May 28th, 2009
06:19 PM ET
8 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. Bruce

    Hey wingnuts, she is making as much of a statement about gender as she is about race here! C'mon, let some of your misogyny show! Scream about that (or tweet about like your pet Newt). We all know you have it in you!

    May 28, 2009 07:39 pm at 7:39 pm |
  2. please

    Jimmy the Greek – you should change your name to Jimmy the Idiot.

    Have you looked at her whole speech, or just what your right wing drug addict and adulterer is stating? What she said is true.

    Rush could tell someone about the effects of oxicodine better then I could because he is a drug addict and I am not. He has better personal experience regarding drug abuse then I do, so he is in a better position to understand what a drug addict is going through. Is that racist?

    Newt could explain how to cheat on his wife better then I could. I am not an adulterer, so I believe Newt would be in a better position to explain the mind of an adulterer. Is that racist?

    May 28, 2009 07:41 pm at 7:41 pm |
  3. Jim

    Since it matters not a wit when one is a judge as to whether they are rich, poor, green, Latino, white, purple or whatever, this just shows a philosophy that is plain un-judicial. The judging of the law is supposed to be blind, not "empathetic."


    May 28, 2009 07:42 pm at 7:42 pm |
  4. S Callahan

    I think this speech is good...and I wonder if the real issue is that she is a strong, opinionated, jurist. That would make the opposers sexist wouldn't it? Nothing new.

    May 28, 2009 07:43 pm at 7:43 pm |
  5. tee

    Liberal Democrates are Pathetic
    We don't hate you, we hate your stupidity, lack of research skills and your willingness to be lead around like cult members.

    May 28, 2009 07:44 pm at 7:44 pm |
  6. dh

    A lof of judges DON'T get it. A lot of white men who run this country have NO concept of how minorities live. Look at the last eight years!

    Are you white Republican guys really that scared of one Latina holding a position of power? That she might consider the lack of fairness that many face in the legal system? Poor disenfranchised white guys. This white woman has no sympathy for you.

    A racist? Sotomayor? No. Even though you would think you would know your own kind.

    BTW, Bush Sr. appointed her. He clearly saw her ability too.

    May 28, 2009 07:44 pm at 7:44 pm |
  7. Liberal Democrats are Pathetic

    Sorry Peter, I was being a hypocrite by saying that libs are full of hate whereas by calling you a liberal I am inciting hate myself.

    Maybe instead of name calling I should just stick to the facts, it's just hard when my party is responsible for destroying America over the past eight years. I mean would you trust the car salesman that sold you a lemon just because he got some new cars in stock?

    I'll be going back to Fox now. Bye!

    May 28, 2009 07:45 pm at 7:45 pm |
  8. Peter (CA)

    Liberal Democrats @7:28

    Wow, you are funny!!
    I said your opinion was flawed, you called me names and I am the one who is hating?

    Love the logic!

    May 28, 2009 07:46 pm at 7:46 pm |
  9. Rafael

    If these statements were racist she would have been removed from her post long ago. Obviously, they're not but the right would have objected to anybody Obama nominated.

    May 28, 2009 07:47 pm at 7:47 pm |
  10. tee

    Angry white hetrosexual man
    Who are you trying to or yourself...........sounds personal.

    May 28, 2009 07:50 pm at 7:50 pm |
  11. CitizenJane

    I enjoyed reading the speech and thought she has shown a unique pespective and prideness of her heritage, just as I do of my own ancestors who immigrated 3 generations ago. She also went on to acknowlege that she, as do all justices, needs to curtail herself and rule from the law.

    As a female I have find no problems with another female bringing judgements upon a male if and when another woman's safety and well being is at stake. Afterall, and as she pointed out, men have been ruling over women for centuries.

    The only ones who would object to this reasoning are men.

    May 28, 2009 07:55 pm at 7:55 pm |
  12. Texas Teacher

    Oh, my Gawd! The woman is hispanic... Obama is black... we have fe/males black and white on the Court... there needs to be a mix in the supreme court justices! That is the only way we will serve ALL the people ALL the time! Is she qualified? I have not heard one argument against this woman that holds water!

    She will make a good Justice! That is all that matters... the GOP is literally losing its collective mind! I didn't hear any of this righteous indignation with the "pubic hair on a coke can" justice was seated!

    Get a grip, GOP, you are not so grand anymore... nor are you much of a party for that matter!

    May 28, 2009 07:59 pm at 7:59 pm |
  13. Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos

    Dear Angry White Heterosexual Man,

    If whites were the minority in this great nation than your comments would actually make sense. A white male cannot honestly make this speech because they are currently in the majority and posess significant political power. Thus your experience would not reflect the essence of her speech. No minority can truly profess to understand what it is like to be the majority and vice versa. In addtion, two white males were recently considered for the job and got it!

    May 28, 2009 08:00 pm at 8:00 pm |
  14. Texas Teacher

    Tee, I have heard a lot of hetro white males who are supporting this woman. Don't generalize in that way... it defeats your purpose!

    May 28, 2009 08:01 pm at 8:01 pm |
  15. tee

    Thank you.......well said. Some people just refuse to see how priviledged they are.

