Furthermore, the importance I place on the issue is not whether Obama's judges will have right political views. It's whether those judges are actually fair and impartial arbiters that would NOT be swayed by politics, like so many of the judges appointed by Republican presidents.
The 'Hispanic women better than white males' line?
Psst, your racism is showing again.
Actually, I was a little disturbed by that as well. Is that a correct quote of her? Because if it is...
I think she used a poor choice of words. Her saying a Hispanic woman with her background could make a "better" decision than a white male was racist and/or sexist. If she had said different, or differently-informed, instead of "better", that would have been fine with me.
The concept that one race or gender can make a decision better than another is racist or sexist independent of whether it is for or against the minority. How could you possibly say that a white man is not allowed to say he is better than a Hispanic woman, but that the exact opposite is fine? If she had been a white male and had made the opposite statement, people would have been all pissed off. Because she's a minority, she gets to say stuff like "I'm better than a white male" and get away with it. That's Bullshit.
I'm not saying she's a bad choice, and if she didn't actually say that, then the point is moot. Basing your judgment of someone's fitness for a position based on one sentence is probably not a good idea if you have a wealth of actions to draw from. If her decisions and actions have consistently shown her to be fair when interpreting the law, I would not hold the racist/sexist comment against her. People choose words all the time that do not represent them with complete accuracy.
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 [Sandra Day] OÂ’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding casesÂ…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 experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnÂ’t lived that life.
Steve, you have admitted many times that you have a problem with reading comprehension. Let me help you.
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 [Sandra Day] OÂ’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding casesÂ…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 experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnÂ’t lived that life.
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnÂ’t lived that life.
I'd say this is more about the differences in experiences between a white man and a Latina woman coloring their wisdom. It smacks a bit of classism, but this isn't really a racist statement. It's more of an experiential statement.
It is, however, very poorly worded.
EDIT: I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate the phrase "reverse racism." Racism is racism no matter who's doing it.
I'm not asking what she was talking about when she said it. I asked if she really said it.
Joe, you linked to an article that says she DID say it. Putting the quote in context does not change the fact that the quote is accurate. In this case, it was not a matter of context. I understand what she was trying to convey. The context and intent of the speech was not what I was asking for. The fact is that she did say that she would hope that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Why did she even need to bring race into it? She could have just said "than a male." The question wasn't even about race...it was about gender. Wise old man vs wise old woman. Instead, she added "a white male." I understand she added "Latina" to make it personally relevant, but the "white" comment was unnecessary.
I am not calling her a racist. I am saying that that statement has racist elements that were not necessary to prove her point, and I can understand why it disturbs people. She could have easily said something other than "better" that would have been more accurate. "More informed" comes to mind. No one argues that someone with more experience is probably more informed than someone with less experience. She could have left out "white" entirely and not sacrificed anything. I also said it's dumb to base your decision of someone's beliefs and life on one single statement. All of that doesn't change the fact that her statement was poorly-worded and she should have shown better judgment. However, it doesn't bother me enough to have a problem with her nomination.
I'm not arguing that she shouldn't be a Justice because she is a racist, or even that she is a racist. I am simply presenting information and criticism.
Joe, you linked to an article that says she DID say it. Putting the quote in context does not change the fact that the quote is accurate.
Wait a minute here. This is what you asked whether she said: "The 'Hispanic women better than white males' line". You asked whether this was accurate. How do you compare that to what she actually said and then decide that it's accurate? She simply did not say the hispanic women are better than white males. "Hispanic women are better than white males" != "I hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnÂ’t lived that life."
This quote, which some have called racist, is from a speech titled,“A Latino Judge’s Voice,” that Judge Sonia Sotomayor gave in October, 2001, in Berkeley, California. She was the keynote speaker at a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal court. The Berkeley La Raza Law Journal sponsored the ceremony.
Out of context, the line appears racist. In context, it seems poorly worded. If this is a pattern for her, I would be concerned. As an isolated incident of poor wording for pride in her experiences over those who often have far more handed to them - not a big deal.
