Sotomayor, No Content Of Character Here
Imagine a white male conservative making the same comments that Judge Sonia Sotomayor made:
A wise White man with his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female,”
The mainstream media (old media) would have a field day recounting how racist Republicans are. It would be nonstop media coverage not seen since Trent Lott’s infamous statements.
Now here are Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s comments. Keep in mind that when she said these comments that she was dead serious:
A wise Latina woman with her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male,”
To refute President Obama’s claim that it was a slip of the tongue, she repeated almost the very same words back in 1994. So the canard by President Obama is false, or in layman’s terms a flat-out lie.
Not to mention that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a militant and racist Latino organization which is also affiliated with an even more racist organization, MEChA.
I remember back in college in Tucson when I attended the University of Arizona, I would have long discussions with many cohorts from MEChA into the wee hours of the morning about the goals of MEChA. They were unrepentent racists, nationalists, anarchists that want to break up the United States for “Aztlan” or “Republica del Norte“. No matter how I would argue with them and about their tactics, they want to “reclaim” the land by whatever means necessary. With absolutely no compulsion. Needless to say that I stopped spending my valuable time with, ie, I never joined. In fact ALL of my latino friends disengaged from their activities because of their disgust with their racism towards “whites”.
Imagine a white conservative having an affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan. You wouldn’t have heard apologetic remarks from our president along the lines of “misspoke” and “poor” choice of words now would you?
(Biretta Tip: Ben Smith)
15 Responses to Sotomayor, No Content Of Character Here
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YqM_zH1K7Uw/TOK1hLlt3BI/AAAAAAAAA1o/HCzoksN1-ME/s1600/email+icon+32x32.png")
Recent Comments
- Jennifer Isaac commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(8 minutes ago) - Elizabeth D commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(1 hours ago) - mary commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(1 hours ago) - Anzlyne commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(2 hours ago) - James commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(2 hours ago) - Stacy Trasancos commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(2 hours ago) - Defender commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(2 hours ago) - Stacy Trasancos commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(3 hours ago) - Mary commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(3 hours ago) - Stacy Trasancos commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(3 hours ago) - Appreciative Protestant Reader commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(3 hours ago) - Arkasha commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(4 hours ago) - Pinky commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(5 hours ago) - Shank Rosenthal commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(5 hours ago) - Paul Zummo commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(6 hours ago) - Mary De Voe commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(6 hours ago) - Mike Petrik commented on Margeaux's Stand: Catholic Teen Defends Her Right to Attend Mass
(6 hours ago)
RealCatholicTV.com
Digest of Top Posts in St. Blogs
A wise woman will more often than not reach a better conclusion than most males.
Gabriel,
A wise woman will more often than not reach a better conclusion than most males.
and conversly a wise man will more often than not reach a better conclusion than most females.
Now, to be clear, we’re talking about the proper understanding of “wise”. Here’s another thoughts:
An “educated” man or woman will more often than not reach a worse conclusion than most anybody.
Gabriel,
Indeed, but a “learned” person has a better chance of becoming a “wise” person than most.
Mike Petrik,
Indeed, but a “learned” person has a better chance of becoming a “wise” person than most.
not typically in this day and age, maybe before the “enlightenment”.
am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.
– William F. Buckley
Matt,
I intended my post as a response to yours, and without getting into the relevance of the so-called enlightenment, my point was to distinguish the “learned” from the “educated.” I suspect you would agree with that point, properly understood.
Sorry Mike, I though you were equating learned with education. So if you agree that the 2000 professors of Harvard are neither wise, nor learned no matter how educated they are, then we’re on the same page.
At the risk of being accused of making sweeping generalizations, I agree completely — at least in principle.
Imagine a white conservative saying: “A wise Italian woman with her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”
I doubt there would’ve been much protest.
I’m not very familiar with La Raza. How many whites have they lynched?
–Imagine a white conservative saying: “A wise Italian woman with her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”
—
May I then in the same spirit nominate my wise grandmother for the USSC. She’s an Indian fisherwoman but (per Asimov) as indeed all grandmothers, is in fact Jewish.
RR,
If you ever read anything from La Raza you would be appalled at the literature out there.
As far as I can recollect, I haven’t read any Italian-American literature calling for the annexation of the eastern United States to Italy and calling themselves the Master Race.
I have no love in my Hispanic heart for La Raza, MEChA, et al. I also am not naive about the meaning of identity politics, in particular Affirmative Action (see my recent post at Vox-Nova: http://vox-nova.com/2009/06/02/experiencing-affirmative-action/).
Add to that, I do not know Sotomayor or what she meant by this statement. Having said that, none of us “know” her intentions or the meaning of her language here.
