David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

I'd still chalk that up to context. If I'm talking to a bunch of Boy Scouts, I'm going to focus on how being a Scout influences my perspective on things. If I'm talking to a bunch of people over 6 feet tall, I'm going to talk about how being tall influences my perspective on things.

Sort of an aside: there is research that suggests that in states where judges are elected, all other things being equal more voters tend to favor a female over a male.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'd still chalk that up to context. If I'm talking to a bunch of Boy Scouts, I'm going to focus on how being a Scout influences my perspective on things. If I'm talking to a bunch of people over 6 feet tall, I'm going to talk about how being tall influences my perspective on things.

Sort of an aside: there is research that suggests that in states where judges are elected, all other things being equal more voters tend to favor a female over a male.

Sure, but even though you were talking to Scouts you probably wouldn't address the Scouts' attitude toward gays. There's something about appropriateness, but there's something about playing it safe with the audience you've got too. It's completely normal and expected, but for some reason, it amuses me in this case.

I don't think that most people in the abstract have a bias against women judges, so your second point isn't really surprising. Most of the time, I think voters imagine that women will be outside of any Good Ol' Boys network, and I think that's what they are hoping for in judges.

(I do think that employees tend to be ridiculously hard on most females in superior employment positions, but that's neither here nor there in this case. I'm just noting that in reality/ direct experience, people frequently hold women to different standards than they do men. )

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Sure, but even though you were talking to Scouts you probably wouldn't address the Scouts' attitude toward gays.

I'm not sure I'm following what you mean.

I don't think that most people in the abstract have a bias against women judges, so your second point isn't really surprising. Most of the time, I think voters imagine that women will be outside of any Good Ol' Boys network, and I think that's what they are hoping for in judges.

The research I've seen suggests a bias toward female judges. The reason may have some to do with not being in the GOB network, but (again, according to what I've seen) has more to do with a perception that females are more likely than males to combine application of the law with compassion. Hmmmm.

[Munchkin03]

Now some people are wondering why she has so little in assets.

Wake me up when she's confirmed.