About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Times changes word in Sotomayor statement to call for her defeat

July 13, 2009 2:38 pm ET
image

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.

67 Comments

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."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (July 13, 2009 2:45 pm ET)
      1  
      The good thing is that Sotomayor is not a politician and she won't have to go through this crap every 2-6 years. I'm sure the right will still b!tch about her from time to time but once she's confirmed it won't do much good.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
        1 7
        She will be confirmed, but there is nothing wrong with her being harshly questioned on these comments and on her perspective and opinions regarding exactly what she said and what she means. Those opposed to her have an obligation and a duty to do. All the "myths and falsehoods" that MMfA like to keep putting out there acting as if all this questioning is unfair is just bellyaching. If she convinces enough in the legislative branch of her worthiness for the job she is nominated for, then she will have earned her place on the SCOTUS.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Craig (July 13, 2009 3:41 pm ET)
          4  
          MediaMatters isn't saying that it's unfair to question Sotomayor, just that much of the criticism is dishonest. Like what The Washington Times has done here.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
            1 5
            Her statements are at best inconclusive and unclear, even when MMfA insists that they are not. Even in full context their interpretation is muddled. As another poster has said, if you want to defend them, then fine. But to keep sideswiping the issue by saying she's is being misquoted or taken out of context is getting old.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Craig (July 13, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
              4  
              You're the one sidestepping. We agree that she should be questioned, but The Washington Times lied. No two ways about it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
                1 5
                The editorial used "and" instead of "or". Noted. Changes very little about the meat of her statements however. But rather than defend it, MMfA picks at is. That is a sidestep.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by LORISNJ (July 13, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  You should stop with the circular arguments and stick to the issue...if someone (anyone) reads her entire speech and can't figure out her meaning (that is in black and white and clear as day); then it is not a fault of hers or her logic, or her thinking that is the issue; the fault clearly lies with the reader.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (July 13, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
                  5 1
                  The editorial used "and" instead of "or". Noted. Changes very little about the meat of her statements however.
                  I'm not surprised that someone who has so little grasp of basic logic would think that the substitution of an 'and' for an 'or' wouldn't make a significant difference in a statement. Perhaps you should go here:Venn Diagrams. When I'm teaching basic logic to colleagues I like to use Venn Diagrams to help them along.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by The_Cat (July 13, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                    4  
                    It has been a long time since I studied logic in college. I'm so pleased someone somewhere is still teaching it! Proposing the study of Venn diagrams made my whole day. Thank you!
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by Craig (July 13, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
                  1  
                  The Washington Times claims Sotamayor said our differences are due to physiology and culture, when, in fact, she said she doesn't know why we are different, just that we are, and that physiology and culture and experience are the possible reasons. Big difference.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
                      2
                    I never said she is a racist. But she is not above having to defend her own words as Clams Casino says below, that is ridiculous. And rather than pick apart her words and dance around them, her defenders should stand up and proudly say why she believes it. But they'd rather distract and pounce on those who criticize her as being liars and distorters. Defend her words and be done with it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Craig (July 13, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
                      2  
                      No you never said she's racist, but others have, dishonestly. Of course it's fair to ask her to defend her statements, and I'm sure she will, easily, because she's said nothing unreasonable.

                      The only ones I've seen accused of lies and distortions are the ones who've lied and distorted.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
                          2
                        All I have ever said is that she be questioned on her statements made publicly and her rulings from the bench.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (July 13, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
                    1
                  You've just convinced me that you're not Tommmy.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 10:06 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Hm, that was one of the things that signaled to me that he was Tommy. He always used to claim ignorance about the definition of certain words. And then when you'd explain those definitions, he would accuse you of parsing. Words mean nothing to him. He'll stick to his point of view with no regard for things like word definitions and facts.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
              5 1
              The only people who think her statements are inconclusive are folks like you who fail to read them thoroughly and completely. Only someone who is ignorant would think their meaning is muddled.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
                  3
                It still does not change much. Whether she was speaking on a ruling on discrimination or speaking in general, I am not seeing it makes the kind of difference that you and MMfA have been complaining about for weeks. I know exactly what she is saying.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
                  3  
                  So in your opinion, the fact that she is a Latina woman wouldn't give her any additional insight into discrimination cases? Her life experiences and cultural and ethnic background wouldn't put her in a position to know more about racial discrimination than a white male?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
                      3
                    I never said any such thing. We are all a product of our experiences. But when it comes to judicial rulings from a lifetime appointee and interpreting the law and applying it equally to all, her cultural background and her life experiences should not influence her professional duties whatsoever.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
                      3  
                      There's a difference between influencing and informing. She said nothing, and has done nothing, to indicate that her particular personal insights into discrimination cases would prevent her from applying the law equally to all. That's just the ugly inference made by you.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
                          3
                        Then why make the distinction at all? That is what I find interesting, and worthy of being questioned. But you don't think she has too. Amazing.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
                          2  
                          Why make what distinction?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
                              3
                            About her life and cultural experiences. If they have absolutely no relevance in her rulings except to inform, which I also find irrelevant, why bother? What is the point in the speeches she gave? If they were based on rulings on discrimination seems to me there is influence, not just informative.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
                              3  
                              So you don't see any difference between an informed decision and an uninformed decision? It's irrelevant whether or not someone has some particular insight that could have some bearing on the decision?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
                                  3
                                So you are advocating that she draw on her cultural backgrounds to make judicial rulings? Uh, that is influence.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Craig (July 13, 2009 6:03 pm ET)
                                  2  
                                  From Sotomayor's Berkeley speech:

                                  While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

                                  ...

