Sotomayor is a racist, pure and simple. The fact that she had a speech appear in La Raza's journal (La Raza means "The Race" -- can you imagine a white justice up for the Supreme Court having a speech in a magazine put out by whites called "The Race"?), a journal by a racist organization, is bad enough. But why focus on where the speech was printed when you can focus on what she actually said that for a judge, 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.” So white males don't have rich experiences? What nonsense! This is both outright racism and outright sexism on her part. Race and gender have nothing to do with the ability to determine if a law is constitutional or not. Does a "Latina woman" (why shouldn't we make fun of her for that redundancy?) have better interpretation skills? Or determine if the rule of law is being followed? Of course, what she is really saying in this comment about the "richness of her experience" is that she has no intention of following the rule of law. She's going to let that "experience" inform her decisions, meaning -- let's be honest here -- her emotions. Dear Lord! Can she be reinforcing stereotypes any more than this? These are the very worst features of a judge. I don't want a judge who will bring his or her prejudices and biases to bear on their decisions. But that's what she's promising to do. Anyone who brings prejudices, emotions, and racist/sexist attitudes to the bench has no intention of abiding by rule of law or the Constitution. All of this disqualifies her to be a judge at a dog show, let alone for the Supreme Court.
I would also say that any judge who was overturned by the Supreme Court ever -- let alone as often as she was -- is perhaps not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
2 comments:
Hi
Isn't she actually saying that given the diversity of her experience that she should do better. She's claiming that being born poor and having overcome obstacles is an advantage. Sort of the the opposite of a person claiming to be a disadvantaged minority. How is what she said essentially any different than someone born to privilege saying given all the advantages I've had more should be expected from me. In both cases, its merely exhorting one's self to a seek a higher standard.
With respect to her rulings being overturned by the Supreme Court, that's just the law of small numbers and I suspect you actually know that. (Some might say its a badge of honor.)
Anyway, Troy, my pleasure in writing to you. I hope you take the time out to respond.
No, she specifically uses the term "Latina woman," indicating that there is something inherent in being Hispanic and a woman that makes her an inherently superior judge to a white man.
But that aside, I don't want a judge bringing life experience to the court. Justice is blind, or it is not justice. How else can you get equality under the law? By saying that private, personal experience matters in being a justice, she is saying that she intends to make subjective decisions, decisions based on her personal experience. That is the worst feature of the worst judges. She isn't going to base her decisions on law, but on other criteria.
As for her rulings, I would accept the argument from the law of small numbers if one could show that the Supreme Court was in fact wrong in their interpretation of the Constitution (they are guilty of that, I know), or if her judicial history was one that showed she respected equal treatment under the law and rule of law. But her record does not show that. Quite the opposite. If I were merely making the argument regarding her rulings, you would have a point. But her judicial ideology suggests otherwise.
As for her experience, though . . . I have more developed thoughts on that that I will post later in the main blog.
Post a Comment