Sotomayor Critics Ignore New York & Wichita

OK, let's get this right: Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is making the rounds of the Capitol this week and some jackasses are still saying she has to explain her "wise Latina" comment?

In a 2001 speech Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

It's been a week that the quote has been out there and, for just as long, the question's been waiting to be answered: A better conclusion about what subject?

Does Sotomayor believe that Latina judges are ipso facto smarter? That's what her right-wing critics want her much-mangled quote to mean. But smarter about what? The price of beans? The weather? What two and two add up to?

Not exactly. While the money-media have spent the week making the comment "controversial" (and then calling it that), the non-profit media watch group FAIR (where I once worked)  looked at the transcript and they report (drum-roll):

"The topic under discussion was race and gender discrimination. Talking about judging such cases- Sotomayor argued that the experience of facing discrimination might lead to a better decision about discrimination and she pointed out: 'Let us not forget that until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.'

On the moon maybe it's different – or in the privacy of your kitchen -- but out here in the actual, lived USA – white males have been the norm (originally white, not-Irish or Italian or German-males). All "others" have had a different experience. A different experience – not of snow or rain or the price of beans – but of discrimination.

In a week that saw the killing of an off duty police officer by an another police officer in New York, and the killing of a women's doctor in Wichita, it's hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would disagree with Sotomayor. 

The New York shooter took the victim for a criminal at least in part because the victim was a black man.

The assassination of the country's eighth abortion provider brought out of the margins and into the media the reality that women seeking legal care and the people who look after them are still, after decades, subject to the kind of daily harassment, vandalism and threats that no corporate CEO would tolerate for a weekend. Women's lives are not the same.

In a week like this, it's hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would argue that to mention difference in America is to be racist -- or that to have experienced discrimination might make one smarter about it. But what am I saying? All those "right" minds are the problem. Right minds would rather that we pretend we're all already equal, because then we'll stop working to make it that way. 

Jackasses.

The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, public television and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com.

Comments (31)

1. I really wouldn't get so upset, Ms Flanders.

   As of yesterday, one of Sotomayor's harshest critics just raised the white flag, as NEWT GINGRICH started backing away from his previous "racist" charges...leaving Limbaugh and the dispirited GOP base hanging out to dry by themselves.

   A coalition of conservative groups issued a demand in the NY Times for Senate Repubs to filibuster Sotomayor...and JEFF SESSIONS told them no.

   They're so busy destroying themselves, they have little time for her....LOL

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 09:22am

2. Is it surprising at all though? Remember all the righties claiming that Obama was a racist based off some out of context quotes from one his books. They know calls and accusations of racism against a person of color will rally their base. It is cheap and panders to the filth that make up the base 30% (or is it 15%?) of the republican party. Remember the republican party is all about FEAR. It is the darkside of force, powerful but evil.

   Posted by Extraneous at 06/04/2009 @ 11:16am

3. Deep down inside, my wise inner Latina knows she is going to be on nominated to the Supreme Court.

   Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:56am

4. i urge everyone to peruse her ruling on the pappas case. that should destroy the idea that she puts identity politics in front of the law.

   Posted by darladoon at 06/04/2009 @ 12:59pm

5. EXTRA

   lol..Well i can see that you living up to the rhetoric of your esteemed POTUS.

   Its funny if not sad that you can ignore the hate killing of an ANTI-war extremist of a SOLIDIER in Arkansas, but Tiller, who was one of THREE doctors performing this procedure on very LATE term pregnancies, you might want to ask why he was only one of three in the country, Tiller is lionized.

   BTW Tiller made millions and was a generous contributor to DEMS, while his killing was tragic and unnecessary, his beatification, is equally unnnecessary and undeserved.

   Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 1:31pm

6. Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 1:31pm

   CPT trying to CAREFULLY thread the needle with

   "I'm not saying killing of Tiller was good...but he wasn't a good person...which of course doesn't mean he deserved it...but he wasn't that nice....but that doesn't mean I want him dead....but he contributed to DEMS...not that that's something evil or means deserving of death....but don't tell us how great he was....even though I'm not saying he should have been killed....but he WASN'T that wonderful a person....but that's all I'm saying!"

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 1:48pm

7. Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 1:31pm

   What are you ranting about. Your post makes no sense and is out of context.

   I ignore a lot of killings, basically out of ingorance of their occurance. However, I do pay attention to the ones that are in the news. Sorry if the corporate media did not cover the killing in Arkansas.

   Posted by Extraneous at 06/04/2009 @ 2:18pm

8. Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 1:31pm

   But isn't this thread about Sotomayor?

   Posted by Extraneous at 06/04/2009 @ 2:27pm

9. In fairness to CPT...

   Ms Flanders DID mention the Tiller killing.

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 3:00pm

10. As far as Sotomayor...her statement about the wise latina was even refuted by the POTUS...so why is the nation still trying to defend a very poorly worded and racist statement?

    She probably isnt a racist...but her statement WAS, that is a simpel fact, even with the context.

