Get E-Mail Updates

On Racism

Many in the Republican Party and some noteworthy Christian leaders have come together to call Judge Sotomayor a racist. This rhetoric compounds with other recent statements -- support for torture, opposition to hate speech legislation (note: not opposition to hate speech, but to legislation restricting hate speech), ongoing denial of environmental crisis and climate change, and so on.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

As Dave Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons made clear in their important book UnChristian, this kind of talk -- and the viewpoints and theology from which it springs -- have created an extremely negative stereotype of the Christian faith over recent decades, especially among young people, who are leaving the church in record numbers. You would think this information would have gotten out to many of these religious leaders -- and that, if for no other reason than not wanting to drive the young away from their religious communities, they would at least be more careful and sensitive. But no, they are continuing on the same course ... adding more fuel to the stereotypical fire that Christians are judgmental, insensitive, reactive, more ideological than theological, and so on.

Yes, their rhetoric (which you can read about and find links to here) reflects badly on these Christians themselves. But sadly, it also reflects badly on the rest of us Christians and on the Christian faith in general. If the rest of us are silent, and unless more of us speak up to distinguish our position from theirs, nobody can blame others for assuming our silence means tacit agreement.

That's one reason why I continue to be outspoken about these matters. I take no pleasure in criticizing anyone, including my fellow Christians. But I must simply say that these voices don't speak for me, nor do they speak for thousands of people I meet in my travels. Their words and attitudes grieve me, and I would be ashamed of myself if I did not speak up and publicly and respectfully differ. I hope others will do the same.

Regarding the outrage expressed by white Christian leaders and politicians about Judge Sotomayor, and their allegations that she is a racist ... I decided to read the speech from which the supposedly offensive lines were taken. Since I have had spokespeople like these take my words out of context, I suspected they may have done the same to the judge. You can read the whole speech here (I recommend it strongly), but here are three key paragraphs:

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. Others 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.

By wrenching one sentence out of context (the last sentence of the first quoted paragraph), these spokespeople are making it sound like the judge believes white males always make inferior decisions. (Conservative blogger Rod Dreher drew this conclusion based on that one sentence, but changed his opinion when he read the whole speech. His retraction is a great example of the kind of character and wisdom people wish they could see more of in public discourse.)

But it's clear, after reading her speech in its entirety, that her critics are distorting her meaning -- whether through ignorance, carelessness, or maliciousness, I can't say. She's suggesting that a court of nine white males alone, regardless of their education and training, nevertheless lack the experience of seeing life from the perspective of a non-male or non-white. If those white males don't (as she says later) "take the time and effort" to "understand the experiences of others," or if they "simply do not care," or if they fail to "extrapolate" from their experience to experiences with which they are unfamiliar, their decisions will carry the limited bias of their white male background. In that way, those decisions will be less wise.

In other words, she's saying that a monochrome and mono-gender group brings its own experiences, unconscious biases, and limitations to the table, and without alternative perspectives (each of which has its own biases and experiences), its homogeneity is inferior to the greater wisdom that arises from diversity. The outraged response of many white male Christian and political leaders to her statement seems to demonstrate her very point.

My fellow white people, and white males especially, would do well to do some research about white privilege. If you want to start with a strongly-worded, "gloves-off" blog post from a non-white non-male, written during the election season last year, this is a good place to begin. If the blog post makes you angry, may I suggest you re-read these words from Judge Sotomayor:

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. Others simply do not care.

Brian McLarenBrian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author who is always behind in answering emails. His next book (March 2010) will be called "A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That are Transforming the Faith." He is also the author of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: FrankWright10

09-28-2009 @ 8:45am

i have posted your blog on my site

Regards

name

by: BlueDeacon

06-01-2009 @ 6:06pm

Sorry, but that's not really true because it misses the context -- which is that 1) American authority exists mostly in a white, male-dominated culture; and, as a result 2) it's "understood." No one, for example, calls the rantings of, say, Rush Limbaugh "white male anger" because it's understood as such (in fact, if you called it such he might brand you a racist).

In the movie "Cry Freedom," the black activist said to the "liberal" white newspaper editor who had accused him of racism, "We know how you live -- we cook your food, clean your rubbish. How would you like to see how we live -- the 90 percent of your countrymen who have to get off your white streets at 6 o'clock at night?" Well, he did and subsequently found out just how ignorant he was.

Oh, and as for "professional race-baiters," Rush also fits into that category -- as does much of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. They're the only reason Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can stay in business.

by: BillSamuel

06-04-2009 @ 6:05pm

It is a well documented fact that a person's background and experience affect how they view the facts. To note that is not racist. Judges view the facts as well as the laws. It is important to have a diversity of backgrounds and experience in the judiciary.

No one has come up with anything in Judge Sotomayor's opinions that smacks of racism. It's possible that there may be genuine issues of her suitability which arise as her record is examined, but I think racism is a false issue that has been too easily bandied about by white men of privilege in the early dialogue about this nomination.

by: BlueDeacon

06-02-2009 @ 1:22pm

Empathy is not necessarily virtuous... it seems that nearly every person who has committed mass injustices against entire people groups did so b/c of empathy towards their own group.

That really isn't the case -- that's more about being against the other group. Sotomayor may have an "affinity" toward Latino women but not necessarily animosity toward people in other groups. But since the conservatives who criticize her do have such animosity they often project what they believe onto others, thus transforming public discourse into nothing more than a power struggle. (This is why I don't trust them with political power; they intend to use it for their exclusive benefit and assume that everyone else does the same.)

Thus blindness is virtuous, and the scriptures teach this, i.e. James writing about not giving a person a higher place of honor at a meeting based on wealth.

Not quite -- this is a situation which is beyond law, since there is no law specifically prohibiting that behavior. That was James' point.

by: jmiklovic

06-02-2009 @ 12:55pm

Point taken- certainly Jesus' teaching in Matt 5:20-48 bolsters exactly what you have said.

Again, I still contend that a justice is to do justice. If a law is unjust, as Jim Crow Laws were, the justice does well to rule that law as unjust in accord with the constitution and true justice. We agree. Man made laws are not necessarily just (including our constitution, thus the occasional need for amending.)

The recent blog here about prostitution is another great example. I would love to see Nevada's prostitution policies go before the Supreme Court so that true justice could be done.

I would disagree with your assertion that I have not read scriptures in context. Justice is to be blind, and thankfully so, injustice is always a result of justice not being blind and respecting one person above another. Empathy is not necessarily virtuous... it seems that nearly every person who has committed mass injustices against entire people groups did so b/c of empathy towards their own group. Thus blindness is virtuous, and the scriptures teach this, ie James writing about not giving a person a higher place of honor at a meeting based on wealth.

Thank you for the criticism, I honestly appreciate it.

You can enjoy the last word on this exchange.

by: BlueDeacon

06-02-2009 @ 12:20pm

You clearly haven't read the Scriptures in their context; "blind justice" simply is not a Biblical concept (read the book of Amos sometime). Law does not exist for its own sake but to order proper relationships so that all may benefit. In some cases judges may rule that certain laws on the books defeat the spirit (if not necessarily the letter) of the law because they end up promoting injustice; after all, Jim Crow laws were wrong but legal on their face. Some might even say the same about abortion, that it should be illegal (and I tend to agree).

by: jeffp

06-01-2009 @ 7:25pm

I think you missed the point of my post for the purpose of springing into one of your rants. The point is the MSM and McClaren purposely take Gingrich's comments out of context for their own purpose of slander.

My point is it is unfair to search for some quote and then smear that person. What was the context? Did they misspeak? Were they having a bad day? What else have they said and done? In other words put the quote in context with their life. The right and left both do it all the time. As Christians we should rise above this no matter what are politics are. McClaren is so interested in tearing others down that he misses this.

BTW, I like the choice of Sotomayor. It could have been much worse. Obama chose the best Hispanic woman available. Liberals should be the ones complaining. Look at her record, she looks better then GHW Bush's picks.

by: FrankWright10

09-28-2009 @ 10:45am

i have posted your blog on my site

Regards

name

by: BlueDeacon

06-01-2009 @ 8:37pm

The point is the MSM and McClaren purposely take Gingrich's comments out of context for their own purpose of slander.

As someone in the MSM, I dispute that. Gingrich has said a lot of controversial things but to my knowledge never accused the press of misquoting him -- which leads me to believe that he means what he says and says what he means. That's why, despite having little real constituency, he's still considered a leader in the conservative movement.

by: jeffp

06-01-2009 @ 11:06pm

This is one of those cases where he is purposely quoted only in part. Your reply doesn't deal with my point, does that mean you are agreeing with me?

