Supreme Court decides Ricci Case

What you said, Revel, is "...I think she is too radical and in her zeal to improve Mexican Americans".

What any of the rest of the tripe you posted has to do with Mexican Americans is beyond me.

Well, just substitute "Mexican Americans" with Latino Women and maybe you can get my meaning. If not, don't. Just ignore it all, no biggie to me if you or anyone else does.

BTW, I noticed I got my link thing wrong in my previous post.



Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’

Yes, I get your meaning all too well.

The point here, revel, is that you want us to take you seriously when you claim that Sotomayor is biased and radical, yet it's clear that you know so little about her that you don't even know she's Puerto Rican rather than Mexican. So don't bother posting links to all of the readings that led you to your conclusions. I'm sure we can find Free Republic just fine on our own.

Do you think that revel is as prejudiced toward mexicans as you are prejudiced in their favor?

Actually it was the NYT article and article which I posted a link to still stands on its own. Being biased in favor of your own race is just as bad as being prejudiced against others and that is what her own words from the article transcripts shown her as being imo.

You, of course, compared the statements that she made in that article with the opinions she has issued as a judge in racial and employment discrimination cases and in immigration cases, right? I mean, you wouldn't form your opinion of someone, calling them racially biased, on the basis of one article or some isolated statements, would you?

I think that Sotomayor should be confirmed without prejudice in spite of the fact that she is not Mexican (or Mexican-American for that matter).

I think this quote explains things perfectly.



This seems completely reasonable... you "apply the law", but you use your experiences and understand as a human being.

Go ahead... tell me this is racism.

I think she should be confirmed too. Everyone is prejudiced in some way.

I guess I did. I mean they are pretty strong statements which spell out quite clearly that Latino women would be much more humane in their judging than white males and if we only had more data (more Latino women judges) to back that up the proof would be out there to see. (my words) If a white male said something similar there would have been no end to the charges made about what a racist he was for having said such a thing. We (as in liberals) can't say only whites and specifically white males can be biased or racist. I don't think she is racist, just biased in favor of her own race and gender based on her own statements which she gave in a lecture. I am assuming she meant what she said and the context is there in full for anyone to read. It is one thing to say because of my experience I feel I can bring an added dimension to my judging and quite another to say that by and large Latino women would make more humane judges faster and more often. People do have their own experiences and backgrounds which form their philosophies and I imagine judges do as well, but anyway, like I said the article is there.

Anyway, you and ebrown and anyone else can and will form your own opinions of her with or without my permission (said in a joking way at my own expense) and you might be right, nevertheless, my opinion of her remains the same based just on that one article regardless of any cases she judged on or anything else. I think it is enough as it speaks to her character.

As indeed your post speaks to yours.

No it is not racism, but it is racism when you think only your own is more likely to judge a case more humanly more often and in quicker time because you have ancestors who were immigrants verses someone else who does not have recent ancestors who were immigrants.

It is funny when no one complained when Samuel Alito made that quote. And that is the hypocrisy... in fact "Latino women" are judged more harshly than white men.

ebrown I am not sure of which quote you are speaking of concerning Alito. If he made a similar remark, then, I feel he would be just as biased as Sotomayor in regards to the debate of whether minorities make more humane judges in civil cases because of their experiences or their ancestors experiences verses a judge who is not a minority nor has any ancestors who were/are immigrants and have experienced civil rights issues.

I am sure Latinos and other minorities have experienced are judged more harshly than white men. However, you miss the concept of what she was speaking about in her lecture. She was saying that because she and other minorities either experienced or have had relatives or ancestors experienced racial or civil rights issues, if they were judges, they would make more humane judging decisions than a judge who is not a minority or have/had relatives who are/were minorities. I merely disagree with that concept on the face of it and that was my point all along. People react differently even if they experience the same experiences. Merely because a person might come from a white elite neighborhood does not mean they would judge more harshly than if someone came from a minority neighborhood. It all depend on the personality of the person involved and how they would react given the same circumstances.

Revel,

I think this whole issue is a smoke screen for the fact that many Americans don't view Hispanics as true loyal Americans. This is why I cringe at attacks on NCLR and the fact people are combing through Justice Sotomayors record looking for clues of disloyalty in a way that white male justices don't have to face.

The quote everyone is obsessing over is, in context, is about the need for diversity. The idea is that if the court was overwhelmingly dominated by Hispanic women... than I would absolutely think that the unique perspective on a white male should be represented and would be especially valuable.

Justice Ginsburg talks about how her experience as a woman influences her work as a justice. She, as well as many men, talk about how having a woman on the court is a very important, and positive, thing.

Do you have the same issue with women on the court who openly express the importance of a woman's perspective-- or are Hispanics somehow scarier than women?

(For the record, Justice Ginsburg is quite supportive of Sotomayors nomination).

ebrown p wrote:

That is false.
We don t think that.





David

What I have issue with is Sotomayers seems to feel that minorities are more often likely to judge more favorably in civil rights issues than white males because of their experiences as minorities. (How many ways and times do I have repeat the same?) The rest of your post in not relevant or even true to my point. Read the transcript to her lecture and that is the premise of her entire speech.

I am skeptical Revel.

Do you take the same issue with the fact that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg feels (and states) that women are more often likely to judge more favorably in woman's issues because of their experiences as women?

I don't think you are being consistent (or am I wrong about your position on the importance of having women on the court).

Sonia Sotomayor Doesn't Care About White People