    She will probably be confirmed though nonetheless

    Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 3:02pm

11. Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 3:02pm

    Then why did even Newt Gingrich walk-back that charge, CPT?

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 3:09pm

12. In a week like this, it's hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would argue that to mention difference in America is to be racist -- or that to have experienced discrimination might make one smarter about it. But what am I saying? All those "right" minds are the problem. Right minds would rather that we pretend we're all already equal, because then we'll stop working to make it that way.

    Jackasses.

    Ms Flanders,

    Now that you showed the kind of character that constitutes a "superior leftist" (ie, juvenile name calling), how about addressing the real issue?

    What does Ms Sotomayor's ethnic and gender have to do with deciding constitutionality?

    We aren't talking about some lower court judge trying to exercise the wisdom of Solomon confronting to maternal claims. We are talking about Justices of the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of issues.

    Your outrage and your conclusions are found lacking any sense. They are just the usual emotional reactions of a leftist who despises law for feelings. And I say that as someone who watches you daily on Grit TV, from which I draw my conclusions about your reasoning.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 4:48pm

13. @LVL - Judges judge the law. Law is about justice, not mere Constitutionality. Easier to judge justice if you have experienced injustice.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 5:10pm

14. @LVL - Judges judge the law. Law is about justice, not mere Constitutionality. Easier to judge justice if you have experienced injustice.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 5:10pm

    As I said, if you are talking about lower courts, you are correct. But not a the Supreme Court level.

    Article III

    <The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; -- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; -- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; -- to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; -- to Controversies between two or more States; -- between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; -- between Citizens of different States; -- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    So the Supreme Court is to rule on whether laws are applied in a manner consistent with the Constitution and that they are applied equally.

    From the Supreme Court website:

    <EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"--These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.>

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 5:25pm

15. @LVL - "...or the laws of the United States." Look at the slip opinions for 2008 and talk about how many are truly "Constitutional" issues.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 5:44pm

16. @LVL - "...or the laws of the United States." Look at the slip opinions for 2008 and talk about how many are truly "Constitutional" issues.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 5:44pm

    It is whether a law is constitutional.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 6:11pm

17. @LVL - You may believe it. It's not true. Less than half specifically deal with Constitutional interpretation.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 6:51pm

18. MASK

    He did not back off the statement....that her STATEMENT was racist....but rather his characterization of HER as a RACIST...see the difference.

    Come on now..try and keep up...you used to be better if remember correctly

    Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 7:26pm

19. CPT-How could her statement be racist when she said Latina woman as opposed to a white male?That includes gender and only mentions some members of two races.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/04/2009 @ 7:39pm

20. CPT-She,only,mentions some members of two races in one occupation.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/04/2009 @ 7:41pm

21. Sotomayor is racially "biased" and her decision on the firefighters fully supports the "New Racism" of leftist called reverse discrimination and quotas!

    That much is at least clear as is her 60% ratio of REVERSAL by the SCOTUS to date!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/05/2009 @ 12:56am

22. Laura Flanders is an expert on Jackasses (and perhaps being one) !

    Why don't you mention that the quoted 2001 speech has been a repetitious thing coming out of Sotomayors mouth from numerous speeches dated from 1994 to 2003 which was only the LAST time we have the same words coming out of her mouth??? Can you say "habitual" offender?

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/05/2009 @ 01:22am

23. Gee, you brought more crazies out than the usual Nation gang, Laura. Good job! Someday we'll take back the Comment section, I promise and can't wait.

    Posted by coolwater at 06/05/2009 @ 01:32am

24. Nosoto, Am

    The U.S. Supreme Court must not be packed with a 2/3 majority of Catholics.

    Without disparaging the religion, one is obliged to note that framers of the U.S. constitution did not share, in fact opposed, its theological assumptions that the Pope of Rome is Vicar of Christ on earth. For those holding this belief, the words "father" and "family" communicate shared, non-secular inner connotations, passing over to assumptions about the origins and meaning of law itself.

    The intricate and profound way religious background can interact with interpretation and application of positive law (as under the constitution) is illustrated by the case of Robert Phillip Hansson. He was noted for holding that "the law" he, as FBI agent of 25 years,. was dedicated to enforcing, derived its authority from "God". He was also an Opus Dei Catholic, a member of the same church as Antonin Scalia and Louis Freeh (also Opus Dei), who was caught red handed passing highly classified information to the Soviet Union. If his belief that law proceeds from God was sincere, this, his Catholicism, could be precisely the psychological cover that allowed him to be a betrayer; perhaps a Vatican triple-agent. This raises questions of deep latency of possible corrupting influence.

