May 28th, 2009
06:19 PM ET
9 years ago

In her own words: Sotomayor 2001 'Latina' speech

Sonia Sotomayor spoke to the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 2001.

Sonia Sotomayor spoke to the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 2001.

(CNN) - Since President Obama named Sonia Sotomayor Tuesday as his pick for the Supreme Court, much attention has been given to a 2001 speech the federal appeals court judge gave at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

One line in particular from that address has sparked sharp reactions from critics: "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."

The following is a complete text of the speech, which was delivered on October 26, 2001, at a legal symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." The event was co-sponsored 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. The speech, "A Latina Judge's Voice," was also published in the La Raza Law Journal in 2002.

(Complete text of speech after the jump)

Judge Reynoso, thank you for that lovely introduction. I am humbled to be speaking behind a man who has contributed so much to the Hispanic community. I am also grateful to have such kind words said about me.

I am delighted to be here. It is nice to escape my hometown for just a little bit. It is also nice to say hello to old friends who are in the audience, to rekindle contact with old acquaintances and to make new friends among those of you in the audience. It is particularly heart warming to me to be attending a conference to which I was invited by a Latina law school friend, Rachel Moran, who is now an accomplished and widely respected legal scholar. I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.

I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture. I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture. I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow. I thank Judge Olmos' widow Mary Louise's family, her son and the judge's many friends for hosting me. And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person. If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.

I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.

Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.

Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have. They largely succeeded. For that, my brother and I are very grateful. The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the Latina that I am. The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.

For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir – rice, beans and pork – that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, - pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo - pigs' feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs' tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother's house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing lotería, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.

Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Caribbean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.

If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla – pig's intestine – to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" - a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity – is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.

I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.

As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.

Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye's initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick's appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.

Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.

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.

For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue, I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993. It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.

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. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor - I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area - Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

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. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

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 O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. 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 experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. 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.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.

Filed under: Sonia Sotomayor • Supreme Court
soundoff (158 Responses)
  1. Allan

    What a thoughtful and wise statement. The Supreme Court will be enhanced by having a jurist of her vision and elequence.

    May 28, 2009 07:05 pm at 7:05 pm |
  2. Jon in CA

    Another disturbing statement from Sotomayer,

    "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. "

    So a FACT is only a fact based on one's personal experience???

    That must have been why Sotomayer did not support the firemen who brought a reverse discrimantion suit. From Sotomayer's life experience – she's never seen discrimination against white men before therefore it could not be a "fact".

    Nominating this woman makes as much sense as putting a Tax-Cheat in charge of the Treasury Dept!!

    May 28, 2009 07:06 pm at 7:06 pm |
  3. Ian

    she shouldnt have said "better" but that quote was taken out of context. what she was meaning to say was not that bad, and actually kind of true. experience and having to fight for what you have does mean a lot, it doesnt matter if you are white or black or latino, and i think that is more what she meant, the experience of being a latino or latina is valuable in the same way that being a russian immigrant who struggled through poverty to move here is valuable

    May 28, 2009 07:08 pm at 7:08 pm |
  4. sharif

    very great woman for this country this is a plus for a new America

    May 28, 2009 07:10 pm at 7:10 pm |
  5. David

    Doesn't she seem a LITTLE tribalistic?

    May 28, 2009 07:10 pm at 7:10 pm |
  6. Evan

    "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."

    So as a white male – I need a white male judge to understand the life I have lived. Otherwise if I have a Latina, they couldn't understand the life I have lived.

    So as an Asian transgender – I need an Asian transgender judge to understand the life I have lived. Otherwise if I have a Asian, non-transgendered judge, they couldn't understand the life I have lived.

    And so it goes on and on...... I thought justice was supposed to be blind and about the law not about my life experiences.

    Where will it stop?

    May 28, 2009 07:13 pm at 7:13 pm |
  7. Benny from DC

    Of course she thinks a Latino female is better than a white male... she's a Latino female! Hellooooooooooo out there!

