Obama Pundit

by Obama Pundit

A lot is being bandied back and forth over this comment by Obama’s SCOTUS nominee:

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.

This has prompted Newt Gingrich and others to accuse Sotomayor of racism.  Michael Hogan of Vanity Fair proceeded to spit the usual venom back Gingrich’s way, while defending Sotomayor and citing conservative Rod Dreher’s relative ambivalence as a shield from the racist charge.  Writes Dreher:

I’m still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it’s unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet — and this is a key point — she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist.

I think, however, that Dreher takes Sotomayor too much at her word.  If you read the actual speech, you’ll find the proper context.  Here’s the key passage:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less (italics added) 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.

Dreher misses the context.  Yes, Sotomayor says that a jurist should strive for neutrality, but based on her lecture she seems extremely satisfied and content with the idea that actually becoming a neutral judge is unlikely.  She seems to say that it’s not really that important to try too hard on this front and, indeed, she abhors the influence of race and gender in the judiciary less than her colleague.  Her speech shows that she is quite accepting of it.

In other words, her natural inclination is to look at things through the prism of gender and race while giving lip service to the notion of objectivity.   Since she believes that white males aren’t neutral–and more importantly aren’t striving for neutrality–then her perspective helps to ‘balance’ theirs out.  More on this here:

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. Other 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.

I am not sure what she means by ‘extrapolating’ her experiences into areas in which she is unfamiliar.  It sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me.  Perhaps this mentality is what led to her abominable decision in the Ricci Case.  Those firefighters surely didn’t get much empathy from Judge Sotomayor.  Was it because they were not Latinas? 

It begs the question:  Should she not recuse herself from cases in which her personal experience has no bearing?  Otherwise, how will she be able to make a judgement?    

But don’t worry, as long as she is ’striving’ for neutrality, that’s apparently enough for Dreher.  Imagine if the Civil Rights movement merely ’strived’ for equality, but happily accepted racism as a reality of life.  Since when is being an accomodationist on bigotry a sign of a realistic outlook? 

I am not sure if Sotomayor is a racist based on what she has said and written.  But there’s no doubt in my mind that she has a world view that tags people by sex, race and class.  And that’s not an appropriate mind set for a member of the highest court in the land.