About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media imagine scorn "white male" would receive for equivalent of Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remarks

May 29, 2009 7:18 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Some media figures have postulated that if a white male or a conservative had made the equivalent of Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark, they would be branded a racist, "run out of town," "properly banished from polite society," or "railroaded off the [judicial] bench."

24 Comments

In the days since President Obama announced the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, many media figures have misrepresented the following statement Sotomayor made in a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley Law School: "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." In doing so, some media figures have postulated that if a white male or a conservative had said the reverse -- that a white male would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina -- they would be branded a racist, "run out of town," "properly banished from polite society," or "railroaded off the [judicial] bench."

As Reason magazine contributing editor Julian Sanchez wrote on his personal blog, "[I]t would be weird for a white man to say it because it's probably not true that the experience of growing up as a white male in the United States specifically enhances one's understanding of what it means to be a disfavored minority":

On a related note, I find the "what if a white man said that?" move incredibly grating about 99 percent of the time it's used, because it's almost always a way of blotting out all the reasons that it would, in fact, be different. In the instance, it would be weird for a white man to say it because it's probably not true that the experience of growing up as a white male in the United States specifically enhances one's understanding of what it means to be a disfavored minority. In other words, it just wouldn't be true or reasonable in this case -- though it might be for a white male who grew up as a religious or ethnic minority somewhere else in the world. So yes, sometimes formally gramatically equivalent statements will have different connotations depending on whether it's a white person speaking about whites or a Latino speaking about Latinos, because history happened.

The following media figures that have repeated some variation of this claim:

  • In a May 23 National Journal article (subscription required), Stuart Taylor cited Sotomayor's 2001 quote, then claimed: "Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority. ... Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: 'I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life' -- and had proceeded to speak of 'inherent physiological or cultural differences.' "
  • On the May 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh posed a hypothetical: "Chief Justice John Roberts, in another speech, said, 'I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived the rich white man's life.' Do you think there would be any dispute that John Roberts had made a racist statement?"
  • Appearing on the May 26 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Ethics and Public Policy Center president and National Review Online contributor M. Edward Whelan said of Sotomayor's remark: "Well, any white male who made the equivalent of that statement would readily be indicted for racism."
  • On the May 26 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said of Sotomayor: "She's a person who said in a speech that she would hope that a Latina -- wise Latina woman would have -- would come to better conclusions as a judge than a white male. I mean, imagine if you heard someone say the reverse. He'd be run out of town as a racist and a sexist."
  • On the May 26 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs asked CNN senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin: "If one were to invert those words and say that a white male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman, would that make him a racist and a sexist?"
  • In a May 27 column for The Denver Post, Vincent Carroll cited Taylor, writing:

Putting that statement "in context" or explaining what she "really meant" will not do. Nor can Judge Sotomayor credibly argue that her assertion was an ill-considered mistake, since it was part of a prepared speech at the Berkeley school of law. No, she needs to reject it as the expression of bigotry that it was.

Even then she'd be getting off easy. After all, as Stuart Taylor wrote last weekend in the National Journal, "Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority."

Carroll added: "Once again, can you imagine a prominent white male saying such a thing without a legion of critics demanding that he do public penance?"

  • A May 27 Washington Examiner editorial said of Sotomayor's comment: "It is not hard to imagine the outcry that would greet a white male nominee who suggested that his ethnicity and experience would enable him to reach better conclusions than a minority who had lived a different sort of life. He would be dismissed as a racist, and rightly so. Is President Obama now asking that we look the other way when blatant racism comes from an Hispanic woman of otherwise solid achievement?"
  • In a May 27 post on his Twitter feed, Fox News contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich commented: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism." In a follow-up post, Gingrich added: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."
  • On the May 27 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity cited Taylor and Gingrich, asking guest Julie Menin: "This would never be tolerated by a white male. Why do you, as a liberal, accept this double standard?" Hannity twice repeated the hypothetical, asking Menin: "To use the Newt Gingrich example, 'My experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' If anybody said that, would they have any chance today of getting on the court?" Hannity subsequently said to Menin: "And if a white male said that, you liberals would be excoriating them."
  • In a May 28 Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove wrote:

Republicans also get a nominee who likes showing off and whose YouTube moments and Google insights cause people to wince. There are likely to be more revelations like Stuart Taylor's find last Saturday of this Sotomayor gem in a speech at Berkeley: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative say it: A career would be finished.

