Clarify the “Wise Latina Woman” Statement?
I believe that I’ve let enough time slip by for everyone to digest the story, but now I’ll need to ask for some help here. The readers of this site provide a more diverse set of opinions than virtually any other political blog I visit, so perhaps this is the only place where a cogent explanation might be found. And please keep in mind that I pose this question coming from a position of having repeatedly said that Judge Sotomayor meets all the qualifications for a spot on the Supreme Court, deserves an up or down vote, and will almost definitely be confirmed. So what I’m really looking for here is a reality check, and I invite readers from both sides to not only answer, but to dispute my initial assumption which is as follows:
Let us say that a sitting President of the United States nominated a white male judge from a Federal Circuit Court to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Let us also then say that a tape surfaced showing said judge stating, “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.”
Here is my conclusion: Not only would the nomination be immediately withdrawn, but that judge would be hounded back to their home district and driven from their seat on the circuit court in record time. Their career would be over and there would be no Congressional hearings or opportunities for “clarification or comment“.
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?
This is a serious question. Please… challenge my premise if you like or just answer the question honestly.
80 Responses to “Clarify the “Wise Latina Woman” Statement?”
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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–
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.
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?
Casualobserver–
Are you just trying to get me to agree that you look like an idiot?
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.
CStanley–
A little farther up the thread you said light colored black people benefited from passing as white.
Didn't you?
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.
George: In the past blacks certainly gained benefit if they passed for white- that was then, this is now though.
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?
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 — 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.
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.
I agree with Jazz Shaw that his question is important. So important that I respectfully suggest that he and all of us should read Judge Sotomayers speech before we get on too high of a horse in debating the soundbite's malignant or benign nature. (Best if the good Asst Editor had directly quoted the offending statement in his initial post along with a reference….) Indeed, I think most will find that the context of the speech is required to begin to understand the one sentence firecracker that Jazz rolls on the floor and then asks if we can extinguish. An excerpt from the Sotomayer 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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
keelaay 9:
Thank you so much for, finally, after 73 or so comments, bringing “context” into this thread.
Generally, political statements are 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…” 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.”
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.
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
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.)
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.