Here is what all the libs are missing, we don't mind the Sotomayor pick. This is all a smoke screen. If the progressive activist groups look closer at her and have the guts to speak up (this includes SOJO) they will not like what they see. She is not going to be a consistent progressive vote. This is one case of identification politics that will work against the Dems.

by: BlueDeacon

06-02-2009 @ 1:02am

This is one of those cases where he is purposely quoted only in part. Your reply doesn't deal with my point, does that mean you are agreeing with me?

Hardly. As I said, Gingrich pretty much means what he says, which is why he's still considered viable in the conservative movement.

Here is what all the libs are missing, we don't mind the Sotomayor pick. This is all a smoke screen. If the progressive activist groups look closer at her and have the guts to speak up (this includes SOJO) they will not like what they see. She is not going to be a consistent progressive vote. This is one case of identification politics that will work against the Dems.

To believe that you would have to subscribe to a false premise -- that "liberals" are simply mirror images of the conservatives and act and react in identical ways. In fact they aren't, because liberals will accept incremental change and compromise and have never been "all-or-nothing," which makes them easier to split -- and also add to their numbers. ("True" liberals considered Bill Clinton, to give one example, a total sellout and leading Democrats deeply resented him but still supported him overwhelmingly considering the alternatives. Today he's somewhat popular even among some conservatives.)

by: squeaky

06-02-2009 @ 1:09am

Waitaminute...are you saying that Limbaugh's and etcs' comments are all a Right Wing ploy to whip the Left Wing into such a frenzy of Sotomayor defense that the Left fails to look closely at whether or not she is Liberal enough and winds up confirming a candidate the Right actually like?

by: jeffp

06-02-2009 @ 11:51am

I wouldn't say the Right likes her. But she is not a disaster for us. There are two strategic ways of approaching this; 1. Use this as a wedge to divide Obama's base of loony lefts from the more centrists left. or 2. Take the pick as a gift knowing this judge will lean more towards pro-business and pro-life then other picks.

If there is silence from the left the question will be, Were they duped by the Right or were they intimidated into silence by Obama.

by: BlueDeacon

06-01-2009 @ 8:37pm

The point is the MSM and McClaren purposely take Gingrich's comments out of context for their own purpose of slander.

As someone in the MSM, I dispute that. Gingrich has said a lot of controversial things but to my knowledge never accused the press of misquoting him -- which leads me to believe that he means what he says and says what he means. That's why, despite having little real constituency, he's still considered a leader in the conservative movement.

by: jeffp

06-01-2009 @ 11:06pm

This is one of those cases where he is purposely quoted only in part. Your reply doesn't deal with my point, does that mean you are agreeing with me?

Here is what all the libs are missing, we don't mind the Sotomayor pick. This is all a smoke screen. If the progressive activist groups look closer at her and have the guts to speak up (this includes SOJO) they will not like what they see. She is not going to be a consistent progressive vote. This is one case of identification politics that will work against the Dems.

by: BlueDeacon

06-02-2009 @ 1:02am

This is one of those cases where he is purposely quoted only in part. Your reply doesn't deal with my point, does that mean you are agreeing with me?

Hardly. As I said, Gingrich pretty much means what he says, which is why he's still considered viable in the conservative movement.

Here is what all the libs are missing, we don't mind the Sotomayor pick. This is all a smoke screen. If the progressive activist groups look closer at her and have the guts to speak up (this includes SOJO) they will not like what they see. She is not going to be a consistent progressive vote. This is one case of identification politics that will work against the Dems.

To believe that you would have to subscribe to a false premise -- that "liberals" are simply mirror images of the conservatives and act and react in identical ways. In fact they aren't, because liberals will accept incremental change and compromise and have never been "all-or-nothing," which makes them easier to split -- and also add to their numbers. ("True" liberals considered Bill Clinton, to give one example, a total sellout and leading Democrats deeply resented him but still supported him overwhelmingly considering the alternatives. Today he's somewhat popular even among some conservatives.)

by: squeaky

06-02-2009 @ 1:09am

Waitaminute...are you saying that Limbaugh's and etcs' comments are all a Right Wing ploy to whip the Left Wing into such a frenzy of Sotomayor defense that the Left fails to look closely at whether or not she is Liberal enough and winds up confirming a candidate the Right actually like?

by: jeffp

06-02-2009 @ 11:51am

I wouldn't say the Right likes her. But she is not a disaster for us. There are two strategic ways of approaching this; 1. Use this as a wedge to divide Obama's base of loony lefts from the more centrists left. or 2. Take the pick as a gift knowing this judge will lean more towards pro-business and pro-life then other picks.

If there is silence from the left the question will be, Were they duped by the Right or were they intimidated into silence by Obama.

by: FrankWright10

09-28-2009 @ 8:45am

i have posted your blog on my site

Regards

name

by: BillSamuel

06-04-2009 @ 6:05pm

It is a well documented fact that a person's background and experience affect how they view the facts. To note that is not racist. Judges view the facts as well as the laws. It is important to have a diversity of backgrounds and experience in the judiciary.

No one has come up with anything in Judge Sotomayor's opinions that smacks of racism. It's possible that there may be genuine issues of her suitability which arise as her record is examined, but I think racism is a false issue that has been too easily bandied about by white men of privilege in the early dialogue about this nomination.

by: scat

05-29-2009 @ 2:26pm

Those who's assumed superiority is being threatened will turn themselves and logic inside-out to find a way to pin the "racist" label on a progressive or moderate while ignoring the blatant and unapologetic racist and sexist remarks by their own spokesmen. It just demonstrates desperation as they cling to the sinking ship of bigotry. Let's hope that most people see through this nonsensical rhetoric.
Not only is the right trying to paint Judge Sotomayor as a racist, they are calling her "dangerous" because she has the quality of empathy. Empathy now is a vice rather than a virtue. Save us all from those scary empathizers! They seem to think that empathy invades the brain and soul making rational judgment impossible. I guess that explains a lot about the right-wing ideology. No empathy allowed there.

by: BlueDeacon

06-02-2009 @ 1:22pm

Empathy is not necessarily virtuous... it seems that nearly every person who has committed mass injustices against entire people groups did so b/c of empathy towards their own group.

That really isn't the case -- that's more about being against the other group. Sotomayor may have an "affinity" toward Latino women but not necessarily animosity toward people in other groups. But since the conservatives who criticize her do have such animosity they often project what they believe onto others, thus transforming public discourse into nothing more than a power struggle. (This is why I don't trust them with political power; they intend to use it for their exclusive benefit and assume that everyone else does the same.)

Thus blindness is virtuous, and the scriptures teach this, i.e. James writing about not giving a person a higher place of honor at a meeting based on wealth.

Not quite -- this is a situation which is beyond law, since there is no law specifically prohibiting that behavior. That was James' point.

by: jkc1945

05-29-2009 @ 2:26pm

My problem with "reaching better decisions" because of a person's upbringing essentially negates the requirement, supported by the oath of office that a Justice of the Supreme Court takes, to extend the same judgment to rich and poor alike, as well as the requirement to make one's judgments based on the Constitution of the United States, which is the limiting document for the Supreme Court justices. One is not called to the Supreme Court to find ways to 'empathize' or 'synmpathize' with any individual or group. To the extent any justice does that, they violate their oath, it seems to me, since the Constitution is likely temporarily set aside to allow for the empathy. Supreme Court justices, indeed, all judges, are bound by the letter of the law, and / or Constitution, in the case of Federal judges. No other criteria for judgment are called for, or allowed, else the oath of office is essentially violated.

Additionally, it is an interesting fact of human perception that Mr. McLaren reads the speech that he posts, and finds it apparently entirely acceptable in its revelation of Ms. Sotermayor's perception of the role of federal judge. I read that same speech, however, and with respect to Mr. McLaren, it supports my hearing of Ms. Sotermayor's words as - - reverse racism. I continue to believe that Ms. Sotermayor must retract her words in this regard, or else she must not be affirmed by the Senate, to the court.

by: jmiklovic

06-02-2009 @ 12:55pm

Point taken- certainly Jesus' teaching in Matt 5:20-48 bolsters exactly what you have said.

Again, I still contend that a justice is to do justice. If a law is unjust, as Jim Crow Laws were, the justice does well to rule that law as unjust in accord with the constitution and true justice. We agree. Man made laws are not necessarily just (including our constitution, thus the occasional need for amending.)

The recent blog here about prostitution is another great example. I would love to see Nevada's prostitution policies go before the Supreme Court so that true justice could be done.

