« | »

AP: Sotomayor Explains ‘Wise Latina’

From her public defenders at the Associated Press

Sotomayor clarifies ‘wise Latina’ comment

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor says she doesn’t believe that "any racial or ethnic group has an advantage in sound judgment."

She was asked Tuesday at her Senate confirmation hearing to clarify her controversial remark that a "wise Latina" might be able to make better decisions than a white man.

Sotomayor told Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy that she used those words in an effort to inspire groups of young Hispanics to believe that "they could become anything they wanted to become."

The high court nominee said she believes different life experiences enrich the legal system.

This is what is known as ‘instant revisionism.’

This article would have you believe that Ms. Sotomayor only made her “wise Latina” pronouncement once, and only to a group of Hispanics.

In fact, as we have previously reported, besides her 2001 ‘Diversity’ speech at Berkeley, Ms. Sotomayor had made a remarkably similar statements to at least two other forums that we know of.

Here is what Ms. Sotomayor said in her 2002 Speech To The Princeton Club (a pdf file):

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 make and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman 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 the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, 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.

And again in in her 2003 speech to Seton Hall (a pdf file):

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 make and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman 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 the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Professor Martha Minnow is correct, 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.

Was Ms. Sotomayor trying to inspire the young Hispanics at the Princeton Club? Or at Seton Hall?

Also, as we have often noted, the rest of Ms. Sotomayor’s remarks in her Berkeley speech are just as bad or even worse than the “wise Latina” line.

All of which is information that should be readily available to the Senate Judiciary Committee and indeed our watchdog media – even the Associated Press.

And yet they somehow manage to ignore it.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

18 Responses to “AP: Sotomayor Explains ‘Wise Latina’”

  1. proreason says:

    Following in the footsteps of the Liar in Chief.

    There is no lie too blatant for these arrogant criminals to foist on the country.

    Even denying their own undeniable words is a daily routine.

    • neocon mom says:

      Any surprise really after “Turbo Tax Tim” passed off his whopper?

      I’m afraid we’re likewise stuck with “The Wise Latina”.

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “… to inspire groups of young Hispanics to believe that ‘they could become anything they wanted to become.’ ”

    Yes, why waste time boosting cars and selling crack? With today’s government-controlled organized crime, they can become loosely-affiliated, minimum-effort doctors, lawyers and even presidents.

    Just look at how easy it is.

    • proreason says:

      “minimum-effort doctors, lawyers”

      Why bother with the minutia of reading law books, all of that obtuse logic and having to learn precedents when everything has changed anyway.

      Everyone has an innate sense of justice and fairness.

      Really, the world has wasted billions of years by training lawyers.

      Just get a few wise Latinas or even people who have spent time being incarcerated. They know more about fairness than some asswipe white guy.

  3. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    Relax everyone. Yes, we no longer have the votes in either the house nor the senate to block this woman’s confirmation. But look at the bright side-yes there is one. Now everything they do is on their heads. The economy, foreign policy, and in this case the judicial are all monsters of their own making. And although I presently don’t give high marks to the American public for voting in this cabal of power hungry idiots, eventually they’ll wake up and throw them out.

    What many Americans don’t realize is that they have the power to impeach justices of the Supreme Court. Even though they’re appointed for life. Granted it’s never been done but that option does exist.

    • neocon mom says:

      “Now everything they do is on their heads. ”

      Don’t get me wrong, I was cheering whilst listening to Jeff Sessions today. I’m glad someone is making the case.
      However, you’re right (and so is Lindsey Graham) she will probably get confirmed. And your point about impeachment is valid.
      However, the silver lining to all of this (provided conservatives take control of the congress in 2010) could be this woman being the equivalent of a bad tattoo you get when you’re 18–a “permanent” reminder never to make such a “permanent” mistake again.

  4. untrainable says:

    I think it’s interesting to watch as Sotomayor professes that no one ethnic group should have any advantage over another while being so proud of being the first “Latina” on the court. If she were not getting preferential treatment for being “Latina” she would not have been admitted to her law school. She admitted that her test scores were not high enough to get her in without affirmative action. Someone explain where the line is when everything becomes equal.

  5. pdsand says:

    Another case of the “clarification” making things worse? I think so, because if you take her at her word, she is apparently having visions of ambitious young hispanics everywhere she goes.

  6. MinnesotaRush says:

    But of course (!!!) her comments were nothing other than “… to inspire groups of young Hispanics to believe that ‘they could become anything they wanted to become.’ ”. They had nothinnnnng to do with any perceived prejudice(s).

    Yeah righhhhhhhhht! My lieing ears and eyes.

    These people are truly sickened and shameless!

  7. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Someone somewhere did a thing here I think where you replace everything she says with a “white slant” to it and see if the NAACP radar doesn’t explode.

    I would hope that a wise, WHITE MAN with the richness of his experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.

  8. bronzeprofessor says:

    This woman is so full of feces. Why on earth would Hispanics need to hear a weird, bizarrely eugenic argument about “wise Latinas” with “richness of experience” making better judgments than white men, in order to be all they want to be?

    THIS IS SUCH BULL POO!!!!

    First, if you are speaking to a bunch of Latino law students at Berkeley, I don’t think your audience needs a booster shot from a “role model.” That’s like preaching to other preachers.

    Second, why does a pig-headed, essentialist, stereotypical, and ignorant statement get any more credit if it is being made for the vague purpose of inspiring people?

    Third, why claim you only made the statement once when you said it dozens of times, and we know you’re choreographic everything to suit your ambition, so your REAL thoughts are probably 1000 times more offensive?

    She’s horrible. Ugly, frumpy, stupid, a wicked baby-killing monster.

    • dulcimergrl says:

      I agree she’s horrible. And her picture is everywhere; I’m seeing her ugly mug more than obambi’s these days. It’s a toss-up which one makes me feel more ill…

    • Steve says:

      To my mind Ms. Sotomayor bears an uncanny resemblance to Hugo Chavez.

      And not just in her general appearance and her penchant for the color red. But in her politics as well.

    • Right of the People says:

      She almost makes Thunderbutt and the Hildabeast look attractive. Almost.

  9. canary says:

    Another anti-American, who was raised by America, but won’t give up their ancestors.
    Just like the Mexican protest of not working a day waving their Mexican flags and La Viva Mexico banners.
    They love living here, and reaping the beneifits, but hate American white people.

  10. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    The woman loves to keep bringing up her Latina-ness to the point of absurdity. Years ago when Clinton’s Secretary of HUD, Henry Cisneros was revealed to have had an affair, a local female Hispanic journalist proclaimed it was bad enough the Henry had an affair but did he have to do it with a Gringa? As if having a tryst with a Latina would’ve somehow made it more forgivable to his wife. Maybe Sotomayer and the journalist are somehow related. For they both display a similar irrational mindset of stupidity.

    • proreason says:

      It’s the only credential that “qualifies” her for the Supreme Court. Without that, she is just a below average lockstep-liberal judge.

  11. 1republicanscientist says:

    OK, folks, let’s be honest about what her comment really was, she said she felt like her judicial decisions were wise when made in the la-trina.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »