Is this a racist statement? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Zenturian · 05-29-2009, 07:29 PM

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina who hasn't lived that life."

inBOIL · 05-29-2009, 07:44 PM

It depends on the context. Are a specific white man's experiences being referenced, or is there a presumption that the white man's life experience has been richer than that of the latina?

roachboy · 05-29-2009, 07:46 PM

why do you ask?

aberkok · 05-29-2009, 07:46 PM

Yes. That he is white should be irrelevant, and bringing that in presents racist undertones.

Willravel · 05-29-2009, 07:46 PM

The collective experiences would seem to be the determining factor in reaching that better conclusion. Experience equals a better conclusion. The races aren't a part of the statement, but are rather a reference to a context that you haven't supplied. It's that context that would determine if the statement is racist.

Willravel · 05-29-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

why do you ask?

He's referencing Sotomayor.

timalkin · 05-29-2009, 07:50 PM

Zenturian · 05-29-2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The collective experiences would seem to be the determining factor in reaching that better conclusion. Experience equals a better conclusion. The races aren't a part of the statement, but are rather a reference to a context that you haven't supplied. It's that context that would determine if the statement is racist.

No not experience. The quote specificaly says that one race will make one come to better conclusions. Isn't that by definition, racist?

JumpinJesus · 05-29-2009, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenturian

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina who hasn't lived that life."

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's a false point.

If two people - let's say, oh, a black man and a white man - are in a race and the white man takes a tire iron and beats the hell out of the black man and continues running while the black man is hospitalized and recovers and the white man then claims, "He's now just as healthy as me and has every opportunity to win this race as me!" the race is still not a fair race.

In order to make it right, and a truly fair race, the white man would have to be severely beaten with a tire iron to an extent that his injuries are comparable, or be forced to sit out an equal amount of time that the black man was out of the race.

If it's a relay race, the next baton carrier can say, "I didn't beat him. It's not my fault he's so far back," all he wants - he's still ahead because the black man had the holy hell beaten out of him and the win will not be fair, no matter how much the white man whines about it.

That is after all, what this is all about, isn't it?

Zenturian · 05-29-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's a false point.

If two people - let's say, oh, a black man and a white man - are in a race and the white man takes a tire iron and beats the hell out of the black man and continues running while the black man is hospitalized and recovers and the white man then claims, "He's now just as healthy as me and has every opportunity to win this race as me!" the race is still not a fair race.

In order to make it right, and a truly fair race, the white man would have to be severely beaten with a tire iron to an extent that his injuries are comparable, or be forced to sit out an equal amount of time that the black man was out of the race.

If it's a relay race, the next baton carrier can say, "I didn't beat him. It's not my fault he's so far back," all he wants - he's still ahead because the black man had the holy hell beaten out of him and the win will not be fair, no matter how much the white man whines about it.

That is after all, what this is all about, isn't it?

So why bring race into it at all? Why not say, " I lived a rich life, something someone from a sequestered, sheltered life can not fathom. It is due to that full life that will lead me to make better judgments."

Did her life make her more wise than say Asians? Or just white people? Add into the mix the fact that she is a member of a seperatist organisation, La Raza, and her meaning becomes crystal clear. Remember, La Raza, or The Race, is by definition a racist group. Their goals, like that of the KKK is to divide the USA along racial lines.

I do not want to see this woman anywhere near the supreme court.

filtherton · 05-29-2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenturian

No not experience. The quote specificaly says that one race will make one come to better conclusions. Isn't that by definition, racist?

It's like will said. Context is everything. So while it is easy to look at this statement on its own and think that it's racist, there are certain contexts where it wouldn't be.

And in any case, who cares? What does it have to do with her ability to perform as a supreme court justice? How come all of these people who are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo concerned about her ability to properly make legal decisions are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo caught up on something that is hardly even tangentially related to her ability to hand out quality legal decisions? You'd think they'd pay attention to her actual legal decisions, because, you know, they indicate how she might actually perform after she is confirmed as a supreme court justice.

This issue is little more than cud for the cows who love nothing more than sit in their fields, eat what is given to them, and watch the world pass them by.

dippin · 05-29-2009, 08:20 PM

Instead of playing gotcha, why don't we discuss the actual quote, in all extension?

Here is the full lecture:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...text.html?_r=1

to quote the sections around where this specific statement was made:

Quote:

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. 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.

