Sotomayor Speeches Woven With Ethnicity

[question everything]

Source: Washington Post

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor once told a group of minority lawyers that she believed a delay in her confirmation as a federal appeals judge a decade ago was driven partly by Republican lawmakers' ethnic stereotypes of her, suggesting that the tensions surrounding her current nomination are hardly new to the New York jurist.

"I was dealt with on the basis of stereotypes . . . and it was painful . . . and not based on my record," she told the lawyers in New York in 1998. "I got a label because I was Hispanic and a woman and I had to be liberal."

The remark was one piece of a portrait that emerges in scores of Sotomayor speeches released by the White House yesterday, showing a strong-willed jurist who has exacting expectations of herself and those who come before her -- and who is driven by a powerful ethnic pride and a belief that she has an obligation to lift up fellow people of color. "The Latina in me is an ember that blazes forever," she told Hispanic law students at Hofstra University in 1996.

The 84 speeches also shed more light on the personal side of the 54-year-old appeals court judge, who was raised in a Puerto Rican family in the Bronx and has been cloistered from the public since her nomination to the Supreme Court nine days ago. She has little patience for long-winded lawyers and bad grammar -- "each time I see a split infinitive, an inconsistent tense structure or the unnecessary use of the passive voice, I blister."



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060403265.html

---

This is why I wish she (or Obama) did not try to explain her comment, to say that "she regretted the wording in hindsight." She said what she meant and she meant what she said and I hope she stands by them.

[Bigmack]

1. I've noted that most SC Justices...

opinions are "woven with ethnicity", too. Mostly "White Guy from the Privileged Class" ethnicity.

[Turbineguy]

2. Regretting the wording in hindsight.

She sounds like a lot of the rest of us...

[angstlessk]

3. why is saying 'my Christianity' five thousand times by a white male not ethnic?

can white men not be ethnically charged? and membership in the John Birch socity or the new KKK the CCC not ethnic? can a white person in America EVER be considered ethnic?

[No Elephants]

27. I don't think ethnicity is the issue. The issue is bias. And a WASP or WASC male in America

certainly can be biased. But, so can a non-white male, or a non-white female.

[angstlessk]

32. the article IS about ethnicity..not bias..sorry! n/t

[shanti]

4. and why should she deny her ethnicity?

it's part of what makes her who she is today! i'm sure uncle thomas had made similar comments...

[Wizard777]

6. "and a belief that she has an obligation to lift up fellow people of color."

As a Judge she has a legal obligation to see and treat them as equal. I can see how simply treating someone as equal can improve their lives and possible even be up lifting. But as a Judge her actual legal obligation is treat them as equal regardless of if lifts them up or casts them down. I guess it's just another unfortunate choice of words. But this time it came from the White House. But no one is asking her to deny her ethnicity. But she can't take it onto the bench with her. Her concurrences and dissents have to be based on case law and constitutional principles. NOT her experiences as a Latina Woman. Which is redundant. Apparently she's too busy picking apart everyone else's Grammar to mind her own. I tried to support her. I really did. But is simply can't. She'll end up being Obama's Gonzales if she's confirmed. I think Rush has figured that out and it's why he is now supporting her.

[question everything]

11. I don't think that she has taken her ethnicity to court

which is what they are looking at now, all her rulings on the bench. And, no doubt, the White House did, before they decided on her.

[Wizard777]

16. You also have to keep in mind that the SC Justices have the lowest burden for Impeachment.

So if she's engaging in racism and sexism off the bench she can still be removed from the bench. It's not good behaviour or conduct authorized by law. In fact we prohibit it by law.

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,

[No Elephants]

30. If you're saying that removing a SCOTUS Justice from the bench would be easy, you are mistaken.

[No Elephants]

29. Who said she should deny her ethnicity?

[4lbs]

5. She's a veteran in this, having been through the confirmation process twice before.

I don't think there will be any real problems the 3rd time.

The only thing the GOP has is her "Latina woman" statement. That measures maybe a 2.0 on the Richter scale at most.

[robcon]

7. I disagree.

Her tone was mistaken... attributing to Latina women a superiority that no one should proclaim about any ethnic/gender group. It's not a disqualification, but a misspoken line.

[Wizard777]

8. She says she's being stereo typed. But isn't that what she did to white males in her speech?

She seems to subscribe to the Stereo Type of white males being the rightful rulers of the universe or the overlords of the world. Whitey being out to get her is a great reason to commit her to an insane asylum to get help for her racist paranoid delusions. Not confirm her as a Supreme Court Justice. In a court of law we must all be seen and treated as Equals. Even the stereo typical ever evil whitey.

[EFerrari]

14. No, that's not what she did.

What she said, for the brazillionth time, was that people who have experience with discrimination can bring more experience to discrimination cases than people who don't have that experience.

