Reagan Appointee Sandra Day O’Connor Said Gender, Race Impact Judging
Sonia Sotomayor is taking a beating from conservatives for her 2001 speech saying that gender and race will inevitably impact one’s judgment and jurisprudence.
But guess who said something very similar? Moderately conservative Sandra Day O’Connor, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1981.
O’Connor said she brings to the court the “perspective of a woman” in an interview with Ladies Home Journal soon after she was appointed. While O’Connor also said there were other factors that influence her judging more than her gender, she clearly said it was a factor. Here’s how the Associated Press reported her comments in March of 1982 (via Nexis):
The first woman on the high court tends to play down that role somewhat. “I think that I bring to the court differences in background that are more germane than my gender,” she said.
“My experience as a legislator gives me a different perspective. Also, I bring to the court the perspective of a woman primarily in a sense that I am female, just as I am white, a college graduate, etc.
“Yes, I will bring the understanding of a woman to the court, but I doubt that that alone will affect my decisions,” she said. “I think the important fact about my appointment is not that I will decide cases as a woman, but that I am a woman who will get to decide cases.”
On another occasion, O’Connor similarly suggested that race impacts one’s judging, too. After the retirement of legendary Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, O’Connor said approvingly that Marshall “imparted not only his legal acumen but also his life experiences” to the bench. That is certainly a partial reference to Marshall’s race.
To be clear, O’Connor’s sentiments aren’t identical to Sotomayor’s. O’Connor was to a degree downplaying the impact her gender might have. But O’Connor also said that such experiences did inform one’s jurisprudence, and Sotomayor’s main point, albeit not artfully expressed, was that gender and race will inevitably impact judging.
As O’Connor’s statements show, this isn’t even a controversial or new thing for a Supreme Court justice — or a would-be one — to say.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Alito said the same thing when he talked about how he thinks of his Italian family’s history of suffering discrimination when he judges discrimination cases.
Seriously, do conservatives think we should all pretend an all-black Supreme Court would have decided Dred Scott the same way the all-white Supreme Court did?
It’s ridiculous that when a white guy makes this comment about how his Italian heritage would help him in discrimination cases it’s a “duh” moment, but when Sotomayor says her Latina heritage and gender will help her in discrimination cases it’s the most racist thing anybody ever said anywhere.
This post seems to be rebutting a strawman argument – I’m not sure many legitimate commentors are arguing that Supreme Court justices don’t bring a unique perspective. I believe the problem some are having has to do with Sotomayor’s seeming contention that being of a particular race or gender might make one a better judge or lead one to a better decision. If she could just issue a simple statement through a spokesperson to clarify that one particular sentence I think this could all go away. I’m not sure I understand why she won’t. There are many out there, Greg and Sandra included, who seem to be expressing Sotomayor’s point much more clearly and with much less controversy.
SBJ
.
All go away? That’s just hilarious, considering that conservatives were opposing this pick before the nominee was even chosen.
.
Pardon me if your premise doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Nah. They’re throwing a lot of punches, but none is landing. Flailin’ in the wind. Like sbj said, it’s straw-man rhetoric.
.
It’s all For Amusement Only role-playing for the benefit of their base and, of course, for the punditry.
.
Well Unabogie – I did not claim that ALL opposition would go away, merely that the argument could be deflated. As it now stands she’ll be confirmed with perhaps 20-30 voting against her, but we’ll have to listen to talking heads blather endlessly about this ‘controversy’ unless she issues some sort of clarifying statment. She could do us a favor and provide us all the ammo we need to ignore such talking heads.
*
Supposing the Repubs got brilliant and voted en masse to confirm her – would that help them with hispanic voters?
This whole debacle has no legitimate arguments I would say. My guess its all about throwing the administration off message and hoping the administration gets to talking about weather she’s a racist or not rather than her past qualifications and her life story.
.
If you talk about her story you get a positive feeling and will come out of this nomination in a good way. If you talk about weather she’s a racist or not, you pick a side and get defensive and negative mood surrounds her appointment.
.
If someone brings with them too much controversy some, even those who would support her in the end, might throw up their hands and say O.K., forget it. Lets find someone else rather than go through this.
.
The same reason the administration is remaining silent on these issues that would throw them off message is the same strategy they took during the campaign it seems. Let the opponents flail around and foam at the mouth, when things begin to calm down a bit and tempers have cooled off, make a brief and direct statement to quell the nonsense.
I think SBJ is being optimistic. But he makes a good point. A lot of the manufactured indignation ( Tancredo, the various centers for this and that and a fairly loud mouth spokeswoman – the one with lots of hair ) is for fund collection purposes. I sense that other than FauxNoise the networks and cable are ratcheting down their coverage. The indignation level is below par. Of course Pat “the white working class lad who drives a Mercedes Benz” Buchanan and his ilk will give us their usual bilge.
At least the Republican Senators who have the vote are being careful.
SBJ
.
The people making this argument are…what’s that word…oh yeah, “lying”!
.
They no more care about this out of context quote than they do whether Obama shows his “original” birth certificate. They are partisan hacks who scoured her speeches to find something they could take out of context and scream about. If you give in to people like this, they will only do it over something else. Like her choice of food. They are not being honest, so they deserve nothing but to be ignored.
As if anyone on earth could write anything at all that wasn’t informed by who they are. As if anyone on earth could form conclusions and ideas and analyze problems without it being informed by who they are.
This is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo stoooooooooooooooooooooppid!
It is exceedingly hard to tell one comment from another when they are all underlined. I hope the tech guys can fix this fast because its giving me headaches.
SG and others — they are working on it. Apologies again for the inconvenience.
yes, i am really, truly terribly sorry about this. my tech lead is out today and i hadn’t realize the problem was continuing. i’ve alerted all who should know about it…so please be patient. it will be fixed. promise.
Rachel
Editor
WhoRunsGov.com
What bull! O’Connor didn’t say that Latina women have better judgment than white males. Big difference. She didn’t say one’s biography trumps judicial philosophy.
Desperate.
Shorter O’Connor – “I’m a woman, but I wouldn’t focus on it.”
Shorter Sotomayer: “I’m a Latina and I wouldn’t focus on anything else.”
I loved this from Unabogie:
“They are partisan hacks who scoured her speeches to find something they could take out of context and scream about. ”
Actually, the NY Times published the “wise Latin” snippet in mid-May.
One problem. O’Connor never said the same thing as Sotomayor. In fact she said the OPPOSITE. When will the sheeple stop listening to these masters of propaganda on the web?
“I think the important fact about my appointment is not that I will decide cases as a woman, but that I am a woman who will get to decide cases.”
Lets all remember Sotomayor is nominated to interpret a US Constitution which was developed. written and ratified by WHITE MALES. Perhaps a Latina cannot understand what the founders were trying to accomplish. There were NO Latina’s at the Constitutional Convention.