Conservatives (Wrongly) Claim Sotomayor Said Latinas Are Better Than White Men
Leading conservative commentators and news outlets have jumped on the 2001 Sonia Sotomayor quote I noted below to make the (wrong) claim that she has said that Latinas are better than white men.
In that 2001 speech, Sotomayor didn’t say that. Rather, she said this:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Rush Limbaugh, in an apparent reaction to the quote, said that Sotomayor is a “reverse racist” who “has put down white men in favor of Latina women.” Fox News’ Megyn Kelly said it shows Sotomayor thinks “that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges.”
Michelle Malkin, meanwhile, said it shows that Sotomayor wants her personal experiences to “cloud her jurisprudence.”
The full text of her 2001 speech is right here. It shows that these readings are complete fabrications.
Read in context, it’s clear that Sotomayor was merely saying that it’s inevitable that a judge’s personal race-based and gender-based experiences will impact judging, particularly in race and sex discrimination cases. As a result, she said, while such formative experiences can be enriching and contribute to wise decisions, a judge should also be aware of them in order to avoid being wholly dominated by them. She vowed “complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives.”
“I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences, but I accept my limitations,” she said — the opposite of what critics claim she said.
Separately, Daphne Eviatar points out that the research actually bears out Sotomayor’s assertions. And Sam Stein debunks another major claim about Sotomayor.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Utterly predictable. And these people never issue retractions or corrections.
Pat Buchanan literally just called Sotomayor an Affirmative Action nominee.
Rush used the Affirmative Action line too. wonder if that’s a GOP-approved talking point?
Greg: The folks you quote are wrong, but I find your reading to be simplisitic and perhaps incorrect. Sotomayor says (Per The Corner):
“Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
That seems to clearly contradict your reading. That is, Sotomayor is at the least being a trifle incoherent. On the one hand you say that it is obvious that she is vowing “complete vigilance in checking” her perspective. And yet she also seems to be saying that to do so would be a disservice to law and society.
I believe there is much in that speech to dislike and I think you are being a bit too quick to defend it in such absolute terms. The speech deserves a more careful read and not such a quick defense.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWI2ZjM2MmRiODlhMmY1NDgxYjBjZjNjOWRmMmE1NjQ
disagree, SBJ. She is saying that there is some value in race and gender-based formative experiences, that they can enrich one’s legal judgments, but simultaneously saying that one should strive to be aware of those and not let them cloud one’s judgments.
You can argue with her claim that these experiences can enrich judgments if you want. But the simple fact is that she did not say those experiences should completely dictate one’s legal decisions — she said the opposite of that.
lol said sbj as he quoted the sh*ttiest website on earth.
Pat Buchanan also compared Sotomayor to Miers, and questioned her intelligence (Turley didn’t help on that front). Thank God Joan Walsh practically went Lawrence O’Donnell on him.
Greg – count me as confused about the speech, then!
She appears to be saying that
(1) race and gender-based experiences can enrich one’s legal judgments,
but (2) one should strive to be aware of those [experiences] and not let them cloud one’s judgments,
(3) even though to do so might be a disservice to the law and society.
I am having trouble squaring that circle. Must be my perspective as a gay white male Libertarian!
Greg:
“She did not say those experiences should completely dictate one’s legal decisions.”
Is that what Rush and Michelle said?
If Clarence Thomas is qualified, then anyone is.
sbj, yes, Michelle said clearly that she thinks her experiences SHOULD cloud her legal judgments
no big fan of Joan Walsh, but she was on fire today against Pat. She came prepared.
She basically called Pat out on his use of personal attacks to be against Sotomayor. She pointed out that she knows Pat reads, and if he had he would see that from her actual judiary record, she was highly qualified.
Joan came prepared. It’s like she memorized Sotomayor resume. She cited her academic record, she sited here judiciary record. Joan was just on point.