...

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.

If that is the best example of "racism" that the opposition to her appointment can do, she will do fine.

Her basic point in her speech is almost commonsensical - that one's life experiences affect one's perspective and judgment. And then she goes on to outline changes in legal perspective that have taken place as more women and minorities have been appointed to key judgeships. She is arguing against the notion that wise people will reach the same conclusion no matter what their background, and she shows how seminal decisions we take for granted today only took place as minorities and women became more prevalent in the justice system, and it is in that context that she mentions the Latina woman experience.

She goes out of her way several times to claim that these minorities and women should not judge as strictly minorities or women, and that the goal of impartiality is unreachable but must remain a goal. Her entire point is that the unique experiences of being a minority or a woman should not cloud or bias their judgment, but that their experiences should enrich their perspectives.

At no point she says that white men should not be judges, or that they are inferior judicial minds.

JumpinJesus · 05-29-2009, 08:21 PM

Racism has two basic definitions: it's denotation (that is, its dictionary definition), and it's connotation (that is, the emotion ascribed to the word).

I didn't actually look it up because I'm a little lazy with things like that, but from memory, a racist is a person who believes that certain races are inherently superior to others. By this definition, it's possible she is a racist. I don't honestly know. I don't know what goes on inside her head. I don't believe she is, but I can't say with any certainty.

The connotation of racist is that of a KKK member in a white hood and white sheet or a neo-nazi or skinhead or someone who seeks to suppress another race usually through violent means.

I don't think she fits the connotation of a racist because I don't see her riding around in the back of a pickup holding up a torch as they chase down white people leaving Whole Foods™.

I do agree with the idea that there is no room for a racist on the Supreme Court. If it comes out that she truly is a racist, then I wouldn't want her confirmed, either. However, I don't think I'm in agreement with the radical right's attempt to characterize La Raza as a racist organization or Sotomayor as a racist individual.

dippin · 05-29-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenturian

So why bring race into it at all? Why not say, " I lived a rich life, something someone from a sequestered, sheltered life can not fathom. It is due to that full life that will lead me to make better judgments."

Did her life make her more wise than say Asians? Or just white people? Add into the mix the fact that she is a member of a seperatist organisation, La Raza, and her meaning becomes crystal clear. Remember, La Raza, or The Race, is by definition a racist group. Their goals, like that of the KKK is to divide the USA along racial lines.

I do not want to see this woman anywhere near the supreme court.

First, would you want anyone appointed by a democrat there?

Second, did you even read the entire speech? Do you know when and where it was given?

ratbastid · 05-29-2009, 08:35 PM

Of course, the statement is entirely, completely true.

A wise white man WILL reach a better conclusion... for the benefit of white men.

Zenturian · 05-29-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

It's like will said. Context is everything. So while it is easy to look at this statement on its own and think that it's racist, there are certain contexts where it wouldn't be.

And in any case, who cares? What does it have to do with her ability to perform as a supreme court justice? How come all of these people who are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo concerned about her ability to properly make legal decisions are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo caught up on something that is hardly even tangentially related to her ability to hand out quality legal decisions? You'd think they'd pay attention to her actual legal decisions, because, you know, they indicate how she might actually perform after she is confirmed as a supreme court justice.

This issue is little more than cud for the cows who love nothing more than sit in their fields, eat what is given to them, and watch the world pass them by.

Again, lets see if you would like a KKK member saying that white experience trumps any Latina experience and see if its SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cool.

Willravel · 05-29-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenturian

No not experience. The quote specificaly says that one race will make one come to better conclusions. Isn't that by definition, racist?

You should post the quote you're referencing, because the one in the OP is grammatically clear: the "richness of experience" leads to "a better conclusion", and the reference to race doesn't correlate with the conclusion. I'm sure someone with a better education in language can make this more clear, but I'm pretty sure my understanding is sound.

---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

If that is the best example of "racism" that the opposition to her appointment can do, she will do fine.

QFT. The contrarians don't stand a chance on this nomination.

dippin · 05-29-2009, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenturian

Again, lets see if you would like a KKK member saying that white experience trumps any Latina experience and see if its SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cool.

except that is not even close to what she was saying.

Zenturian · 05-29-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

First, would you want anyone appointed by a democrat there?

Second, did you even read the entire speech? Do you know when and where it was given?

