[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

This is all about her use of the word "better." If she had just said, "different conclusion" or "more informed conclusion" or "more nuanced conclusion" I don't think it would've stirred the pot of white males so much.

Some white males.

I think pretty much everyone has said that she could have chosen her words better. I think she has said that.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I find a claim that one's particular race or ethnicity contributes experience or wisdom that can be assumed to be superior to that of another person, identified only by race, faulty.

This is where I think you're taking what she said beyond what she meant. She didn't say her experience was "superior" to anyone else's. She said it was different, and that the difference (not superiority) in experience was what she would hope would lead to a better decision. She gave a specific example of what she meant -- that someone who has experienced discrimination would, she would hope, approach cases involving what amounted to legalized discrimination differently, and that the inclusion on the Court of the voice of someone who had actually experienced discrimination would contribute to a better decision than might be reached absent the presence of such a voice in a case involving discrimination.

It's that claim that a wise woman or a wise Latina would more often than not make better decisions than a white guy, whose experiences we apparently are supposed to conclude are uniform and less rich, that I think is crap.

I hate to keep harping on this, but that's not what she said. She said she would hope that a wise Latina judge would reach a better decision. I think that is a key distinction. "I would hope" takes it from being a catagorical assertion that Latina or female judges will more often than not reach a better decision than white males and makes it more a statement that better decisions result from people of all backgrounds and experiences having a voice and from judges who recognize the ways that their own experiences will shape their decision-making.

Again, I think you're reading things into what she said that the speech in context simply will not support. She never said that white male judges' experiences were uniform or any less rich than the experiences of other judges. She said that they were different -- rich and varied in different ways, if you will. She also suggested that sometimes, white male judges failed to understand that their experiences were not universal, although she was clear in saying that this was certainly not always the case.