I think this is what the GOP is gonna have to combat. Liberals, but especially women, Repub/Dem will be watching out to make sure that the objections to Sotomayor be on policy, not personal.
She also called out that New Republic guy who wrote that smear-campaign article on Sotomayor as being a hack journalist. She actually said he should be ashamed that he even wrote it with all the anonymous sourcing he cited.
Then Chuck Schumer was also on fire. Tweety brought up a comment Schumer made previously in a sort of gotcha moment, but Schumer was ready.
Also, Gibbs was ready for the questions about Sotomayor.
Republicans played themselves. Before Obama ever picked his nominee, they gave away their ammunition. The let the admin know what they would attack on. You don’t give away your playbook to the opposing team.
Almost everyone is. LOL!
White guys are way out of style these days.
lamh31
.
I thought the best part of Schumer’s interview was when he pointed out that the wingnuts cut out Sotomayor’s next sentence in that video talking about appeals courts making policy and that when the next part of the video comes out its going to snatch the rug right from under them. For a second I thought he was going to say they were coming with the “weak sauce”.
I ought not to be surprised any longer at the venality of these people but I find I continually am.
There’s an interesting generational shift beginning to happen.
There was this old idealized argument that when we weren’t racist, there was no difference between anyone, la la la. I remember a teacher when I was a kid saying he didn’t notice if kids were black or white. This is stupid. You notice that. You notice if kids are blond or brunette, not so cute or cute. You notice if they are wearing a blue shirt. These are things you simply see.
The next generation of people coming up make a very different argument for how we should treat each other. They acknowledge we all grew up a certain way, and in a certain place. It’s the whole “we’re all a little bit racist” song from Avenue Q. And the point isn’t to pretend we don’t SEE differences, or to pretend that the places we come from don’t give us built-in prejudices and snap reactions. It’s to be aware of that, and of the world, and why people might treat us unfairly, and how WE might treat people unfairly. It’s also to look for how things that look “fair” on paper might not be fair in real life, and to balance whether the available fix is worse than the problem.
I think the point she’s making is that we’ll always have people living different lives in America–whether divided by gender, geography, religion, race, wealth. It’s silly to pretend these differences don’t exist, or that they don’t have implications for how the law should work. The goal shouldn’t be to create an idealized image of a judge and pretend we can have a person with perfect knowledge. I mean, there’s a reason we have multiple justices on the supreme court. They’re SUPPOSED to know different stuff, not just about the law, but about life. If there’s a law that inadvertently outlaws sunblock, it helps to have a white person there to explain to his peers that sunblock is very, very important.
Now, obviously, you can’t get everyone represented. But we should take advantage of the opportunity afforded by our system to acknowledge that two equally wise people who grew up very differently might see an issue profoundly differently because they have different knowledge. And that it’s a strength for the system to have those people talking to each other as equals.
“The goal shouldn’t be to create an idealized image of a judge and pretend we can have a person with perfect knowledge. I mean, there’s a reason we have multiple justices on the supreme court. They’re SUPPOSED to know different stuff, not just about the law, but about life. If there’s a law that inadvertently outlaws sunblock, it helps to have a white person there to explain to his peers that sunblock is very, very important.”
I wish you’d change your mind about being anonymous – that was beautifully said.
Excellent comment.
All the pundits that get paid to take issue with this nomination are going to get their face time and whatever profits that come with it. In the end, if the nominee meets basic legal requirements, and no scandals are revealed (trumped up?) she will be confirmed. Yawnnnn.
if this woman were NOT A RACIST she would not be a member of LA RAZA which means the RACE in spanish.
If this woman were not a racist, she would simply state a wise experienced PERSON will make better decisions than a NON-WISE, inexperienced PERSON…
whats the ”white” got to do with it.. that the racism this woman harbors coming through.. there are plenty of unwise whites, blacks, AND ‘LA RAZA’, and this racist is one of them..
she is too ignorant to see her own blatant racism, and too supported in her racism to care.
sgwhiteinfla | May 26th, 2009 at 05:11 pm
lol said sbj as he quoted the sh*ttiest website on earth.