I would disagree with your assertion that I have not read scriptures in context. Justice is to be blind, and thankfully so, injustice is always a result of justice not being blind and respecting one person above another. Empathy is not necessarily virtuous... it seems that nearly every person who has committed mass injustices against entire people groups did so b/c of empathy towards their own group. Thus blindness is virtuous, and the scriptures teach this, ie James writing about not giving a person a higher place of honor at a meeting based on wealth.

Thank you for the criticism, I honestly appreciate it.

You can enjoy the last word on this exchange.

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 2:27pm

"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."
I agree with Sotomayer that our life experience and culture cannot help but affect our decisions. I also agree that it is important that we listen to others experiences. That said I have a serious problem with the statement above (even in context). One, is the phrase the "richness of her experiences". Why are the experiences of a Latina woman richer than those of a white male? Why do they make her decisions better than his? I believe that statement is inherently bigoted regardless of context. I have no doubts that if a white male had simply reversed the statement, the context would have been irrelevant and he would have been immediately disqualified. I do not think she says that white males always make inferior decisions. But she is saying that they are more likely to make inferior decisions. If I said that Latina women are more likely to make inferior decisions, I would be considered a racist.

by: BlueDeacon

06-02-2009 @ 12:20pm

You clearly haven't read the Scriptures in their context; "blind justice" simply is not a Biblical concept (read the book of Amos sometime). Law does not exist for its own sake but to order proper relationships so that all may benefit. In some cases judges may rule that certain laws on the books defeat the spirit (if not necessarily the letter) of the law because they end up promoting injustice; after all, Jim Crow laws were wrong but legal on their face. Some might even say the same about abortion, that it should be illegal (and I tend to agree).

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 2:35pm

"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."

With all of her writings, speeches, and judicial decisions, is that one sentence the best that they can do? If so, then I anticipate that she will be easily confirmed.

On the other hand, the very fact that the Republicans have elevated Senator Jeff Sessions as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee should give us one clue about their strategy. Sessions, himself, was rejected for the bench under a cloud of racist behavior. Commenting on the KKK, he said that he used to think they were OK until he found out some of them were pot smokers. If the Republicans follow the lead of their primary spokespersons (Limbaugh, Gingrich), the confirmation process could get ugly.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 2:49pm

The argument of whether or not a Supreme Court Justice should have empathy is a far more relevant argument than whether or not her comments were racist. McLaren, however, was not addressing that. He was addressing the question of whether or not those comments are racist, and whether or not they were taken out of context.

Sotermayor's comments were not racist. It's a simple fact that someone who lived as a Latina woman will be far more qualified to make wise decisions pertaining to women or Latinos than a white male would. It is a fact that as a white woman, I am far more qualified to make decisions pertaining to white women than a black male would be. And to use perhaps a less political analogy, as a percussionist, I am far more qualified to make decisions about percussion than a trumpet player would be.

As she said, it isn't impossible to make such decisions without the matching experiences, however. She went on to say it requires far more thought and consideration. A trumpet player would need to learn and understand what it means to be a percussionist before making valid decisions about percussion. That is called making an informed decision, and it can also be called empathy.

What is so inflammatory about such statements? Nothing. Such statements are nothing more than common sense that each one of us understands from our own experience.

McLaren's point is valid--the only reason her statements are seen as inflammatory is they were taken out of context and spun that way.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 3:01pm

I would HOPE that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino woman who hasn't lived that life.

As a white woman, I have no problem with such a statement. I cannot presume to know what life is like as a white man any more than I would expect a white man to understand my experiences as a white woman. I sure would HOPE he who has lived that experience understands it better than I who have not.

The statement itself is straight of Duhsville, if you ask me.

Reframe the question this way:

Do you think a Latina woman is more qualified to make decisions pertaining to Latina women than a white man is?

Well, I sure would HOPE so!

It's a rhetorical question, and to turn it into a racist statement is ridiculous. But it will continue to be spun that way, and people will continue to be outraged because, frankly, there are some who simply want it to be racist. There are some who simply are grasping at any little questionable statement to undermine her as a candidate. And there are those who will refuse to look at the statement in context and think about it rationally.

But as SisterMarie said, this is the best example of so-called racist speech they can come up with?

That's politics for you.

by: scat

05-29-2009 @ 3:23pm

For those so concerned about "empathy" affecting one's ability to make proper, rational decisions, I would like to point out that one of the rights guaranteed to us is the right to be judged by our "peers". In court proceedings, it is the jury's job to make decisions on factual issues and the judge's job to make decisions on legal issues. thus we have ingrained in our system the recognition that in order to get a fair trial, the deciders of fact issues need some amount of experience,empathy, understanding,etc of the factual background of the parties.
Impartiality does not require an absence of empathy or understanding. It requires one to be aware of one's biases and make legal and fair decisions regardless of any unfair prejudices.
There was a time when all women were considered too emotional, subject to wide swings in emotions, "hysterical", etc, to make big decisions. Seems the right-wing mouthpieces are trying to resurrect those notions. That's what really underlies their attempts to highlight her remarks about her experience.

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 3:29pm

"Do you think a Latina woman is more qualified to make decisions pertaining to Latina women than a white man is?"That's is not what she said, nor is it the context. Can you point out in her speech where she applys her statement only to decisions pertaing to Latina women? In addition the supreme court is called to interpret the law not to make decisions about a specific group. There decisions are not ones that only pertain to a specific group. There decisions pertaing to Americans. My guess is that your reframed question is probably meant to apply to discrimation situations. Those cases don't just pertain to the group alleging discrimination they alos pertain to those accused of discrimantion (I assume you mean the white males.) So using your statement, don't you think that white males would be more qualified to make decisions in those cases since they pertain to white males?

by: ando

05-29-2009 @ 3:37pm

Perhaps the white man Brian McLaren should thank God for all those "privileged white males" who fought and died so that he has the privilege of the first amendment right to free speech. And perhaps he, and others, should interview all the immigrants who have made it to the shores of America and found a better life. Maybe those privileged white males could be given some credit.

I can't stand the Rush Limbaughs of the world, but it's not hard to understand why he has such a following.

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 4:06pm

"...who fought and died so that he has the privilege of the first amendment right to free speech."

You're obviously referring to the following white males who together with their colleagues will dtermine whether of not Sotomayor is confirmed:
Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, John Kyl, John Cornyn, John Ensign. (None of them served in the military.

Or maybe you're referring to some of the other prominent Republicans:
Mitt Romney, Rudy Guliani, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee (None of them served either.

Now my guess is that if you did your homework, you'd probably find that individuals have served their country who were Black, Hispanic, and perhaps even female Hispanics. So I don't know what your point is about limiting your tribute only to white males.

And by the way, even though your entry has "privileged white males" enclosed in parenthesis, Mr. McClaren did not use that term in his original entry. Perhaps your military experience was limited to service with "privileged white males", but that has not been the experience of many who have served.

by: jkc1945

05-29-2009 @ 4:32pm

Respectfully disagree. I happily plead 'guilty' to the moniker of 'conservative,' and I assure you that my concern is whether the Constitution of the United States will, on any occasion, be overriden by the felt need for 'empathy' by the Justices, whoever they are. The Supreme Court is not a 'jury of peers,' they were never intended to be. They were, and are, chartered by the Constitution to use the Constitution to defend the Constitution, and the laws that the legislatures and Congress have passed, and that the Court has judged, to be Constitutional. For the Supreme Court of the United States, my concern is not that any justice should have the ability to 'emphthize' to any extent, whatsoever. I simply want them to interpret the Constitution. That is their charter, and that is substantially their oath of office. I could care less if "Justice" Sotermajor (should she be confirmed) or Justice Thomas can empathize. What I care about it adherance to our limiting document - - The Constitution. No racism whatsoever. I just want them to do their job as it is prescribed. And Ms. Sotermayer's statements, also including her stated judgment that appellate (federal) judges "make policy" - - -worry me. She needs to retract tham, or step down. That is a legitimate conservative stance.

by: BlueDeacon

05-29-2009 @ 6:24pm

Keep in mind, however, that we still feel the effects of racism that had been institutionalized even before out country's official founding -- so much so that, in one case, we needed to amend such Constitution several times to keep a specific result of racism from happening again -- and that other SCOTUS decisions were needed to eliminate it legally. (And so-called conservatives objected to even that.)

by: scat

05-29-2009 @ 2:26pm

Those who's assumed superiority is being threatened will turn themselves and logic inside-out to find a way to pin the "racist" label on a progressive or moderate while ignoring the blatant and unapologetic racist and sexist remarks by their own spokesmen. It just demonstrates desperation as they cling to the sinking ship of bigotry. Let's hope that most people see through this nonsensical rhetoric.
Not only is the right trying to paint Judge Sotomayor as a racist, they are calling her "dangerous" because she has the quality of empathy. Empathy now is a vice rather than a virtue. Save us all from those scary empathizers! They seem to think that empathy invades the brain and soul making rational judgment impossible. I guess that explains a lot about the right-wing ideology. No empathy allowed there.

by: WaveTossed

05-29-2009 @ 6:46pm

Actually, I heard some comments by Samuel Alito when he was discussing his experiences of discrimination as an Italian-American during his confirmation heartings. And yet not a peep from Limbaugh or the other neo-con types about this.