This quote, which some have called racist, is from a speech titled,“A Latino Judge’s Voice,” that Judge Sonia Sotomayor gave in October, 2001, in Berkeley, California. She was the keynote speaker at a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal court. The Berkeley La Raza Law Journal sponsored the ceremony.
Out of context, the line appears racist. In context, it seems poorly worded. If this is a pattern for her, I would be concerned. As an isolated incident of poor wording for pride in her experiences over those who often have far more handed to them - not a big deal.
Agreed. Not a big deal. However, outright telling people that she didn't say it when she clearly did is not going to help; it is going to make things worse. We need to acknowledge that she said it, that is was a poor choice of words and may have appeared racist, but that it is an isolated comment in a speech and doesn't represent her career as a whole. Our response cannot be "OMG, no she did not say that you are just bitter!!!" if we expect to come off as any more reasonable than the opposition.
Denying and making fun of the opposite view are the tactics of the Republican party that we have been abhorring. If we are to keep from being hypocrites, we really should acknowledge and address people's concerns instead of denying them without a thorough explanation. Simply saying "she didn't" is technically a lie and doesn't include an explanation.
This quote, which some have called racist, is from a speech titled,“A Latino Judge’s Voice,” that Judge Sonia Sotomayor gave in October, 2001, in Berkeley, California. She was the keynote speaker at a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal court. The Berkeley La Raza Law Journal sponsored the ceremony.
Out of context, the line appears racist. In context, it seems poorly worded. If this is a pattern for her, I would be concerned. As an isolated incident of poor wording for pride in her experiences over those who often have far more handed to them - not a big deal.
Agreed. Not a big deal. However, outright telling people that she didn't say it when she clearly did is not going to help; it is going to make things worse.
In the statement, "I hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnÂ’t lived that life," what does "better" modify? Does she say that a wise Latina woman is faster, stronger, smarter, or better looking than a white male? No, she's saying that she "hopes" that a wise Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a white guy who hasn't had the benefit of her experience. It's not at all the same as a person saying "Hispanic women are better than white males", the statement whose accuracy you were asking about.
Once again, "Hispanic women > white males" != "I hope a Hispanic woman reaches a better conclusion than a white male." People reach better conclusions than other people all the time. Sometimes my wife reached a better conclusion than me. Sometimes I reach a better conclusion than her. That doesn't mean that either on of us are better than the other. I simply don't understand how anyone could get "Hispanic women > white males" out of Sotomayor's statement, and I'll stand by my position that she did not say "Hispanic women > white males." There's no way you can fairly parse her statement and get "Hispanic women > white males" out of it.
I didn't ask if she said Hispanic women > white males. I asked if it was a correct quote, which it was.
My point is that it was the experience that was the bettering factor and not the race and that the statement provides fodder for the opposition.
Anyway, I personally don't have much of a problem with what she said. Just a little twitch in my head that goes, "oooh, that's going to be fun to deal with in the media." Well-educated people who can look at accusations like this and get the full story are not my worry. I understand her position.
The general population is probably not going to analyze what she said and weigh her wording against her intent. They are going to look at what she said and see that when comparing an experienced woman to an inexperienced man, she felt the need to stipulate that the man was white. Or, if they don't look into it at all, they're going to get Latina woman > white man.
I didn't ask if she said Hispanic women > white males. I asked if it was a correct quote, which it was.
Please forgive me for belaboring the point, but you certainly did ask whether she said Hispanic women > white males. These are direct quotes from earlier:
The 'Hispanic women better than white males' line?
Psst, your racism is showing again.
Actually, I was a little disturbed by that as well. Is that a correct quote of her? Because if it is...
Okay. Look at what you asked. You asked, "Is that a correct quote of her?" You didn't modify that question any further, so I hope I may be forgiven for thinking that you meant by your question that you wanted to know if "The 'Hispanic women better than white males' line" was a correct quote. That must have been what you meant because you included the quote from Steve.
