In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered a speech to the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice". It was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, and has been reproduced by The New York Times this month online. A quote taken from that speech has raised controversy, as conservatives alleged Sotomayor declared her willingness to use race as a means of judging the law. In fact, she argued against that sort of bias. The controversial quote, part of a discussion on the question of whether every wise old judge shares the same specific type of wisdom, is as follows:
First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.Sotomayor went on to explain that there is a real history in the US judiciary of otherwise very enlightened justices failing to understand the real legal problem of certain types of discrimination. Specifically:
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.But even there, Sotomayor is not saying that wise old white judges can't understand the plight of downtrodden groups or individuals whose experience they do not share. She immediately points out that they can and often have, basing their judgments on the law and the guiding principles of Constitutional justice:
I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
So, even demographically uniform courts have rendered rulings that expanded the scope of civil liberties in order to remedy unconscionable historic injustices. And Sonia Sotomayor recognized this, and goes on to explain that every judge must search for that more enlightened part of his or her own intellect, to rise above the limitations of personal experience.
Explaining why the question of what a judge is able to understand about the conditions in which those before them might live is so important, she added:
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench.Her argument is very clearly that, given the fact that human frailty can bias one's understanding of an issue or a situation, even in some of the most enlightened justices of the past, diversifying the judiciary can help raise the frequency of insightful judgments. The argument is not diversity for diversity's sake, but a complex critique of the failings that can be seen in some judges. Sotomayor specifically said she aspires to be better than that:
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations.
So, Judge Sotomayor did not, in fact, argue that her ethnicity, language background or culinary preferences, would be a fair way to bias her judgments according to a leftwing political agenda, as ultra-conservative critics have claimed. Instead, she was explaining her awareness of how heritage can provide insight, but a judge must understand the complications of this dynamic, and seek to achieve a more enlightened approach.
She specifically pledged "constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives", in order to make judgments that are not biased or unduly influenced by her heritage or life experience. Ultimately, she will explain this during Senate confirmation hearings, because there are plenty of senators who clearly have not read the speech and don't understand her argument, but it cannot be said that she ever argued that being Latina was "better" than being white or that she favors biased judgments.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Wilson Diehl
Steve Valk
Judy Mandelbaum
Dr. Evan Levine
Natalie Not Pedantic
Wordsmith
Salon.com
Comments
I think that Sotomayor's "better" comment was totally taken in context, but good try to rationalize it.
Sotomayor has been nominated because of her sex and ethnicity. Anyone who doesn't see that is deluded. It's Ricci redux.
But the sad part is that Obama isn't motivated by a desire to level the playing field for minorities as well-intentioned but misguided affirmative action types are. He's doing it for the votes, impure and simple. It's Chicago-type pragmatics once again.
In your effort to provide context, I believe you conveniently left out the above. Typical liberal hypocrisy. Claim out of context and then selectively provide partial additional information to support the claim.
What more than the above do we need to know that Sotomayor is totally unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court? I hope she's grilled good and proper on this quote. It won't sink her, but it will surely inform the public about the kind of judicial quality and impartiality we can expect under the Obama administration.
Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position... When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Wow, how can it be that someone who takes his ethnic background, not to mention religion and gender issues, into account is now a Justice on the the Supreme Court? I call on conservatives to denounce Justice Alito and ask for his removal! He must be some flaming, not-too-smart liberal or something.
Where do I start, dear Stellaa? I'm no spring chicken, but I've not been around for eons. I've never mistreated anyone. Very little makes me cringe, but barbaric attacks from Islamic sand monkeys come pretty close.
As far as background influences are concerned, I'm reminded of Katherine Hepburn's statement in The African Queen. "Nature (read background influences), Mr. Alnaught, is what we're put on this earth to rise above." These influences should not be used as an excuse for bias , prejudice, or discrimination, reverse or forward.
Sotomayor's statements indicate that she, like you, are perfectly content and regard prejudice and bias as inevitable or perhaps even appropriate.
Your post suggests to me that you're into payback. I hope you realize the savage company that puts you in. You might want to rethink that; it's most unattractive.
Judging by the speed with which the question was answered by the poser, I suppose we can fairly conclude it was rhetorical.
White men are fine, too, and should by all means be part of the discussion. All Sotomayor is suggesting is that we get some other voices in there, too, and that everyone will profit from inclusion.
No brainer. Thank God she had the guts to say it.
Of course much of that is implied, and very hard for certain people who have monopolized the power for a long time to see.
---
J.E. thank you SO MUCH for this wonderful post, which laid out how eloquently and even-handedly she made that point. This is a wonderful post, the best I've seen in a long time. Great job.
J.E. distilled down an entire speech with a handful of quotes, and if she didn't choose every line you would have chosen then accuse "Typical liberal hypocrisy"?
Please.
They may be guilty of different reasoning than you, but not distortion or hypocrisy.
