Sotomayor Believes What She Said

Judge Sotomayor said the following:

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.

Critics have seized on this as evidence that Sotomayor believes in identity politics, or what political scientists call "sociological representation," the idea that only people of a certain race, ethnicity, or gender, can be competent to speak on certain issues or have certain opinions or represent certain constituencies.

Some conservatives called Sotomayor a racist for saying such a thing. That is unfair. A racist thinks that someone is either bad or inferior or both just because of his or her racial identity. I once heard a guy in Arkansas say that "every N you have ever met has cheated you or tried to cheat you. If you don't think so, that just means he got away with it." That's racism.

Sotomayor is saying that persons of certain ethnic and gender identities are more competent in certain contexts. I have no doubt that this is true. A woman born in Jamaica, raised in Florida, writing a novel while her female partner works at the DMV, is in a better position to write about the experiences of Jamaican-American Lesbians than I will ever be.

But it is a little bit disturbing that this should be true of judges, who have to weigh the facts of a vast range of different parties. If it is true, how many Supreme Court Justices do we need? If we need a wise Latina Woman, don't we also need a wise Latina woman who has been married and has children? And while we are at it, don't we need a left-handed Lithuanian Lutheran Lesbian, just to be sure?

The White House first tried to neutralize this comment by claiming that it was just a poor choice of words, i.e., she didn't mean what she said. Okay. But then the same White House told us that she had said it before. From John Dickerson at Slate:

An administration aide pointed out that in addition to the 2001 speech, in a 1994 speech Sotomayor used nearly identical language: "I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion. What is better? I … hope that better will mean a more compassionate and caring conclusion."

This is no quote taken out of context or misstatement. She said much the same on two other occasions. This is what Sotomayor really thinks.

Sotomayor's opinion, and it is pretty clear that it is her opinion, that wise Latina women make better judges than White males, is inconsistent with the very idea of a judiciary. The judge is supposed to be a third party, who can stand apart from the Roe and the Wade and issue a decision based on principles of law and equity. It might be worth having this out in her confirmation hearings.

Comments

[caheidelberger]

So do we have any examples yet where Sotomayor's professed Latian wisdom has led to legally unsound judgments that put compassion and caring above the rule of law? Does her approach to differ dangerously or fundamentally from that of the nine individuals currently serving on the court, whose separate wisdoms frequently lead to differing if not opposite conclusions about the law?

[caheidelberger]

...Latina wisdom. Latina. I was obviously thinking ahead to the day when we get the pleasure of analyzing a nominee's Laotian wisdom.

[HernandeUSA]

Which part of RACIST do you Liberals not understand?

OLD RACISM IS BAD AND NEW RACISM IS NOT BETTER!

Using the Bench to push your personal agenda is unethical for a Judge.

Majority of her rulings have been turned over.

Compelling Sunday movie life's don't make good judges, common sense does and FOLLOW THE LAWS to the letter!

[KB]

Cory: Easy way to test this. If either John Roberts or Sam Alito had said, on two or three occasions, that White males would reach better conclusions on the bench than Latina women, would you consider that a serious mark against him? I am guessing you would take it very seriously, and it probably would have resulted in the withdrawal of the nomination.

If you say it's not the same thing, then I think that is much worse. Not guilty by reason of gender and ethnicity is pretty much what racism is about.

HernandeUSA:

This might be the first time I have been called a liberal. I am a conservative with some libertarian sympathies. I explain what I think racism is and why it doesn't apply to Judge Sotomayor's statement. Perhaps you should try to address my arguments, if such is not outside your comfort zone. And by the way, rulings are "overturned" not "turned over."

[Erik]

KB:
I think it is also important to remember that Supreme Court nominations have always been part of a regional or religious or ethnic spoils system (I'm channeling Jeffrey Toobin here). So really, the Sotomayor nomination is nothing new. Other than that she is a Latino-American woman from Queens;-) I agree her hearings should be very interesting. As Robert Bork once put it, the Supreme Court is an intellecual feast. Or maybe he was just hungry;-)

[caheidelberger]

Hernie: stop shouting and answer the question: where do we see any evidence that what Sotomayor has said has led to unwise judicial decisions or is any different from the multiple and opposing conclusions that judges of good conscience currently on the bench can reach?

[caheidelberger]

KB, if my wife told me she could reach more caring and compassionate decisions than I, I might believe her (she tells me that evolutionarily, women exist to keep men from killing the kids by doing stupid things like riding saber-tooth tigers... or dirtbikes).

Let me step on perhaps thinner ice: what would think of the argument that, if Sotomayor's comments are excusable where hypothetical equivalents from white males would not be, that excuse comes not from gender or race but from power status? White males are the traditionally privileged group; as we try to negate that privilege, are comments that defend that privilege different from comments that challenge it? (I've never liked this argument myself, but I'm curious about other opinions.)

[KB]

Cory: forgive the belated reply. You are making (in a very careful, non-committed way) the familiar argument that only the dominate class/race/ethnicity can be guilty of racism. I believe the Modern Language Association blesses this view by defining racism as "prejudice plus power."

But this is a transparent attempt to win an argument in advance by defining the other side as wrong. It is particularly aimed at justifying the various forms of affirmative action: it can't be racist to discriminate in favor of minorities, because they aren't, as you put it, "privileged." I don't believe in granting anyone a license for bigotry.

Besides, the distinction is unworkable in practice. In a city where the mayor and a majority of the city council is African American, what color is the power structure? Do we really want to say that Whites, in such a place, suddenly become better judges than Blacks? Meanwhile, with an African American President, who exactly has "power status"? Clearly Barack Obama's race was a powerful asset in the recent election.

You were right to somewhat disown this argument. It is full of holes.