It was printed in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal with an other article called
"Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening!" This article is not some white guy fear mongering, but La Raza memebers, of which Sotomayor is a member, cheering it on.

And would I want a democrat on the bench. Sure, if they are qualified and make decisions based on the consitution. That would be dandy. I mean, who wouldn't?

---------- Post added at 12:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

except that is not even close to what she was saying.

Sorry but it pretty much says that latina's make better judgements than white men.

---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Of course, the statement is entirely, completely true.

A wise white man WILL reach a better conclusion... for the benefit of white men.

So your are also implying that white man will make poorer conclusions for non white man. Then take your logic that latina's will make better conclusions for latinas. Which also says that Latinas will make poorer conclusions for non latinas.

And this is still not a racist statment? I mean, race is the freaken subject of her sentence!!!

roachboy · 05-29-2009, 08:57 PM

thanks for dodging my question, zenturian. perhaps you imagined that will's one-dimensional reponse covered what i was asking you. but you'd be wrong.

as for your "argument"--it's curious that santomeyer's legal work isn't relevant, don't you think?
perhaps i was mistaken in imagining that a supreme court nominee should be debated on the basis of what she might have actually done as a judge. strange to see that somehow it's not relevant here.

but seriously, why do you ask, zenturian? why is this important?

dippin · 05-29-2009, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenturian

It was printed in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal with an other article called
"Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening!" This article is not some white guy fear mongering, but La Raza memebers, of which Sotomayor is a member, cheering it on.

And would I want a democrat on the bench. Sure, if they are qualified and make decisions based on the consitution. That would be dandy. I mean, who wouldn't?[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

First of all, it was a speech given at the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture, it was only reprinted in that journal and was not prepared for it, as you are trying to imply. As such, to try to link her to a provocative add for a DVD is nonsense.

Second of all, this attempt to claim that La Raza is somehow a Hispanic KKK is ridiculous. While La Raza translates literally as "The Race," the reason the organization has this name is because of an essay called "La Raza Cosmica," a future race denomination that would be a mixture of all races and create a place called "universopolis," where there would be no race division and no racism. It is basically an advocate group for Latinos.

Quote:

Sorry but it pretty much says that latina's make better judgements than white men.

---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 AM ----------

I guess this answers my question about whether or not you read the entire transcript. To try to focus on one sentence on a transcribed speech and ignore the context completely is not really the way to go if anyone wants to have an honest discussion about her views. I posted the entire speech, with the sections where he says stuff where she clearly contradicts what you claim she is saying, and you've ignored it so far.

As I said before, if one out of context sentence transcribed from a speech she gave 8 years ago is the best that her opposition can do for someone with hundreds of published legal opinions and judgments, who has been on the bench for 17 years, she will have an easy time being confirmed.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

The fact is, if this was the only sentence she ever said, we could have this discussion about what it is and what is means. I think that it is open ended enough that there is at least some ambiguity about what she meant.

But this is not the only sentence she ever said. In fact, that sentence is a part of a speech, and a part of a long judicial career. So the question becomes: do we have any other evidence to support the interpretation that you are making, that she is in fact a racist that thinks that Latinos make better judges?

And the answer is clearly no. She says multiple times in the same speech that the experiences of being a minority or a woman does not make one more enlightened in general, or a better judge, or a representative of an entire group of people, and that the person should not be biased by their race. And that the point she is making in her speech is that the experience of being a minority or a woman can enrich one's perspective, that one can be wise in different ways, that multiple decisions can be simultaneously wise, but that the real challenge is knowing when one is allowing that experience to enrich their judgment and when one is allowing that to cloud their judgment.

I think a debate of her views is welcome, but I think that willingly reducing the amount of information we have on her to one sentence so that people can be persuaded that she is something she has no other signs of being is really uninteresting.

Zenturian · 05-30-2009, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

thanks for dodging my question, zenturian. perhaps you imagined that will's one-dimensional reponse covered what i was asking you. but you'd be wrong.

as for your "argument"--it's curious that santomeyer's legal work isn't relevant, don't you think?
perhaps i was mistaken in imagining that a supreme court nominee should be debated on the basis of what she might have actually done as a judge. strange to see that somehow it's not relevant here.

but seriously, why do you ask, zenturian? why is this important?

So you are cool with members of a racist, seperatist organisation sitting on the supreme court? Who should be next, fellow democrate, David Duke?

---------- Post added at 08:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

First of all, it was a speech given at the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture, it was only reprinted in that journal and was not prepared for it, as you are trying to imply. As such, to try to link her to a provocative add for a DVD is nonsense.

Second of all, this attempt to claim that La Raza is somehow a Hispanic KKK is ridiculous. While La Raza translates literally as "The Race," the reason the organization has this name is because of an essay called "La Raza Cosmica," a future race denomination that would be a mixture of all races and create a place called "universopolis," where there would be no race division and no racism. It is basically an advocate group for Latinos.

I guess this answers my question about whether or not you read the entire transcript. To try to focus on one sentence on a transcribed speech and ignore the context completely is not really the way to go if anyone wants to have an honest discussion about her views. I posted the entire speech, with the sections where he says stuff where she clearly contradicts what you claim she is saying, and you've ignored it so far.

As I said before, if one out of context sentence transcribed from a speech she gave 8 years ago is the best that her opposition can do for someone with hundreds of published legal opinions and judgments, who has been on the bench for 17 years, she will have an easy time being confirmed.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

The fact is, if this was the only sentence she ever said, we could have this discussion about what it is and what is means. I think that it is open ended enough that there is at least some ambiguity about what she meant.

But this is not the only sentence she ever said. In fact, that sentence is a part of a speech, and a part of a long judicial career. So the question becomes: do we have any other evidence to support the interpretation that you are making, that she is in fact a racist that thinks that Latinos make better judges?

And the answer is clearly no. She says multiple times in the same speech that the experiences of being a minority or a woman does not make one more enlightened in general, or a better judge, or a representative of an entire group of people, and that the person should not be biased by their race. And that the point she is making in her speech is that the experience of being a minority or a woman can enrich one's perspective, that one can be wise in different ways, that multiple decisions can be simultaneously wise, but that the real challenge is knowing when one is allowing that experience to enrich their judgment and when one is allowing that to cloud their judgment.

I think a debate of her views is welcome, but I think that willingly reducing the amount of information we have on her to one sentence so that people can be persuaded that she is something she has no other signs of being is really uninteresting.

One of The Race's goals is to divid the USA along Racial lines, which is one of the goals of the KKK. If one is wrong and racist, then both are. She is a proud member of an organisation with the same goal as the KKK. I don't want her anywhere near the Supreme court.

roachboy · 05-30-2009, 05:01 AM

you're joking, right?

dippin actually took care of this canard pretty well already. if you read what's already in the thread, i can't see how you'd still be maintaining your position.
the right's got nothing on her. this is nonsense shows that to be the case.

Tully Mars · 05-30-2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you're joking, right?

dippin actually took care of this canard pretty well already. if you read what's already in the thread, i can't see how you'd still be maintaining your position.
the right's got nothing on her. this is nonsense shows that to be the case.

Nonsense, that about sums this up.

Comparing La Raza to the KKK? Might as well compare the NAACP to the KKK. One tries to build up the other tear down. La Raza has such leftest supporters as GW Bush and John McCain. They've had separatists funders like the Ford Foundation contribute to their organization. Calling La Raza a racist organization is at best ill informed.

And as you point out the statements she made regarding race, taken in complete context, isn't exactly racist at all. Go look up what Alito or O'Connor have said regarding race and gender and compare those comments to Sotomayor's. I think you'll many similarities. I don't remember anyone freaking out when Alito said-

Quote:

I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Zenturian · 05-30-2009, 07:54 AM

Thinking that La Raza is not a racist organisation is just plain silly. How else would you describe an organisation that wants to divide the nation along racial lines?

dippin · 05-30-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenturian

So you are cool with members of a racist, seperatist organisation sitting on the supreme court? Who should be next, fellow democrate, David Duke?

---------- Post added at 08:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ----------

One of The Race's goals is to divid the USA along Racial lines, which is one of the goals of the KKK. If one is wrong and racist, then both are. She is a proud member of an organisation with the same goal as the KKK. I don't want her anywhere near the Supreme court.

Find a single position La Raza has taken that supports the idea that they are separatist.

