David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.



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

Is there an overall set of experiences? Are white experiences so uniform that the claim makes sense?

It doesn't to me.

I think that the experience of being Ted Kennedy varies so significantly from the experience of being Eminem, especially pre-success, that it's kind of goofy to lump them together by race and culture and assume that they've shared formative experiences.

Certainly, the shared experience of legal training is going to narrow the gap some, and maybe there's not as profound a variety in the experiences of white guys likely to become judges. But I still think a big sweeping comment about what ethnicity, race, or culture contribute is likely to be pretty faulty.

[UGAalum94]

Did you all see this already?

http://www.slate.com/id/2219699/

It's about how the language we're discussing here is recycled from a previous speech about how the richness of a woman's experience would allow her to reach better decisions and defines better.

What seems oddest to me in the media's discussion is the idea that GOP would be actively trying to come up with a strategy for stalling her. It seems like Obama could have done much worst by GOP assumed standards.

[MysticCat]

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.

I think KSigRC and KSigkid have done a good job of showing that it can.

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.

Context matters yet again. One has to bear in mind that she was talking primarily about cases involving discrimination. Like I've said before, in that context, the corollary is: I would hope that someone who has experienced discrimination would make a better decision in a case involving discrimination than someone who has not experienced discrimination.

And note how the "I would hope" (with the implied "but it might not") takes care of your Clarence Thomas example, while she specifically refers to cases like Brown to show that she does not view personal experience of being discriminated against as necessary to making the better decision.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Did you all see this already?

http://www.slate.com/id/2219699/

It's about how the language we're discussing here is recycled from a previous speech about how the richness of a woman's experience would allow her to reach better decisions and defines better.

Note that the "definition" of "better" comes from a White House aide, not from J. Sotomayor.

What seems oddest to me in the media's discussion is the idea that GOP would be actively trying to come up with a strategy for stalling her. It seems like Obama could have done much worst by GOP assumed standards.

WE AGREE! I really don't understand why some among the GOP are trying to stall this, because I agree -- it could have been much worse from their perspective.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think KSigRC and KSigkid have done a good job of showing that it can.
Context matters yet again. One has to bear in mind that she was talking primarily about cases involving discrimination. Like I've said before, in that context, the corollary is: I would hope that someone who has experienced discrimination would make a better decision in a case involving discrimination than someone who has not experienced discrimination.

And note how the "I would hope" (with the implied "but it might not") takes care of your Clarence Thomas example, while she specifically refers to cases like Brown to show that she does not view personal experience of being discriminated against as necessary to making the better decision.

Note that the "definition" of "better" comes from a White House aide, not from J. Sotomayor.

WE AGREE! I really don't understand why some among the GOP are trying to stall this, because I agree -- it could have been much worse from their perspective.

In the 1994 speech she defines better herself.

ETA: Slate hyperlinks the paragraphs from both speeches.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

In the 1994 speech she defines better herself.

My bad. I read the sentence wrong. Thanks.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

My bad. I read the sentence wrong. Thanks.

It's not a really radical definition, and it seems in keeping with what Obama suggested he wanted.

The only thing the repeated speech contributes that it's harder to make the case that she would have expressed it differently, but I don't think that matters much anyway.

I think it's kind of funny, but not really surprising, that sometimes it's just being female that makes the difference and sometimes it's being Latina depending on who the audience is. Wouldn't it be more interesting to make the claim to an audience that wasn't expecting exactly what they would hear? To tell a group of diverse women that it's being Latina that makes the difference? To tell a Latina/Latino audience that being a woman is enough to offer hope of better decisions. If the claim is as valid as it's supposed to be, why not?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Is there an overall set of experiences? Are white experiences so uniform that the claim makes sense?

It doesn't to me.

Yes. They are uniformly devoid of being non-white.

I think that the experience of being Ted Kennedy varies so significantly from the experience of being Eminem, especially pre-success, that it's kind of goofy to lump them together by race and culture and assume that they've shared formative experiences.

I have said this over a dozen times now - nobody is disputing this fact. YOU are assuming a "shared formative experience" - I am not. She is not, in the speech. You're arguing a strawman, and have been for like 5 pages now.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Yes. They are uniformly devoid of being non-white.



I have said this over a dozen times now - nobody is disputing this fact. YOU are assuming a "shared formative experience" - I am not. She is not, in the speech. You're arguing a strawman, and have been for like 5 pages now.

I find it difficult in this instance to look at a comparative statement and not look at the what's implied about the side that comes up lacking.

Don't let it trouble you. Be content that you don't find it racist and call it a day. ETA: I don't mean stop criticizing whatever you want to, but sometimes you actually seem to be getting frustrated and I doubt it's worth it to be repeating 12 times something that I'm not getting, perhaps mainly because I don't want to.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I find it difficult in this instance to look at a comparative statement and not look at the what's implied about the side that comes up lacking.

Don't let it trouble you. Be content that you don't find it racist and call it a day. ETA: I don't mean stop criticizing whatever you want to, but sometimes you actually seem to be getting frustrated and I doubt it's worth it to be repeating 12 times something that I'm not getting, perhaps mainly because I don't want to.

It's not really that I'm frustrated per se - certainly not with you specifically or as a person. It's more that I feel like you're arguing against points I'm not making, and that you've decided that the "null hypothesis" is something vastly different than I would ever consider - but it's all good, it's not really a debate to convince each other, and it seems to be in good spirits.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's not really that I'm frustrated per se - certainly not with you specifically or as a person. It's more that I feel like you're arguing against points I'm not making, and that you've decided that the "null hypothesis" is something vastly different than I would ever consider - but it's all good, it's not really a debate to convince each other, and it seems to be in good spirits.

It's kind of a funny thread because we're all in agreement, I think, that of the choices Obama was likely to make, she's a pretty good one.