The Sotomayor hearings are pretty painful to watch, and should put to the side any belief that we are in a post-racial space. Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.Whoa.
It seems the question of whether Sotomayor's experience adds value, verse whether it impacts her ability to be objective in her rulings is at the core of the questioning, which is almost a pre-multiculturalism line of questioning that only a Republican would concern themselves with them. At least Democrats are up to the multi-kulti frame, where the more diverse we are, the better things are. It is not perfect, but it is better than the belief that white men are objective and everyone else is holding to much baggage to do their work.
Like I said, not atypical. See, Michelle Malkin, "Day Two: Sotomayor and Ritual Reassurances."
And breaking at CNN, "Sotomayor Calls 'Wise Latina' Remark a Bad Choice of Words."
**********
UPDATE: Instalanche!
5 comments:
Don't they realize SHE was the one who claimed -- half a dozen times -- that her background made her more able to render the "wise" decision?
Is this really that big a deal? Sotomayor was talking in the context of discrimination cases, and how the experience of being a Latina woman might help inform a decision well. It would similar to a statement, that a wise old former fighter pilot, with his experiences of being in combat, leading men, and facing enemy fire, would more likely make the correct decision about sending troops into battle than a community organizer who did not have that experience.
umbrelladoc:
Yes it is a big deal and it shows in the Ricci case. The wise Latina decided that she knew best and since there were no blacks (and only one Hispanic) the test should be throw out - no big deal. New Haven went a to a lot of effort to make the test race fair, did not like the results and not wanting to be sued by Blacks and Hispanics said out it goes. She said thats okay and to pour salt into the wound did not even bother to expalin why it was okay.
It is not similar to a wise fighter pilot because in that case he is trying Not to get you killed whereas she is saying as long as you have the right quota it doesn't matter.
Very disheartening, what I heard of her statements. A caller to Hannity said she went to school with Sotomayor and that her brilliance was evident then. I'm not seeing or hearing any evidence of it. The woman cannot even speak articulately. If this is our new standard for the Supremes, we're up a creek.
Why don't the leftists quote Sotomayor's explicit rejection of objectivity:
"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 ... 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 ... I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Post a Comment