Clarify the “Wise Latina Woman” Statement?

It's simple: Either she meant her remarks as stated, in which case she is a bigot and is therefore unfit to serve, or she grossly misspoke her true opinion, in which case she is not articulate enough to serve. Conclusion: She is unfit to serve.

So society changing makes white men change their rulings? I thought the law superseded society's foibles?

Well, as another example, something certainly changed among the thinking of a lot of white guys circa 1776 and circa 1865, for instance.

Society evolves, people see the light, and then the people in power adjust the law in accordance with the developing values of the society. Conservatives tend to favor that kind of organic, bottom up change instead of cultural change imposed from above (of course the truth is that sometimes one approach is needed and sometimes the other works better, but conservatives are more wary of the unintended backlash of legislation or judicial interpretation which the society is unprepared to accept.)

I think that's a wise decision, Tyronne.

From all indications, the confirmation hearings will be thorough, to say the least, and hopefully fair, and every word Sotomayor has ever spoken, whispered, written,thought about, dreamt of, texted, twittered, facebooked, etc., will be analyzed, attacked and defended ad nauseam, giving all of us the chance--if needed--to reconfirm our "vote" or change our minds.

Dorian

I think I'm going to withdraw my earlier "Obama should rescind his nominee". I'm going to see how this plays out in the confirmation hearings. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, maybe not. But I'll wait.

keelaay 9:

Thank you so much for, finally, after 73 or so comments, bringing "context" into this thread.

Generally, political statements are selectively quoted in a fashion, form, brevity, or even misquoted, to benefit the objective(s) of the "quoter."

This appears to be just such a case.

As I pointed out in my post, "Attacks on Sotomayor: What's good for the goose..." (http://themoderatevoice.com/33541/attacks-on-so...) other justices have indicated that life experiences do---more importantly, should--influence decisions about other human beings, especially about human beings with different life experiences.

Now, whether that would keep a judge from applying the law and the Constitution properly or "fairly", of course, is subjective...and that's what this discusssion is about. The following parts of Sotomayor statement, I find particularly germane to the discussion:

Note: I was hoping to extract some "nuggets" from Sotomayor's statement, but realized that I would be doing the same thing I was criticizing above, and furthermore, I find her entire statement germane, so here is most of it ...again.

(I wish that I knew how to higlight relevant passages, but alas, I haven't learned that technique yet)

Sorry




" 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 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."

Would it be possible to suggest Judge Sotomayor picked the wrong turn of phrase and thus overspoke? After all, as I understand it, she was speaking extemporaneously in front of a highly stratified audience when she said what is in contention. Is that not right? Perhaps in a different context, or with more aforethought, she would have had the mind to replace the phrase "more often than not" with "sometimes".

Anyway, had she done so, I suspect it would have defused the impact of her comment, as I don't think anyone could reasonably deny that different life experiences affect one's perception. "Justice is blind" is a worthy ideal, and one that should be tirelessly strived for, but because it is exercised by humans it can never be attained with perfection.

On the flip side, had Jazz's contrary hypothetical been likewise rephrased (“I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would sometimes reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”) would also be less controversial -- but also less relevant, because there is no shortage of wise white males on the bench.

CS
"As it stands, the timeline argues much more for societal change than for the change in the makeup of the court being the deciding factor."

So society changing makes white men change their rulings? I thought the law superseded society's foibles?

Wow- 72 comments so far- that's great!

This statement of hers was the most troubling to me when I first heard it.... However it seems to be in the context of living and understanding the life of a Latina.... I think Sotomayor would agree that a white male would be able to understand the life of a white male than a Latina.

Also I find it interesting that people hone in on the "racist" side of this statement, and not the "sexist" side. The real reason behind the Robolicans' attack on her "racist" statement is meant to turn up the fear factor of non-whites taking over the US.... It's easier to stir up feelings with, "they're gonna take away culture and give special privileges to non-whites" than, "She hates men". (By the way, I coined the term "Robolican"to refer to those Republicans who are programmed to follow the party line without any thought on their part. Just like robots following their programs. Not all Republicans are Robolicans, just the mindless caste.)

At any rate, I would expect Sotomayor to apply the law fairly. The best way to see that is by her rulings in her cases. We need to "judge" her by her actions, not her words. Just as no one would judge Bush based on his words of "We do not torture." (Or really anything he said... rather we judge him on what his actions wrought.

What is the point of wanting a diverse court and then only picking white men? And I mean in ruling and temperament... I think Harriet Miers is a perfect white man.... Her gender may be that of a woman, but she strikes me as a white man in her thinking.

keelaay posted that passage from Sotomayor (thanks, keelaay). It is evident that Sotomayor is concerned and thoughtful about this very topic. When a "typical white guy" (and I am referring to many Americans who would be inclined to say such a thing) says something similar, he is speaking from a position of strength and flexing his muscle to show his power. Whereas this statement by Sotomayor is very different in content (surrounding the phrase) and meaning. It is an evaluation of what different experiences bring to the table and is not meant to place the Latina's experience over that of a white guy... It just means that a Latina may reach a fuller decision of an experience that a white man can not. And that a white man's opinion is just as valuable in other circumstances...

You can almost think of it in terms of an IQ test... some IQ tests get a bad rap because many questions they ask are more about culture and the answers defined by culture than just mere intelligence. An IQ test meant to test the majority of Americans may very well be "white-centric" and penalize African-Americans or Asians (or others) who have not lived that "white" lifestyle. I think this is all Sotomayor was saying. Being a judge requires being able to understand others and different cultures. Some people are able to do this better than others.

Justice sometimes demands legal remedies for the unjustness of society, but I believe there are also times when the remediation of unjust treatment of minorities (or majority oppressed groups) is best accomplished more slowly through 'changing hearts and minds' than through the short term gains of legal protections.

