“A white male will usually make a better decision than a wise Latina.”
— Justice Sotomajor
Did she really say something like that? That seems pretty crazy. And she’s a SERIOUS candidate for the Supreme Court? She sounds un-American.
She just sounds stupid.
she said the opposite, didn’t she? to the effect (wise latina) > (white male)
[quote]Therizza wrote:
she said the opposite, didn’t she? to the effect (wise latina) > (white male)[/quote]
In regard to issues regarding hispanic people.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Therizza wrote:
she said the opposite, didn’t she? to the effect (wise latina) > (white male)
In regard to issues regarding hispanic people.[/quote]
Okay, I get that. So should we have an Hispanic judge for Hispanic cases?
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Therizza wrote:
she said the opposite, didn’t she? to the effect (wise latina) > (white male)
In regard to issues regarding hispanic people.[/quote]
since when does a supreme court justice differentiate between peoples ethnicity. latino does not equal ‘hispanic’ per se.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Therizza wrote:
she said the opposite, didn’t she? to the effect (wise latina) > (white male)
In regard to issues regarding hispanic people.
since when does a supreme court justice differentiate between peoples ethnicity. latino does not equal ‘hispanic’ per se. [/quote]
IIRC the question she was asked was about the latin/hispanic/whatever you want to call it culture, and if she would be more knowledgable about the culture than a white man.
She’s a bag of douche, but getting on her case about this out of context quote is stupid.
I get on her case because she is an obviously biased judge who is about to be appointed to the one court in the land that should have no bias. Look at my avatar- Justitia is blind. Sotomayor is not.
Hatch has her in an arm bar right now.
So… what judge that’s ever lived doesn’t draw on their own experiences to make a decision? And in America, it’s undoubtedly true that your ethnicity will have some impact on your experiences, especially if you’re a minority.
Never far from the surface yesterday was the historic nature of the day, and the fact that of the 12 Democrats and seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, all but two of those who will question the first Hispanic woman nominated to the nation’s highest court are white men.
[
Too ironic.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Never far from the surface yesterday was the historic nature of the day, and the fact that of the 12 Democrats and seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, all but two of those who will question the first Hispanic woman nominated to the nation’s highest court are white men.
[
Too ironic.
[/quote]
I guess that says it all doesn’t it?
Perhaps I am too idealistic when I think of how our government should operate. I am skeptical of ANY supreme court nominee who has even the slightest hint of handing down anything but even-handed, Constitutionally based rulings.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
even-handed, Constitutionally based rulings.[/quote]
What is even-handed and based in the Constitution to one person is not anywhere near it to another.
You must remember that these are people, not machines.
Fair enough.
If a white man said that his being a white male made him wise and capable of making a better decision than a ______ male, he would be accused of being a racist, bigot, white supremacist, you name it. He would be ruined politically, it would never be forgotten.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If a white man said that his being a white male made him wise and capable of making a better decision than a ______ male, he would be accused of being a racist, bigot, white supremacist, you name it. He would be ruined politically, it would never be forgotten. [/quote]
It is the price we pay for having been the dominating force in the country for the last 300 years. It is, indeed, a small one for the shit that white males have done.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
I get on her case because she is an obviously biased judge who is about to be appointed to the one court in the land that should have no bias. Look at my avatar- Justitia is blind. Sotomayor is not.[/quote]
Now, I’m not defending her comment, but I don’t understand why you (and others here) say she is an obviously biased judge. As far as I can tell her actual record of cases shows no real bias, and isn’t that what is important, how she’s actually judged? As far as I’ve heard of the nomination hearings even the republicans on the committee who really don’t want her in there even admit this. The best they can do is question whether, despite her unbiased record, she will show bias once she is on the high court.
In any event, it seems that all one can draw from her comments is that she has strong feelings about certain issues–but so does everyone. Her record demonstrates that she is not a biased judge.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If a white man said that his being a white male made him wise and capable of making a better decision than a ______ male, he would be accused of being a racist, bigot, white supremacist, you name it. He would be ruined politically, it would never be forgotten. [/quote]
Maybe you draw the wrong lesson from this. The lesson isn’t that Sotomayor should be hung for her comments, but that no white man should be hung for similar ones either.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
If a white man said that his being a white male made him wise and capable of making a better decision than a ______ male, he would be accused of being a racist, bigot, white supremacist, you name it. He would be ruined politically, it would never be forgotten.
Maybe you draw the wrong lesson from this. The lesson isn’t that Sotomayor should be hung for her comments, but that no white man should be hung for similar ones either.
[/quote]
To the best of my knowledge, no white man actually has said such comments. It was Sotomayor and Obama who even mentioned the issue of gender and ethnicity.