---------- Post added at 08:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 AM ----------

By the way, La Raza has answered these sorts of statements before. From their website:

National Council of La Raza: Support of Separatist Organizations

Quote:

NCLR has never supported, and does not support, separatist organizations. Some critics have accused MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán) of being a separatist organization and denounced NCLR for being a purported “major funder” of the organization. The reality is that in 2003, NCLR provided one chapter of the organization (Georgetown University) with a $2,500 subgrant to support a conference of Latino students—mainly from the Southwest and West Coast—who were attending East Coast colleges but could not afford to travel home for Thanksgiving. These Latino student groups hold mini-conferences with workshops and speakers, bringing together students who are often the first high school graduates and college attendees in their families.

http://www.nclr.org/section/reconquista/

Quote:

Another misconception about NCLR is the allegation that we support a “Reconquista,” or the right of Mexico to reclaim land in the southwestern United States. NCLR has not made and does not make any such claim; indeed, such a claim is so far outside of the mainstream of the Latino community that we find it incredible that our critics raise it as an issue. NCLR has never supported and does not endorse the notion of a “Reconquista” or “Aztlán.” Similarly, NCLR’s critics falsely claim that the statement “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada,” [“For the community everything, outside the community nothing”] is NCLR’s motto. NCLR unequivocally rejects this statement, which is not and has never been the motto of any Latino organization.

FoolThemAll · 05-30-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The contrarians don't stand a chance on this nomination.

It's pretty annoying, we're still in the "Wright is an important issue!!" mindset and it's still a stupid self-imposed distraction from more relevant stuff like, say, Didden v. Port Chester.

flstf · 05-30-2009, 01:41 PM

In her lecture she said that she disagreed with the premise that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases". She goes on to explain why with the statement "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."

Of course this is racist and of course there are many white males who probably think they would make better case decisions than minorities. I expect that decisions on cases of reverse discrimination like the New Haven Firefighters might be greatly influenced by the richness of their experience as well as the ethnicity of the judge.

Lindy · 05-30-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's a false point.

If two people - let's say, oh, a black man and a white man - are in a race and the white man takes a tire iron and beats the hell out of the black man and continues running while the black man is hospitalized and recovers and the white man then claims, "He's now just as healthy as me and has every opportunity to win this race as me!" the race is still not a fair race.

In order to make it right, and a truly fair race, the white man would have to be severely beaten with a tire iron to an extent that his injuries are comparable, or be forced to sit out an equal amount of time that the black man was out of the race.

If it's a relay race, the next baton carrier can say, "I didn't beat him. It's not my fault he's so far back," all he wants - he's still ahead because the black man had the holy hell beaten out of him and the win will not be fair, no matter how much the white man whines about it.

That is after all, what this is all about, isn't it?

So, at this point, now that the black man is healthy, because of what happened in the past, (in previous legs of the relay) the white man should now start beating HIMSELF with the tire iron.

Just in order to even out the score, and make it a "truly fair race??"

Lindy

dippin · 05-30-2009, 03:58 PM

a judicial scholar looked at her record at the court of appeals. She was part of panels in 50 cases where minorities claimed discrimination. Of the 50, she accepted the discrimination claim 3 times, and all three times the decisions were unanimous and joined by a republican appointed judge. The idea that she is some sort of racist that uses her judgeship to promote a reverse-discrimination agenda is simply false.

She has been part of quite a few polemical decisions in her court, but none of them involved race. If those who oppose her will hang their hat on this one out of context quote, her nomination will be a cakewalk.

filtherton · 05-30-2009, 05:17 PM

Yes. Actions speak louder than words. Unless you're up for a supreme court nomination.

JumpinJesus · 05-30-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindy

So, at this point, now that the black man is healthy, because of what happened in the past, (in previous legs of the relay) the white man should now start beating HIMSELF with the tire iron.

Just in order to even out the score, and make it a "truly fair race??"

Lindy

That's a good question. I can't say I have the answer for it. However, let me ask you a question: is it fair to say that if the black man loses, it's because he was lazy and didn't run fast enough?

Is it a fair race at all?

pan6467 · 05-30-2009, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenturian

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina who hasn't lived that life."

Yes, it is racist. If a white man had said that he would rightfully be hung out to dry. A Latina says it and there are all kinds of excuses why it is ok and how the context is taken wrong.

ANY PERSON in politics should, IMHO, should not focus on race/creed/sex/etc but on the content of character. Because politics should not be about appeasing specific groups but about ALL people and making government responsive and accessible to ALL people.

We will continuously have deep problems and issues in this country until politicians and the media decide that ALL people deserve respect.