CStanley,

That always seems to work better for the group that is favored than for the group that is disfavored, though, wouldn't you say? See MLK, Jr.'s "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" for an eloquent expansion on this idea.

I agree with Jazz Shaw that his question is important. So important that I respectfully suggest that all of us should read Judge Sotomayor's speech before debating whether this particular soundbite is malignant or benign. (I am sure many have.) Indeed, I think most have found that the context of the speech is required to begin to understand the one sentence firecracker that Mr. Shaw rolls on the floor and then asks if we can extinguish. Nonetheless, even though the context may diffuse the "wise Latina" statement somewhat, I believe it remains troubling... at best.

An excerpt from the Sotomayor speech is quoted below for those searching for at least some context. It was given at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

" 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."

So if we can leave all the hyperbole about different experiences and systemic inequality behind for a moment, can anyone tell me why Judge Sotomayor’s comments were not seen as grounds for immediate dismissal, no matter how “out of context” you wish to say they were and no matter how many hours of comments which came prior to or following the statement are read into the record? Is justice not blind in America? Or is it only blind if you are white?

I'm coming late to this discussion, but my short-form answer is that I don't see how one can "leave all the hyperbole about different experiences and system inequality behind for a moment" and still answer the question that you want answered, in an honest manner. And I bolded "hyperbole" because I don't believe it *is* hyperbole. There is a reason why Sotomayor's statement reversed -- “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 woman who hasn’t lived that life.” -- does not come out with the same meaning, and that reason is in that context that you want to leave behind. You just can't do that and still have the honest discussion.

jwest -- Yeah, there were articles about it. The info on the link isn't showing on my computer, but I remember the articles. I guess the guy basically worked double-shifts most days and took almost no time off, due to short-staffing. A lot of people got to talking about how we should limit police overtime, but basically the guy worked around the clock. Not sure what the point is --maybe just personal interest? Anyway, the taxes are high in the city, along with the cost of housing, parking, food...it's an expensive city to live in.

Judge Sotomayor was commenting upon the fact that race and sex discrimination cases were never ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. If you believe they never ruled for the plaintiffs because these laws were never broken until 1972, then she is in fact making racist statements. If however, those laws had previously been broken all along, then her comment in that context merely calls for justice to be served outside the old white guys comfort zone.

But that logic falls apart when you realize that since 1972, those cases HAVE been found in favor of the minority or female plaintiffs- even when there were no women or minorities on the court. In order to support the thesis that white guys can't see the rationale for discrimination complaints by virtue of lack of experience, you'd have to show that the rulings didn't start changing until we had women and minorities as SCOTUS justices. As it stands, the timeline argues much more for societal change than for the change in the makeup of the court being the deciding factor.

Jwest--

I thought the opposition to Bork was more about abortion. In either case, that was about twenty-five years ago. I'm not giving you credit for Bork.

As for George Allen, he said a black guy was a monkey. That's nothing like what Sotomayor said. Allen got what he deserved. No credit for him, either.

I do, however, think the Trent Lott case is roughly equivalent. So, okay, I'm giving you that one.

Is one enough to prove the point?

George: In the past blacks certainly gained benefit if they passed for white- that was then, this is now though.

casual
"Roro, Georgie, HemmD........I am a straight white male..........if you can name one instance of the world cutting me some slack, I'll become other than 110% opposed to your views."

it's hard to say what slack you've been cut; but I'm not sure anyone implied that.

You wish to see one sentence out of context as proof she's getting away with something simply because she is a Latina.
You seemed to miss the point she made in that lecture and the one I tried to underscore. White men judge through their experience. they stick to the rule of law, but their life experience unavoidably affects how they seem legal issues. Judge Alito said as much during his confirmation. The fact that his grandparents were immigrants made him see them in similar situations he was asked to judge.

Judge Sotomayor was commenting upon the fact that race and sex discrimination cases were never ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. If you believe they never ruled for the plaintiffs because these laws were never broken until 1972, then she is in fact making racist statements. If however, those laws had previously been broken all along, then her comment in that context merely calls for justice to be served outside the old white guys comfort zone.

People's past experiences affect current views. I would ask what past experiences have you had that make you so 110 percent against my view concerning Judge Sotomayor? All I've done to this point is parse what she said within the context of what she was talking about.

CStanley--

A little farther up the thread you said light colored black people benefited from passing as white.

Didn't you?

OK, thanks for the decoding. Since most of the conversation has centered on racial discrimination, I didn't catch that you were referring back to CO's trio of privileges.

Casualobserver--

Do I qualify for "I was discrimated against too" if I have to wait around looking like an idiot while my female companion is stuck in those women's 1/2 hour bathroom lines?

Are you just trying to get me to agree that you look like an idiot?

Either way, I don't think white men have it too tough in our culture.

Which white men would those be, George? Coal miners? Oilrig workers? Guys like my Dad who got laid off during downsizing in the recession of the 70s, so that my parents had to go through their entire savings to feed their four kids and my maternal grandmother who lived with us? Or my brother who worked his ass off to get scholarships and jobs to pay for college?

Why assume that all white men have special priveleges in our society when that's clearly not the case? How is it not bigoted to make those gross generalizations based on gender and skin color?

CStanley--

Sigh.

Go back and look it up! Casualobserver wanted to know how slack was being cut for him on three measures:

1-Straight (You can marry the partner of your choice.)

2-White (And I'll bet you can hail a cab.)

3-Male (Not much wait for a public restroom, huh?)

So you're right CStanley--slack is being cut him because architects provide men with enough bathrooms.

Do I qualify for "I was discrimated against too" if I have to wait around looking like an idiot while my female companion is stuck in those women's 1/2 hour bathroom lines?

You're suffering is far less though since you don't have to wait with a painfully full bladder!

George, can you solve the mystery for us? Were you perhaps talking about gender based inconvenience with regard to restrooms, or are you somehow alleging that there's racial discrimination involved with use of public restrooms in 2009?

