The Demo Site

3 comments:

1. zachhcaz22 says:

   May 26, 2009 4:51 PM

   "Why does she specify "White" Male, there are males of other Races, or is it just the "White" Male that would not come to a better conclusion? Surely Sotomayor is not Racist, or believes that one gender is more capable of performing than another."
   
   She specifies white males for a reason: white males are the power holders in most Western societies, including our own. Yes, there are males of other races but what she is saying is that those people are still likely to experience hardship because of prejudices against them for being 'different.' Further, of course a Hispanic female will have a different outlook than a white male as they are, again, more likely to experience first hand the prejudices and inequalities inherent in any, especially our, society.
   
   As for this: "The Law is the Law, Justice is blind to Race or Gender, hence the Blindfold. I do not believe a Judge should fall back on "Their" personal experiences when decisionmaking. If one decides on their past experiences, one is judging on emotion. I see little benefit nor need in relying on your experience--Race and Gender- to determine the fate of another!!"
   
   The Law may be the Law, but the punishment is quite often not the same for a white male as it is for a Hispanic man, a black man, an Asian man, etc. This is why it is important for the Judge to know what it is like to be put through those troubles: empathy.
   
   That being said, I agree with you that in a perfect society those things shouldn't matter but this is far from a perfect society.

1. Anonymous says:

   May 31, 2009 10:53 AM

   I think that that sentence is, at best, ill phrased. However, it is also clear that the debate over her nomination is centered around this one sentence, from one speech, some 8 years ago, and not centered around her previous record of decisions or her education. It isn't even centered around the entire speech, which I just spent 10 unsuccessful minutes trying to find.
   
   If the best that can be brought out against her is one sentence out of context from a speech 8 years years ago, she must be pretty impressive.

1. Anonymous says:

   May 31, 2009 11:57 AM

   http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
   Transcript of Judge Sotomayor’s 2001 speech “A Latina judge's voice” given at a symposium at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
   
   Clearly it was a speech about diversity (or lack thereof) on the court(s), and what it meant to be a “Latina Woman Judge.” I have no way of knowing whether she was asked to speak on this topic, or was asked to speak on a topic of her choice. Seeing her complete quote in context, not surprisingly, changes my view of it somewhat. If I were to criticize it, now, I would object to “more often than not”. Presumably more often than not Sandra Day O’Connor reached the same decision as “wise old men”, as she suggested.
   
   
   
   The complete paragraph containing the relevant quote is:
   
   “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.”
   
   
   
   Another paragraph that struck me was:
   
   “Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”