  • In a May 29 column, Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass said of Sotomayor's 2001 comment: "What would happen if I began a column about the corrosive effects of government-sanctioned racism with the following idiotic idea? 'I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than an African-American or Latino who hasn't lived that life.' If I wrote such nonsense, I'd be denounced as a racist. And President Barack Obama would never nominate me to the Supreme Court."
  • On the May 29 edition of Fox News Radio's Brian and the Judge, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said, in reference to Sotomayor's remark:

I don't think [Sotomayor's remark will be fatal to her nomination]. It's certainly not very smart of her to have said. And I think it's troubling. You know, it troubles me. And I think, you know, the best thing to do in any of these cases is just reverse it and say, "How would it have been if somebody had said, you know, 'A wise white judge -- white male judge would come to a better decision, a better conclusion than a Latino judge'?" You know, and of course that would be considered hate speech and just awful, and a judge would be railroaded off the bench if they said that.

So, I mean, I think it's legitimately troubling, but I don't think at this point a single statement like that is -- and, you know, she'll have a smart, carefully written, scripted response to that when she testifies before the Senate Judiciary.

  • On the May 29 edition of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan said: "If Sam Alito had said, 'I think given their life's experience and the richness of it, white males will make better decisions than Latina females,' he would be out. He would be finished."

From the May 26 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Here's what our Supreme Court justice nominee said in a lecture at UC-Berkeley School of Law in 2001. She said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Gosh, that smacks of racism, but maybe it's just me, Ed.

WHELAN: Well, any white male who made the equivalent of that statement would readily be indicted for racism. Look, what she's talking about is that it is perfectly acceptable for her to draw on her own values in deciding what the law means. That's a recipe for lawlessness.

And we see that, actually, when we look at the way she decided an important case that's now pending before the Supreme Court involving firefighters in New Haven, who are denied promotions on the basis of their race.

From the May 26 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

DOBBS: Well, joining me now our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey is the author of the widely praised best-seller The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Jeffrey, good to have you here. No surprise at all about Sotomayor.

TOOBIN: She was at the top of everyone's list. One reason why it took her so long to get confirmed in 1998 is that Republicans even then knew that she looked like a possible Supreme Court nominee, and here she is.

DOBBS: And here she is, which appears, at least to me, to be a statement of President Obama's confidence in his own political strength here. The statement, your reaction to it -- that "a Latina woman with a" -- and those are her words, a "Latina woman"; "a Latina" would have sufficed -- "with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."

If one were to invert those words and say that a white male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman, would that make him a racist and a sexist?

TOOBIN: It would certainly sound bad. I've actually read the full context of that quote. What she's saying --

DOBBS: As have I. As have I.

TOOBIN: Well, OK. But what she's saying is that it's a good thing to have a diverse bench and that's what --

DOBBS: I know that's what she's saying --

TOOBIN: That's right.

DOBBS: -- in context. And it doesn't change what she said.

TOOBIN: That's true.

DOBBS: Is that a sexist and racist -- potentially sexist and racist comment?

TOOBIN: I don't think it is in the slightest.

DOBBS: So you would have no problem with a white male inverting that sentence?

TOOBIN: I have to hear the context of what the white male said.

From the May 29 edition of Fox News Radio's Brian & the Judge:

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Lanny Davis is coming out and saying the White House has to go out and say that this judge, Sontamayor [sic], will have to -- has to explain herself or apologize for this statement, that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman in the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived her life."

ANDREW NAPOLITANO (co-host): Wow.

KILMEADE: That statement has people like Larry Sabato saying, "Come out, don't tap dance around it. Take it back."

NAPOLITANO: And it also has people like Newt Gingrich calling her a racist. Who better to talk about all of this than the person who lives and works at the ground zero of these things, inside the Beltway in D.C., our good friend and colleague Chris Wallace.

Chris, welcome back to Brian and the Judge.

WALLACE: Thank you, gentlemen.

NAPOLITANO: Is this potentially -- this one-liner that Brian just read, with which you are no doubt familiar, potentially fatal to her nomination?

WALLACE: I don't think so. It's certainly not very smart of her to have said. And I think it's troubling. You know, it troubles me. And I think, you know, the best thing to do in any of these cases is just reverse it and say, 'How would it have been if somebody had said, you know, "A wise white judge -- white male judge would come to a better decision, a better conclusion than a Latino judge"?' You know, and of course that would be considered hate speech and just awful, and a judge would be railroaded off the bench if they said that.

So, I mean, I think it's legitimately troubling, but I don't think at this point a single statement like that is -- and, you know, she'll have a smart, carefully written, scripted response to that when she testifies before the Senate Judiciary.