CStanley--

I don't really mind anything you say. But, you know, the comment you're objecting to is mainly me quoting you approvingly.

If the problems of the past are still with us, they are the problems of the present. Maybe they should be redressed in the present, maybe they should just be kicked to the future.

Either way, I don't think white men have it too tough in our culture. They do, however, have to share more than they used to. I'm not sorry about that. I don't think it's unfair.

lol, cs!

I was stymied by the comment as well.

Do I qualify for "I was discrimated against too" if I have to wait around looking like an idiot while my female companion is stuck in those women's 1/2 hour bathroom lines?

What is this 'bathroom at sporting events' thing? Are there segregated bathrooms at stadiums that I'm not aware of?

If anything, that particular complaint applies to women, not blacks- because architects always fail to realize that they need to design a ratio of like 10:1 for women's to men's rooms.

Trent Lott was forced to resign as minority leader of the Senate because of Jesse Helms’ birthday party

I believe it was Strom Thurmond, but no matter. There is a building here on campus named after him; that's the only reason why I remembered this.

GeorgeS, I could be wrong. There is compelling evidence that swings counter to my opinion. But I'm not afraid to admit that I'm biased. See, I still carry the "that black person is making us all (blacks) look bad" at times. Even though I did not vote for President Obama, I recognize and respect the history. While the economy has MANY players, a judge selection is a "presidential thing". Obama has injected his personality into the pick with his flattering comments of Sotomayor. And even though this comment MAY NOT BE the worst, and Sotomayor is not a racist, but perceptions are still there. I don't like the first Black president picking a judge that could be perceived as slanted due to race. Especially when picking another brown or black person. It's difficult to shake that off. So GeorgeS, I could be wrong.

“Did some high-profile white male politician lose his job because he said some thing politically incorrect?”

If you’re not kidding, yes, some high-profile white male (always a republican) has lost his position because of statements that were twisted by liberals and the media into something politically incorrect.

Robert Bork was disqualified for a Supreme Court seat because Senator Kennedy thought blacks would no longer be able to eat at the lunch counter.

Trent Lott was forced to resign as minority leader of the Senate because of Jesse Helms’ birthday party.

George Allen was savaged over an innocent remark calling an East Indian student “macacca” which was a Moroccan slang word for troublemaker, but also connected to a phrase meaning “mischievous monkey”. From this liberals extrapolated Allen was calling the democrat operative a racial pejorative.

Come to think about it, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of a Republican candidate for any office who hasn’t been accused of racism.

Casualobserver--

You've apparently never had to wait for a long time in a long line to use a restroom at some large sporting event or music concert.

And whether or not the white judicial candidate would be shown tolerance by the so-called left, I think if he said something similar, he'd weather it to become a Supreme Court Justice. Context would still matter. He wouldn't be forced to withdraw or resign.

T-Steel--

I think you're wrong.

I think a white person in the same position could say this and get a pass.

I think the question of context would still matter.

I even gave an example of a white person (Sen. Inhofe) who said something that seems sort-of-equivalent with no negative consequences.

Did some high-profile white male politician lose his job because he said some thing politically incorrect?

Roro80,

This is totally off subject, but since you live in San Francisco, I was wondering if you could answer a question.

The list shown in this link has a San Francisco police sergeant making $261,915 per year salary plus benefits. Has there been anything written locally or are the citizens talking about this?

http://myprops.org/viewimage/?i=685801_685900%2...

What are the taxes like in the city?

Roro/George.......now you're deflecting onto discrimination towards others, not the cutting of slack for me.

I think what you're trying to get me to buy is that since there is likely still some discrimination out there, that I need to accept "empathy as a judicial philosophy" as 2009's entry into the affirmative action notebook.

You can believe that I should, but I won't.

More importantly, you have deflected for hours away from Jazz's question. The white judicial candidate would be shown no tolerance by the so-called tolerant left........the witness is directed to answer.......YES or NO

Well, I included a couple of the other points in my comment, roro. The thing is that very few of those examples have anything to do with governmentally sanctioned discrimination, and the ones that do have largely been remedied already by Civil Rights laws.

And when it comes to things like hailing taxis- I'm curious as to whether anyone's ever done a study on this sort of thing. My hunch is that although in the past there was probably blatant discrimination, in today's era I'd bet that any discrimination among cabbies has to do with their sizing up potential fares by the appearance regarding attire- because they're looking for better tippers. I wonder if a scruffy white guy really has an advantage over a black man in a business suit- I doubt it.

Well, that's a typical liberal attitude if you don't mind me saying so, George. Conservatives believe in the scales of justice being set to equal positions, with no favoritism. Liberals seem to want to tip the scales for those that they feel have been treated unjustly in the past- but the problem as I mentioned earlier is that individuals of a majority group then are treated unfairly to compensate the members of the minority or oppressed group. I realize that the feeling is that the individual can well pay for the various priveleges that he or she enjoys as a member of the majority- but that's not the government treating everyone equally. I don't believe that our government has any right to say that an individual white person should pay a penalty in order to provide redress for a particular minority person, if the individual white person was not responsible for the wrongdoing in the first place. That's what's at issue with cases like the firefighters, where white (and a couple of Hispanic) firefighters were denied what they'd earned simply because there weren't enough minorities who also qualified for the promotion. Those white firefighters are paying a price for society's past oppression of blacks, and that is not blind justice.

Wow, you guys read that list and saw "bandaids". I guess it is kind of a funny example, and it was the last one listed, but sheesh, way to miss the point.

CStanley--

I guess I'm just not sure how justice can be blind in a society that is unjust.

Not that I think we live in a terribly unjust society. But I do agree with something you said here:

I do believe that going to the refs in terms of getting special redress from the legislature or the courts can have a backlash effect that perpetuates the societal attitudes, as opposed to jumping through the hoops that the majority groups demand for the minority groups to earn respect. It may not be morally admirable that this is so, but I believe it's just a fact of human nature.