====================================
National Review may not be the sh*ttiest website on earth.
I say it’s The Corner.
Oh, that’s very different…Never Mind.
/Emily Litella
~
@shaniqua davison
a bit obsessed with the subject of race, are you? Maybe you’re just too ignorant to see what everyone else can with your posting — or maybe too supported by being supplied talking points to copy and paste without needing to think.
Greg,
I read the whole speech (by the way, your link leads the last page of the speech, rather than the beginning of it — not sure if that was intentional), and I’m hard pressed to see it the way you’re seeing it.
Best I can tell, Judge Sotomayor was suggesting that a person who has a particular range of experiences will be more likely to generate a better conclusion that a person who does not have a particular range of experiences. Without explicitly describing what would make one conclusion better than another, this seems to imply the judge’s opinion that one range of experiences is better than another; in this case, that the experience of being a Latina is better than that of being a white male, at least for the purpose of being a judge.
If I made a comment that the under-representation of men in high-end scientific professions might be due to “different availability [between men and women] of aptitude at the high end,” I’d be a sexist (cf. Larry Summers). If I made a comment that “It seems highly likely… that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences [in IQ],” I’d be a racist (a la Herrnstein & Murray in “The Bell Curve”). How is it that Judge Sotomayor’s statement different?
So, could you either A) explain just how I’m misreading the judge’s speech, or B) if I’m not misreading it, how is it that she’s not a racist and sexist?
Respectfully yours,
Allen McPheeters
Right winger “sbj”, who has previously asserted that subservience and hierarchy are central elements in society, exclaims: “count me as confused about the speech, then!”
.
Self awareness is a good step, “sbj”.
.
Baby steps…
“Allen McPheeters” is an odd name for a Latina woman.
.
How much experience do you have as a Latina woman, “Allen McPheeters”?
.
How, exactly, did you derive those particular experience as a Latina woman, “Allen McPheeters”?
.
Sonia Sotomayer didn’t claim she had any experience as a white male.
.
Sonia Sotomayer didn’t claim she had any particular experiences as an engineer for building bridges, she didn’t claim that she had any particular experiences as a pilot, she didn’t claim she had any particular experiences at brain surgery.
.
Sonia Sotomayer claimed she had lived a life as a Latina woman and that that particular range of experiences was different from a white male who hadn’t lived that life.
.
She is, as you say, “suggesting that a person who has a particular range of experiences will be more likely to generate a better conclusion that a person who does not have a particular range of experiences.”
.
Again, what particular range of experiences have you had as a Latina woman, “Allen McPheeters”?
.
Seriously.
She said what she said. Unfortunately not the opposite of her critics. We can clearly see her legal opions are going to be greatly influenced by her “feelings” not legal interpretations. Sad day.
Anyone paying attention can clearly see that the right wingers on the Supreme Court are dominated by their “feelings” and not legal interpretations.
@newsreference: “Right winger “sbj”, who has previously asserted that subservience and hierarchy are central elements in society.”
Go read the entire thread there, Mr Reference. I was writing about how the WHPC operated under that theory – not me.
“count me as confused about the speech, then!”
Thankfully Rod Dreher came along to clear up the confusion. Too bad Sotomayor does not write as clearly as he does!
Your attempt to “put her statement in context” is actually an attempt to change what see said.
All people have incites that other people do not have, but those incites do not make their judgments uniformly better on numerous cases — even if those cases can be grouped into a certain subject matter of minority rights.
And the Sam Stein article you reference embarks on the same erroneous strategy.
She will have to explain that her statement is NOT what she really meant.
Most people will be fair to her if she does so.