[Wizard777]

17. Okay so she believes that whites can't be discriminated against. That's part of the stereo type.

[EFerrari]

18. She didn't say that either. Why is this so difficult?

lol

[Wizard777]

19. That's what she was implying. Lets try it like this.

Whites can't know evil, bad or wrong when they simply see it. That's why her experience as a latina woman will allow her to make a better decision. Nope! That's not gonna work either. You wouldn't have to wiggle and squirm nearly as much if you would just call it what it is. A racist statement.

[EFerrari]

20. I'm not wiggling at all. She said that as someone who has experience with discrimination

she'd make a better decision than someone who hasn't. That's it!

lol

But please, keep forwarding the right wing bullshit if it makes you happy.

[Wizard777]

22. That personal experience could form an appearance of bias.

That would call for her to recuse herself in Discrimination Cases to comply with Canon 2 and Canon 3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct. Her unfortunate misstatement violates Canon 2 and Canon 4 of the Judicial Code of Conduct. Her previous membership in La Raza (The Race) could violate Canon 2 and and Canon 5 of the judicial code of conduct. She will have to recuse herself in any cases involving La Raza to be in compliance with Canon 3 of the judicial Code of Conduct.

My problems with Sotomayors appointment have nothing to do with right wing anything. The latest comment from the White House seems to be doing more to drive nails in her coffin than help her appointment. I'm wondering if this is an honest appointment or if Obama is using it to spot light a federal judge that needs to be removed from the bench? The latest White House comment about feeling an obligation to lift up people of color. Coming from Sotomayor that would be a violation of Canon 1, Canon 2, and Canon 4 of the Judicial Code of Conduct.

[EFerrari]

23. What utter cr@p.

lol

[Wizard777]

24. Not everyone thinks Ethics is utter crap.

[EFerrari]

25. You have no idea what La Raza even is, let alone

what its name means.

You haven't bothered to understand Sotomayor's remarks. That would require close reading and thought.

You haven't bothered to read every credible authority, and there have been many and they have been in agreement, on this issue. Everyone from Media Matters to F.A.I.R. to Democratic surrogates to legal experts like Greenwald and Horton. The consensus has been out there and for days.

While you take Tom Tancredo's interpretation as fact, arguably one of the most racist and callow assholes in the Republican Party, you are in no position to judge her or La Raza. And if you don't have the patience to inform yourself, there is no reason in the world why I should. Buenas.

[Wizard777]

26. Okay I screwed up. I used Sotomayors own representation of La Raza to Congress.

Silly me. So I guess you need to educate Sotomayor to what La Raza actually is. One other thing.

¿Solamente usted entiende español? Haben Sie irgendeine Idee, wieviele Sprachen ich spreche? Vous seriez stupéfié à toutes les langues que je comprends. Esta é somente as vivas línguas que eu sei. Inoltre conosco parecchie lingue che non sono parlate o non sono usate.

[No Elephants]

28. That was only part of what she said, though. The other part was that the

experience that a female Latina would bring to the bench would enable her to make better decisions than a white male. That she disagreed with Justice O'Connor's statement that wise old men and wise old women would reach the same decision.

Defend those statements may be intellectually fair. Trying to pretend they don't exist is not.

[Karenina]

10. BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[EFerrari]

12. LOL

[meow2u3]

9. Rethugs never complained about Scalia's ethnic comments

nor his Opus Dei connections, not to mention his apparent ties with the mob. So it's OK for some right-wing nutjob to brag about his ethnicity, but when a Democratic female from an ethnic minority group expresses pride about her ethnic group, all of a sudden it's racist?!

[EFerrari]

13. Not enough dog whistles in that piece. WaHo can do better than that.

[twitomy]

15. Why do I have the feeling that..

When faced with a court case of a Whitey versus a Latino, I can predict accurately who side she will decide for? I dunno I thought justice was supposed to be blind..I also havent heard much
of where she has ruled on choice..

[No Elephants]

31. Your feeling is wrong. The very reason that RWers have been so busy dissecting her

speeches and trying to focus America on one freakin' sentence out of 55 years of speaking and writing is that her decisions from the bench show no evidence of the bias you imply.

[mr_liberal]

34. Thats as a lower court judge though,

following precedent.

Im less worried about how she votes on minority issues than I am on civil liberties.

Her decisions dont show much evidence of a bias on those issues either. And thats what worries me.

[UTUSN]

21. What about "woven with" CHOICE?!1 n/t

[mr_liberal]

33. I don't think this helps at all.

In fact it makes it worse imo. It sounds like she's obsessed with race. Thats not someone you'd think would be a good judge.

Her racial... preoccupation doesn't seem to show up in her rullings though, so thats good. But then thats as a lower court judge not as a supreme court justice.

I dont think she was a good choice anyhow. Shes too much of a mystery on civil liberties issues. She could turn out to vote with the conservatives on some issues, like free speech, separation of church state... even abortion. This was Obama's first pick, with complete Dem control of the senate, replacing a liberal,.... he could have had anyone he wanted and he chose to pick a semi-stealth candidate.

I'm hope I'm wrong and she turns out to be a great Justice. But I don't see anything in her record that suggests that she will be.