David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

"A Latina Judge's Voice" essay in full

the last 6 or 7 paragraphs are especially interesting.

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

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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 some 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 male.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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 . . . .

So, you think that when you are talking about judges that "reach a better conclusion" doesn't equal "more fit." That seems kind of odd to me.

Isn't the quality of the conclusion a judge reaches, especially when considered alongside the reasoning that guides the decision, really how we should evaluate judges?

Again, I'm satisfied with her at present. What's been discussed so far seems like pretty widely held ideas about diversity express in a way typical of the PC lexicon. It would be unspeakable today to assert the same idea but conclude that the white man would more often than not reach a better decision, but pretty much any other group is welcome to make the claim. We should just nod along and hope the rest of the justices remain healthy and interested in serving.

[DrPhil]

Welp, MysticCat said everything I was going to say.

I will add that there is a balance between treating white and male as the neutral standards versus focusing too much on the experiences of nonwhites and females. The latter can make it seem as though their experiences skew the results and that only nonwhites and nonmales have any potential for irrationality and nonobjectivity in their decision making.

White males' decisions are just as impacted by race, gender, social class, other status group memberships and experiences as any other judges' decisions.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

So, you think that when you are talking about judges that "reach a better conclusion" doesn't equal "more fit." That seems kind of odd to me.

In the larger context of her speech, and bearing in mind that she said she "would hope that a wise latina woman . . . would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male," yes, I think there is a difference between what she said and a blanket statement that a Latina judge is more fit to make judgment than a white male judge (which is how a.e.B.O.T. characterized what she said). The very next paragraph of the speech rejects such a characterization.

Isn't the quality of the conclusion a judge reaches, especially when considered alongside the reasoning that guides the decision, really how we should evaluate judges?

Yes, without a doubt. But I think that's what she was saying. Look what comes before and after the quote:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. 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.

In other words, she was suggesting that she would hope that a "wise Latina woman" would reach a better conclusion in certain cases than, say, judges like Oliver Wendell Holmes or his successor at the Court, Benjamin Cardozo -- still among the most respected judges of all time, who nevertheless upheld discriminatory laws.