From the May 29 edition of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports:

ANDREA MITCHELL (anchor): Bob, Pat, I want to ask a question --

BUCHANAN: Sure.

MITCHELL: -- based on something that Rush Limbaugh just said. I don't have the tape; this is the actual quote: "The real question here that needs to be asked," Rush said, "and nobody on our side from a columnist to a TV commentator to anybody in our party has the guts to ask -- how can a president nominate such a candidate? How can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive."

BUCHANAN: I think --

MITCHELL: Is that an appropriate comparison?

BUCHANAN: I wouldn't compare David Duke, but I will say this: If Sam Alito had said, "I think given their life's experience and the richness of it, white males will make better decisions than Latina females" --

BOB SHRUM (Democratic political consultant): She didn't say that.

BUCHANAN: -- he would be out. He would be finished.

SHRUM: She didn't say that.

BUCHANAN: He would be done.

SHRUM: You keep misquoting her.

BUCHANAN: She said exactly that.

MITCHELL: But didn't Sam Alito also say at his own --

SHRUM: She did not. I quoted it exactly a minute ago.

MITCHELL: Bob, Bob --

BUCHANAN: You did not.

MITCHELL: -- hang on a second. Didn't Sam Alito also say in his own confirmation hearing that his immigrant background would inform and would be part of the life experience he brought to the bench?

BUCHANAN: He didn't bring it -- this is race-based, what she is saying here. It is race-based.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by puppienrainbows (May 29, 2009 7:22 pm ET)
        1
      The point is, there is no room for racist remarks in society today, regardless of who makes them!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (June 01, 2009 2:45 pm ET)
           
        That's fine, you just have to show how the comment is racist. Nobody's been able to do it so far.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Conchobhar (May 30, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
      1  
      O-o-o-boy, the (ahem) mature white males have definitely got their knickers in a twist. Limbaugh is laughably terrified by the possibility that whites might get back some of what they (we) dished out for so long. "Back of the bus?," "separate drinking fountains?" This is hysteria, and it's hysterically comical.

      Only Toobin seems to have his head on straight.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Daniel Barber (May 30, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
           
        I emailed every single one of these people (the first to Stuart Taylor) basically the same letter as follows:

        Mr. Taylor,

        I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your remarks about Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 statement "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." were made without the knowledge of the full context within which those statements were made.

        First, Sonia Sotomayor's statement was made in the context of speaking about judicial diversity and its impact in regard SPECIFICALLY to cases of racial and sexual discrimination. This means that she was NOT making a statement about ALL types of cases, but ONLY about those that dealt with racial and sexual discrimination. Given that, it's clear to ANYONE with a brain that there is nothing whatsoever controversial about her statement and that she was in no way saying that Latina women come to better conclusions overall than white males or would make better judges. Saying that she "...HOPES a wise Latina women with the richness of her EXPERIENCES [as a minority woman] would MORE OFTEN THAN NOT reach a better conclusion [on such cases] than a white male who hasn't lived that life [and has no real life experience about how minority women are treated to draw from]" is perfectly realistic.

        Second, she also went on to qualify her remark by reiterating that white males have many times reached fabulous conclusions in cases of racial and sexual discrimination (citing the white male Supreme Court justices who reached a great conclusion in Brown v Board of Education among many other examples) and made it clear that she has no belief whatsoever that a white male can't be just as empathetic to, and understand all of the nuances of, racial and sexual discrimination cases. The fact she believes, as anyone with a brain would, that it's a much easier thing for a Latina women to be empathetic to, and understand the nuances of, racial and sexual discrimination cases because of her own real life experiences than it would be for a white male who "hasn't lived that life" is so unremarkable as to beg how anyone could possibly believe otherwise.

        Third, if you do believe otherwise, I would only challenge you to explain how you believe such tripe. In other words, please explain to me what in a white male's real life experiences, where he's NEVER been subject to racial or sexual discrimination, would make it easier for him to empathize with, and understand the nuances of, racial and sexual discrimination cases than it would be for a wise Latina woman? Please, if you can answer that with a reasonable argument, I'd love to hear it.

        I'm confident you can't, and again, I'm hopeful that you deserve the benefit of the doubt in regard to the idea that you were simply ignorant of the full context involving her statement when you wrote about it. If so, I would still hope you would publicly and in writing apologize to Sonia Sotomayor for your remarks. For, if you don't, I can only conclude that you DID know the full context, and simply didn't give a darn.