I asked if it was a correct quote, which it was.
It's not. There's no way you can parse her statement to mean that "Hispanic women > white males", and that was exactly the statement anyone would think you were referring to when you asked if the statement was a correct quote.
Joe, I was talking about the actual quote, not Tick's paraphrase.Tick was talking about a specific thing she said, and I was talking about that same thing. We were both referring to the actual quote. I can see that it was a misunderstanding of my meaning. Since Tick put apostrophes around his words instead of quotation marks, I didn't take it as a direct quote.
Semantics, people. The point here is that Obama sucks for appointing racist justices that probably also eat kittens to the Supreme Court. Also, he's a socialist.
Semantics, people. The point here is that Obama sucks for appointing racist justices that probably also eat kittens to the Supreme Court. Also, he's a socialist.
Fo' shizzle? I guess someone needs to go and fix his wikipedia entry?
Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (May 24, 1870–July 9, 1938) was a well-known American lawyer and Supreme Court Justice. The first Supreme Court Justice of Portuguese descent, Cardozo is remembered for his significant influence on the development of American common law in the 20th century, in addition to his modesty, philosophy, and vivid prose style. Although Cardozo served on the Supreme Court from 1932 until his death, the majority of his landmark decisions were delivered during his 18-year tenure on the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of that state. By some definitions Cardozo could be considered the first Supreme Court Justice of Hispanic descent.[1]
Fo' shizzle? I guess someone needs to go and fix hiswikipedia entry?
I guess so.
Still more recently, the term is used to describe the culture and people of countries formerly ruled by Spain.
Portugal =/= Spain.
Furthermore,
Hispanic and Latino Americans are Americans of origins in Hispanic countries of Latin America or in Spain,[2][3][4][5] except in the state of New York, where only people of Latin American origin are included.
Fo' shizzle? I guess someone needs to go and fix hiswikipedia entry?
Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (May 24, 1870July 9, 1938) was a well-known American lawyer and Supreme Court Justice. The first Supreme Court Justice ofPortuguesedescent, Cardozo is remembered for his significant influence on the development of American common law in the 20th century, in addition to his modesty, philosophy, and vivid prose style. Although Cardozo served on the Supreme Court from 1932 until his death, the majority of his landmark decisions were delivered during his 18-year tenure on the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of that state. By some definitions Cardozo could be considered the first Supreme Court Justice of Hispanic descent.[1]
That's interesting. I checked the Wikipedia entry and it doesn't have the phrase that you no doubt inserted. I guess someone has indeed fixed it.
Did I say you edited Wikipedia? I said you altered a wikipedia entry, which is exactly what you did when you put this quote on the board. Oh, and . . . I don't think that you'd be limited to having "Steve" or "Tick" as a username on Wikipedia.
Fo' shizzle? I guess someone needs to go and fix hiswikipedia entry?
Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (May 24, 1870–July 9, 1938) was a well-known American lawyer and Supreme Court Justice. The first Supreme Court Justice ofPortuguesedescent, Cardozo is remembered for his significant influence on the development of American common law in the 20th century, in addition to his modesty, philosophy, and vivid prose style. Although Cardozo served on the Supreme Court from 1932 until his death, the majority of his landmark decisions were delivered during his 18-year tenure on the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of that state. By some definitions Cardozo could be considered the first Supreme Court Justice of Hispanic descent.[1]
That's not what the real Wikipedia says. Now, it makes no difference to me at all now whether Cardozo came from Portugal or whether you altered the quote on Wikipedia itself or when you placed the quote on this board because I can draw a conclusion from your most recent shenanigans.
Observation 1: You altered the quote. Observation 2: This is the third piece of proof that you are a dishonest piece of shit. Conclusion: You are a dishonest piece of shit.
Comments
So, how does the Obama SCOTUS pick stack up?
Ricci v. DeStefano?
The 'court makes policy' line?
The 'Hispanic women better than white males' line?
