Judge Sonia Sotomayor has claimed, "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 other words, white males do not have "richness of experience," and could not possibly reach as "better" a conclusion as a Latina. She has since tried to distance herself from this comment. The International Business Times of July 13, 2009 reported that the White House claimed that this comment was taken out of context. For the convenience of my readers, here is the quote in context, from an address Judge Sotomayor delivered at UC-Berkeley's La Raza Law Journal's Twelfth Annual Symposium on October 26, 2001. I believe that reading it in context makes Judge Sotomayor's thinly-veiled racism all the more apparent. Her theme was how disappointing it was to see so few women and "people of color" on state and federal courts. Apparently, this woman desires diversity in the court system, not necessarily excellence.
Why should a judge's ethnic or racial background matter? Do we not simply want the best judges possible, be they white, black, purple, maroon, or green? And speaking of diversity, why did she not mention Asians in her criticism of lack of diversity? What about Protestants on the Supreme Court? Are not these groups also entitled to representation? How could a non-Asian possibly be able to render fair verdicts for Asians? But according to Judge Sotomayor, a Latina could issue just verdicts for all, while a white male could not.
I thought liberals believe that, short of biology, men and women are essentially the same. Neither sex is more necessary for a child's upbringing, and if we would take societal expectations out of the mix, men and women would gravitate to similar professions. (Ah, yes. I recall reading about all those women banging down the doors to work on off-shore oil rigs. It was just those wicked, white oil men who wouldn't let them in.) But now we hear that the Supreme Court needs "diversity." If men and women are the same, what's the difference as to the Justices' sex or ethnicity?
The truth is, there are many more differences between male and female thinking, or between liberal and conservative thinking, than there are between the thinking of different races. A black liberal and an Hispanic liberal will generally agree with each other, as will a white conservative and an Asian conservative. Judge Sonia Sotomayor is guilty of race- and gender-baiting to the highest degree. Just think if a white male had said the same thing: "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life." Can one imagine the (thoroughly justified!) vitriol that would be hurled his way? His nomination with be withdrawn within a nanosecond.
But as usual, accusations of racism only go one way.
Why should a judge's ethnic or racial background matter? Do we not simply want the best judges possible, be they white, black, purple, maroon, or green? And speaking of diversity, why did she not mention Asians in her criticism of lack of diversity? What about Protestants on the Supreme Court? Are not these groups also entitled to representation? How could a non-Asian possibly be able to render fair verdicts for Asians? But according to Judge Sotomayor, a Latina could issue just verdicts for all, while a white male could not.
I thought liberals believe that, short of biology, men and women are essentially the same. Neither sex is more necessary for a child's upbringing, and if we would take societal expectations out of the mix, men and women would gravitate to similar professions. (Ah, yes. I recall reading about all those women banging down the doors to work on off-shore oil rigs. It was just those wicked, white oil men who wouldn't let them in.) But now we hear that the Supreme Court needs "diversity." If men and women are the same, what's the difference as to the Justices' sex or ethnicity?
The truth is, there are many more differences between male and female thinking, or between liberal and conservative thinking, than there are between the thinking of different races. A black liberal and an Hispanic liberal will generally agree with each other, as will a white conservative and an Asian conservative. Judge Sonia Sotomayor is guilty of race- and gender-baiting to the highest degree. Just think if a white male had said the same thing: "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life." Can one imagine the (thoroughly justified!) vitriol that would be hurled his way? His nomination with be withdrawn within a nanosecond.
But as usual, accusations of racism only go one way.
Aryeh, I suggest you re-read the speech with an open mind.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me (from this and other speeches she has given) not that she thinks he law should be decided by emapthising with victims, but rather that she thinks objectivity is impossible, and it is better if we recognize this. Any case in which the law is cut and dried would likely not make it to the supreme court. It is when there are competing notions and goals expressed by the laws that judges include value judgements in their reasoning. Isn’t this the way halacha works as well? Wouldn’t you trust an empathetic scholar over a legalistic one to pasken?
I have not done a survey of her case law, but Google led me to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104941870 which details how she actually does not decide the law based on empathy with minorities.