        In that case, you would be, in my view, nothing but a lowlife, bigoted, racist *$%#*@^& yourself who knowingly used demagoguery on the issue in order to stir up racist hatreds against Latinas and blacks.

        Please prove that wrong and publicly apologize to Sonia Sotomayor.

        Thank you,

        Daniel Barber
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (June 01, 2009 12:39 am ET)
             
          I like your passion and activism Daniel. Keep up the good work.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by zamfir273114 (May 30, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
        7
      Yup, I must concur with Buchanan in this specific instance. A white male would be finished if they said anything similar to the bigoted Sotomayer. I just wonder if Sotomeyer looks down on other ethnicities as well, like Asian, Black or even Mestizo. Afterall, in is well-known that in many Latin American countries, many predominantly "Spanish" individuals look down on the darker "Mestizo" varieties. It's disgusting. Sotomeyer is very white looking. I hope they check this woman out. Racism has no place in the Supreme Court.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Daniel Barber (May 30, 2009 6:09 pm ET)
           
        It really does amaze me that someone could come on this site, read everything above, and still make such a pathetically stupid and ignorant statement.

        The only conclusion that can be drawn is that "zamfir273114" hasn't read anything whatsoever above and simply came here to troll with ridiculously ignorant statements in hopes of getting someone riled up.

        Very sad, really.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (June 01, 2009 9:02 am ET)
             
          You're missing the point. If ANY white male made anything resembling Sotomayor's remarks, they would be lambasted especially on this forum. Context be damned.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (June 01, 2009 2:44 pm ET)
               
            If the context made what that white man said reasonable, then their statement should be taken that way. If that were to happen here, then those lambasting him on this forum would be wrong. So what's the point? That conservatives are justified in ignoring the actual meaning of words because liberals would supposedly do so in some fantasy situation, or what?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Craig (May 30, 2009 6:47 pm ET)
        5  
        And who knows more about racism than you?

        by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
        ...I want racial quotas in basketball so that there is an equal number of non-black athletes. Am I going to get any of those things? Didn't think so.

        by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 11:33 pm ET)
        People are still people. When people talk before they think, they can say stupid and derogatory things. To cite every incidence as "racism" is overreaching.

        by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
        Savage has a point. Every neighborhood that illegals have migrated to has gone down the tubes. My birthplace of Van Nuys, CA is like "little Mexico" now. Shootings, rapings, pillaging, drive-by's, grafiti, prostitution, drugs, (you know, all the things that go along with the Mexican-illegal population. Even the African-American neighborhoods are in awe!

        by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
        Then why is it that every one of these Mexican populated areas crime-ridden? Really, all P.C. aside, can you tell me why the real estate prices decrease in these areas? One more thing, why are the prisons filled with Mexicans? P.C. aside. See, nothing ever gets done because everybody is afraid to talk about these things.

        by zamfir273114 (February 15, 2008 12:38 am ET)
        I don't have to agree with someone in order to value free speech. Sure, Imus et. Al. say some nasty comments; however, unless you can diminish his listenership or his value, your barking up the wrong tree. If Hillary were black, you could resort to using Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Unfortunately, they only come running when black folk are ridiculed. Hmm, that seems a little "racist" in and of itself.

        by zamfir273114 (February 14, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
        That is Mr. Hussein's, I mean Obama's, name. Coulter only speaks what millions of American's think. The American people have a right to know who they are voting for. Barack Hussein Obama.

        Thanks, WK!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 30, 2009 7:09 pm ET)
        1  
        Sotomeyer is very white looking.

        WHAT? Are YOU really that bigoted and STUPID?

        You sound like white folks during Jim Crow days. They used to say that about some African Americans, because "looking white" made them more acceptable to white folks.

        It's no wonder you agree with Buchanan, you're both just p*ssed off white boys, unhappy that past injustices are being addressed!

        Change is here, GET OVER IT!!!!!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 7:15 pm ET)
        1  
        YOUR tripe is racist and disgusting. You are humiliating yourself
        Report Abuse
        • Author by zamfir273114 (May 30, 2009 7:37 pm ET)
            2
          Well now you know how I feel about Sotomeyer's comments about "white men". Racism is disgusting isn't it?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 11:16 pm ET)
            1  
            No. I see you are just stuck on repeating the nonsense. Nothing she said was racist and I dont care how many times you fool yourself or how many times you repeat the idiocy it will not magically become true. You can tell me for the next thirty years the sky is green it wont change the FACT it is really blue. So knock yourself out. Keep working on your brainwashing you are just making a fool out of yourself nothing more.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Buzzramjet (May 30, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
        1  
        You're an idiot.