                                  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.


                                  Clear enough?
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by justjoe628 (July 13, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
                                      1
                                    Exactly! Clear enough. She doesn't even think that its possible for her to judge impartially. She readily admits that she cannot decide a case simply based on the law, but instead that her color and life experience will bias her. Which is the very reason why she was just overturned by the supreme court.
                                    Report Abuse
                                • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
                                  3  
                                  She was speaking specifically about discrimination cases! What part of that don't you understand? She cannot help but to allow her own background to inform her decision making. You may want her to stop being Latina when she puts on the robes, but that's simply not possible. Why don't you try to stop being a white man, and all that goes along with it, for a little bit? Doesn't work, does it?
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 6:10 pm ET)
                                      3
                                    So you want her background to "inform" her decision making? Meaning what exactly?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
                                      4  
                                      Just read the speech already. It takes a particular brand of stupidity and arrogance to keep asking me to explain everything to you.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 6:23 pm ET)
                                          4
                                        HA! You can't differentiate between "inform" and "influence" in this context because there is no difference. It's just stupid word parsing because you hope her cultural and life experiences do influence her rulings. But keep calling me stupid and how it's just arrogance of me to ask you to clarify your own words, which you cannot defend. Your saying that Sotomayor needn't defend her own words goes for you too? Got it.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 6:28 pm ET)
                                          3  
                                          I've been crystal clear from the beginning. It obviously burns you to the core to see a Latina on her way to the Supreme Court, but as she explained in the speech that you obviously refuse to read:
                                          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.


                                          And no, I'm not going to explain that to you.
                                          Report Abuse
                                            • Author by Craig (July 13, 2009 7:13 pm ET)
                                              1  
                                              The only difference between what you've said and what Sotomayor has said is this: You believe personal pejudices should not be a part of judging. Sotomayor agrees, thinks that judges should constantly strive to reach that goal, but that it is difficult if not impossible to achieve entirely, and that it may be bad thing if you think you can.

                                              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.
                                              Report Abuse
                                            • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (July 13, 2009 8:47 pm ET)
                                              1  
                                              And you offered no difference. You're batting 1000
                                              You do know that "batting 1000" means 100%, right?
                                              Report Abuse
            • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
              4  
              But to keep sideswiping the issue by saying she's is being misquoted or taken out of context is getting old.


              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.
              Report Abuse
                • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Wow. You just jump right in with the namecalling, huh? Her statement doesn't require defending, because, taken in it's full context, there's nothing controversial about it. Notice how the only way the right has been able to to turn it into a controversy is by misquoting her and eliminating the context?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
                      3
                    That's your opinion, and considering you believe she doesn't have to defend her very own words, I don't take much stock in it. Sorry again.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
                      3  
                      You're just blatantly misrepresenting what I wrote. I didn't say that she doesn't have to defend her own words. What I said was that this particular statement didn't need defending. It only appears controversial once it's misquoted and taken out of context. A bit like what you're doing with my comments.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                          3
                        Well, her statements are her very own words, which you say she doesn't have to defend. What words did you think we were discussing, her grocery list?

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
                          2  
                          So, this is the part of the argument where it's impossible to continue because you refuse to abide by the rules of logic. So I'll simply repeat this once more: Sotomayor's statement doesn't require a defense because it isn't controversial when seen in its full context. In my opinion, it would be as if she were asked to defend her grocery list.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
                              4
                            You may not need her to defend her own words, but thankfully others disagree. If there is nothing controversial or raises any eyebrows, then it should be an easy hearing for her, and you needn't worry. I am looking to see what she says and will wait and see if she is convincing that her cultural background will not influence her decisions in any way, and that she will leave those at the door.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
                              4  
                              If there were anything controversial, then the Right wouldn't have had to distort and misrepresent those comments, would they? And I'm not worried at all, by the way.

                              I am looking to see what she says and will wait and see if she is convincing that her cultural background will not influence her decisions in any way, and that she will leave those at the door.


                              One doesn't leave their cultural background at the door. Your thinking is typical right wing racial arrogance.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
                                  3
                                I don't want her cultural experience to have any influence on her rulings, so in that context Yes, they should be left at the door. For you to say that is racial arrogance is because you want her to bring that background into her rulings, why? If not to influence, then why? To inform? What the hell does that mean?
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 6:15 pm ET)
                                  4  
                                  With every post you write, it becomes clearer that you haven't read the Berkeley speech. How can you argue so tenaciously about something that you've chosen to remain ignorant about? And no, I won't bother to explain it to you. I'm done.