LOL, I had to laugh at the band aid example too. As a fair skinned Pole, I've always found that the 'flesh color' of bandaids (and pantyhose, for that matter) are way too dark. How could I have not realized all this time that I've been the object of such discrimination!

That's the thing about overblowing the claims. Certainly some of those examples are true problems (though even much of that is pretty rapidly changing, and the law HAS been a remedy in some of the appropriate areas.) But when I again apply my ethnic background, I could make many of the same complaints (mind you, not that I'm saying that there should be more polka music available in music stores, and I guess Chopin is fairly well represented.) But a conservative recognizes these 'slights' as the market responding to demand. If more people had my skin tone, band aids would come in lighter tones (and now they do have clear ones! Yay! Non-bigoted bandaids! Who says we're not making progress?)

I also find that in regards to history of minority groups, parents and other family members play a huge role in informing kids of their heritage, and that's largely as it should be. The role of history class is to explain the actual timeline of our nation's history, which does include a lot more white guys than nonwhites. Sometimes reality has a bias I guess. (And of course now we have black history month where there is plenty of focus on African American contributions anyway.)

As Roro80’s list demonstrates, there is nothing a determined liberal can’t turn into subject of racism.

Conservatives believe that sometimes a band-aid is just a band-aid.

I adore Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She reminds me of the strong, intelligent women in my family. I'm instantly drawn to her. But if I were President Obama, I wouldn't have picked her because of the conversation we're having today.

As you can see from my avatar, I'm a black dude (of the lighter skinned variety). It bothers me that President Obama is not getting "it". Judge Sotomayor is IMMINENTLY qualified to the hilt. But it's not all about qualifications in this political and social environment. Judge Sotomayor's comment cannot be made my a White person in the same position and get a pass. That is just the facts. Regardless of the history of race in the United States of America, if we are going to keep moving towards a more perfect union, we have to KEEP IT FAIR! We have to. This pains me that I basically have to disqualify Judge Sotomayor in my mind. But it is what it is. Many Hispanics will be upset (my sister-in-law, who's Puerto Rican has already laid into me about this). But President Obama, the first black POTUS, should set a lightening rod of a fairness example, by replacing his nominee. It will hurt bad in the beginning, but we'll be better off for it in the long run.

And this is coming from a guy that used to believe everything "white" was evil, but always loved his white grandmother. If I can get through that part of my life, Obama can get through the initial backlash of rescinding his pick. 'Nuff said.

Casualobserver--

You can marry the partner of your choice.

And I'll bet you can hail a cab.

Not much wait for a public restroom, huh?

Guys, I don't read Jazz is setting this up as to whether the statement was racist or not.......merely the double standard that on appearances alone, the PC world says cut one some slack, but don't cut this one some slack.

You're right, but I think this falls into the "two wrongs don't make a right" category, ie you are right a white man would get raked over the coals saying this sort of thing, but the people doing it would be wrong to do so. You don't judge a person by one stray comment. So yes there is a double standard but that shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.

Sorry -- need to source to Peggy McIntosh.

casual -- well, you asked. I am also white. This is my invisible backpack of privilege (not my saying -- look it up):
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can
afford and in which I would want to live.
3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely
represented.
6. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color
made it what it is.
7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket
and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone
who can cut my hair.
10. Whether I checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the
appearance of financial reliability.
11. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.
12. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these
choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
16. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s
majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being
seen as a cultural outsider.
18. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race.
19. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out
because of my race.
20. I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s magazine
featuring people of my race.
21. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than
isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having co-workers on the job suspect that I
got it because of race.
23. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be
mistreated in the places I have chosen.
24. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
25. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it
has racial overtones.
26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more or less match my skin.

“Folks - it was one freaking comment. Let it go.”

Wouldn’t it be a great world if people agreed to be so reasonable? I would go along with this in a minute if the rule was chiseled in stone.

But you know from past experience, the left will never call a truce. What really grates at them is this is their game – and by definition (in their heads) – no liberal can be a “racist”. One freaking comment. That’s all it takes.

Trent Lott, “macacca”, Bork, Alito and on and on.

Sometimes it doesn’t even take a comment. Sometimes it is just accepted that if the person is conservative, they must be racist.

No, we can’t let this go.

Obama’s Justice Department has just dropped the charges on the Black Panthers who were intimidating voters who weren’t for Obama. Hell, why not open the prisons and let all the pro-Obama criminals out? Blatant politicization of the Justice Department. What is next?

AR and Dagoat,

Guys, I don't read Jazz is setting this up as to whether the statement was racist or not.......merely the double standard that on appearances alone, the PC world says cut one some slack, but don't cut this one some slack.

A different issue I think.

Roro, Georgie, HemmD........I am a straight white male..........if you can name one instance of the world cutting me some slack, I'll become other than 110% opposed to your views.

Fine, you're right. Everyone is born with an innate sense of everyone else's experiences, and therefore nobody would ever deny that discrimination exists. White people know just what it's like to be not-white, men know just what it's like to be a woman, and a person who denies such an easily discernable fact really just thinks it's because white people and men are stupid and blind. Or, of course, that person must just be a racist.

I find the problem with your comments on this, Roro, is that you seem to presume just the opposite- that no white person can possibly understand that discrimination exists unless he takes a class to instruct him. Empathy does not always require experience or training- it exists on some level in most decent human beings.

And in our discussion of the physician analogy, you conceded that most male OB GYN's would have the required understanding of women's pain through their training and experience, but for some reason you don't seem to regard legal training the same way. Wouldn't the rigorous course of study of the law and the Constitution, and the years of hearing cases also impart the needed wisdom on most competent jurists?

The point you conceding to me--and you're conceding it eagerly enough, I think it's fair to say--is that justice is not blind.