    May 28, 2009 07:13 pm at 7:13 pm |
  8. Roger from CA

    The dust-up over the "wise Latina woman" line reminds me a whole lot of the noise raised about the "cling to their guns" remark Obama made during the campaign: both are unobjectionable, even insightful, comments that were taken out of context and could not POSSIBLY have been intended to have have the absurd meaning that the attack-dog critics insisted on. No one with ANY sense would have publicly and willfully conveyed the critics' alleged message, let alone believe it.

    In this, as in Obama's, case, clearly Judge Sotmayor mangled her intended thought in its execution. It is obvious what CNN shows above is a transcription of what she said, possibly taken from a tape of the speech, rather than being her prepared text (note the several awkward asides, which she obviously ad-libbed and would not have scripted for herself). My theory is that the now-infamous "wise Latina woman" line was the result of her skipping and/or tripping over some words in her prepared text. I am very confident her point was meant to refer to having a special insight into cases touching on women and/or race; NOT meant as a blanket statement that women of color are ALWAYS better judges than white men. The remaining context of the speech supports that reading.

    All that said, I can't say that I'm thrilled with the overall "us vs. them" tone and all the strict concern with keeping score in the speech, and her ambivalence as to whether the minority judge really should even be TRYING to achieve identity -blind objectivity. It may be true that perfect objectivity may be an illusion, but it must nevertheless remain the goal in jurisprudence.

    May 28, 2009 07:14 pm at 7:14 pm |
  9. cha cha

    Sotomayor is clearly a racist. There is no other way to interpret her remarks. Her remarks are vile and reprehensible. She should step aside.

    May 28, 2009 07:14 pm at 7:14 pm |
  10. cha cha

    I read the entire speech, twice, and she is a racist, no doubt.

    May 28, 2009 07:16 pm at 7:16 pm |
  11. cha cha

    Party Purity – thanks for agreeing that she is a racist.

    May 28, 2009 07:17 pm at 7:17 pm |
  12. Nick - Arlington, VA

    This is the fight the Dems want 🙂 Rush Limbaugh, Tom Tancredo, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Newt Gingrich – a bunch of white guys with inflammatory bigoted remarks of their own – out there calling this woman a racist. Look at the statement in its context, and it is clear the woman is not a racist.

    May 28, 2009 07:18 pm at 7:18 pm |
  13. Seyi F

    Clearly, if you manage to read to the whole speech, given the context from which the statement is taken, One can clearly see what she meant.
    Different people, different experiences.
    Now, people; please read the paragraph first before you start spitting your baseless hate.

    May 28, 2009 07:18 pm at 7:18 pm |
  14. Jeff Spangler, Arlington, VA

    If, as Her Honor has said, appellate Judges and Justices make policy, and if she believes that Latinas are more likely than not to reach a "better" decision on some cases in view of their cultural and sexual "experience", then there is a rational basis for voting against her as culturally and sexually biased and lacking in objective judicial temperament. I don't expect either the Judge or the President to address this issue head-on because I don't think there is any way to weasel out of a facially discriminatory statement.

    May 28, 2009 07:18 pm at 7:18 pm |
  15. Bruce

    To LDAP – a pathetic posting, there's your response LOL

    May 28, 2009 07:20 pm at 7:20 pm |
  16. Peter (CA)

    Liberal Democrats@6:35

    I'm going to respond by saying your rant shows clearly where the hate comes from. Blame the left all you want and whine about what is happening in the world. But, you give absolutely no evidence or facts to back up your claim. Hate can be bipartisan as can racism.

    But, when you throw out such ridiculous absolutes, you render your opinions meaningless.

    May 28, 2009 07:20 pm at 7:20 pm |
  17. Raze der Templar

    1. Taken out of context, it sounds bad.

    2. Taken in context, maybe it's true. It's her opinion and it is in no way racist(my opinion), but seems like more of a realistic respect for her own culture.

