David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[Kevin]

I dunno.. IMHO, it's a sort of convoluted, invented racial classification which has little to do with culture and ancestry and more to do with the fact that the white people see you as being from the "here be dragons" part of the map.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I dunno.. IMHO, it's a sort of convoluted, invented racial classification which has little to do with culture and ancestry and more to do with the fact that the white people see you as being from the "here be dragons" part of the map.

According to the wikipedia entry I was reading, it's not even firmly established that you can trace Cardoza's family history to Portugal although it was the family tradition.

I had been told at one point that if you were Spanish you weren't Hispanic, so I wouldn't think that being descended from folks from Portugal would make you Hispanic either, not only because of the language issue, but because it's an issue of the colonial relationship.

ETA: upon more reflection, I can't remember who told me that or why I regarded him or her an an authority, so it's pretty much without value, I guess.

[Blessed2bDST]

Judge Sotomayor affirming herself and the experiences she brings as she moves through the world as a Latina is not a negation of white men or anyone else.

[DaemonSeid]

Meanwhile, former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee attempted to stay ahead of the game by releasing an early morning statement to the press which read as follows:

"The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric."

One huge problem there, Mike! Her name isn't Maria. Contrary to popular belief, every Latina in the United States isn't named Maria. We'll forgive you. We're sure you were just watching West Side Story last night in preparation for this statement and got confused.

There have been a host of other mischaracterizations of Sotomayor, including media outlets that have defined Sotomayor's parents as "immigrants." Being that she is of Puerto Rican descent and that those born on the island have been American citizens since that pesky little Spanish/American War ended and congress made it so in 1917, this definition is 100% incorrect. Puerto Ricans who migrate from the island to New York are no more "immigrants" than those who move from one state to another.

This is just another stark reminder that even though we have come so far, there is still a long, long way to go.


http://www.latina.com/lifestyle/news...alls-her-maria

I thought Sonia was running...o well

[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.

[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.

[SWTXBelle]

Slight hijack -

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

[KSig RC]

Let's try this:

A. Women of color have markedly different life experiences than white males.
B. These experiences are thus unique.
C. In some instances, having a certain unique experience is a boon to an individual (in terms of decision making).
D. In few instances is a lack of a certain experience a 'boon' to an individual (it may be 'better' than not having it in the way that 0 is better than -5, but almost never is it a net benefit; limited to decision making).
E. Tying these together, all things being otherwise equal, having an experience is generally better than not having that experience.
F. Taking this to her logical conclusion, having an experience would hopefully lead to better judicial decisions than not having that experience.

What part of this do we disagree with? It seems very straightforward, almost to the point of being lame or tautological, mostly because it is pie-in-the-sky to the point of worthlessness (but certainly not because it is "racist", race-baiting, or even unnecessarily makes assumptions about race or gender).

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Let's try this:

A. Women of color have markedly different life experiences than white males.
B. These experiences are thus unique.
C. In some instances, having a certain unique experience is a boon to an individual (in terms of decision making).
D. In few instances is a lack of a certain experience a 'boon' to an individual (it may be 'better' than not having it in the way that 0 is better than -5, but almost never is it a net benefit; limited to decision making).
E. Tying these together, all things being otherwise equal, having an experience is generally better than not having that experience.
F. Taking this to her logical conclusion, having an experience would hopefully lead to better judicial decisions than not having that experience.

What part of this do we disagree with? It seems very straightforward, almost to the point of being lame or tautological, mostly because it is pie-in-the-sky to the point of worthlessness (but certainly not because it is "racist", race-baiting, or even unnecessarily makes assumptions about race or gender).

[ETA at the top with bullet points that respond more directly]

- No individual is without some unique individual experience, even if that person is a white male.

- There may be no reason to assume that the legal decisions based on the unique experiences of women of color will likely be better more often than not that any individual white guy, whose own experiences are likely to be rich and varied.


I suppose I don't agree with the idea that a Latina's unique experience is as individually valuable judicially as Sotomayor seems to believe it is. I don't regard it as a hindrance, certainly, but the value of different experience, if there is one, exists in terms of what that experience contributes to a diverse body. (And I'm afraid that it's often overstated in terms of the contributions it makes to those. How is Clarence Thomas's blackness working out?)

Bringing a unique set of cultural experiences, which I think we all have no matter what race or ethnicity or culture, isn't an individual asset likely to yield better individual results over some hypothetical person with a different unique set of cultural experiences. You can really only compare this individual with that individual. You can't compare this individual with the richness of her cultural experience with a hypothetical white dude and conclude or reasonably hope that her conclusions are likely to be better because there is no hypothetical white dude who isn't bringing his own decision making assets or deficits as the individual case may be.

The comment is generating the out of context hype is it because it can't be turned around an appear neutral or positive. If it would clearly be "racist" if assert about a white guy, it's suspicious when asserted by someone else. ("I would hope that a white guy with the richness of his experience would more often than not make a better decision than a Latina without the same experience" seems wrong on the face of it.) It appears to be a claim that asserts the superiority of a person based on that person's race or ethnicity, and generally we're not down with that these days.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I suppose I don't agree with the idea that a Latina's unique experience is as individually valuable judicially as Sotomayor seems to believe it is. I don't regard it as a hindrance, certainly, but the value of different experience, if there is one, exists in terms of what that experience contributes to a diverse body.

You mean like a body that's never had a Hispanic woman among its members? I think you're on the right track here - you are certainly allowed to feel she's overrating this (and again, the "I hope..." takes the edge off), but that doesn't change the fact that you're basically validating the comment here.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Bringing a unique set of cultural experiences, which I think we all have no matter what race or ethnicity or culture, isn't an individual asset likely to yield better individual results over some hypothetical person with a different unique set of cultural experiences. You can really only compare this individual with that individual. You can't compare this individual with the richness of her cultural experience with a hypothetical white dude and conclude or reasonably hope that her conclusions are likely to be better because there is no hypothetical white dude who isn't bringing his own decision making assets or deficits as the individual case may be.

Yes you can compare.

See how easy that is? Why can't you? I think you certainly can, and to deny it seems very head-in-sand-ish about racial issues in the United States and the comparative differences between being white and being, well, not white.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

The comment is generating the out of context hype is it because it can't be turned around an appear neutral or positive. If it would clearly be "racist" if assert about a white guy, it's suspicious when asserted by someone else. ("I would hope that a white guy with the richness of his experience would more often than not make a better decision than a Latin without the same experience" seems wrong on the face of it.) It appears to be a claim that asserts the superiority of a person based on that person's race or ethnicity, and generally we're not down with that these days.

The quotation has nothing at all to do with "superiority."

Besides this, the statement WOULD be ridiculous about a white guy, because it is literally impossible for the statement, in its context, to apply to a white guy because it is a strict comparison.

This is beside the fact that it apparently CAN be neutral - I think it's exactly neutral.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

- No individual is without some unique individual experience, even if that person is a white male.

This is purposefully obtuse, is it not? The point is that the experiences of being Latina are unique from the overall set by nature of differences that do not exist for whites. Sure, everyone's a unique snowflake, but that's not the point.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

- There may be no reason to assume that the legal decisions based on the unique experiences of women of color will likely be better more often than not that any individual white guy, whose own experiences are likely to be rich and varied.

There may not be. There may be. She hopes there is. That's the whole point.

[DrPhil]

Headache.