Go to the reparations thread.... my feeling is you invest in ALL people in poverty and give them chances yet some see that as racist. Some want one group to do better than others. WHY? Is that one group better and more deserving?

For a politician to say "I can make better decisions because I'm polka dotted and have lived a life that striped people would never know" is interesting but a false statement and very prejudicial and racist. I would trust that politician less in their decisions, as they would seem radical and more likely to favor the polka dotted people even if the polka dotted people were wrong.

If a politician says, "I admit I'm from an area where my experiences may be different than others and because of that reason, I feel more capable of offering a different viewpoint, however, all people deserve to be heard fairly and the decisions made need to benefit not just the few but ALL." That's something I can agree with and trust.

One is very divisive and racist the other is honest and offers an opinion that may very well be logical and make sense.

To have a SC Justice using the divisive statement and not the more prudent one makes me wonder if 1) that person is racist and 2) shows me that is not the sign of someone out for the best interests of the many.

Derwood · 05-31-2009, 05:55 AM

Can we lock this thread please? It's clear that people refuse to read the entire Sotomayer speech and are content to label her a racist and divisive based on a cherry-picked line. No one is listening to each other and we're going around in circles.

dc_dux · 05-31-2009, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Can we lock this thread please? It's clear that people refuse to read the entire Sotomayer speech and are content to label her a racist and divisive based on a cherry-picked line. No one is listening to each other and we're going around in circles.

Some obviously will only look at one statement that suits their agenda as opposed to her actions in 10+ years on the federal bench.

Quote:

Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases" while on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit...

..."Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times....

..."Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times,...

...."In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. ... Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking."

Court Watch: An Analysis of Sotomayor's Decisions on Race-Related Cases | 44 | washingtonpost.com

actions speak louder than words.

pan6467 · 05-31-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Can we lock this thread please? It's clear that people refuse to read the entire Sotomayer speech and are content to label her a racist and divisive based on a cherry-picked line. No one is listening to each other and we're going around in circles.

Ah but that's politics. If it were a white man and a GOP president nominated him and he made similar statements.... the left and press would be all over that one statement, context wouldn't mean a damn thing.

My point above is that if you are in the political game, you have to realize that as you move up EVERYTHING you say will be looked at and dissected. You can claim "taken out of context", however, the question has to be why would you say anything so divisive to begin with?

You can have the best voting record/judgments and the respect of both parties, but the second you try to advance, people on the other side will look heavily into all your speeches, your past and so on. The second they find something they can use..... they will.

She gave them something they could use to scare Middle White Suburbia. And to some degree it is working, to some degree it is backfiring in other areas of the country.

It's called politics and it's just the way it is as one side scrambles for more power.

So lock the thread because people are doing what they do in politics and taking things out of context and trying to spin things for the advancement of their own power??????

But lock the thread when it is only against your side. Heaven forbid locking it when a GOP says something and the Left decides to take it out of context and blow it up as they scramble for power.

FoolThemAll · 05-31-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Can we lock this thread please? It's clear that people refuse to read the entire Sotomayer speech and are content to label her a racist and divisive based on a cherry-picked line. No one is listening to each other and we're going around in circles.

It's not too late. We can save this thread and restore it to the forum's typically high level of discourse. Does someone have a goofy picture we can use to mock the minority party? Can someone offer an eloquent rebuttal involving the phrases 'fucking idiotic' and 'unworthy of response'?

dc_dux · 05-31-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

.. Can someone offer an eloquent rebuttal involving the phrases 'fucking idiotic' and 'unworthy of response'?

Its "fucking idiotic" to base an opinion or draw sweeping conclusions based on one sentence from a speech rather than a body of work and judicial decisions.

Beyond that, its "unworithy of response" unless it is to add that it is making the wing nuts look ignorant as usual.

FoolThemAll · 05-31-2009, 11:26 AM

Aaaaand the thread is redeemed.

pan6467 · 05-31-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its "fucking idiotic" to base an opinion or draw sweeping conclusions based on one sentence from a speech rather than a body of work and judicial decisions.

Beyond that, its "unworithy of response" unless it is to add that it is making the wing nuts look ignorant as usual.

Right.... you make the decisions on what is "fucking idiotic" and what is "Unworthy of Response".

Great debate tactics and ways to promote conversation and a friendly board that is supposed to exchange opinions and ideas and respect the other.