                                  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.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
                                      4
                                    I've been around here for a long time, so I know who you are. And you won't bother because you can't. Face it, you hope she does view her rulings through a racial prism, that is what you want. You're not fooling me with your little dance around. Say what you mean.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 6:23 pm ET)
                                      3  
                                      Yep, you can't disguise Tommyspeak. Too funny.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 6:28 pm ET)
                                          3
                                        Just so you know, and some others. Whenever they cannot defend their positions, or are losing an argument, out comes the "you are Tommy" mantra. I find that pretty hysterical. Surprised it took you a few posts, you lost this argument from your first response to me, and you knew it.
                                        Report Abuse
                                  • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (July 13, 2009 6:28 pm ET)
                                    2  
                                    Bingo. Someone more perceptive than me outed him as Tommy awhile ago. Who else would talk in such circles?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
                                      4  
                                      Yeah, I used to go back and forth with him constantly, so his language and logic patterns are pretty transparent. Even right down to this last post where he declares victory after spouting an endless stream of idiocy and thinly veiled bigotry.

                                      I guess that even he had finally seen that as "Tommy" he had totally discredited himself.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 6:46 pm ET)
                                          2
                                        So I am a bigot for expecting her to defend her own words? Another tactic when you can't defend yourself. Stunning, expected, pathetic and typical. You've hit them all.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by clams casino (July 13, 2009 7:19 pm ET)
                                          3  
                                          You're a bigot for having a knee-jerk race-based reaction without even bothering to read her words. And, for the sake of argument, if we're to believe that you actually did read her words, then you're a bigot for automatically seeing them in a negative light.
                                          Report Abuse
                                  • Author by LuvLuLu (July 13, 2009 11:46 pm ET)
                                    2  
                                    RightON was a Tommy sockpuppet several years ago. Almost immediately, FunnyManPants identified RightON as a sockpuppet of Tommy, and so Tommy retired the screenname.

                                    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 ....

                                    Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 13, 2009 10:01 pm ET)
              1  
              They are NOT inconclusive NOR unclear. The ONLY reason to misunderstand them is that you WANT to.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (July 13, 2009 5:40 pm ET)
          1  
          Well, if those who oppose her wish to question her, then they should stick to the cases she has presided over and not bother with every single speech and article she has ever written. By the conservatives' own admission, they don't have time to review all of her legal decisions, and that's what they should be focusing on.

          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-.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by right ON (July 13, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
              4
            Her public statements are absolutely relevant and she should be questioned on them.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by LORISNJ (July 13, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
              2  
              Only her statements, speeches, opinions and writings need to be questioned about by the committee - not the mischaraterizations and misrepresentations of those same statements, speeches, opinions, and writings.

              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.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (July 13, 2009 7:06 pm ET)
          2  
          Sure. She can be questioned. I would welcome her explanation although it seems obvious to me that she meant in cases of discrimination only, all else being equal, a person who had experienced discrimination (eg: a Latina woman) would reach a better decision than someone who had not.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mari2jj2970 (July 14, 2009 12:37 am ET)
          1  
          Frankly I do hope that Republicans do give her lots of grief. Well maybe not that strong. But alas, Latino people here in Arizona are poised to watch every word coming out of Republican moths during this series of hearings and they then expect to make a decision whether they stay or leave the Republican Party. It is not that I am wishing they continue this harassment of a Hispanic woman, although they care less if they do so. However, if they do, they can kiss Hispanics here in Arizona goodbye according to what Hispanics here have told me. Of course, Republicans feel so invincible that they pay no attention to realities so that is why my own party is shrinking even as we speak. It seems Republicans now have the need to do themselves in at evey turn.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by zevonsky72 (July 13, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
      4  
      Let's face it, The Washington Times doesn't care if it blatantly edits or rewords what Sotomayor has said. Their audience doesn't know what she actually said, and as long as what the Times prints makes her look bad, they don't care. It's about winning the political fight, not about reporting the facts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by justjoe628 (July 13, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
        2
      This article does not change my opionion one bit, infact it cements my opinion they she will let her "experiences" as a latina direct her decision instead of the law. She said it herself in the direct quotes, taken in full context of sereral speeches put here by Media Matters. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. And although we all know that justice is not always blind, you do not fix that problem by adding a justice who has admitted she will let her emphathy and sympathy cloud her judgment. The problem is fixed by nominating judges who will jugde by the rule of law and who are fair and unbiased.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (July 14, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
           
        This article does not change my opionion one bit, infact it cements my opinion they she will let her "experiences" as a latina direct her decision instead of the law.
        You are entitled to that baseless opinion. Thankfully, you aren't a senator and thus your wrongheaded views won't change the outcome of this confirmation.
        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.