It's not truly Sotomayor and her discussions aboute experience that these "conservative" pundits are complaining about. It's the fact that she isn't a true-blue bona-fide "conservative" with views similar to their own.

by: jkc1945

05-29-2009 @ 2:26pm

My problem with "reaching better decisions" because of a person's upbringing essentially negates the requirement, supported by the oath of office that a Justice of the Supreme Court takes, to extend the same judgment to rich and poor alike, as well as the requirement to make one's judgments based on the Constitution of the United States, which is the limiting document for the Supreme Court justices. One is not called to the Supreme Court to find ways to 'empathize' or 'synmpathize' with any individual or group. To the extent any justice does that, they violate their oath, it seems to me, since the Constitution is likely temporarily set aside to allow for the empathy. Supreme Court justices, indeed, all judges, are bound by the letter of the law, and / or Constitution, in the case of Federal judges. No other criteria for judgment are called for, or allowed, else the oath of office is essentially violated.

Additionally, it is an interesting fact of human perception that Mr. McLaren reads the speech that he posts, and finds it apparently entirely acceptable in its revelation of Ms. Sotermayor's perception of the role of federal judge. I read that same speech, however, and with respect to Mr. McLaren, it supports my hearing of Ms. Sotermayor's words as - - reverse racism. I continue to believe that Ms. Sotermayor must retract her words in this regard, or else she must not be affirmed by the Senate, to the court.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 8:05pm

Your reframing of my reframed question isn't what I meant and isn't what I was trying to say. I was addressing whether or not her comment should be considered racist and arguing why I thought it should not be.

It is a no-brainer that a person who has experience as a certain type of person, whether that be as a certain race, or in a certain profession, or from a certain part of the country, or whatever that experience may be, is far more qualified to comment on or make decisions about issues pertaining to that experience than someone who has not had those experiences. Therefore, interpreting such a statement as racist is unfounded. We have all had life experiences that make us more qualified in understanding an aspect of life than someone who has not had those experiences. It's not a racist comment--That's all I'm saying.

My comment also had nothing to do with whether or not that is or should be a qualification to be a Supreme Court justice. That is, in fact, a far more relevant issue that should legitimately be addressed. Instead, however, some people are turning the statement into a racist statement and trying to color her as a racist using one sentence taken out of context that is clearly not racist especially when read in context.

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 2:27pm

"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."
I agree with Sotomayer that our life experience and culture cannot help but affect our decisions. I also agree that it is important that we listen to others experiences. That said I have a serious problem with the statement above (even in context). One, is the phrase the "richness of her experiences". Why are the experiences of a Latina woman richer than those of a white male? Why do they make her decisions better than his? I believe that statement is inherently bigoted regardless of context. I have no doubts that if a white male had simply reversed the statement, the context would have been irrelevant and he would have been immediately disqualified. I do not think she says that white males always make inferior decisions. But she is saying that they are more likely to make inferior decisions. If I said that Latina women are more likely to make inferior decisions, I would be considered a racist.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-29-2009 @ 8:37pm

I think the quote is problematic at face value. I can almost imagine having said one or two sentences in my life (or more likely in the last paragraph I wrote) that is problematic.

But let's start with the worst case. What if there is no context? What if there isn't any fuller idea she is trying to get at? What if we take it at face value?

Frankly, I wouldn't even know what it means. All I would have is a wise, experienced Latina woman, and a white male without this experience, making a conclusion about something. And she hopes the woman, at least 51% of the time comes up with a better conclusion.

It's rather nonsensical. So what if we grant each other the grace to qualify a nonsensical sentence once in a while and concern ourselves (if we truly care) with what the person is attempting to say.

I'm not saying we should try to read between the lines; make it say something less or more than it says; just seek a moment of understanding if we genuinely desire to make a wise judgement.

I would happy to work it out further--but think if you just seek to understand (which I believe you do), the one statement will be qualified in a way that makes good sense.

Please remember that in general she is referencing contexts in which there is already quite a prevalence of perspective of wise, experienced, white men.

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 2:35pm

"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."

With all of her writings, speeches, and judicial decisions, is that one sentence the best that they can do? If so, then I anticipate that she will be easily confirmed.

On the other hand, the very fact that the Republicans have elevated Senator Jeff Sessions as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee should give us one clue about their strategy. Sessions, himself, was rejected for the bench under a cloud of racist behavior. Commenting on the KKK, he said that he used to think they were OK until he found out some of them were pot smokers. If the Republicans follow the lead of their primary spokespersons (Limbaugh, Gingrich), the confirmation process could get ugly.

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 9:41pm

I agree in general and she should be given opportunity to explain. My main point is that I want to see the same standard applied to her that would be applied to white males making a similar statement. I think that McLaren clearly (in my opinion) does not do that. Obviously others will see it differently.

by: FrankWright10

09-28-2009 @ 10:45am

i have posted your blog on my site

Regards

name

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 2:49pm

The argument of whether or not a Supreme Court Justice should have empathy is a far more relevant argument than whether or not her comments were racist. McLaren, however, was not addressing that. He was addressing the question of whether or not those comments are racist, and whether or not they were taken out of context.

Sotermayor's comments were not racist. It's a simple fact that someone who lived as a Latina woman will be far more qualified to make wise decisions pertaining to women or Latinos than a white male would. It is a fact that as a white woman, I am far more qualified to make decisions pertaining to white women than a black male would be. And to use perhaps a less political analogy, as a percussionist, I am far more qualified to make decisions about percussion than a trumpet player would be.

As she said, it isn't impossible to make such decisions without the matching experiences, however. She went on to say it requires far more thought and consideration. A trumpet player would need to learn and understand what it means to be a percussionist before making valid decisions about percussion. That is called making an informed decision, and it can also be called empathy.

What is so inflammatory about such statements? Nothing. Such statements are nothing more than common sense that each one of us understands from our own experience.

McLaren's point is valid--the only reason her statements are seen as inflammatory is they were taken out of context and spun that way.

by: mscynthia

05-30-2009 @ 7:14am

Exactly
I knew it was all about fairness all along.

If things were truly fair in this world we would appoint only women judges for the next 200 years.
But I will compromise in the sense of cooperative and forgiving play and settle for half of the supreme court populated by women in the future.
The way things should have been all along.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 3:01pm

I would HOPE that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino woman who hasn't lived that life.

As a white woman, I have no problem with such a statement. I cannot presume to know what life is like as a white man any more than I would expect a white man to understand my experiences as a white woman. I sure would HOPE he who has lived that experience understands it better than I who have not.

The statement itself is straight of Duhsville, if you ask me.

Reframe the question this way:

Do you think a Latina woman is more qualified to make decisions pertaining to Latina women than a white man is?

Well, I sure would HOPE so!

It's a rhetorical question, and to turn it into a racist statement is ridiculous. But it will continue to be spun that way, and people will continue to be outraged because, frankly, there are some who simply want it to be racist. There are some who simply are grasping at any little questionable statement to undermine her as a candidate. And there are those who will refuse to look at the statement in context and think about it rationally.

But as SisterMarie said, this is the best example of so-called racist speech they can come up with?

That's politics for you.

by: mscynthia

05-30-2009 @ 7:29am

Priveleged White Males have been judged by the spirit of the law for quite some time and it has benifited them quite abundantly.
If they had been juded by the letter of the law all this time they would not be particullary happy about it.

I advise you to continue to hope that you will be judged by the spirit of the law in the future.
As being judged for our true crimes most of us need some wisdom and grace.

by: mscynthia

05-30-2009 @ 7:53am

What entered my mind is that this women grew up believing that her own best was never enough. That she had to always keep reaching for the best answer she could find just to feel that she was making an adequate contribution. She just assumed that she would have to work twice as hard as everybody else because good enough was not ever enough.