Dear News Reference,
I do not claim any experince as a Latina. And if Judge Sotomayor had simply claimed that being a Latina is a different experience than being a white male, it would be an unobjectionable comment. (Indeed, such a claim would hardly be worthy of notice, due to its obviousness.) But the judge expressed an opinion that the experience of being a Latina would (or should) lead to being a better judge than being a white male.
If I expressed the reverse of that formula (i.e., that white men, because of their life experience, would be better judges than Latinas), I would be judged a racist and a sexist.
If I am misreading the judge’s speech, then please point out to me how I’m misinterpreting it. If not, then why does she get a free pass on racism and sexism?
I don’t know Judge Sotomayor. I’ve never read any of her opinions. She might very well be a lovely woman without a racist bone in her body. She might make an outstanding Justice, or she might be an empty suit on the bench. But it seems to me that this is the kind of statement that gets you banished from public life if you’re on one side of the political aisle, but that is ignored or excused if you’re on the other side of the aisle.
Sincerely,
Allen McPheeters
Hey! Let’s find a Nominee who has NO race, NO real world experience in anything, NO family, NO gender, and NO previously stated opinions on anything. The perfect nominee!
“I would hope that a wise White Male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
The man who said that would be branded a racist…and so it she…Sorry to disappoint you.
Re: Allen McPheeters
It seems clear to me that the line in question, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman…,” does assert that the experiences that come with being a member of groups which have been and are discriminated against are more valuable to a judge in reaching conclusions than being a member of dominant groups. It seems quite plausible to me that she was making a joke: “I hope…” However, I agree with the statement as it stands. It is obvious to me that the privileges of the dominant group blind them far more to justice than the sufferings of discrimination blind those who suffer under it. This is in general, of course. In specific cases, white males are able to overcome the privileges of their position in American society and achieve some perspective on them, as Sotomayor herself acknowledges. Now, if there were relatively few white males as judges, I could see that the views of the dominant privileged groups would be in danger of losing the support which keeps them in power, and I would understand your fear. But it ain’t so, Joe.
Thank you, Allienne Goddard, for acknowledging the simple truth: that Sotomayor’s statement isn’t just a comment about how different races have different experiences, or an acknowledgement of the fact that people’s experiences affect them.
Instead, it’s a comment about how Latina women are more better qualified than white men (or at what she sees as typical white men). She admits that it’s impossible to put aside those experiences altogether – so obviously she thinks that Latina women in general are more qualified.
Do people really believe that the more minority groups you belong to, the wiser you must be, because of all that discrimination you’ve faced? If so, does that mean we have an obligation to find judges who fit every minority group imaginable? If so, I wonder why Sotomayor should be confirmed over someone who’s gay, or disabled, or transgendered.
I read her ENTIRE SPEECH…..and she is not just saying that it will “impact” your judging being a disadvantaged Latina female, she is claiming that it will IMPROVE it as compared to a judge who happens to be a white man. You see Greg, that is what HER word, “b-e-t-t-e-r” means. Go look it up if you don’t believe me.
AND NOTHING YOU CAN SAY OR ANY “CONTEXT” can erase this reality. FACT: If a white man said a similar thing, he would be labeled a racist bigot, run out of town and you would be leading the charge. Now, on the planet where I reside, that makes YOU a biased, hypocrite. This ain’t “rocket surgery”….
Allienne Goddard,
Like Eric, I’d say thanks for your acknowledgement that Judge Sotomayor’s speech indicates a preference for one race and gender of judge over another.
I can see why you might agree with the judge’s sentiments, but I don’t. If the purpose of the judicial system were to protect groups who had suffered past or present discrimination, she’d be the judge I’d want. However, in my view, the purpose of the judicial system is to determine whether laws have been violated, whether laws have been properly applied and whether laws conform to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. How to handle issues of discrimination, past or present, is a political issue, best handled by the political branches of the government, i.e., the legislature and executive.
