- #71
seycyrus
Ivan Seeking said:
I repeated sot's comment and replaced "latina" with "asian" and "white" with "african".
Ivan Seeking said:I have no idea what you are talking about. It sounded racist and I asked you to explain, so please do.
Ivan Seeking said:No, you didn't. You said that only blacks would not see it as racist.
seycyrus said:Excuse me? Look at the wording of the two statements. There's almost a one to one correspondence except for the words describing race/gender.
She spoke at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." The symposium was co-hosted by the La Raza Law Journal, the Berkeley La Raza Law Students Association, the Boalt Hall Center for Social Justice, and the Center for Latino Policy Research.
Ivan Seeking said:You are taking her words out of context and then using your own language. One has nothing to do with the other.
turbo-1 said:Anybody who wants to bash Judge Sotomayor as racist is invited
The remark was made in the context of a symposium that was dedicated to examining the representation of Hispanic people in the court system. Taken out of that context, the right characterizes it as a "racist" remark. What is so remarkable about the thought that the daughter of recent immigrants who was brought up in poverty might have a richer set of experiences to draw on than other judges who grew up in a life of privilege or at least with no overt racism directed at them?seycyrus said:Again, I have not said she is a racist. I said it was a racist remark. A remark that would not be tolerated if the racial identities were switched.
Yes, she could have stated it more generically, but why would she need to? I have to cut her some slack for the fact that her speech was on this topic "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."seycyrus said:You are once again avoiding my argument.
The statement is racist.
Her race has nothing to do with those issues rather it is her experiences that matter. Not all latinas have been subject to the same amount of discrimintation, and not all white males have avoided all discrimination. Her statements are stereotypical and assume facts not in evidence.
She could have simply said that an individual that has experienced racism and oppression would hopefeully be able to make better judgements on those issue than a person who has not experienced such things. She did not, she brought race into it.
turbo-1 said:... What is so remarkable about the thought that the daughter of recent immigrants who was brought up in poverty might have a richer set of experiences to draw on than other judges who grew up in a life of privilege or at least with no overt racism directed at them?
Evo said:I would say it was not a racist remark against non-latinos. That is going too far. A rich white male saying that a rich white male would be better positioned to understand and represent a rich white male, is not, IMO, a racist comment.
Evo said:They haven't said anything derogatory about anyone, just stated a pretty obvious fact that living the same type of lifestyle would give you more insight into the struggles (or privileges) of such lifestyle. Likewise, her statement was not a slur against other races.
I wouldn't say it's racist, I would say that it's incorrect. Would you say the phrase "some blacks are great athletes" was a racist statement?seycyrus said:I do not think that racist comments have to be derogatory, do they? If I said that "Blacks are great athletes.", I'm not saying anything derogatory, but it seems to me that that is a racist remark."
Evo said:The fact is that pulling what she said out of context so blatantly is a really pathetic effort to discredit her.
seycyrus said:Is she pro-gun, or not? That is in itself enough of an issue for many republicans and democrats.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aJqmPBKQmpMwToday, Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, appointed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago by President Ronald Reagan, took the same hands-off as Sotomayor. They joined a 3-0 ruling that upheld weapons ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Illinois, and rejected challenges by gun rights advocates.
Evo said:I wouldn't say it's racist, I would say that it's incorrect. Would you say the phrase "some blacks are great athletes" was a racist statement?
seycyrus said:I am not trying to discredit her. I am addressing the double standard.
LowlyPion said:Your willingness to take her remarks out of context looks to be at odds with your statements.
LowlyPion said:This optional line of attack was mowed down today by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
seycyrus said:So she agrees with Chicago judges that local law trumps federal law. Is that supposed to comfort me?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/04/thernstrom.identity.politics/index.htmlSome of us thought the election of Barack Obama as president might signal a fading away of the old identity politics...
But the president himself has made identity politics front-page news with his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee...
But in the same speech, Sotomayor wondered "whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society." And, most remarkably, she stated: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
"Inherent physiological or cultural differences"? Can the president possibly believe that Latina women -- and indeed minority women in general -- are born to see questions of law in a different and better light than white men or even men of color? It's in their physiological and cultural makeup. A fact of nature. If indeed the president believes in such disturbing racial determinism, weep for our nation.