My minority sisters always had to be such perfectionist just to be counted worthy of their weight in gold and be included as one of the game players in the room.
Her parents expected her to get the best grades in her class because they believed that is what she needed to do just to survive. When the wind finally hit her sails, look where it took her.

by: scat

05-29-2009 @ 3:23pm

For those so concerned about "empathy" affecting one's ability to make proper, rational decisions, I would like to point out that one of the rights guaranteed to us is the right to be judged by our "peers". In court proceedings, it is the jury's job to make decisions on factual issues and the judge's job to make decisions on legal issues. thus we have ingrained in our system the recognition that in order to get a fair trial, the deciders of fact issues need some amount of experience,empathy, understanding,etc of the factual background of the parties.
Impartiality does not require an absence of empathy or understanding. It requires one to be aware of one's biases and make legal and fair decisions regardless of any unfair prejudices.
There was a time when all women were considered too emotional, subject to wide swings in emotions, "hysterical", etc, to make big decisions. Seems the right-wing mouthpieces are trying to resurrect those notions. That's what really underlies their attempts to highlight her remarks about her experience.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: scat

05-29-2009 @ 2:26pm

Those who's assumed superiority is being threatened will turn themselves and logic inside-out to find a way to pin the "racist" label on a progressive or moderate while ignoring the blatant and unapologetic racist and sexist remarks by their own spokesmen. It just demonstrates desperation as they cling to the sinking ship of bigotry. Let's hope that most people see through this nonsensical rhetoric.
Not only is the right trying to paint Judge Sotomayor as a racist, they are calling her "dangerous" because she has the quality of empathy. Empathy now is a vice rather than a virtue. Save us all from those scary empathizers! They seem to think that empathy invades the brain and soul making rational judgment impossible. I guess that explains a lot about the right-wing ideology. No empathy allowed there.

by: scat

05-29-2009 @ 2:26pm

Those who's assumed superiority is being threatened will turn themselves and logic inside-out to find a way to pin the "racist" label on a progressive or moderate while ignoring the blatant and unapologetic racist and sexist remarks by their own spokesmen. It just demonstrates desperation as they cling to the sinking ship of bigotry. Let's hope that most people see through this nonsensical rhetoric.
Not only is the right trying to paint Judge Sotomayor as a racist, they are calling her "dangerous" because she has the quality of empathy. Empathy now is a vice rather than a virtue. Save us all from those scary empathizers! They seem to think that empathy invades the brain and soul making rational judgment impossible. I guess that explains a lot about the right-wing ideology. No empathy allowed there.

by: jkc1945

05-29-2009 @ 2:26pm

My problem with "reaching better decisions" because of a person's upbringing essentially negates the requirement, supported by the oath of office that a Justice of the Supreme Court takes, to extend the same judgment to rich and poor alike, as well as the requirement to make one's judgments based on the Constitution of the United States, which is the limiting document for the Supreme Court justices. One is not called to the Supreme Court to find ways to 'empathize' or 'synmpathize' with any individual or group. To the extent any justice does that, they violate their oath, it seems to me, since the Constitution is likely temporarily set aside to allow for the empathy. Supreme Court justices, indeed, all judges, are bound by the letter of the law, and / or Constitution, in the case of Federal judges. No other criteria for judgment are called for, or allowed, else the oath of office is essentially violated.

Additionally, it is an interesting fact of human perception that Mr. McLaren reads the speech that he posts, and finds it apparently entirely acceptable in its revelation of Ms. Sotermayor's perception of the role of federal judge. I read that same speech, however, and with respect to Mr. McLaren, it supports my hearing of Ms. Sotermayor's words as - - reverse racism. I continue to believe that Ms. Sotermayor must retract her words in this regard, or else she must not be affirmed by the Senate, to the court.

by: jkc1945

05-29-2009 @ 2:26pm

My problem with "reaching better decisions" because of a person's upbringing essentially negates the requirement, supported by the oath of office that a Justice of the Supreme Court takes, to extend the same judgment to rich and poor alike, as well as the requirement to make one's judgments based on the Constitution of the United States, which is the limiting document for the Supreme Court justices. One is not called to the Supreme Court to find ways to 'empathize' or 'synmpathize' with any individual or group. To the extent any justice does that, they violate their oath, it seems to me, since the Constitution is likely temporarily set aside to allow for the empathy. Supreme Court justices, indeed, all judges, are bound by the letter of the law, and / or Constitution, in the case of Federal judges. No other criteria for judgment are called for, or allowed, else the oath of office is essentially violated.

Additionally, it is an interesting fact of human perception that Mr. McLaren reads the speech that he posts, and finds it apparently entirely acceptable in its revelation of Ms. Sotermayor's perception of the role of federal judge. I read that same speech, however, and with respect to Mr. McLaren, it supports my hearing of Ms. Sotermayor's words as - - reverse racism. I continue to believe that Ms. Sotermayor must retract her words in this regard, or else she must not be affirmed by the Senate, to the court.

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 2:27pm

"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."
I agree with Sotomayer that our life experience and culture cannot help but affect our decisions. I also agree that it is important that we listen to others experiences. That said I have a serious problem with the statement above (even in context). One, is the phrase the "richness of her experiences". Why are the experiences of a Latina woman richer than those of a white male? Why do they make her decisions better than his? I believe that statement is inherently bigoted regardless of context. I have no doubts that if a white male had simply reversed the statement, the context would have been irrelevant and he would have been immediately disqualified. I do not think she says that white males always make inferior decisions. But she is saying that they are more likely to make inferior decisions. If I said that Latina women are more likely to make inferior decisions, I would be considered a racist.

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 2:27pm

"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."
I agree with Sotomayer that our life experience and culture cannot help but affect our decisions. I also agree that it is important that we listen to others experiences. That said I have a serious problem with the statement above (even in context). One, is the phrase the "richness of her experiences". Why are the experiences of a Latina woman richer than those of a white male? Why do they make her decisions better than his? I believe that statement is inherently bigoted regardless of context. I have no doubts that if a white male had simply reversed the statement, the context would have been irrelevant and he would have been immediately disqualified. I do not think she says that white males always make inferior decisions. But she is saying that they are more likely to make inferior decisions. If I said that Latina women are more likely to make inferior decisions, I would be considered a racist.

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 2:35pm

"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."

With all of her writings, speeches, and judicial decisions, is that one sentence the best that they can do? If so, then I anticipate that she will be easily confirmed.

On the other hand, the very fact that the Republicans have elevated Senator Jeff Sessions as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee should give us one clue about their strategy. Sessions, himself, was rejected for the bench under a cloud of racist behavior. Commenting on the KKK, he said that he used to think they were OK until he found out some of them were pot smokers. If the Republicans follow the lead of their primary spokespersons (Limbaugh, Gingrich), the confirmation process could get ugly.

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 2:35pm

"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."

With all of her writings, speeches, and judicial decisions, is that one sentence the best that they can do? If so, then I anticipate that she will be easily confirmed.

On the other hand, the very fact that the Republicans have elevated Senator Jeff Sessions as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee should give us one clue about their strategy. Sessions, himself, was rejected for the bench under a cloud of racist behavior. Commenting on the KKK, he said that he used to think they were OK until he found out some of them were pot smokers. If the Republicans follow the lead of their primary spokespersons (Limbaugh, Gingrich), the confirmation process could get ugly.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 2:49pm

The argument of whether or not a Supreme Court Justice should have empathy is a far more relevant argument than whether or not her comments were racist. McLaren, however, was not addressing that. He was addressing the question of whether or not those comments are racist, and whether or not they were taken out of context.

Sotermayor's comments were not racist. It's a simple fact that someone who lived as a Latina woman will be far more qualified to make wise decisions pertaining to women or Latinos than a white male would. It is a fact that as a white woman, I am far more qualified to make decisions pertaining to white women than a black male would be. And to use perhaps a less political analogy, as a percussionist, I am far more qualified to make decisions about percussion than a trumpet player would be.

As she said, it isn't impossible to make such decisions without the matching experiences, however. She went on to say it requires far more thought and consideration. A trumpet player would need to learn and understand what it means to be a percussionist before making valid decisions about percussion. That is called making an informed decision, and it can also be called empathy.

What is so inflammatory about such statements? Nothing. Such statements are nothing more than common sense that each one of us understands from our own experience.

McLaren's point is valid--the only reason her statements are seen as inflammatory is they were taken out of context and spun that way.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 2:49pm

The argument of whether or not a Supreme Court Justice should have empathy is a far more relevant argument than whether or not her comments were racist. McLaren, however, was not addressing that. He was addressing the question of whether or not those comments are racist, and whether or not they were taken out of context.

Sotermayor's comments were not racist. It's a simple fact that someone who lived as a Latina woman will be far more qualified to make wise decisions pertaining to women or Latinos than a white male would. It is a fact that as a white woman, I am far more qualified to make decisions pertaining to white women than a black male would be. And to use perhaps a less political analogy, as a percussionist, I am far more qualified to make decisions about percussion than a trumpet player would be.