The point where I dispute this post (and others like it) is that there is only one meaning to her statement. There is a connotation of racism, to be had, for sure.
However, I think that there is also another meaning that is hardly controversial, albeit politically incorrect. Namely, that the our life experiences shape our ability to interpret the world, in this case, the law.
This is why a Catholic perspective, to me, is a richer view to look at thing with when compared to narrower views–for this very reason I supported the nominations of Alito and Roberts, and was deeply criticized for it.
So, while lumping in the implication that she is racist may still be a possible way to interpret what she said and her affiliations with the organization that smack of supremacy (although for complex, yet still misguided in my mind, reasons) are troubling, there is no reason to think that this interpretation has some kind of monopoly over the possible meaning of her words.
Perhaps I am wrong, but the content and tone of this post suggests that this is the “real,” “only” way to see her comments. And that clearly seems to be untrue.
Sam,
The context of the post is very limited, for that matter all posts are, since it can be difficult to understand the context of where the person is coming from as well as the words themselves.
With that said, a lot of people in La Raza and MEChA as well, can be discerned as well meaning. Just as those that may have joined the Nazi party in the Weimer Republic of the 1930s.
I.E., not all people are bad by association.
With that said, considering the educational and intellectual background of Miss Sonia Sotomayor, it can be construed as a very poor judgement on her part for being affiliated with such organizations. As well as her work in college for calling for Puerto Rican independence.
For all we know, she may well be a very patriotic American and is embarressed by her poor choice of words. Unfortunately she does not have the character to admit the errors of her way since she is determined to be a Supreme Court Justice.
If she were to recant and be apologetic, I would certainly be one of the very first to accept it and maybe even accept her as a Supreme Court Justice, but her admitting her mistakes is not part of her character. Sadly. She is of this world and not Christs.
I am beyond “ethnic” politics, at least I think so. If the nominee were of “Latino” ethnicity but of a practicing Catholic, I would be celebrating the fact that she is Catholic. Not that she is “Latino”.
I have no doubt that she will be confirmed, regardless of her less than stellar career as a district judge, since it seems to guilty white liberals that ethnicity and empathy trump experience and character.
My posting was basically for historical posterity. So when people look back and see the baffling and poor writing of Miss Sonia Sotomayor, they will see why she was placed on the bench.
Simply because of the color of her skin and her gender. Not because she was qualified.
Tito, thanks for acknowledging the limits here. But even given the limitations you mention, I don’t understand the meaning of many of the words you are using (e.g. liberal, the problem with PR independence, belonging to the world vs. Christ) and the concepts that follow.
The biggest problem, however, is that you seem to have missed a major consequence of my comment. Namely, that your interpretation of Sotomayor here, posted for posterity, could in fact be completely wrong. Which would mean she would have no reason to apologize int eh first place. Instead, she would only have to say what she meant in a way that a bit more clear.
So, the needed apology would only be if you are right here, but—and this was my point—you may be quite wrong and neither one of us can possibly know that for sure. But, while you say you have serious limits, being wrong isn’t really one of them here.
No, my point is not saying that guilt by association is true (of course it isn’t), it is saying that, given what she said, there are other possible interpretation that should keep our decisions on the matter (i.e. what she said) open ended for now.
There is a decidedly partisan tone to your argument, as I read it, that seems to prevent you from granting that limitation. Without doing so, I fear you are simply asserting something as plausible for your cause as the other are plausible for the other side of the aisle. My point is this: both sides are bankrupt, we do much better thinking free from them, and, if we do, then, we cannot say the things you are saying here or the other side is saying there—you are both wrong, for now.
Forgive the grammar and misspellings, I think the basic ideas are still intelligible, though.
Sam,
I respectfully disagree with your sentiments.
I am not a registered Republican and have rightfully castigated people such as Rudy Guiliani and Sean Hannity for being less than truthful in their faith.
I am a history buff and always take care with what I write knowing that history will prove me right in the end (at least I think so). In addition, you pointing out the fact that this is an opinion is like accusing the President of being partisan. Of course it is my opinion, that is why I wrote this piece.
I do presume, based on the mountain of information that I have, especially since I feel that I am a patriotic American and disavow all calls for the dissolution of union when it comes to Puerto Rico. If Miss Sotomayor would apologize for her un-American statements in supporting anarchy and her racist remarks, then I would be supportive.
But considering her lack of faith and her lack of character, I highly doubt this will occur. Though I would be happy to be corrected here.
Grammar and misspellings are easily forgiven. Please forgive me as well for the same.
For posterity’s sake, I opine that history will judge Miss Sotomayor harshly. May she return to her faith and find solace in the Lord with His mercy so she can deal with the shame and rightful scorn that will be placed upon her during her time (assuming she gets confirmed) as a Supreme Court Justice.