        AND a racist

        AND a bigot.

        BUT mostly you're ignorant.

        Please go back to whatever hole you came from.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 31, 2009 8:17 am ET)
        2  
        "In the instance, it would be weird for a white man to say it because it's probably not true that the experience of growing up as a white male in the United States specifically enhances one's understanding of what it means to be a disfavored minority. In other words, it just wouldn't be true or reasonable in this case -- though it might be for a white male who grew up as a religious or ethnic minority somewhere else in the world."

        Which is what I've been saying - you can't flip around the words when the dynamics are markedly different. I really don't know how this is unclear at this point.

        It's been explained to you any number of ways how the comment is reasonable. "I would think" is an important qualifier, for instance. The fact that it was specific to racial and sexual discrimination cases is also vital to understanding.

        It also seems that there isn't any evidence of "bigoted" Sotomayor letting her supposedly wild prejudices influence her decisions:"In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee." And here's the kicker:"In the 50 cases, the panel was unanimous in every one. There was a Republican appointee in 38, and these panels were all obviously unanimous as well. Thus, in the roughly 45 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor never dissented."

        After so much explanation, you "must" concur with a statement that is demonstrated to be logically bankrupt, because you are bound and determined to interpret an out-of-context comment as racist no matter how many times or ways it's explained to you. Why do you feel such an emotional need to cling to this? Using your method of thinking, it's more than fair to conclude that you are bigoted against minorities, and I just wonder if you burn crosses on people's front lawns.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Conchobhar (May 31, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
             
          Both logic and facts, Brab? That's really piling on. Give the pan-flutist a break. You've already got him overmatched.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by steve52 (May 30, 2009 7:43 pm ET)
         
      Of course the context of her speech is ignored, as they select one sentence that can be twisted to "prove" whatever they want to prove. Sam Alito said much the same thing and wingers ate it up. This is just more right wing smear tactics.

      Sotomayor was nominated to the appeals court by Bush I and confirmed with 75 Senate votes. She was first in her class at Princeton. She was editor of the law review. She has years of experience in the justice system, as a prosecutor, lawyer, and judge. She is more qualified than anyone seated in the last 100 years.

      Of course they have to make stuff up. There are no real reasons to oppose her nomination.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by artie fischel (May 31, 2009 2:34 am ET)
           
        I'm no fan of Limbaugh et al, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I read the speech that that was taken from, and it's not really out of context. The gist is that she acknowledges that she has her biases, she likes her biases, and she's bringing them into court, proudly. She contrasts her view with that of a Judge Cedarbaum, who thinks the law is best served by leaving such things outside the courtroom. I don't know whether this speech is an aberration from the rest of her public statements, but it's more than a little troubling to hear a Supreme Court nominee so openly embrace bias over the impartial rule of law. And to imply that any class or race inherently has a quality of experience that is fundamentally "better", well, I don't know what to say to that. I guess I hope that she was playing to the largely Latino audience and overstepped.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Craig (May 31, 2009 11:01 pm ET)
             
          Thanks for the concern, troll.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (May 31, 2009 11:34 pm ET)
          1  
          "I don't know whether this speech is an aberration from the rest of her public statements, but it's more than a little troubling to hear a Supreme Court nominee so openly embrace bias over the impartial rule of law."

          Is that so?

          "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. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

          That doesn't sound very much like "embrac(ing)" to me. On the contrary, that is asserting that it's important to be as objective as possible. How do you address the fact that in the last 50 discrimination cases to come before her, she sided with the plaintiff only three times, while siding with the defense 45 times? Where is that bias coming into play, exactly?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Nquest (May 31, 2009 1:22 am ET)
         
      How come those claiming "if a white man had said what Sotomayor did" can't just reference an equivalent incident instead of hoping people's imagination can make their argument for them.

      The pretense of the rhetorical inquiry is that white men have said things in the past like Sotomayor and been raked over the coals, etc. Well, let's see their examples.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by papabear45 (May 31, 2009 9:02 pm ET)
         
      Has anyone diagnosed Lou Dobbs with anything?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (June 01, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
      1  
      Conservative Trolls:
      Please explain Alito's remarks and your defense of them in 2005:
      See: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200905290032
      When the nation learned in 2005 that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had belonged to a Princeton University alumni organization that advocated a cap on the number of women and minorities allowed at Princeton, the news media quickly circled the wagons to protect the Bush nominee.
      and also the following from his hearings:
      ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ... And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. 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. [...]

      And that goes down the line. 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.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.