Sonia Sotomayor 0, white people 1

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Or maybe it means that in a panel of pretty much old, white men a latino woman would bring the variety that would enrich that panel.

It would if that is what she stated, and I do believe that is what she intended. In modern politics, she misspoke. But it was a Freudian slip that perhaps says otherwise as well. For someone aspiring to the highest court, it would have been much better to leave any reference to race, or gender, out. The court should be colorblind and gender blind. You don't need to point it out to know she's a woman, and maybe a Latina as well, and that the court has been mainly "old" white men in the past. Shall we discriminate with age now as well?

Now, that is not to say that the court has been particularly colorblind or gender blind in the past, but you don't right wrongs with further wrongs! At best, an honest mistake, at worst, something like the man who once told me, "I'm not predjudice, I'm black".

Buddahaid

The assumption in that sentence implies that:
1. The wise Latina's life experience trumps a white males life experience in most cases.

Apart from the fact that she wasn't talking about most cases , she was talking about a very small number of specific issues and added lots of conditionals. Which is why it must be taken in context.

Just kidding. That's not how language works.

Not very good with language are you.

[Buddahaid]

Tribesman, please don't mix parts of different posts without giving the sources. Your statement that I'm not very good with language, is in response to a different post. Vous savez ce que je veux dire?

Buddahaid

Your statement that I'm not very good with language,

If it was a statement directed at you then I would have used your words and been responding to your words, as I didn't use your words then it isn't directed at you.

[SteamWake]

Good god you guys still at it?

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of english lessons?

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of english lessons?

I find the Safford Unified Schools vs Redding a more interesting recent case.
But as this is about the Ricci vs Destefano case then given the close split on the judgement you have to wonder about the merits of the concurring and dissenting justices and question whether the precedent will stand or not next time a discrimination/reverse discrimination case comes before the Supreme Court.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If it was a statement directed at you then I would have used your words and been responding to your words, as I didn't use your words then it isn't directed at you.

The first quote is mine and would suggest the second is also, unless one were to scan back to find the source.

The Sotomayor quote, in or out of context, is racist, but I'm not calling her a racist. She should have left it as "the richness of her life experience" leaving race and gender out, unless race and gender was her point, thereby making the statement racist.

• Main Entry: rac·ism
• Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
• Function: noun
• Date: 1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective


Buddahaid

It doesn't fit that definition at all since it wasn't a statement about race being a primary determinent of human traits and capacities, neither was it about inherent superiority of a race, it was about experience in a certain field .
No different from a combat pilot saying they hope they would have a better understanding of issues relating to flying in combat than a commercial pilot who had never experienced it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Excellent, an English class!

[SteamWake]

Back on topic.

Republicans, who have criticized Sotomayor's involvement in the group and called it radical, signaled they were searching for clues in the documents about her stances on the many hot-button issues the civil rights organization handled.

A GOP Judiciary aide said the material details PRLDEF's opposition to failed conservative high court nominee Robert Bork, and its ties to the community-activist group ACORN.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/...ayor_documents

[Happy Times]

The subsims enlightened pseudo-intellectual-anarcho-socialists are again irritating normal people. I bet both are loosers with no other life than to troll here and twist facts.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It doesn't fit that definition at all since it wasn't a statement about race being a primary determinent of human traits and capacities, neither was it about inherent superiority of a race, it was about experience in a certain field .
No different from a combat pilot saying they hope they would have a better understanding of issues relating to flying in combat than a commercial pilot who had never experienced it.

At the risk of further peril, I'll say the first definition fits, as capacity can mean the ability or qualifications to do something. In this case, pass judgment.

Buddahaid

At the risk of further peril, I'll say the first definition fits, as capacity can mean the ability or qualifications to do something. In this case, pass judgment.

It doesn't fit as race isn't the primary determinant, the primary determinant was experience of discrimination.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It doesn't fit as race isn't the primary determinant, the primary determinant was experience of discrimination.

My position is based on this quote (which is all I have), and does not mention any discrimination, therefore making race the primary determinant.

Quote:
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.

Buddahaid

My position is based on this quote (which is all I have),

There is a reason why I repeatedly asked what she was actually talking about.
The whole speech is about one thing, and it certainly isn't about hispanics or women being better or superior .
That is why context is important .
Even Aramike noticed that his interpretation was contradicted in the statement , but his mind works in funny ways and seems to think that a contradiction is a comfirmation.
If you cannot find the full speech then try the other Soto topic where two people posted it in full and wondered why Aramike couldn't understand context and why the speech clearly meant the opposite of what he claimed.

As I have said before , I think Sotomayor is an idiot and deserves a lot of criticism....but selectively taking a quote out of context and representing it as something that it isn't is not making a valid criticism.