    May 28, 2009 08:02 pm at 8:02 pm |
  16. Hawaii gal

    CNN: Why did it take you so long to publish this? In the meantime, a line or two from her speech was cherry-picked and then spun into a racist comment, which it was not. You need to give full-disclosure to this issue on AC 360 so that people that do not read can get the real and correct information about this very intellegent and competent woman. Please stick to reporting the facts, it seems as though you are starting to lean to the right (John King), which will ultimately result in you losing ratings and viewership.

    May 28, 2009 08:11 pm at 8:11 pm |
  17. Bri in the burgh

    I am far left...let's put it this of my all-time heroes is Jimmy Carter. That said, this nominee is a train wreck!!! She is a racist and really conceited. I would love to have a female Hispanic on the Supreme Court....but it ain't this one!

    May 28, 2009 08:12 pm at 8:12 pm |
  18. Angie

    I don't see any "reverse racism" in this speech at all. I see a woman of color speaking about how being a person of color molds your person. And it does, both negative and positive experiences concerning race DOES influence the kind of person that you will become. I'm lucky that I've had mostly positive racial experiences and therefore do not hold resentment towards anyone. However, I have had some negative experiences when it comes to me race. Sure, you hate those people who are narrow-minded enough to be so ignorant, but an intelligent and kind-hearted person, such as Judge Sotomayor, doesn't seem to hold that grudge, but simply learns from those experiences.

    I admire this woman very much, probably because we share some of the same struggles, but mostly because she's intelligent and in touch with her Latina roots. Which is a breath of fresh air to the Latino community. I wish her all the luck in the world. ❤

    May 28, 2009 08:13 pm at 8:13 pm |
  19. JT

    Why are we trying to fault a person that happens to be proud of her race?

    May 28, 2009 08:14 pm at 8:14 pm |
  20. VICTIM of "Obama Victim"

    Shame on you CNN.

    There is an entire SECOND HALF to that statement that says the same could be said of a white male , and that her goal is to transcend the concept of a person being the sum total of their experience.

    The FULL context of that statement shows her being EXACTLY what conservatives scream they supposedly want in a justice.

    and you, CNN are HELPING with their twisting and taking out of context..... agian I ask... WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU CNN?

    "most trusted name in news"...... NOT ANYMORE....

    May 28, 2009 08:18 pm at 8:18 pm |
  21. Joe

    Obama is a racist, that is no secret. Why is anyone surprised he is appointing other racists?

    May 28, 2009 08:19 pm at 8:19 pm |
  22. Hawaii gal

    hey Annie for Palin:

    Why do you even read You belong at FOX with your negative attitudes, narrow-mindness and racist comments. You would fit in well there. I bet you are also a religious cult member. You are sound like you are as uneducated as Palin is. She does not read, I guess you don't either because if you read Sotomayor's speech you would see that she is anything BUT a racist.

    May 28, 2009 08:20 pm at 8:20 pm |
  23. jhon wilson

    She has to give us explanation about the speach.

    May 28, 2009 08:22 pm at 8:22 pm |
  24. T in NV

    To call the "Left" racist is silly. Dems have a much higher percentage of minorities in the party because we are not racist. We are inclusive. The Reps fail to attract minorities because they fail to create policies to help lift up segments of our country (i.e. minorities) and help them acheive the American Dream. Racists are people in power that are prejudice against groups or groups and have the power to deny said group(s) access to certain liberties and inclusion in society as a whole.

    In the context of her speech, she is clearly not being racist. Many of you need to re-read it. She is saying that the courts should be representative of the population as a whole and that gender and color affect life experiences and perspective. How can you not understand that she is not advocating for personal experiences to affect the rulings by the courts, but that she is pointing out that people with different backgrounds ask different questions. The sex discrimmination cases she mentioned were ruled apon by all white males, but the lawyers for the cases were all people of color and woman. Wouldn't a woman or minority argue a case different then a white male. Of course! It the greatness of this country that we have women, people of color and white men as our judges, lawyers, doctors, astronauts and every other profession. Again, please re-read and read slowly.

    BTW.. I am a white female who has worked 34 hours per week during high school, put myself through college by working 40 hours per week and I have been employed full time my entire life. I take great offense at the Reps comments that say Dems and liberals are seeking entitlements, hand-outs and welfare. I do agree that Reps are against "helping" people and would like everyone who can't make it on their own to FAIL (including single mothers who chose life). In this vein, I think it is the Reps that are hateful and exclusionary (most Reps, not all).

    May 28, 2009 08:23 pm at 8:23 pm |
  25. Mari( maybe one of my comments will be posted)

    How many people have actually read the entire statement? Doubt that many of the GOPers commenting have. You folks, claim to be Christian, argue that we have a Christian Nation........ but some of your comments are hideous and hateful.

    What you fail to understand is that unless you have walked in a Hispanics shoes, or the shoes of an African-American, or a woman.... you can not begin to understand their....... experience in a Nation whose majority is White.

    Judge Sotomayor is simply stating the TRUTH! Unless you have gone to war, fought, seen your buddies killed you can not understand their experience! Nor can you understand why some Vets get into drugs or end up homeless!

    Unless you, a White man or a White woman, has experienced bigotry or prejudice, you can not possibly understand a poor Black kid.

    I am a Cuban-American, who came to this country at the age of 8 without my parents and only with my 6 year old sister. NO ONE unless you have had the same experience KNOWS what my experience was like.

    That's what Judge Sotomayor IS saying, a Latina has had a totally different experience than a White man or woman.



    May 28, 2009 08:24 pm at 8:24 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7