You've reworded it to the degree that I don't agree, George. Justice is blind, society is not. Justice sometimes demands legal remedies for the unjustness of society, but I believe there are also times when the remediation of unjust treatment of minorities (or majority oppressed groups) is best accomplished more slowly through 'changing hearts and minds' than through the short term gains of legal protections.

Jazz -- Fine, you're right. Everyone is born with an innate sense of everyone else's experiences, and therefore nobody would ever deny that discrimination exists. White people know just what it's like to be not-white, men know just what it's like to be a woman, and a person who denies such an easily discernable fact really just thinks it's because white people and men are stupid and blind. Or, of course, that person must just be a racist. And "silly".

Whatever. I guess in your premise you did say that "experience" and "systematic inequality" were off-limits as topics, even though in my mind they are vital to the discussion of the quote, because that's exactly what she was talking about in the first place, but you also said that context doesn't matter either. So yes, in the perfect world where experience makes no difference in anyone's view of the law, and there is no systematic inequality, and statements have no context, I can concede that Sotomayor should be disqualified for her statement, just like a white man saying your version of the same quote.

I agree, that if you swap white male with female Latina, you end up with a comment that tanks a white male. But I think its dishonest to suggest that they're interchangeable concepts. I hold this position because in the context that the words were prepared, I believe the point was to acknowledge the impact that oppression has on the human experience. I would argue that on average, the melange of experiences one accumulates as a member of a majority related to being oppressed will be less than that of a person living as a member of a minority. Now you may personally reject my argument. But I believe there is a common societal consensus that "white male in the US", when contrasted with "female Latina in the US", establishes a majority/minority dialectic. And since you can't search/replace "white male" with "female Latina" and maintain the same context, I think your entire premise is shot. The fundamental question is as follows: Does experiencing oppression inform jurisprudence in a positive, negative, or neutral way?

Folks - it was one freaking comment. Let it go.

I agree 100%. It's very unlikely this one comment defines who she is and she should be judged on her total body of work.

Jazz--

I'm sorry you feel insulted.

I'm even more sorry you feel I've gone out of my way to be offensive.

I'd like to thank CStanley for her willingness to carry on this very uncomfortable discussion.

Ah Roro, now I see the one you're talking about. I kind of blew past it because honestly, it made so little sense to me. Your answer seems to rely on the premise that, until they have the "aha moment" then most white people, by nature, are too stupid or blind to the sensibilities of others and reality of society to be able to render an effective judgment. Who's being the racist now? It's a silly premise in my mind, sorry.

Jazz the only reason that Sotomayor will not have to resign because of her statment is there is a double standard, one for persons who are in an "approved" minority and one for the rest of the world. Look at how Imus was legitimately fired for his racist statements about the Rutgers basketball team, and Pat Buchanan who has made a carrer of racism, anti Semitism and Holocaust denying has never been reremanded by the same TV network, MSNBC.

CStanley--

The point you conceding to me--and you're conceding it eagerly enough, I think it's fair to say--is that justice is not blind.

Earlier in this thread you agreed with me when I said some ethnics from a hundred years ago would be surprised to see their grandsons treated like they were white men.

At some point over the past hundred years, the attitude of our society toward Poles changed from exclusion to inclusion. Presumably, there were some who were slower to accept that change. Presumably there were some who disapproved of that change, and struggled against it. To those who struggled against it, the pro-Pole changes didn't seem right or fair. Possibly they seemed like what you're calling "special redress".

I agree with you that there is nothing "morally admirable" about the hoops the majority expect minorities to jump through. I agree with you that this is human nature. I go even farther in a previous comment and say some resentment over these changes among the majority is understandable.

But I also believe human nature is malleable enough to allow, over time, for social attitudes to change. I think the history of the last hundred years will bear me out on that.

But those changes aren't done.

Jazz -- I think I spoke directly to the question of why a white judge saying such a thing would and should be automatically fired for saying such a thing, while Sotomayor should not. Maybe you missed it?

Folks - it was one freaking comment. Let it go. The whole notion that one comment tells you the complete story of an individual or their thoughts and attitudes is in and of itself offensive.

For myself, I am not racist, misogynist, sexist, anti-religious or homophobic, but I know and tell some damn funny jokes that qualify on one or more counts each. But that still doesn't make me any of those descriptions.

Her comment, however unartful, however true to her feelings on that specific idea, does not make her racist. This is the usual PC-mania gotcha crap, only from the Right instead of the Left (which is slightly ironic, but that is another story).

CStanley -- If the doctor doesn't even believe that women have pain during childbirth, that they are merely making a spectacle, that they are simply trying to gain pity from the father or the doctors, that they are being silly or playing the victim card, that would make for an extremely poor OBGYN, who probably shouldn't be practicing medicine at all. This is pretty rare because, again, doctors go through a lot of training, and gain tons of experience by listening to women during the birth process, and make it a point to do so. Women doctors who have had a painful childbirth situation, but also have the same training and experience that the male doctor have, are almost certainly able to deal with each birth as its own case, knowing it might be different for this woman than it was for her, but certainly wouldn't need to question the validity of the woman's pain. In discrimination cases, we see a lot of arguments about the "victim card", etc -- even you above said that your Pole ancestors had to just suck it up and change their names and act white in order to be accepted, and therefore people of different races should now just do the same.

As usual, our readers provide a varied and invigorating debate. I'm not bothered by much of it except the obviously intentional, offensive nature of part of George Sorwell's response.

"Here goes: I completely understand that white men (and even more specifically, straight white men of the middle class or higher) are now expected to share what were once their prerogatives.

Naturally enough, some--maybe most--of them feel discomfort, anxiety, even resentment over that fact.

The notion that justice should be blind is a pleasant one, but that pleasant blindness is just metaphorical--I think it means everyone who seeks justice should get a fair shake, without fear or favor."