    A white collar ivy league boy may not have as much experience with real social issues as a latino that grew up poor and saw it all first hand, especially the empathy that is necessary for a judge to have, as well as the rich culture that is given to them – as opposed to the skull and bones black tie robo-lawyers that come out of places like where the gentleman she's referring to came from that are anything but diverse...Isn't this what we want? An accurate representation of our citizens? Because that is what I thought it was supposed to be, even though it hasn't been for so long.

    Stop berading her over these non-issues. She's allowed to have pride in her culture.

    May 28, 2009 07:21 pm at 7:21 pm |
  18. Otto

    Fun reading the racist repukes calling other people racist. For more than 200 years the racist "white men" ruled and they cared less about women, minorities or people from other countries. Just listen to the racist fools who think they are God's only creation.

    The shoe is on the other foot and it's about time. This is not to say all "white people are racist; I know many who are real, Godly, tolerant and far from the bible Christian haters who would rather shoot an innocent person or send young people to their death, than have one ounce of tolerance.

    May 28, 2009 07:24 pm at 7:24 pm |
  19. No Hillary = No Obama

    Oh lay off – this woman has earned her place in history, unlike the person who nominated her.

    May 28, 2009 07:26 pm at 7:26 pm |
  20. Liberal Democrats are Pathetic

    @Peter (CA)

    You deny that democrats are being racist? You must be a liberal blinded to the truth. As usual, you are pathetic. You don't hurt my feelings either by calling names. So somene else prove my point that the left is full of hate. Peter has proven perfectly.

    May 28, 2009 07:28 pm at 7:28 pm |
  21. Ren from Baltimore

    Just look at the context, idiots. There was NOTHING WRONG with her excellent speech.

    There is nothing wrong at all with having someone this smart on the bench. Let the snipes save it up for something where they at least have an ounce of perception on their side; this is a done deal, folks.

    Finally, more equal representation for the SCOTUS, to all our benefits.

    May 28, 2009 07:29 pm at 7:29 pm |
  22. Jimmy the Greek

    @ Evan,


    Imagine how much judicial travesty has been caused by Judges "not seeing facts" or simply not being the same gender/color as the criminal in court!

    If the Judge's color and gender did not match that of the criminal – then by Sotomayer's reasoning – the best conclusion was not reached.

    And what about the "jury of my peers"?? Should a black woman not get an ALL black female jury?? How could a white man sitting on the jury "understand" or "see the facts" of a black female defendent??

    OPEN UP THE PRISONS!! We must retry everyone with a "proper" jury and jurist.

    May 28, 2009 07:30 pm at 7:30 pm |
  23. Olumadunwa

    Replublicans are never going to stop creating unnecessary commotions. They are so good at isolating quotations and invariably quoting people out of context. What the woman said was and I will paste the full paragraph:

    "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 O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. 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 experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

    The whole paragraph has to be read as a whole to keep its meaning intact and not create a distorted message. Maybe Republicans need to get some education, except if they are just feigning ignorance. Good luck with that one...

    May 28, 2009 07:34 pm at 7:34 pm |
  24. annie for Palin

    She'll do great with obama – just another racist.

    May 28, 2009 07:35 pm at 7:35 pm |
  25. Jacob

    To: Angry White Heterosexual Man

    Look man you don't get it. I am a white guy too, but what white people don't understand is that the reason we don't have national white day and white clubs is because everything has already been designed to suit us. There was a time(when i was a teenager)that I had similar feelings as you do. What changed me was a little worldly education. I think that is what is missing in America, not enough people get it that America has been designed for the white man. In the eyes of minorities, every day is random white guy day because everyday for them is belittled minority, and in a sense they are right. America is predominantly white, so by all accounts white people get a hand up by white people. All races do it and that's all she was pointing out is that for her sex, gender, or sexual preference or whatever she will look to support her brethren. Nothing is wrong with that. If you think there is something wrong with it than it's time to look in the mirror pal because I guarantee you do it all the time.

    May 28, 2009 07:37 pm at 7:37 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7