I think she used a poor choice of words. Her saying a Hispanic woman with her background could make a "better" decision than a white male was racist and/or sexist. If she had said different, or differently-informed, instead of "better", that would have been fine with me.
The concept that one race or gender can make a decision better than another is racist or sexist independent of whether it is for or against the minority. How could you possibly say that a white man is not allowed to say he is better than a Hispanic woman, but that the exact opposite is fine? If she had been a white male and had made the opposite statement, people would have been all pissed off. Because she's a minority, she gets to say stuff like "I'm better than a white male" and get away with it. That's Bullshit.
I'm not saying she's a bad choice, and if she didn't actually say that, then the point is moot. Basing your judgment of someone's fitness for a position based on one sentence is probably not a good idea if you have a wealth of actions to draw from. If her decisions and actions have consistently shown her to be fair when interpreting the law, I would not hold the racist/sexist comment against her. People choose words all the time that do not represent them with complete accuracy.
As for Cordozo. He was Portugeuse not Hispanic.
It is, however, very poorly worded.
EDIT: I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate the phrase "reverse racism." Racism is racism no matter who's doing it.
Joe, you linked to an article that says she DID say it. Putting the quote in context does not change the fact that the quote is accurate. In this case, it was not a matter of context. I understand what she was trying to convey. The context and intent of the speech was not what I was asking for. The fact is that she did say that she would hope that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Why did she even need to bring race into it? She could have just said "than a male." The question wasn't even about race...it was about gender. Wise old man vs wise old woman. Instead, she added "a white male." I understand she added "Latina" to make it personally relevant, but the "white" comment was unnecessary.
I am not calling her a racist. I am saying that that statement has racist elements that were not necessary to prove her point, and I can understand why it disturbs people. She could have easily said something other than "better" that would have been more accurate. "More informed" comes to mind. No one argues that someone with more experience is probably more informed than someone with less experience. She could have left out "white" entirely and not sacrificed anything. I also said it's dumb to base your decision of someone's beliefs and life on one single statement. All of that doesn't change the fact that her statement was poorly-worded and she should have shown better judgment. However, it doesn't bother me enough to have a problem with her nomination.
I'm not arguing that she shouldn't be a Justice because she is a racist, or even that she is a racist. I am simply presenting information and criticism.
Pete is correct in his analysis of the statement.
Denying and making fun of the opposite view are the tactics of the Republican party that we have been abhorring. If we are to keep from being hypocrites, we really should acknowledge and address people's concerns instead of denying them without a thorough explanation. Simply saying "she didn't" is technically a lie and doesn't include an explanation.
Once again, "Hispanic women > white males" != "I hope a Hispanic woman reaches a better conclusion than a white male." People reach better conclusions than other people all the time. Sometimes my wife reached a better conclusion than me. Sometimes I reach a better conclusion than her. That doesn't mean that either on of us are better than the other. I simply don't understand how anyone could get "Hispanic women > white males" out of Sotomayor's statement, and I'll stand by my position that she did not say "Hispanic women > white males." There's no way you can fairly parse her statement and get "Hispanic women > white males" out of it.
My point is that it was the experience that was the bettering factor and not the race and that the statement provides fodder for the opposition.
Anyway, I personally don't have much of a problem with what she said. Just a little twitch in my head that goes, "oooh, that's going to be fun to deal with in the media." Well-educated people who can look at accusations like this and get the full story are not my worry. I understand her position.
The general population is probably not going to analyze what she said and weigh her wording against her intent. They are going to look at what she said and see that when comparing an experienced woman to an inexperienced man, she felt the need to stipulate that the man was white. Or, if they don't look into it at all, they're going to get Latina woman > white man.
Furthermore,
This isn't the first time you've showed your character for dishonesty. If you've sunk to altering WIkipedia to support yourself, maybe you need to get a new hobby.
Observation 1: You altered the quote.
Observation 2: This is the third piece of proof that you are a dishonest piece of shit.
Conclusion: You are a dishonest piece of shit.
Here is where it was removed
It makes me giggle.