When the Right on here have said those things they would get browbeaten and told that they were closed minded idiots.... but I guess since you're on the for now winning side you're better than they are.

05-29-2009, 07:29 PM	#1 (permalink)
Zenturian Banned	Is this a racist statement? "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina who hasn't lived that life."

05-29-2009, 07:44 PM	#2 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	It depends on the context. Are a specific white man's experiences being referenced, or is there a presumption that the white man's life experience has been richer than that of the latina? __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

05-29-2009, 07:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	why do you ask? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-29-2009, 07:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	Yes. That he is white should be irrelevant, and bringing that in presents racist undertones. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

05-29-2009, 07:50 PM	#7 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-19-2010 at 12:03 PM..

05-29-2009, 07:46 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The collective experiences would seem to be the determining factor in reaching that better conclusion. Experience equals a better conclusion. The races aren't a part of the statement, but are rather a reference to a context that you haven't supplied. It's that context that would determine if the statement is racist.

05-29-2009, 08:21 PM	#13 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	Racism has two basic definitions: it's denotation (that is, its dictionary definition), and it's connotation (that is, the emotion ascribed to the word). I didn't actually look it up because I'm a little lazy with things like that, but from memory, a racist is a person who believes that certain races are inherently superior to others. By this definition, it's possible she is a racist. I don't honestly know. I don't know what goes on inside her head. I don't believe she is, but I can't say with any certainty. The connotation of racist is that of a KKK member in a white hood and white sheet or a neo-nazi or skinhead or someone who seeks to suppress another race usually through violent means. I don't think she fits the connotation of a racist because I don't see her riding around in the back of a pickup holding up a torch as they chase down white people leaving Whole Foods™. I do agree with the idea that there is no room for a racist on the Supreme Court. If it comes out that she truly is a racist, then I wouldn't want her confirmed, either. However, I don't think I'm in agreement with the radical right's attempt to characterize La Raza as a racist organization or Sotomayor as a racist individual. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

05-29-2009, 08:35 PM	#15 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Of course, the statement is entirely, completely true. A wise white man WILL reach a better conclusion... for the benefit of white men.

05-29-2009, 08:57 PM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	thanks for dodging my question, zenturian. perhaps you imagined that will's one-dimensional reponse covered what i was asking you. but you'd be wrong. as for your "argument"--it's curious that santomeyer's legal work isn't relevant, don't you think? perhaps i was mistaken in imagining that a supreme court nominee should be debated on the basis of what she might have actually done as a judge. strange to see that somehow it's not relevant here. but seriously, why do you ask, zenturian? why is this important? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-30-2009, 05:01 AM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you're joking, right? dippin actually took care of this canard pretty well already. if you read what's already in the thread, i can't see how you'd still be maintaining your position. the right's got nothing on her. this is nonsense shows that to be the case. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-30-2009, 07:54 AM	#25 (permalink)
Zenturian Banned	Thinking that La Raza is not a racist organisation is just plain silly. How else would you describe an organisation that wants to divide the nation along racial lines?

05-30-2009, 01:41 PM	#28 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	In her lecture she said that she disagreed with the premise that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases". She goes on to explain why with the statement "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." Of course this is racist and of course there are many white males who probably think they would make better case decisions than minorities. I expect that decisions on cases of reverse discrimination like the New Haven Firefighters might be greatly influenced by the richness of their experience as well as the ethnicity of the judge.

05-30-2009, 03:58 PM	#30 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	a judicial scholar looked at her record at the court of appeals. She was part of panels in 50 cases where minorities claimed discrimination. Of the 50, she accepted the discrimination claim 3 times, and all three times the decisions were unanimous and joined by a republican appointed judge. The idea that she is some sort of racist that uses her judgeship to promote a reverse-discrimination agenda is simply false. She has been part of quite a few polemical decisions in her court, but none of them involved race. If those who oppose her will hang their hat on this one out of context quote, her nomination will be a cakewalk.

05-30-2009, 05:17 PM	#31 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Yes. Actions speak louder than words. Unless you're up for a supreme court nomination.

05-31-2009, 05:55 AM	#34 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Can we lock this thread please? It's clear that people refuse to read the entire Sotomayer speech and are content to label her a racist and divisive based on a cherry-picked line. No one is listening to each other and we're going around in circles.

05-31-2009, 11:26 AM	#39 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Aaaaand the thread is redeemed. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.