As she said, it isn't impossible to make such decisions without the matching experiences, however. She went on to say it requires far more thought and consideration. A trumpet player would need to learn and understand what it means to be a percussionist before making valid decisions about percussion. That is called making an informed decision, and it can also be called empathy.

What is so inflammatory about such statements? Nothing. Such statements are nothing more than common sense that each one of us understands from our own experience.

McLaren's point is valid--the only reason her statements are seen as inflammatory is they were taken out of context and spun that way.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 3:01pm

I would HOPE that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino woman who hasn't lived that life.

As a white woman, I have no problem with such a statement. I cannot presume to know what life is like as a white man any more than I would expect a white man to understand my experiences as a white woman. I sure would HOPE he who has lived that experience understands it better than I who have not.

The statement itself is straight of Duhsville, if you ask me.

Reframe the question this way:

Do you think a Latina woman is more qualified to make decisions pertaining to Latina women than a white man is?

Well, I sure would HOPE so!

It's a rhetorical question, and to turn it into a racist statement is ridiculous. But it will continue to be spun that way, and people will continue to be outraged because, frankly, there are some who simply want it to be racist. There are some who simply are grasping at any little questionable statement to undermine her as a candidate. And there are those who will refuse to look at the statement in context and think about it rationally.

But as SisterMarie said, this is the best example of so-called racist speech they can come up with?

That's politics for you.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 3:01pm

I would HOPE that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino woman who hasn't lived that life.

As a white woman, I have no problem with such a statement. I cannot presume to know what life is like as a white man any more than I would expect a white man to understand my experiences as a white woman. I sure would HOPE he who has lived that experience understands it better than I who have not.

The statement itself is straight of Duhsville, if you ask me.

Reframe the question this way:

Do you think a Latina woman is more qualified to make decisions pertaining to Latina women than a white man is?

Well, I sure would HOPE so!

It's a rhetorical question, and to turn it into a racist statement is ridiculous. But it will continue to be spun that way, and people will continue to be outraged because, frankly, there are some who simply want it to be racist. There are some who simply are grasping at any little questionable statement to undermine her as a candidate. And there are those who will refuse to look at the statement in context and think about it rationally.

But as SisterMarie said, this is the best example of so-called racist speech they can come up with?

That's politics for you.

by: scat

05-29-2009 @ 3:23pm

For those so concerned about "empathy" affecting one's ability to make proper, rational decisions, I would like to point out that one of the rights guaranteed to us is the right to be judged by our "peers". In court proceedings, it is the jury's job to make decisions on factual issues and the judge's job to make decisions on legal issues. thus we have ingrained in our system the recognition that in order to get a fair trial, the deciders of fact issues need some amount of experience,empathy, understanding,etc of the factual background of the parties.
Impartiality does not require an absence of empathy or understanding. It requires one to be aware of one's biases and make legal and fair decisions regardless of any unfair prejudices.
There was a time when all women were considered too emotional, subject to wide swings in emotions, "hysterical", etc, to make big decisions. Seems the right-wing mouthpieces are trying to resurrect those notions. That's what really underlies their attempts to highlight her remarks about her experience.

by: scat

05-29-2009 @ 3:23pm

For those so concerned about "empathy" affecting one's ability to make proper, rational decisions, I would like to point out that one of the rights guaranteed to us is the right to be judged by our "peers". In court proceedings, it is the jury's job to make decisions on factual issues and the judge's job to make decisions on legal issues. thus we have ingrained in our system the recognition that in order to get a fair trial, the deciders of fact issues need some amount of experience,empathy, understanding,etc of the factual background of the parties.
Impartiality does not require an absence of empathy or understanding. It requires one to be aware of one's biases and make legal and fair decisions regardless of any unfair prejudices.
There was a time when all women were considered too emotional, subject to wide swings in emotions, "hysterical", etc, to make big decisions. Seems the right-wing mouthpieces are trying to resurrect those notions. That's what really underlies their attempts to highlight her remarks about her experience.

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 3:29pm

"Do you think a Latina woman is more qualified to make decisions pertaining to Latina women than a white man is?"That's is not what she said, nor is it the context. Can you point out in her speech where she applys her statement only to decisions pertaing to Latina women? In addition the supreme court is called to interpret the law not to make decisions about a specific group. There decisions are not ones that only pertain to a specific group. There decisions pertaing to Americans. My guess is that your reframed question is probably meant to apply to discrimation situations. Those cases don't just pertain to the group alleging discrimination they alos pertain to those accused of discrimantion (I assume you mean the white males.) So using your statement, don't you think that white males would be more qualified to make decisions in those cases since they pertain to white males?

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 3:29pm

"Do you think a Latina woman is more qualified to make decisions pertaining to Latina women than a white man is?"That's is not what she said, nor is it the context. Can you point out in her speech where she applys her statement only to decisions pertaing to Latina women? In addition the supreme court is called to interpret the law not to make decisions about a specific group. There decisions are not ones that only pertain to a specific group. There decisions pertaing to Americans. My guess is that your reframed question is probably meant to apply to discrimation situations. Those cases don't just pertain to the group alleging discrimination they alos pertain to those accused of discrimantion (I assume you mean the white males.) So using your statement, don't you think that white males would be more qualified to make decisions in those cases since they pertain to white males?

by: ando

05-29-2009 @ 3:37pm

Perhaps the white man Brian McLaren should thank God for all those "privileged white males" who fought and died so that he has the privilege of the first amendment right to free speech. And perhaps he, and others, should interview all the immigrants who have made it to the shores of America and found a better life. Maybe those privileged white males could be given some credit.

I can't stand the Rush Limbaughs of the world, but it's not hard to understand why he has such a following.

by: ando

05-29-2009 @ 3:37pm

Perhaps the white man Brian McLaren should thank God for all those "privileged white males" who fought and died so that he has the privilege of the first amendment right to free speech. And perhaps he, and others, should interview all the immigrants who have made it to the shores of America and found a better life. Maybe those privileged white males could be given some credit.

I can't stand the Rush Limbaughs of the world, but it's not hard to understand why he has such a following.

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 4:06pm

"...who fought and died so that he has the privilege of the first amendment right to free speech."

You're obviously referring to the following white males who together with their colleagues will dtermine whether of not Sotomayor is confirmed:
Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, John Kyl, John Cornyn, John Ensign. (None of them served in the military.

Or maybe you're referring to some of the other prominent Republicans:
Mitt Romney, Rudy Guliani, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee (None of them served either.

Now my guess is that if you did your homework, you'd probably find that individuals have served their country who were Black, Hispanic, and perhaps even female Hispanics. So I don't know what your point is about limiting your tribute only to white males.

And by the way, even though your entry has "privileged white males" enclosed in parenthesis, Mr. McClaren did not use that term in his original entry. Perhaps your military experience was limited to service with "privileged white males", but that has not been the experience of many who have served.

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 4:06pm

"...who fought and died so that he has the privilege of the first amendment right to free speech."

You're obviously referring to the following white males who together with their colleagues will dtermine whether of not Sotomayor is confirmed:
Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, John Kyl, John Cornyn, John Ensign. (None of them served in the military.

Or maybe you're referring to some of the other prominent Republicans:
Mitt Romney, Rudy Guliani, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee (None of them served either.

Now my guess is that if you did your homework, you'd probably find that individuals have served their country who were Black, Hispanic, and perhaps even female Hispanics. So I don't know what your point is about limiting your tribute only to white males.