It does get tiring when each and every time a serious, open discussion of such a topic comes around, one of the predictably liberal voices trots out the long rotted, tired old "White Man's Burden" meme. And it's been batted down enough that i don't need to waste all of your time here addressing it beyond saying that your insult didn't pass without notice.

Allegedly corresponding examples provided, such as James Inhofe and Samuel Alito don't come anywhere near being in the same ballpark as the blatant statement by Sontamayor, by the way. But I digress...

On to the matter at hand, though... While many of the answers here bring up excellent discussion points, very few seem to strike at the actual question which was posed. I would be interested in seeing a show of hands here as to who honestly believes that any white judge could have made the comment I posed and not lost their jobs?

But deeper still, there was at least one comment from, I believe, CStanley, which did speak the baseline question. It seems as if there is some acceptance of the idea that because of hundreds of years of admitted horrible treatment, inequality, etc. that now it's impossible to achieve any equity so we have to err by going overboard in the other direction. In other words, it's no longer even desirable to ask for equal treatment for everyone, but to simply admit that we have to give some people a pass while others will make up for past sins by being held to a higher standard. The tendency here for people to be laughing at the idea of justice truly being blind is disturbing indeed. Wasn't that the idea all along? Weren't we supposedly working toward a society where everyone could be truly colorblind and equal under both the law and the treatment of society?

We're not there yet, but we're much closer than we were. We've just about gotten the legal system to an even playing field for all, but society lags behind as some will still break laws which call for equality or find ways to weasel their way around them. But should that be an excuse to look the other way when we clearly jump across the old lines and have inequality in the other direction?

Rudi, from one of your quotes:
But what if the law surrounding the federal employment discrimination statute, Title VII, is fairly clear, so that under an impartial application of the law, Ricci loses?

That is the question, and you're assuming that the answer is that Title VII can only be interpreted that way. In reality though, it's far less clear than that, and my understanding of the complaint against Sotomayor and her cohorts was that they voted present on the Constitutional issues raised by the application of that law to this situation.

Didn't you just concede the point to me?

Really, aren't you admitting it's better in our culture to be straight and white?

So if you can find a way to pass yourself off as straight and white, you're better off doing it?

And if that's not an option for you, too bad?

If the 'point' is that there is discrimination in society, then I don't know to many mainstream people who argue otherwise, George (other than arguing the degree.) I was bringing up the issue of the best way to remedy the discrimination, because I do believe that going to the refs in terms of getting special redress from the legislature or the courts can have a backlash effect that perpetuates the societal attitudes, as opposed to jumping through the hoops that the majority groups demand for the minority groups to earn respect. It may not be morally admirable that this is so, but I believe it's just a fact of human nature.

I see what you're getting at, definitely, but that doctor has (hopefully) had lots of experience delivering babies, has been thoroughly educated about every aspect of the birth process, and has probably had a lot of feedback like "ow that hurts please give me drugs" or "I want to do this naturally please don't give me drugs" or "I'll tell everyone to have their baby delivered by you because you followed my wishes"

The way you illustrated that point helps me to put a finer point on it, I think. The crux here is that the person making these decisions really shouldn't use his own emotional response to the situation to make the decision, because his/her own opinion might not be the only valid one. If a female OB GYN had had a very painful personal experience with childbirth, and that colored her future recommendations to all of her patients, she'd be doing them a disservice. And similarly, in the case of judges, there's a real risk that a person bringing his/her own life experiences to the bench might assume that any similar case should be decided in the way that his/her own painful experiences should have been resolved according to his/her self interest. That isn't the appropriate impartial treatment to ensure that the overriding societal interests are served. Instead of balanced scales of justice, such a person would be putting his/her thumb on one side of the scale.

CStanley -- I see what you're getting at, definitely, but that doctor has (hopefully) had lots of experience delivering babies, has been thoroughly educated about every aspect of the birth process, and has probably had a lot of feedback like "ow that hurts please give me drugs" or "I want to do this naturally please don't give me drugs" or "I'll tell everyone to have their baby delivered by you because you followed my wishes" or whatever. I would say the vast majority of people of privilege (men if you're talking about gender, white if you're talking about race, wealthy if you're talking about class, etc) don't go through the painstaking process of understanding the people on the other side of that privilege the way an OBGYN makes it his business to understand the workings of females giving birth despite his lack of a birth canal. Some do -- there are men in women's studies programs, there are white people who advocate for people of color, etc, but I'd say that the overwhelming majority of people -- even judges -- do not.

CStanley--

Well, sure, George, but that's no different than light skinned blacks who used to 'pass', or gays who aren't discriminated against as long as they don't come out of the closet.

Didn't you just concede the point to me?

Really, aren't you admitting it's better in our culture to be straight and white?

So if you can find a way to pass yourself off as straight and white, you're better off doing it?

And if that's not an option for you, too bad?

casual

I see your sarcasm button is broken. Here's some of that dreaded context I so rashly called for:

"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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. "

On second reading, I see you're right. She must be a sexist/racist as it's well known that no racial or sexual discrimination took place prior to Holmes and Cardoza leaving the bench. I forgot for a second that wise old white men see all injustices with unjaundiced eyes, and those of other racial and sexual makeups are just spoiling for a fight.

ps
my button appears to work fine

CStanley -- Sure they had to work twice as hard to get half as far. Do you think that should be taken into account in the law, though? A discrimination case comes up, and the judge should of course be a white man, and should of course say "you didn't work twice as hard, so suck it up and pay your dues... In a few generations if you get rid of that accent and act exactly like a "real" white person and give up your culture and crazy foods and silly traditions, nobody will even remember that you're not really white?" I mean, I know that's how it works in a lot of cases, but is that the way we should interpret our laws?

I can draw an analogy. Would anyone have a problem saying that a woman who has gone through childbirth would be better equipped to understand the process of having a baby than a woman who has not?

