"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." (Sonia Sotomayor at Univ. of Cal., Berkeley, 2001).
The big problem is that Sonia Sotomayor may even believe her own B-S. In roughly 30 words, she managed to be both racist and sexist. One striking fact is that she devalues the experience of everyone who is NOT Latina (or even Latino?). She is making the outrageous claim that her experience is more valuable -- richer -- than yours -- unless you happen to be a female Latina who grew up in the South Bronx. What arrogance! What narcissism! Yes, if a white male said anything similar, he would be hooted at, scorned, and disgraced. But because Sotomayor is a Latina -- although certainly not a wise one -- she may get away with it. Because of her ethnicity and gender, she will be held to lower standards than you. In four short months of the Obama presidency, America has become almost unrecognizable.
About Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, Stuart Taylor wrote the following in the National Journal: "Do we want a new justice who comes close to stereotyping white males as (on average) inferior beings?"
Barack Hussein Obama wants such a Justice. Sonia Sotomayor obviously does . . . but does America really want to go down that road of identity politics? We shall see.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, falsely claimed today (May 26) that she believes deeply in "the rule of law." As you learn more about this woman, you'll find that for her the "rule of law" is a term that means the rule of law-flouting liberal activist judges.
Barack Obama clearly believes that Sotomayor possesses the quality he believes most important in a judge: empathy. However, in her case, empathy apparently is synonymous with bias in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. From her public statements and rulings, she seems to believe that people should receive unequal protection under the law.
Specifically, in the case of the New Haven, CT, firefighters, Sotomayor was one of those ruling that Caucasian firemen (and one Hispanic) somehow had an unfair advantage when it came to promotion. However, on any objective basis, they had no such advantage.
Many lawyers who have argued cases before Sotomayor believe she lacks a judicial temperament. In fact, some make the case that she's a bad-tempered individual.
Consider the comments made by lawyers in The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, as outlined in one of Jeffrey Rosen's articles in the liberal New Republic:
- "She is a terror on the bench."
- "She is very outspoken."
- "She can be difficult."
- "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry."
- "She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament."
- "She abuses lawyers."
- "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts."
- "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."
Those are descriptions of a narcissist or an egomaniac, or both. Is that the kind of person we really want on the Supreme Court?