And by the way, even though your entry has "privileged white males" enclosed in parenthesis, Mr. McClaren did not use that term in his original entry. Perhaps your military experience was limited to service with "privileged white males", but that has not been the experience of many who have served.

by: jkc1945

05-29-2009 @ 4:32pm

Respectfully disagree. I happily plead 'guilty' to the moniker of 'conservative,' and I assure you that my concern is whether the Constitution of the United States will, on any occasion, be overriden by the felt need for 'empathy' by the Justices, whoever they are. The Supreme Court is not a 'jury of peers,' they were never intended to be. They were, and are, chartered by the Constitution to use the Constitution to defend the Constitution, and the laws that the legislatures and Congress have passed, and that the Court has judged, to be Constitutional. For the Supreme Court of the United States, my concern is not that any justice should have the ability to 'emphthize' to any extent, whatsoever. I simply want them to interpret the Constitution. That is their charter, and that is substantially their oath of office. I could care less if "Justice" Sotermajor (should she be confirmed) or Justice Thomas can empathize. What I care about it adherance to our limiting document - - The Constitution. No racism whatsoever. I just want them to do their job as it is prescribed. And Ms. Sotermayer's statements, also including her stated judgment that appellate (federal) judges "make policy" - - -worry me. She needs to retract tham, or step down. That is a legitimate conservative stance.

by: jkc1945

05-29-2009 @ 4:32pm

Respectfully disagree. I happily plead 'guilty' to the moniker of 'conservative,' and I assure you that my concern is whether the Constitution of the United States will, on any occasion, be overriden by the felt need for 'empathy' by the Justices, whoever they are. The Supreme Court is not a 'jury of peers,' they were never intended to be. They were, and are, chartered by the Constitution to use the Constitution to defend the Constitution, and the laws that the legislatures and Congress have passed, and that the Court has judged, to be Constitutional. For the Supreme Court of the United States, my concern is not that any justice should have the ability to 'emphthize' to any extent, whatsoever. I simply want them to interpret the Constitution. That is their charter, and that is substantially their oath of office. I could care less if "Justice" Sotermajor (should she be confirmed) or Justice Thomas can empathize. What I care about it adherance to our limiting document - - The Constitution. No racism whatsoever. I just want them to do their job as it is prescribed. And Ms. Sotermayer's statements, also including her stated judgment that appellate (federal) judges "make policy" - - -worry me. She needs to retract tham, or step down. That is a legitimate conservative stance.

by: BlueDeacon

05-29-2009 @ 6:24pm

Keep in mind, however, that we still feel the effects of racism that had been institutionalized even before out country's official founding -- so much so that, in one case, we needed to amend such Constitution several times to keep a specific result of racism from happening again -- and that other SCOTUS decisions were needed to eliminate it legally. (And so-called conservatives objected to even that.)

by: BlueDeacon

05-29-2009 @ 6:24pm

Keep in mind, however, that we still feel the effects of racism that had been institutionalized even before out country's official founding -- so much so that, in one case, we needed to amend such Constitution several times to keep a specific result of racism from happening again -- and that other SCOTUS decisions were needed to eliminate it legally. (And so-called conservatives objected to even that.)

by: WaveTossed

05-29-2009 @ 6:46pm

Actually, I heard some comments by Samuel Alito when he was discussing his experiences of discrimination as an Italian-American during his confirmation heartings. And yet not a peep from Limbaugh or the other neo-con types about this.

It's not truly Sotomayor and her discussions aboute experience that these "conservative" pundits are complaining about. It's the fact that she isn't a true-blue bona-fide "conservative" with views similar to their own.

by: WaveTossed

05-29-2009 @ 6:46pm

Actually, I heard some comments by Samuel Alito when he was discussing his experiences of discrimination as an Italian-American during his confirmation heartings. And yet not a peep from Limbaugh or the other neo-con types about this.

It's not truly Sotomayor and her discussions aboute experience that these "conservative" pundits are complaining about. It's the fact that she isn't a true-blue bona-fide "conservative" with views similar to their own.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 8:05pm

Your reframing of my reframed question isn't what I meant and isn't what I was trying to say. I was addressing whether or not her comment should be considered racist and arguing why I thought it should not be.

It is a no-brainer that a person who has experience as a certain type of person, whether that be as a certain race, or in a certain profession, or from a certain part of the country, or whatever that experience may be, is far more qualified to comment on or make decisions about issues pertaining to that experience than someone who has not had those experiences. Therefore, interpreting such a statement as racist is unfounded. We have all had life experiences that make us more qualified in understanding an aspect of life than someone who has not had those experiences. It's not a racist comment--That's all I'm saying.

My comment also had nothing to do with whether or not that is or should be a qualification to be a Supreme Court justice. That is, in fact, a far more relevant issue that should legitimately be addressed. Instead, however, some people are turning the statement into a racist statement and trying to color her as a racist using one sentence taken out of context that is clearly not racist especially when read in context.

by: squeaky

05-29-2009 @ 8:05pm

Your reframing of my reframed question isn't what I meant and isn't what I was trying to say. I was addressing whether or not her comment should be considered racist and arguing why I thought it should not be.

It is a no-brainer that a person who has experience as a certain type of person, whether that be as a certain race, or in a certain profession, or from a certain part of the country, or whatever that experience may be, is far more qualified to comment on or make decisions about issues pertaining to that experience than someone who has not had those experiences. Therefore, interpreting such a statement as racist is unfounded. We have all had life experiences that make us more qualified in understanding an aspect of life than someone who has not had those experiences. It's not a racist comment--That's all I'm saying.

My comment also had nothing to do with whether or not that is or should be a qualification to be a Supreme Court justice. That is, in fact, a far more relevant issue that should legitimately be addressed. Instead, however, some people are turning the statement into a racist statement and trying to color her as a racist using one sentence taken out of context that is clearly not racist especially when read in context.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-29-2009 @ 8:37pm

I think the quote is problematic at face value. I can almost imagine having said one or two sentences in my life (or more likely in the last paragraph I wrote) that is problematic.

But let's start with the worst case. What if there is no context? What if there isn't any fuller idea she is trying to get at? What if we take it at face value?

Frankly, I wouldn't even know what it means. All I would have is a wise, experienced Latina woman, and a white male without this experience, making a conclusion about something. And she hopes the woman, at least 51% of the time comes up with a better conclusion.

It's rather nonsensical. So what if we grant each other the grace to qualify a nonsensical sentence once in a while and concern ourselves (if we truly care) with what the person is attempting to say.

I'm not saying we should try to read between the lines; make it say something less or more than it says; just seek a moment of understanding if we genuinely desire to make a wise judgement.

I would happy to work it out further--but think if you just seek to understand (which I believe you do), the one statement will be qualified in a way that makes good sense.

Please remember that in general she is referencing contexts in which there is already quite a prevalence of perspective of wise, experienced, white men.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-29-2009 @ 8:37pm

I think the quote is problematic at face value. I can almost imagine having said one or two sentences in my life (or more likely in the last paragraph I wrote) that is problematic.

But let's start with the worst case. What if there is no context? What if there isn't any fuller idea she is trying to get at? What if we take it at face value?

Frankly, I wouldn't even know what it means. All I would have is a wise, experienced Latina woman, and a white male without this experience, making a conclusion about something. And she hopes the woman, at least 51% of the time comes up with a better conclusion.

It's rather nonsensical. So what if we grant each other the grace to qualify a nonsensical sentence once in a while and concern ourselves (if we truly care) with what the person is attempting to say.

I'm not saying we should try to read between the lines; make it say something less or more than it says; just seek a moment of understanding if we genuinely desire to make a wise judgement.

I would happy to work it out further--but think if you just seek to understand (which I believe you do), the one statement will be qualified in a way that makes good sense.

Please remember that in general she is referencing contexts in which there is already quite a prevalence of perspective of wise, experienced, white men.

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 9:41pm

I agree in general and she should be given opportunity to explain. My main point is that I want to see the same standard applied to her that would be applied to white males making a similar statement. I think that McLaren clearly (in my opinion) does not do that. Obviously others will see it differently.

by: paradoxtor

05-29-2009 @ 9:41pm

I agree in general and she should be given opportunity to explain. My main point is that I want to see the same standard applied to her that would be applied to white males making a similar statement. I think that McLaren clearly (in my opinion) does not do that. Obviously others will see it differently.

by: mscynthia

05-30-2009 @ 7:14am

Exactly
I knew it was all about fairness all along.

If things were truly fair in this world we would appoint only women judges for the next 200 years.
But I will compromise in the sense of cooperative and forgiving play and settle for half of the supreme court populated by women in the future.
The way things should have been all along.

by: mscynthia

05-30-2009 @ 7:29am

Priveleged White Males have been judged by the spirit of the law for quite some time and it has benifited them quite abundantly.
If they had been juded by the letter of the law all this time they would not be particullary happy about it.

I advise you to continue to hope that you will be judged by the spirit of the law in the future.
As being judged for our true crimes most of us need some wisdom and grace.

by: mscynthia

05-30-2009 @ 7:29am

Priveleged White Males have been judged by the spirit of the law for quite some time and it has benifited them quite abundantly.
If they had been juded by the letter of the law all this time they would not be particullary happy about it.

I advise you to continue to hope that you will be judged by the spirit of the law in the future.
As being judged for our true crimes most of us need some wisdom and grace.

by: mscynthia

05-30-2009 @ 7:53am

What entered my mind is that this women grew up believing that her own best was never enough. That she had to always keep reaching for the best answer she could find just to feel that she was making an adequate contribution. She just assumed that she would have to work twice as hard as everybody else because good enough was not ever enough.