I don’t frankly care whether a judge is black, white, brown, yellow, red, or has spots. Plainly, the American people don’t care about skin color as much as they used to — Barack Obama is Exhibit A. But I do care about judicial philosophy. Judge Sotomayor did not specify the way in which her theoretical “wise Latina woman” would produce better conclusions than a white male. Given the general tenor of the speech, and your your statements in support of it, I think her agenda is more likely to try to “make policy” from the bench rather than ensure that the laws and the Constitution are followed. That’s not the kind of Supreme Court Justice I want.
Respectfully,
Allen McPheeters
Allen “I think her agenda is more likely to try to “make policy” from the bench rather than ensure that the laws and the Constitution are followed.” I’m not going to debate your feelings regarding her statements since their is little reason to debate opinion. But this whole “legislation from the bench” talking point is simply unsupported by her record. Actually, they have yet to produce a decision she was involved in where she’s actually done this. It’s actually a very rare occurrence, especially at this level. It’s really just a bunch of hot air, and as informed as you seem to be, I think you know this, and you are promoting it regardless.
Nicole,
I don’t know that it’s just a bunch of hot air. As I said above, I’ve never read any of her opinions; I’m not terribly familiar with her record. I have a sense that, in some ways, it may be difficult to tell whether she’s done this, as many opinions are written en banc without attribution. I’m simply reacting to this speech she gave, as well as the well-publicized video clip in which the judge says,
“All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. OK. I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m… you know.”
Now, prior to writing this reply, I had only seen the 35-second version of this clip, showing Judge Sotomayor saying exactly what I typed above. I headed out to YouTube to find the clip and make sure I quoted her correctly. Then, out of curiosity and fairness, I tried to find some other — longer — clip that would add some context. Because if you just watch that 35 seconds, you get the impression that the judge is giving the ol’ nudge-nudge, wink-wink to the idea that judges don’t make policy. (She seems to imply that everyone knows judges aren’t supposed to try to make policy, and that everyone knows they really do.)
A longer version of the clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo&feature=related) defuses that a little bit, because you get the beginning of the quote, “The saw is that if your going into academia, if you’re gonna teach… or [go into] public interest law, the legal defense funds…” Clearly, she’s repeating what the conventional wisdom says, not necessarily her own view on the matter.
The discussion is about law school graduates deciding whether to take a clerkship with a District Court or an Appeals Court, and she describes the differences between the two. She describes district courts as being primarily concerned with the facts of cases, that the application of the law in individual cases is non-precedentual. On the Appeals Court, the judge is “looking to how the law is developing, so that it will be applied to a broad class of cases.”
Well. I’m not sure that squares with my understanding of what an appeals court should be doing. I thought an appeals court was for the purpose of reviewing whether the trial court had properly followed procedure and had properly applied the law. Deciding “how the law is developing” sounds uncomfortably close to making policy from the bench to my ears. Your mileage may vary.
Respectfully,
Allen McPheeters
I read the whole speech. She says clearly that being a woman and a Latina will impact her decisions. As George Will observes, the Court is not a representative institution. “Personalization of the judicial function subverts the rule of law.” This is not about Sotomayor’s slamming white men. I don’t care what she thinks of me. This is about her acknowledging without hesitation that she will impose her female Latina-ness on the Court. That is not acceptable. Racism is not just about implying that one race or gender is inferior to another. Racism is the inability to leave race out of the equation.
Just to clarify a point: I did not say how the statement in question should be interpreted in the context of Sotomayor’s speech. That is, I did not advance an opinion on what Sotomayor herself meant. I took the statement out of context and found that I agreed with even your “worst case” scenario. In fact, I think she was probably making a joke: “Well I certainly HOPE a wise latina…” I wonder if there is video of the speech online. Unfortunately I am using dial-up and couldn’t download it anyway.
In any case, I wish the right-wing all the luck in the world in their racist and sexist attacks on Sotomayor. It will be very amusing to watch you fail, and in the process alienate an even greater number of Americans. Elections have consequences. Suck it up.
