discussion about her, and it hasn't all been rosy by any means.

Don't forget--I'm listening to NPR's NYC affiliate, who really is extremely excited about this, being that she's a) the liberal dream--high achieving minority female from a humble background and b) a native New Yorker. Both of those are understandable, I've noticed that the national shows tend to be a little more tempered in their praise.

So, I do know exactly what I'm hearing. But thanks!

I didn't forget that because I didn't know it to begin with.

You said NPR, which one would reasonable assume means "National," not just NYC shows.

So maybe it's not that you're hearing what you want to hear, and you do know exactly what you're hearing. But not everyone else in the country listening to NPR is hearing what you're hearing.

My opinion of Sotomayor will lie within in her response in defending her comment that a latino woman is more fit to make judgement than a white male. This comment baffles me, and if a white male had made the comment their nod for the Supreme Court would seem like a long shot. I think race will be the big issue here, as it already is coming to the foreground of discussion. I am not in the mind that Sotomayor is a racist, and I applaud use of empathy to a certain degree as the Supreme Court is to be the protector of the underdogs, but I am weary to the degree in which Sotomayor practices it. The Republicans who approach this angle as part of the defense against the nomination should tread likely. It is difficult for rich white republicans to discuss race in this country, and it could easily come off as smear and spectacle that will wash back in their face... If they approach the issue fairly with cool headed debate, it could be their only way of overturning the nomination. With that said, I am an avid supporter of Obama and her record itself looks great, so unless Sotomayor produces a satisfying reason for her comment, I am in favor of her nomination.

Did you read the excerpt that MysticCat posted? If you read it in the context of the rest of her speech, she's not really saying that Latino woman is "more fit." As MC pointed out, it almost looks like she was trying to be humorous with the statement. As I said earlier, she probably should have chosen her words a bit more carefully, but I think the statement is harmless.

Unless it comes out that she's a child molester or something like that, there's no way the Republicans are overturning this nomination. As a Republican, I don't really think it's worth the fight anyway - she's smart and qualified, and her judicial philosophy overall seems pretty solid.

I'll leave the empathy thing alone...I'll just say that empathy/sympathy/etc. are really only considerations on the trial level (where the judges are dealing with probation, sentencing, etc.), and on the appellate level it doesn't (and really shouldn't) play a part.

Yes, I read the entire speech. What I am interested in is how it will be explained, because you know it will not be let go. Today, she actually said she misspoke, and Obama backed that up in an interview. I don't find what she said to be in a means of humor, but I was not there and do not find it as her declaration against the white race. I also am not using this as a stone to throw at her. The fact remains that if a white man said that, joke or no joke, his nomination would be highly unlikely. She did, indeed, misspeak. To error is to be human. I am just curious how it will be handled. Some conservatives are crying racism, how the republican party handles those claims are key. They need to separate themselves from those conservatives, while convincing the American public that Sotomayor's comment was unethical and a judge of her character. I don't think it will work, but it is indeed a window. I am pretty confident Sotomayor will be confirmed, and from what I know about her, I support it. I just want to see how it will all be handled, and how Sotomayor will address it when directly asked about it in trial...

I don't recall her actually saying that. It seems to me as if you are taking her words out of context and twisting them.

At any rate, I'm kind of tired of how people are acting as though this woman is "racist" simply because she was in support of affirmative action and made some of the comments she has made. That's not a reason to delay or prevent her confirmation. If people would hire on the basis of qualifications, we wouldn't need affirmative action in the first place. We only need it because people are often refused acceptance on the basis of a handicap, race, or sex or some other issue.

The confirmation will not be stopped and probably not delayed. This is just an opportunity for the Republicans to whip up their base into a frenzy about Obama picking "racist" [read: anti-white] judges, supporting liberal policies, etc.

It's just a bit more of the political gamesmanship which both parties engage in to whip up their respective bases. Trent Lott was a white supremacist because he said he'd vote for Strom Thurmond for President, Sotomayor is a racist because she things her different experience brings insight to the bench. Tomayto tomahto.

Well, I'm not sure the situations are comparable: Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,"

He was taking about a race when Thurmond ran as a segregationist; I'd say that Lott's comments were considerably less acceptable. He basically was saying that the country would have been better off had we not integrated.

I think Sotomayor's comment is problematic because she seemed to assert the idea that an individual would come to a better decision based on that individual's ethnicity and culture. That's troubling to me, no matter what racial or cultural identity that person has.

I'm less troubled, but not completely convinced, by an argument that asserts a nine justice court made up of people of different races, ethnicities, and cultures, assuming that they are all well-qualified jurists as well, will make better decisions, and I suspect that's really the broader argument.
It's not worth getting or pretending to be outraged over.

Hispanic vs. latina
 

Slight hijack -

http://www.slate.com/id/2219165/

She said it, but in context it doesn't seem like it's exactly what she meant. MC and others have quoted it earlier in the thread.

Look at the statement that MC posted - again, in the context of the rest of her speech, it doesn't seem like she was saying that at all. She immediately talks about how a bunch of old white guys wrote the opinion in Brown.

I will agree, though, that it's really not worth getting or pretending to be outraged over.

I think you're being too generous about the quote, even in context.

But I don't think it matters very much.

"A Latina Judge's Voice" essay in full

the last 6 or 7 paragraphs are especially interesting.

No, she didn't say that a Latina judge was "more fit." She said "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."

I think "more fit" somewhat skews that statement.

Reading the whole thing in context, it seems clear to me that the point she was trying to make was that while it's a laudable and proper goal for judges to set aside their personal biases when ruling, this cannot really be done completely, and successful attempts to do it can only come if the judge recognizes and acknowledges what his or her experiential biases are. I think she was also taking a stab at holding up white males as the standard by which to measure all other judges, as though white males are somehow exempt from experiential biases and as though the biases of judges who are not white males are measured by how they compare to the "non-biased" white males.

Everyone has biases based on experience, background, etc. You can't ingore them or set them aside to rule on the law unless you understand what they are to begin with.

No why didn't I think to link the whole speech when I posted the long excerpt in post 21? Oh, wait . . . . ;)

didn't see it...my bad.