David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

No, simply that she was as fit as others without asserting that her ethnic heritage and culture experience made her more likely to be fit that others. The element that you regard as unnecessarily focusing on race is the essential issue.

I think it's a mistake to assume ethnicity/culture as a qualification in itself.

So you're denying the role of race/ethnicity in experience (and, by her extension whether we agree with it or not, wisdom)? That seems way sillier than what she actually said (which is that women and people of color have markedly different experiences than white males).

No, I think we're very likely to be judged harshly by history. But I think it's easy to assume that had we lived back in time, we'd, of course, bring our superior standards back in time with us. I think it's faulty to assume that. How many white people, Trent Lott apparently excepted, think that legal segregation is where it's at today? And yet, respectable people supported it. Being able to recognize unacceptable law today is no guarantee that you'd have been able to do it in the face of a society that regarded it as normal.

And sure, MysticCat's point that non-whites might have been less likely to agree about the legal decisions we now regard as wrong seems to be a good one. But it's also kind of silly: if we had only been progressive enough to have a more diverse judiciary in the past, we'd have also been a whole lot less likely to regard discriminatory behavior as normal generally, don't you think?

We'll never know, but even if we assume you're right (note: I doubt you're right), that has nothing to do with her point.

[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. If it did, I'd have to tell them to shut up, because I think what she said is true. We are all products of our upbringing and culture, and a white man cannot possibly see things through the same eyes as a hispanic woman. I don't even think a man can see everything the same way as a woman! That is why it's important that we have diversity on the Supreme Court (i.e. why we need more than one woman to represent a female point of view or perspective when warranted).

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So you're denying the role of race/ethnicity in experience (and, by her extension whether we agree with it or not, wisdom)? That seems way sillier than what she actually said (which is that women and people of color have markedly different experiences than white males).

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. 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.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

We'll never know, but even if we assume you're right (note: I doubt you're right), that has nothing to do with her point.

Okay.

[PeppyGPhiB]

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. 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 experience we apparently are supposed to conclude are uniform and less rich, that I think is crap.

I don't think that's what she meant by that quote. Taken in context, it's pretty clear to me that she's saying that a latina exposed to and experienced in cultural influences would probably have the insight to make judgment calls on people and situations familiar to her...moreso than someone that was unfamiliar with the culture or people of that culture.

I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking that way. I may have studied black history in one college class, but slavery and the civil rights movement, though moving to me, is still probably more emotional to black people in this country. Men may have cared one way or the other about a woman's right to vote (or choose abortion, to bring it into today), but it was women who took up that fight because it was a bigger deal to them. That's just two (or three) examples of law and policy that have been changed in our country due to discussion from different points of view gained from different experiences.

[UGAalum94]

Even in context, I don't think she restricts her claim the way you do, Peppy.

I've already said that I have less problem with the idea of how diverse bodies are supposed to function over those made up of demographically similar people, but it doesn't carry down to the idea that this individual's decision making is likely to be yield better decision more often than not than another individual of a different race or gender.

It might or it might not. The racial or ethnic background of an individual in itself isn't likely to be predictive of the quality of decisions.

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Some white males.

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

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.

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.

But you too are reading a lot more in than what was said.

I've already indicated that I don't think the speech is a big deal. I think the ideas expressed are pretty typical in political circles and pretty accepted. I think they're problematic and I'm less inclined to be as generous in my interpretation of what she really meant than you.

I don't think it matters very much.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But you too are reading a lot more in than what was said.

I don't think I am. True, she didn't describe other experiences as rich and varied, but she also did not describe them as uniform or bland. I think the import of her speech as a whole is what I've said before -- everyone comes from a his or her own ethnic and experiential background and it is counter-productive to pretend that doesn't have an effect on decision-making.

I think what I might be doing is reading it like a lawyer -- that is interpreting what she said through a legal/jurisprudential lens rather than a political lens. Maybe that's leading to the way I (and, I think, other lawyers/law students) are understanding her comments.

I don't think it matters very much.

I don't either, so why are we talking about it?

Seriously, I'm not nearly as concerned about what she said as i am about the totally a-contextual spin it has been getting in some circles. Again, maybe it's the lawyer in me, but trying to make major hay out of a sentence or two while ignoring the context of that sentence is what drives me bonkers.