That begs the question though, in what circumstances does that experience really matter? I am perfectly comfortable with a male OB-GYN delivering my baby, because I don't think he has to know what it feels like first hand in order to make the decisions that will be necessary. To some extent, the objectivity can be better in some cases (like physicians not treating their own family members, because their empathy can get in the way.)

CS says: I thought Michael Gerson explained the argument against 'empathy' pretty well here.

Well Jack Balkin shoots down Gerson and the empathy argument. JB explains here that SM and the Circuit Court only applied existing law and precedent in their rulings.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/05/impartiality...

Impartiality and Empathy

JB

Michael Gerson unwittingly reveals the problem of the distinction between impartiality and empathy that Sotomayor's opponents are trying to maintain. Gerson, like Charles Krauthammer, argues that the law should be applied as it is, impartially, and not bent or altered out of a misplaced empathy for particular persons or groups.

Ironically, in defense of their position, both of them offer the case of Frank Ricci, the dyslexic firefighter who worked so hard to pass New Haven's promotion test, and lost his chance when New Haven discarded the test because it resulted in no promotions for blacks. Ricci sued under Title VII, the federal employment discrimination statute. Ricci is revealed to us as a person of character who overcame setbacks of his own, who got a raw deal from the city of New Haven, and who deserves our empathy, as well as our sympathy. Indeed he does.

But what if the law surrounding the federal employment discrimination statute, Title VII, is fairly clear, so that under an impartial application of the law, Ricci loses? That might explain why the Second Circuit panel (that included Sonia Sotomayor) that considered Ricci's case affirmed the lower court's decision without opinion. What if Judge Jose Cabranes and other judges on the Second Circuit were moved by Ricci's plight and the deep unfairness of what New Haven had done and argued for rehearing the case on the grounds that the current interpretation of the law is wrong and should be altered? And what if five members of the Supreme Court, also moved by empathy to Ricci, and the unfairness of current doctrine, do not apply the law as it currently stands, but alter it so that Ricci can prevail? Under those circumstances, who is administering justice without respect to persons, and doing equal right to the poor and to the rich? It is Sotomayor and the second circuit panel who are being impartial, for they are applying the law as it is; it is Sotomayor's critics who want to change the law out of empathy for Frank Ricci and his plight.

The obvious answer is, because the Poles were white.

That's why changing their last names worked.
Well, sure, George, but that's no different than light skinned blacks who used to 'pass', or gays who aren't discriminated against as long as they don't come out of the closet.

The fact is that my Polish ancestors weren't seen as equals to other whites- the discrimination was ethnic, not skin color based- but that's the only difference. The hatred was just as intense, and they truly were shunned if they let it be known in the WASP community who they really were. But that sentiment faded in a matter of a couple of generations, and my point is that I think that's in part because they accepted that they had to work twice as hard (and accept the need to cover their ethnicity without complaint) in order for the majority members of society to come around toward acceptance and respect.

Casualobserver--

Honestly, I can't think of a single conservative who was impeached or prosecuted for making any "statement".

It's obvious how unfair you think this is.

But aren't you the one who's bending over backwards to get it to make sense?

Jazz -- I would, in fact, like to challenge your premise. One cannot simply replace the word "latina" with the word "white" in this situation -- nor, really, in any situation -- and have it mean the same thing.

In this particular comment, Sotomayor was talking specifically about cases where sensitivity toward women or people of color might come into play. Most people who believe that discrimination exists have an ah-ha moment, where they see and act of individual or systemic discrimination (or are on the receiving end), and say to themselves "wow, I guess people really do treat (insert group here) like crap". If it touches you enough to go on and research more by talking in depth with people of said group, you realize that what you've witnessed is in no way an isolated incident, that it is in fact quite typical. Further along, you realize that you cannot understand what members of that group must feel about it. This whole process, of course, goes along with a personal acknowledgment of privilege, that you yourself don't have to live your life being treated in that way.

How is any of that controversial? How, also, is it controversial to say that someone who has gone through that sort of discrimination might be in a better place to judge such a situation from both sides than someone who hasn't, or maybe who hasn't even had their "ah-ha moment"?

I can draw an analogy. Would anyone have a problem saying that a woman who has gone through childbirth would be better equipped to understand the process of having a baby than a woman who has not? Of course not. In the same way, a person who has experienced individual or institutional discrimination would likely be better at understanding a case about discrimination. Again -- Sotomayor's comments were dealing specifically with those sorts of situations. Bringing this full-circle, the comment in context makes absolutely no sense in your word-replacement scenario unless the underlying assumption is that white people are the only people whose opinions count at all, which is why a judge saying such a thing would lose their job.

CStanley--

The obvious answer is, because the Poles were white.

That's why changing their last names worked.

Isn't it?

Yes, Jazz, you are correct. We liberals expect that for any statement made by another liberal, that the Universe bend over backward to make sure the full context of said statement be explored and fully vetted to give each and every benefit of the doubt, circumstantial qualifier and possible excuse be brought to bear in assessing what the utterance means. Conversely, should a non-card carrying liberal white Anglo male make a statement, it is perfectly reasonable for us netroots to not only not consider possible context, but actually parse any utterance into such small and randomly assembled pieces that it can come across in its worst possible light......and then immediately call for impeachment, prosecution or truther commission assembly.

CS says:

I do find that concept pretty troubling, because showing partiality toward the weaker members of society sounds 'just' but it results in individuals paying a price for the purported sins of their ethic or gender group (eg, the firefighter case that went against the white male firefighters who showed ample qualifications for promotion.)

The rulings and the court case are all about the implications of Title VII and nothing else. Interesting that the plantiff is a partially disabled person and not a class action suit by all affected. Pity the poor white male...

