Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Brian, How is the quote taken out of context? Does the quote have different meaning if you read her whole speech? I don't think so. If a white, Republican male made the same comments, would you be saying that it's a non-issue and simply scare tactics?

I think you are totally wrong in your assessment of this whole thing. As I said earlier, there are plenty of people that are fairly liberal such as Scuds who are troubled by the comments. I think it's insulting for you to say that anyone who disagrees with you on the issue must simply be falling for scare tactics. I think it's totally the opposite. Her comments are not taken out of context. I think people totally understand her comments and are offended by them. Did you consider the possibility that you may be biased on the subject and that you would find the comments offensive if she was a white, republican male?

I do think you are correct that her judicial record is more impotant than some quotes she has made. But I think her quotes are certainly something that people will and should consider just as they would if she was a white, republican male.

Of course I would find those comments offensive if a white, Republican male made them. Actually, perhaps offensive isn't the right word, but delusional would be better.

Only white, male, Republicans think that white, male, Republicans have some unique set of life experiences. Minorities of all kinds, folks without the sorts of built in privilege, DO have a unique view on things. I fully believe that, and it has nothing to do with quotas, affirmative action, or anything. White, male, heterosexual, Republicans would easily be the most privileged class of folks in the entire country, so of COURSE it would be different, because it would make absolutely no sense and it would rightly be seen as nothing but a racialist comment.

I firmly believe, and people can disagree all they want, that being a minority and having qualities about you that have no privilege does make one privy to a unique set of circumstances....and white, male, heterosexual, Republicans are about as privileged as you can get.

If the concept of privilege is lost on you, then I could type 80,000 words on it and you'll never get it.

EDIT: Let me add that I don't think that this unique set of experiences I'm talking about should influence her judicial philosophy, and she was being honest in that speech while acknowledging that it exists, how her striving to remain impartial is key. She knows that this potential bias is there, but she admits it's there and talks about how she avoids letting it influence her. The fact that she's a Latina isn't why I think she should be a judge, and she essentially admits as much in her speech. I take this whole dustup as nothing more than people interpreting something she said in a way she didn't mean it whatsoever, because to me, all she's done is acknowledge that minorities realize that their experience is unique in white America.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course I would find those comments offensive if a white, Republican male made them. Actually, perhaps offensive isn't the right word, but delusional would be better.

Only white, male, Republicans think that white, male, Republicans have some unique set of life experiences. Minorities of all kinds, folks without the sorts of built in privilege, DO have a unique view on things. I fully believe that, and it has nothing to do with quotas, affirmative action, or anything. White, male, heterosexual, Republicans would easily be the most privileged class of folks in the entire country, so of COURSE it would be different, because it would make absolutely no sense and it would rightly be seen as nothing but a racialist comment.

I firmly believe, and people can disagree all they want, that being a minority and having qualities about you that have no privilege does make one privy to a unique set of circumstances....and white, male, heterosexual, Republicans are about as privileged as you can get.

If the concept of privilege is lost on you, then I could type 80,000 words on it and you'll never get it.

i'd just concede she misspoke.

if there was only one "wise" decision, then a wise white male should reach the same decision as a wise latina female.

in this sort of discourse you have to ignore that there isn't a single "wise" course and that all decisions have both bad and good consequences. you have to ignore context. you have to ignore nuance.

this part of the nomination process isn't about the nominee. it's political, not judicial.

she can't speak for herself in public until the judiciary committee hearings. in the meantime, all the "judicial watch" pac's have to justify their existence. this is when they get all their contribution's.

relax. every nominee goes through this process. no one will remember the "controversy" a year from now.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'd just concede she misspoke.

That's what I'm doing -- it has nothing to do with being "wise" at all. It has to do with acknowledging a unique set of circumstances and being cognizant of their existence. And it has nothing to do with her judicial philosophy, which is why I characterize it as a scare quote...because it's being pulled out of this speech to prove one point, when the point she was making is a world away.

I'm not saying she's a better judge because of them...and she doesn't seem to think so either in the context of the entire speech she gave.