Wash. Times changes word in Sotomayor statement to call for her defeat
SUMMARY: The Washington Times falsely claimed in an editorial that Judge Sonia Sotomayor said that " 'inherent physiological and cultural differences' help ensure that a 'wise Latina ... would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.' " In fact, Sotomayor made no such claim.
In its July 13 editorial calling for Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination to be defeated, The Washington Times falsely claimed that Sotomayor said that " 'inherent physiological and cultural differences' help ensure that a 'wise Latina ... would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.' " In fact, Sotomayor did not refer to "inherent physiological and cultural differences" [emphasis added], as the Times stated. Rather, in nearly identical speeches she delivered from 1994 to 2003, Sotomayor repeated variations of the following statement: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague [federal district] Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging" [emphasis added].
The Times editorial page has distorted these comments in the past. As Media Matters for America noted, the Times falsely claimed in a June 8 editorial that Sotomayor "assert[ed]" in three speeches "that there are 'inherent physiological' differences between the races" and suggested her comments should disqualify her from serving on the court. Additionally, the Times printed an op-ed on July 11 by Jeffrey Kuhner that also misquoted the comment, arguing that Sotomayor "embraces the pernicious doctrine of 'inherent physiological and cultural differences' among groups."
From Sotomayor's 2001 speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
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.
From Sotomayor's 2003 speech at the Seton Hall University School of Law:
In private discussions with me on the topic of differences based on gender in judging, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that the seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant except I choose to emphasize that the people who argued the cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Robert Carter and Judge Constance Baker Motley from my court and the first black women appointed to the federal bench and others who were involved in the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the court that equality of work required equality in the terms and conditions of employment. 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 make and will make a difference in our judging.
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman 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 the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Professor Martha Minnow is correct, 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.
From Sotomayor's 2002 speech at Princeton University:
In private discussions with me on the topic of differences based on gender in judging, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that the seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant except I choose to emphasize that the people who argued the cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape were largely people of color and women.
I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Constance Baker Motley from my court and the first black women appointed to the federal bench and others of the then-NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the court that equality of work required equality in the terms and conditions of employment.
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 make and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman 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 the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement.
From Sotomayor's March 1994 speech at the 40th National Conference of Law Reviews:
In private discussions with me on the topic of differences based on gender in judging, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that the seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant except I choose to emphasize that the people who argued the cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurmond Marshall, Judge Constance Baker Motley from my court and the first black women appointed to the federal bench and others of the then NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the court that equality of work required equality in the terms and conditions of employment. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological differemces, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender makes and will make a difference in our judging.
From the Washington Times' July 13 editorial:
From numerous speeches, public appearances and writings, all read in context, we know that Judge Sotomayor believes that:
[...]
c Most infamously, "inherent physiological and cultural differences" help ensure that a "wise Latina ... would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."















Some of us are not scholars and could read and re-read her speech and may not understand the judicial reasoning she presented - that is fine. But when those in the news who are commenting on that speech mischaracterizes, obfuscates, and changes her statements to further their conclusions and to garner support for their opposition to her nomination - it is Media Matters who swoops in to right the wrong.
This isn't about what questions are or are not to be asked of a nominee, rather it is about the intentional misrepresentation of her speech that is the basis of this article.
And an important one if your want to make the case, as the Times does, that Sotomayor believes that Latinas are inherently superior to white men. In other words, they lie in order to tar her as a racist.
The only ones I've seen accused of lies and distortions are the ones who've lied and distorted.
Tommy would understand the difference between the two words that you seem to think could be interchangeable.
Words were important to Tommy, God knows he used a lot of them arguing with me.
For anyone to try to say that quoting precisely is picking at something is to admit the limits of that person's ability to reason.
For the last time, she was talking about ruling on discrimination. It's really not that hard to understand.
She's not being mis-quoted, but she is being taken out of context, time and time again. And out of context means, they take that one little sentence, that sounds bad, and don't put the sentences in front of it, and the ones in back of it, that make it all actually quite reasonable.
If that's not out of context I'm not sure what is.
Clear enough?
And no, I'm not going to explain that to you.
You may disagree with her, but her position is quite reasonable, and in no way indicates that she will allow her race or gender influence her rulings.
But she quite clearly is being misquoted and/or taken out of context. And, yes, it is getting old. That's the entire point of this article. Her actual statements do not require defending. And if you think that they are inconclusive and unclear, then that's an issue you should take up with whomever it is that taught you how to read.
So it would be perfectly acceptable that when she is questioned on these statements you would accept an answer such as there is nothing controversial about them so I am not going to defend them, I don't have too.
Absolutely stunning.
Of course she will be asked to defend the statement during her hearing, but I have a feeling that that defense will consist entirely of clarifying what has been distorted and misrepresented.
One doesn't leave their cultural background at the door. Your thinking is typical right wing racial arrogance.
P.S. I've been away for awhile, so I'm sure I missed all this, but am I off base in assuming that you're Tommy? I doubt anyone else would come out and call me a "tool" as their very first response to me.
I guess that even he had finally seen that as "Tommy" he had totally discredited himself.
Then JamesB flopped, so RightON got dusted off. But it's still Tommy.
Here's a post from May, 2006 by WorrierKing.
I think your assessment is RIGHT ON! Or is it Tommy? or is it Wesley?
And from June, 2006 FunnyManPants
The thinking by Tommy/righton is ....
Questioning her beliefs is not unfair, but continually and deliberately misquoting her -is-. If she is to be judged on her words, let's actually judge her on her -own- words, and not the words some editorial board somewhere decided to put in her mouth.
Based on the opinions of her peers, such as the Bar Association, she is perfectly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, but that never seems to get mentioned.
If you wish to think she is a racist, right ON, it's a free county. Knock yourself out. But be aware that it has not been -proven-.
Big difference - but go ahead, keep repeating and repeating the same illogical statements as though you nailed one foot to the floor and all you can do is go around and around and around, eventually you will get dizzy and pass out.