My minority sisters always had to be such perfectionist just to be counted worthy of their weight in gold and be included as one of the game players in the room.
Her parents expected her to get the best grades in her class because they believed that is what she needed to do just to survive. When the wind finally hit her sails, look where it took her.

by: mscynthia

05-30-2009 @ 7:53am

What entered my mind is that this women grew up believing that her own best was never enough. That she had to always keep reaching for the best answer she could find just to feel that she was making an adequate contribution. She just assumed that she would have to work twice as hard as everybody else because good enough was not ever enough.

My minority sisters always had to be such perfectionist just to be counted worthy of their weight in gold and be included as one of the game players in the room.
Her parents expected her to get the best grades in her class because they believed that is what she needed to do just to survive. When the wind finally hit her sails, look where it took her.

by: BlueDeacon

05-30-2009 @ 12:41pm

A trumpet player would need to learn and understand what it means to be a percussionist before making valid decisions about percussion. That is called making an informed decision, and it can also be called empathy.

This is why would-be music teachers are required to play several instruments -- to understand their capabilities and ranges. This is also why you have had whites masquerade as blacks to go down South and learn what it really was like to be black, especially in the 1950s.

by: BlueDeacon

05-30-2009 @ 12:41pm

A trumpet player would need to learn and understand what it means to be a percussionist before making valid decisions about percussion. That is called making an informed decision, and it can also be called empathy.

This is why would-be music teachers are required to play several instruments -- to understand their capabilities and ranges. This is also why you have had whites masquerade as blacks to go down South and learn what it really was like to be black, especially in the 1950s.

by: Eric77

05-30-2009 @ 4:57pm

Your concept of fairness when it comes to the Supreme Court is flawed. The court system is not a representative body. It's not inherently unfair that the highest court doesn't "look like America". Fairness is about treating people who come before the court equally; it can be accomplished by nine white guys, nine black women, nine Indian Americans or nine space aliens.

by: Eric77

05-30-2009 @ 4:57pm

Your concept of fairness when it comes to the Supreme Court is flawed. The court system is not a representative body. It's not inherently unfair that the highest court doesn't "look like America". Fairness is about treating people who come before the court equally; it can be accomplished by nine white guys, nine black women, nine Indian Americans or nine space aliens.

by: 1Grace

05-30-2009 @ 5:01pm

"It's the fact that she isn't a true-blue bona-fide "conservative" with views similar to their own."

Wave I agree with you . I remember during the Alito hearings his wife actually leaving with tears in her eyes because of the racist claims based on idealogical mocking . Politics has been reduced to caricatures and making your opponent appear worse then dirt.

Yikes if this lady was my daughter , well I be older then dirt , but I would be very proud , who would not ? This almost ,has become like the old Saturday Night Fights . Based on rooting for the person based on perhaps more where they come from then any kind of knowledge of their real fighting abilities.

by: 1Grace

05-30-2009 @ 5:01pm

"It's the fact that she isn't a true-blue bona-fide "conservative" with views similar to their own."

Wave I agree with you . I remember during the Alito hearings his wife actually leaving with tears in her eyes because of the racist claims based on idealogical mocking . Politics has been reduced to caricatures and making your opponent appear worse then dirt.

Yikes if this lady was my daughter , well I be older then dirt , but I would be very proud , who would not ? This almost ,has become like the old Saturday Night Fights . Based on rooting for the person based on perhaps more where they come from then any kind of knowledge of their real fighting abilities.

by: 1Grace

05-30-2009 @ 5:08pm

Fairness is about treating people who come before the court equally;

I think the problem with the empathy tag that has followed her is that their is concern for rulings based on social justice and trying to make things even by looking at the whole picture from a certain perspective . I think that is the issue to most us here anyway . The example of Dred Scott is a decision I bring up because to us is pathetic . But according to law and Constitutional Law it was correct . The Civil War and Constitutional Amendments changed Constitutional law .
Our Constitution was designed so we the people would handle changing such laws . And we have been drastically slow in many areas . Hence the tempatation to politicize Judges . Too bad .

The lady is a American Success story in her personal life , she is a liberal replacing a liberal . Republicans must have nothing better to do these days , but I can think of trillions of things they should be paying attention to .

by: 1Grace

05-30-2009 @ 5:08pm

Fairness is about treating people who come before the court equally;

I think the problem with the empathy tag that has followed her is that their is concern for rulings based on social justice and trying to make things even by looking at the whole picture from a certain perspective . I think that is the issue to most us here anyway . The example of Dred Scott is a decision I bring up because to us is pathetic . But according to law and Constitutional Law it was correct . The Civil War and Constitutional Amendments changed Constitutional law .
Our Constitution was designed so we the people would handle changing such laws . And we have been drastically slow in many areas . Hence the tempatation to politicize Judges . Too bad .

The lady is a American Success story in her personal life , she is a liberal replacing a liberal . Republicans must have nothing better to do these days , but I can think of trillions of things they should be paying attention to .

by: LisaLove

05-30-2009 @ 6:28pm

Are we talking about "fairness" or are we talking about "treating people..equally" MsCynthia's concept is at least a mathematically acceptable definition of fairness. Your concept is more flawed because it assumes that human beings do not bring their own personal experience into their treatment of others. There are some forms of unfairness that are subtle or social norms. If the entire body of the court, whether it is nine white guys, nine black women, or nine American Indians lacks the perspective necessary to recognize an unfairness then they can not protect against it because they can not see it.

by: LisaLove

05-30-2009 @ 6:28pm

Are we talking about "fairness" or are we talking about "treating people..equally" MsCynthia's concept is at least a mathematically acceptable definition of fairness. Your concept is more flawed because it assumes that human beings do not bring their own personal experience into their treatment of others. There are some forms of unfairness that are subtle or social norms. If the entire body of the court, whether it is nine white guys, nine black women, or nine American Indians lacks the perspective necessary to recognize an unfairness then they can not protect against it because they can not see it.

by: JaneinWNY

05-30-2009 @ 8:06pm

1Grace:
"she is a liberal replacing a liberal ."

I am not so sure that this is true. As a "raving liberal" (my description of myself on Facebook), to me she seems quite conservative. I haven't done a huge amount of research, but it seems to me that her decisions come down squarely on the side of the status quo and the law as it is stated. I think she also served in corporate law., It seems to me that she can't be put in either a liberal or conservative box. I don't think we can label her.

Jane

by: JaneinWNY

05-30-2009 @ 8:06pm

1Grace:
"she is a liberal replacing a liberal ."

I am not so sure that this is true. As a "raving liberal" (my description of myself on Facebook), to me she seems quite conservative. I haven't done a huge amount of research, but it seems to me that her decisions come down squarely on the side of the status quo and the law as it is stated. I think she also served in corporate law., It seems to me that she can't be put in either a liberal or conservative box. I don't think we can label her.

Jane

by: 1Grace

05-31-2009 @ 5:34pm

"but it seems to me that her decisions come down squarely on the side of the status quo "

Jane when I stated she was a liberal replacing a liberal I did not mean she would be any means try to be unfair . Liberal Judges are not trying to ber unfair . Thier philospy is different . If you read past the "usual suspects"I call them , those who you could bet money would before any one Judge Obama picked you could bet money that they would be opposed to any Judge or vice a versa anyone would be acceptable just about . Whcih is why people here do not give that much credit to the bloggers here , its almost like is their anything this administration has done your concerned about ? I mean King David goofed up quite a bit . ;0)

I believe you will dind that her Judical philospy is mainstream Liberal . The organizations who are promoting the conservative snick are doing so because it plays better IMO to the folks in the middle . They say hey , she is conservative and liberal , she is fair. I am strange , ask my wife, ;0) but I don't see liberal , moderate , or conservative being intentionally unfair . A Judge from my perspective , in the way it works best in regards to the highest court needs to be impartial in regards if the good guys win or loose in a sense , they need to make sure the law is obeyed . The legislature and Executive branch are the ones who should be making policy and changing the laws . Checks and balances , I don't see 9 folks in robes being wiser then 454 or how many it is now who are suppose to be making our policy . Thats the problem with Judical policy making from my perspective . You haqve a non elected voice making policy based on their discernment . Not their discernment of the law only , but their discernment of the reprecussions of the policy . I rather trust 454 people on policy who have to face re election . I can trust 9 smarty pants on the law .

Of course where i can see me being wrong also , say allowing some racist methods of treating people that were over turned in the 50s and 60s . I think My Judical philopsy could have been used to not stop that racism , in fact racism can hide behide it nd I guess it has .

The recent court hearing in California may show my point , first the Judges say gay marriage is legal , Then the same court said with different circumstances that gay marriage is not legal . I would not say this court is moderate to liberal . They reached a decision under certain circumstances that could be said to support both sides , but each time they used a more liberal philospy to reach their conclussion .

They did the best they can , I just think Judges need to keep to the law , and allow the people to vote on things .