This statement clearly reflects the tragic, irrational emotional investment in an idea despite all evidence - logical, scientific, even Newt Gengrich-rejected - to the contrary that some individuals have. This is no different than the woman at the McCain rally a few months back who said "Obama is an Arab" despite all PROVEN EVIDENCE to the contrary. Even when McCain said "no" or when investigative news stories told the entire world that this statement wasn't based on FACTS there were people who continued to hold on to this idea they had become emotionally attached to...Likewise, when I read this, it sounds similar to the scientist who once said after completing an experiment which produced consistent empirical proof over and over again, "even if it is true I don't believe it".russ_watters said:Interesting commentary on CNN.com today about Sotomayor and Obama choosing her: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/04/thernstrom.identity.politics/index.html
Once upon a time, it was argued that minorities were genetically inferior to whites. Sotomayor seems to be saying that they are genetically superior to whites. It was racism to say it one way and it is racism to say it the other way to.
swat4life;2224853 So let's get to the point using the Spunge Bob Socratic method: ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE [B said:LATINOS WITH BLOND HAIR[/B]?
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE LATINAS WITH BLUE EYES ?
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE LATINAS WITH RED HAIR & GREEN EYES ?
.
russ_watters said:Once upon a time, it was argued that minorities were genetically inferior to whites. Sotomayor seems to be saying that they are genetically superior to whites.
Sotomayor never said that Hispanics are genetically superior to whites, and if you will read this link with an open mind, you will see that she was asked to speak about her experiences on the bench in light of her gender and her ethnic background and on the future of minorities and women to ascend to the bench. She repeated over and over that one cannot judge in a vacuum, and that judging requires making choices - choices that of necessity are informed by the life-experiences of the judge. Not just Latina judges - all judges. To call her remarks racist is off-the-wall. Read the address, and see how many times she spoke in generalities about how life experience can inform the decisions made by the justices.russ_watters said:Once upon a time, it was argued that minorities were genetically inferior to whites. Sotomayor seems to be saying that they are genetically superior to whites. It was racism to say it one way and it is racism to say it the other way too.
This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.
Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. 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. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.
That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives -- no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
She joined a women's club. Wow! That's really scary. "driven by resentment" is something you'll have to back up if you want to promote. You should also know that her parents were from Puerto Rico and not Cuba. Finally, you do your argument no justice by citing "acute fishy smell which is only dramatized further by the pale vile stare, and bitter look that she has about herself". You're welcome to your own opinions, but they seem to be driven by ignorance of the facts, acceptance of right-wing talking-points, and a willingness to make ad-hom attacks on a woman whom presidents from both parties seemed to consider well-qualified to put on the federal bench and promote.jreelawg said:"In 2008, Sotomayor became a member of the Belizean Grove, an invitation-only women's group modeled after the Bohemian Grove.[123]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
And not sure I am comfortable with this.
"Her appointment would give the Court a record six Roman Catholic justices serving at the same time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
So the thing that confuses me, is that she is a member of a secretive elitist society. She has been a choice of both Bushes and Clintons. Ironically however, her approach is being portrayed as emotional, driven by a resentment etc. This portrayal seams to give the illusion she is the type to protect the underdogs, the minorities, that she somehow, as a Cuban American, has a unique background that gives her some kind of superior and higher perspective. All I know is that the multitude of seaming contradictions to common sense regarding her history, and her nominations bring about an acute fishy smell which is only dramatized further by the pale vile stare, and bitter look that she has about herself. Neither her activist side, nor her elitist sides appeal to me.
I also don't get the whole Hispanic thing. Don't people know most hispanics are white.
OK, then what are YOUR views on the nominee and her record? The lady seems well-qualified and her views seem well-balanced to me. I guess I could be way wrong...jreelawg said:Those last few comments were not posted by me. I had left PF logged on, and my brother has apparently been posting while I am at work. For the record, I don't agree with his views.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/05/2009-06-05_west_side_man_charged_with_threatening_judge_sonia_sotomayor_president_obama.html#ixzz0HgIVfJLH&DWest Side man John Zaubler charged with threatening Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama
A Manhattan weirdo was busted for calling 911 and making a bizarre threat to "blow up" Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
John Zaubler, 48, was charged with making a terroristic threat against the Bronx-born appeals judge, President Obama's choice for the Supreme Court.
"I am going to kill Judge Sonia Sotomayor by blowing her up," John Zaubler screamed into the phone on May 30, cops say.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/06/2009-06-06_man_who_threatened_to_.html#ixzz0HgJXzPUo&CDaniel James Murray, 'Cape Man' who threatened to kill Obama at Utah bank, arrested at Nevada casino
Authorities arrested Daniel James Murray, the gun-loving loon from upstate New York who threatened to kill President Obama, at a Nevada casino Friday, ending a nationwide manhunt.
Federal agents were pursuing Murray, 36, after he told a Utah bank manager he was "on a mission to kill" Obama.
jreelawg said:I am a little concerned than the Supreme court will be stacked with Catholic judges. Nothing against catholics, I just wonder if the Pope will be leading the supreme court, or if the judges will?
jreelawg said:"The decision was written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as "the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Reproductive_Law_and_Policy_v._Bush