From this site a reasoned argument:
http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=780

The federal district court that first considered Mr. Ricci’s claims exhaustively reviewed the facts and allegations and determined that Ricci’s lawsuit was foreclosed by settled law. The racially disparate results of the test far exceeded the statistical cut-off indicating that a Title VII violation had occurred, and the district court found that when the City decided not to use the results of the promotion exam, it was trying to comply with Title VII’s prohibition on the use of employment tests that have such a disparate racial impact. Rather than discriminating against the white test-takers, the City was simply trying to find a promotion test that would be fair to all applicants as required by federal law. The court held that this attempt to ensure a fair promotion process and comply with Title VII was not equivalent to discrimination and was not intentional discrimination against the white plaintiffs in violation of equal protection.

I also think that a lot of people who lived a hundred years ago--Italians, Poles, the Irish, Jews--would be surprised to see their grandsons considered white men, equal to the Boston Brahmins. I think that's good thing. I think that tendency should continue.

As a descendent of those Poles who came here at the turn of the last century, I'd say that's an excellent point. I wonder why though, that equality has been gained without affirmative action or without having say, a Pole on the SCOTUS. This goes to my conservative leanings, I suppose, to say that a disfavored group can more easily gain equal footing by doing it the old fashioned way- working hard and proving one's worth. In my own family and my husband's, our Polish grandfathers and uncles had to change their last names in order to have a thriving business but rather than complain about the discrimination or the fact that they had to 'cover', they just did what they had to do. I think there's something to be said for that.

I guess it's OK when Alito shows empathy:

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

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.

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

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 so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

As to the question of what "would" happen if a white male were to make comments indicating his belief that his racial/gender vantage-point should be the preferred standard, I think you're wrong to think it doesn't happen and to think there are no consequences when it does.

For example: Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe:

In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh [Sonia Sotomayor's] qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.

I added some emphasis.

I guess this will fall under the category of challenging your premise, although I do believe I am also being honest in this as well.

Here goes: I completely understand that white men (and even more specifically, straight white men of the middle class or higher) are now expected to share what were once their prerogatives.

Naturally enough, some--maybe most--of them feel discomfort, anxiety, even resentment over that fact.

The notion that justice should be blind is a pleasant one, but that pleasant blindness is just metaphorical--I think it means everyone who seeks justice should get a fair shake, without fear or favor.

I don't think anyone can look at our history and say that justice has ever been blind. That assertion is likely to ring hollow in a lot of ears.

I also think that a lot of people who lived a hundred years ago--Italians, Poles, the Irish, Jews--would be surprised to see their grandsons considered white men, equal to the Boston Brahmins. I think that's good thing. I think that tendency should continue.

Better, perhaps, to say that justice should be wide awake, fully alert, including to its own failings. Willing to admit its own failings. Willing to take more of the human experience into account.

I think that's why Rod Dreher decided to retract his original complaint against Sotomayor. That's why I think his retraction was meaningful. It's also why I think Sen. Inhofe's comments are an expression of white male anxiety instead of some timeless vision of equality.

I expect this is closer to what you were looking for when you asked your questions. Still not sure it's satisfactory, though.

Links:

Inhofe's comments.

Definition of perogatives.

jazz
"So if we can leave all the hyperbole about different experiences and systemic inequality behind for a moment, can anyone tell me why Judge Sotomayor’s comments were not seen as grounds for immediate dismissal, no matter how “out of context” you wish to say they were and no matter how many hours of comments which came prior to or following the statement are read into the record?"

specifically:
"no matter how “out of context” you wish to say they were "

Nice try jazz, but if you're looking for a debate, start by dispensing with absurd preconditions. Meaning is derived through context, and implying that context is some kind of distraction when judging one statement out of an exposition makes any discussion a waste of time.

I thought Michael Gerson explained the argument against 'empathy' pretty well here.
Excerpt:

None of this is particularly controversial at Obama's University of Chicago or Sotomayor's Princeton. In elite academic settings, it is commonly asserted that impartiality is not only a myth, but also a fraud perpetuated by the privileged. Since all legal standards, in this view, are subjective and culturally determined, the defenders of objectivity are merely disguising their exercise of power. And so the scales of justice -- really the scales of power -- need to be weighted by judges to favor the "weak" and the "powerless."

I do find that concept pretty troubling, because showing partiality toward the weaker members of society sounds 'just' but it results in individuals paying a price for the purported sins of their ethic or gender group (eg, the firefighter case that went against the white male firefighters who showed ample qualifications for promotion.)

I have mixed feelings though, depending on how far someone takes the concept of life experience of a minority person informing judicial opinions. If, (as probably intended by those who applaud diversity on courts for this reason) the idea is simply to counterbalance the potential favoritism toward more powerful members of society that might be inherent in the opinions of judges who are members of the traditionally privileged class, then I don't have a problem with it. But the problem is that the empathy for the weaker, or minority, plaintiffs shouldn't exceed the actual bias that is displayed by the white male members of the bench, but should only be present to cancel out any potential bias in that direction - not to assert a new privelege for previously oppressed.

Generally I think there's some merit to the idea of diversity on a court because it's just an extension of the idea of having multiple judges anyway. The point is that no one person can be completely impartial even if that's their goal, but having multiple viewpoints will help cancel out biases. Again though, it depends on how far you take this concept because we can't possibly have a court of 9 justices that exactly mirrors the demographics of society.

Read the whole speech. There's nothing wrong with the quote in context.

Wow.

The moon must be in a new phase or something.

First, Dorian agrees that releasing Abu Graib photos would be dangerous to the troops then Jazz acknowledges the blatant double standard of racism charges – all on the same day.

I can take the day off. Logic and reason are back in vogue.

There was actually a discussion of this yesterday at TMV. I'm going to recycle a comment I made there about this.

Conservative writer Rod Dreher was honest enough to admit that he was wrong about Sotomayor's speech, even though he originally complained about it yesterday.

Quoting Dreher:

I'm still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point

Not sure if this is qualifies as a satisfactory response.

EDIT: It's a little hard (for me, at least) to see the hyperlinks, so here they are again:

Yesterday's TMV post.

Dreher's original complaint.

Dreher's retraction of the complaint.