What makes it more comical, though, is that the quote you chose doesn't reveal anything new. It's hardly the gotcha you're claiming.
I also linked to it on my Facebook page and Twitter page.
Very nice work, J.E.
Everyone should read this. (Except Gordon, apparently. LOL.)
Thanks for this classic statement of intellectual relativism. I must remember it when next you liberals says anything about anything. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Honestly, can't you see the stupidity of this?
Where on earth did you get that statistic? I've been told that 60% percent of her decisions were reversed on appeal. One of us is clearly grossly misinformed.
As far as hate speech goes, yes, I hate radical Islamics who kill Americans.
My main point remains: if you're going to get all high and mighty about quoting out of context, don't leave out the clearest possible statement of the candidate's admission that she probably can't overcome her racial and sexual bias.
There is no direct correlation between the quality of a judge's overall rulings and the ratio of overturned to not-overturned among the handful that get heard by the Supreme Court. (Incidentally, of the 2 rulings made by Samuel Alito ruled on by the Court, both were overturned... does that mean he is an incompetent judge? or is it necessary to look at his full body of work?)
One of the reasons Sotomayor's record is so impressive is because she has made so many rulings over a long career as a federal judge. In that case, that only a handful ever came before the court at all does suggest her rulings were largely sound. But that is, admittedly, an inference: ideally, we would all get each of those transcripts and read them all in full, to make our own informed judgments.
If you don't think that statement is misleading in view of the facts which you now acknowledge to be true after being challenged by me, you're not really the ideal person to talk about taking quotes out of context.
I have expressed many opinions and not one has been overturned by the Supreme Court, let alone three. I guess I should apply for the position for which Sotomayor is completely unqualified. By your logic, you could have a go as well.
What is it about you liberals that leads you to obfuscate in the name of full disclosure and deliberately to mislead in making your talking points?
GordonO: There was no information concealed, and you have not successfully found out an evil plot to mislead people. 3 rulings were overturned. I think you are trying to find a "liberal" danger here that does not exist. We are trying to reason about what Judge Sotomayor actually said and whether the critiques being thrown at her are well-founded or just feeble fabrications.
Your slur for middle-eastern Muslims, whom you link as a race to evil terrorist killers, is irrelevant to this debate, not to mention inflammatory and ill-conceived. Your assertion that I somehow have argued I would be qualified because none of my opinions have been overturned by the Supreme Court is a flight of reasoning so fanciful it could be worked into the set of a staging of Alice in Wonderland.
There is a vast gap between the kind of "opinion" you claim to have and the nature of a judicial ruling (also called, sometimes, an "opinion") reasoned by a federal judge in analysis of written law and facts at hand.
The argument that having zero opinions overturned by the Supreme Court (including the sort of off-hand remarks someone like you or I might make, not being federal judges) qualifies someone to sit on the Supreme Court is actually more akin to your own attack on Judge Sotomayor, not my reasoning about the relevance of those 3 cases.
You are the one who seems to be suggesting that if any specific set of 9 justices ever disagreed with her, she is not qualified to serve on that Court. I said that is not a disqualifier, but that we need to examine the whole of her record.
Your leaps of reasoning are entertaining, and I suppose it's good exercise for those of us who care about whether there is or is not distortion in this debate about the judiciary. I understand your point about wanting to keep everybody honest, but I think the words as written, up to this point, pretty much speak for themselves.
Stellaa said, "Gordon, it terrifies your ilk that the male dominated Anglo Saxon world view is being challenged. You cringe in corners fearing that others will treat you the way you treated everyone else all these eons."
I have to agree with her.
I think of my husband, a male, obviously, that agrees with most of what is said about historical misogyny, racism, elitism, even though he is a member of the group that has historically been "on top" -- well, he's sort of from that group, but not exactly. He's Jewish, which probably accounts for his ability to empathize with those in a position of inferiority. That's the point that Sotomayor is trying to make, isn't she?-- that oppressed people may have more insight into the perspective of the minority class than others?
She was being honest, and she may wish she hadn't been. I understand from whence her comment came....... and "get it."
The truth is that individuals from the privileged class *do* sometimes have that insight and compassion, GordonO, I'll give you that, but for some reason it appears as though this isn't the case most of the time.
denese
"Gordon, it terrifies your ilk that the male dominated Anglo Saxon world view is being challenged. You cringe in corners fearing that others will treat you the way you treated everyone else all these eons."
Thanks Stellaa. It's important to remember what's motivating people. It's a scary time for people losing their grip on power after millenia. Some people recognize their own fear, but some of not bright enough to see it.
RATED
After your dissertation on what you believe is her evidenced racism you would have her sit on the Supreme Court to avoid conflict?
Wow, you're really fighting the good fight for that color blind society you want so badly.
We (that includes our wisdom) are our experiences. Our experiences in this life are somewhat detirmined by our race and gender. Duh.