“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. 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.”
"If it quacks"
Sotomayor’s words in context are clearly much worse than the line that is being reported by Main Stream Media (MSM). According to this statement Sotomayor assumes that whether a Latina woman has experience or not, because of her inherent physiological and cultural differences that a Latina woman has, automatically makes her decisions superior to that of a white males’. This is raciest in itself.
This statement presents major problems with how this judicial philosophy would effect her judicial decisions. Would her decisions always favor a Latina woman or a woman with inherent physiological and cultural characteristics?
If a white man had the reverse of this statement his nomination would have been dead in the water? There is a double standard here in our society and the general public today allows for this reverse discrimination. By allowing or accepting reverse discrimination we believe two wrongs make a right.
We as citizens of the US should not be advocating for any form of racism. Racism is intrinsically wrong. Why not just devotion and loyalty to the LAW as it is written?
American Thinker, writer Brian Garst has an article that comes right to the point.
Much has been made of Sotomayor's statements that Latina women can be expected to make better judicial decisions than white males. While it's true that the statement is inherently racist, though not of the hateful sort that stains America's past, the debate to date has mostly missed the larger problem: her statement reveals a judicial philosophy that elevates personal preferences over adherence to the letter of the law. That we are presently mired in a discussion of the former at the expense of the latter is a testament to the destructive power of identity politics. It is even more disappointing that a President uniquely positioned to transcend such old, tired debates of the past has instead chosen to perpetuate them for political gain.
You can go see his article in total here...
American Thinker's Brian Garst
Chess take the time to read Brian's article it covers it all.