Allienne,
Plainly, the President has the votes in Congress to place Judge Sotomayor on the court; it would be foolish to claim otherwise. My posts here really are trying to make two points:
1.) The quote Greg is discussing in this blog post is of a sort that, if a conservative had made a similar statement, they would be hounded into withdrawing their name from consideration.
2.) Judge Sotomayor’s view of the role of the judiciary is that of an activist judge in that she crafts decisions with an eye to what kind of precedent she is setting — that is, how her actions will shape the law. In my opinion, shaping the law is a job for the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. To the extent that she holds this view, she is not an appropriate person to appoint to any court, let alone the highest court in the land.
“Elections have consequences. Suck it up.” Barack Obama campaigned as a post-partisan politician. Clearly, you do not adhere to that idea. Personally, I think it’s an idea Obama himself has discarded as well, if he ever believed it to begin with.
Sincerely,
Allen McPheeters
Mr. Sargent,
Did you ever answer Mr. McPheeter’s question? After reading the speech I agree with him: it doesn’t support your argument. Disregarding the main language–the part that everybody brings up–there are still statements which support a general, prejudiced point of view tending toward racism. In fact, later in the speech Sotomayor assumes that prejudice can actually be a legitimate part of some decision making:
“I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge WHEN those opinions, sympathies and PREJUDICES ARE APPROPRIATE.”
This assumes there are correct times to assert your prejudice based on race when you’re a judge. Prejudice is defined as a preconcieved judgment or opinion. It is also defined as an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, or A RACE. Are judges supposed to prejudge in the sense of the first definition? Is it morally defensible for anyone deciding cases that effect even one person’s life, much less that of millions of people, to prejudge on the basis of race (the second definition listed above)? Jurors are not supposed to prejudge, if they show any willingness to do so they are thrown out. Why? Watch Morgan Freeman’s speech in Bonfire of the Vanities. Why? Watch To Kill a Mockingbird. Why? Look inside your own heart.
Thank you for your time. I Look forward to hearing from you.
There is NO WAY to excuse her words in that sentence. BETTER is the operative word, even if it only was in reference to certain (”more often than not”) judicial rulings. That she would have the audacity to suggest that ANY judge would come to a better conclusion than antother by racial default is so contrary to judicial philosophy and ideal that it provides a very real insight into who this woman is. It would certainly be no stretch of the imagination to say her general mindset is in the grey (or not so grey) areas of racial and gender bigotry.
Re: Allienne Goddard
Members of the “dominant” group are blind to the plight of the, I guess ‘impoverished’. That’s an interesting statement given the fact that it was all white men who struck down slavery. Were they blind?
Also, to imply that it is due to “power” that the court has and is dominated by white men is a huge jump. Unless, you are prepared to demonstrate the other qualified minorities who would have been better choices in each case. it is equality of opportunity. It is not equality of results.
Finally, the inclusion of race = racial, gender = physiological, and the word better = superior. The analysis and explanation of an otherwise simple public opinion cracks me up. She has been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States for crying out loud – what hope do we have of interpreting her court ruling opinions?
Reading plain English is clearly a challenge for some, here!
Ms. Sotomayor CLEARLY is acknowledging her heritage, and QUESTIONING (I know: novel concept, questioning…) whether one should, or CAN discard one’s gender, ethnicity and socialization in making judgments.
What a refreshing admission! That one’s entire experiences are brought to bear on every situation is, well, natural. It is literally impossible to leave out one’s experiences, gender and ethnicity, PARTICULARLY if one is a member of a ‘minority’. The dominant demographic is just that: easily, cozily dominant, and has, with exceptions, given precious little thought to ‘the other’.
When Ms. Sotomayor is confirmed, you’ll have to stock up your brickbats for other reasons.
Congrats, Sonia!
I believe her speech infers that if the constitution would have been written by founding Latino mothers instead of the original white founding fathers, It would not be the same as what she may be committed to uphold today.
I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.