    The role played by John F Kennedy's Catholicism in bringing about the Vietnam war has not been properly appreciated (cf. Avro Manhattan). The 10,00+ troops he sent, which began the US involvement, was to support the Catholic regime of the Diems against the more numerous Buddhists. It was a power grab after the French left. "The Dark Side", that is to say, in Jungian terms, the psychic Shadow of America's "containing communism" rhetoric, split off from the official narrative,

    Posted by jones at 06/05/2009 @ 08:15am

25. ..., running like a stream of unconscious group-life underneath the surface of p.1

    Two fundamental fantasy threads emerge in this stream: Father guilt, constellated by Kennedy's assassination is one. The other is archetypal constellation of The Feminine (the Psyche herself). These two: Father guilt arises from "old men sending young ones to die in wars". In Vietnam the psychological sin of the Fathers consisted in breaking the unwritten code that those above do not send those below into battle they would not personally join. These same Fathers, pushing the young males to openly rebel against the false authority, also get punched from the other side, as it were, by Betty Friedan, first, then by many more, from Gloria Steinham to Mary Daly. To top off this one-two punch, the American Male unconscious group-fantasy itself split. Gayness descended on the concept of The Manly Man. John Mark Karr and Glenn Beck will soon materialize.

    This is a lot of tool previously available to support male psychological identify for guys to lose all at once. It had a shattering effect on males and fatherhood, the playing out of effects of which has given us Obama. And now a Supreme Court packed with 6 of 9 Chief Justices Catholic, the last a woman.

    Screw Nation magazine anymore. Let 'em eat Sotomayor. The Nation it represents is not America

    Posted by jones at 06/05/2009 @ 08:21am

26. They just lost...LIMBAUGH. See Ari Melber's latest.

    Now what, Larry, RIO, et al?

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:47am

27. They just lost...LIMBAUGH. See Ari Melber's latest.

    Now what, Larry, RIO, et al?

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:47am

    ????

    Perhaps you don't recall or didn't save my initial post on Sotomayor?

    <It will surprise no one at the Nation that most conservatives will not be happy with Ms Sotomayor on the Supreme Court; and I count myself among that number.

    That said, I am consistent in my view of presidential nominations. Back during Alito and Roberts, I said that presidents deserve to have their nominees confirmed unless there is evidence of judicial malfeasance.

    Thus, I believe Obama deserves to have this regrettable choice confirmed (and she most likely will be).

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 11:23am>

    http://tinyurl.com/q7ry5q

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 11:51am

28. Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 11:51am

    You're right. I apologize.

    You DO have a consistant view on that...that's she's terrible, but Obama deserves who he wants.

    I'm sorry.

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 12:29pm

29. I fully agree that there should not be a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court judicial panel. I think its important to have someone speak for the Gays...therefore we need a gay judge who can interpret the constitution.

    I also think we need a Judge that is totally into pedophilia and bestiality, this way we'll know in our hearts that there is someone on the panel who interprets the constitution from that perspective.

    Then we'll need an adopted Black Irish Atheist of Jewish decent, raised as a latchkey kid and beaten by his/her host family so they'll be able to relate best as to how to interpret our Great Nations' constitution from that perspective.

    Then...THEN we can have a feminist but anti gay judge who suffered multiple limb trauma, whose gone though the Canadian Health Care System and make them in charge of processing the quite unfortunate yet fair assessment of the Guantanamo detainees.

    Oh wait...one more judicial nominee...a complete revolving door drug addict, who used to be a priest but due to dabbling in pedophilia, was relocated to the Supreme Court highest position in the Nation.

    Man, @bigpasture you are awesome, thats the same thing I thought when I read this super lame article from this 'chick'. What a whackjob for her to omit all the other times Sotomayor said the exact same thing but now says she'll stop...ROIT.

    Lastly, @ jones...you must work at a coffeehouse and are single without kids. Shameful thinking.

    I wonder if the same attention is being paid to the Muslim dude who shot the two military recruiters and whether or not he has connections to terrorists as is paid by this Godforsaken sick @ss media that only seems to care about the abortion doctor who was shot because he performed late term abortions? Probably not. Where did that story go?

    Posted by thericker at 06/09/2009 @ 2:42pm

30. lastly...there seems to be this big brewhaha about Catholics making mistakes and therefore God is not good. you know guys...and girls...friends, we're all friends right?...These idiots do it to themselves. The Church is not God but god is in the Church and SHAME on anyone committing these crimes and SHAME on Mahoney but Christ would never EVER sanction killings. Dont any of you get it?or are we just so angry that it clouds our thinking. Man is a joke, man is not perfect and just because they are in church or go to church or are a part of church does not make them any less susceptible to stupid @ss acts of lameness that should be punished by the law. Its a shame whats become of the Catholic Church but Christ is not the one to blame, Christ died for us. We killed him....its pretty obvious to me that we are the ones to blame...ourselves and our actions are the only actions to be blamed. When is everyone going to get their heads out of their asses and make this singular confession? We are responsible for our own actions and face punishment of our own actions under the Law. Dont believe in the Law?...please name a country that operates as healthy as the US without Law....and don't give me some lame aboriginal reference where 1 tribe lives a thousand years because they hate God and have no law.

    Posted by thericker at 06/09/2009 @ 2:51pm

31. p.s. stop being so apologetic for your views too...its okay to be who you are.

    Posted by thericker at 06/09/2009 @ 2:53pm