Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
WSJ: "The 'Empathy' Nominee"
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2009-05-28 01:42
Article here. Excerpt:
'In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] 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," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . 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."
We quote at such length because, even more than her opinions, these words are a guide to Ms. Sotomayor's likely behavior on the High Court. She is a judge steeped in the legal school of identity politics. This is not the same as taking justifiable pride in being the first Puerto Rican-American nominated to the Court, as both she and the President did yesterday. Her personal and family stories are admirable. Italian-Americans also swelled at the achievement of Justice Antonin Scalia, as Jewish-Americans did at the nomination of Benjamin Cardozo.
But these men saw themselves as judges first and ethnic representatives second. Judge Sotomayor's belief is that a "Latina woman" is by definition a superior judge to a "white male" because she has had more "richness" in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the "richness" of her experience comes to believe it should be.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Confirmation of what???
Obama's nomination confirms what we already know:
Feminist Trained Judges Are Black Robed Bigots
That was initially my take on the speach...
but in full context IMO that's not what she's trying to say:
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.
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.
It seems to me she's saying we're all inherently better at seeing that for which we have personal experience... which is another way of saying we're all sexist, racist, and many other 'ists' by virtue of our experience.
However... even after reading the context I think there's a question that might cause her problems. IMO there's an unspoken "for things with intimately impact Latinos and Women" (other people with similar life experiences as she has).
Without that unspoken finish, she appears to be saying that being a Latino woman gives her an advantage IN GENERAL... but based on context I don't believe that's what she was TRYING to say. Obviously... she could have stated it better but I THINK she's saying that we are all affected by our backgrounds and we should not assume that's a bad thing. Men, Women, White, Latino, etc... all affects our unique perspective, and having a diverse group in policy making or justice positions is important to insure those perspectives all have a voice. I basically agree with this position.
The other simple fact is that even in context, any white male judge who said the same would have ruined his career.
I think it's important not to get suckered in by what the media tells us but to get all the information and make an informed decision. If my contextual interpretation of the above is correct than not only is it quite reasonable... but it accurately reflect my personal opinion on both the challenges and opportunities presented by a diverse culture. Far from being a problem for MRA's, a person with such a point of view IMO would see the value of things like a fathers influence on his children, and that men and women ARE different and that difference is not a bad thing.
Dave K
A Radical Moderate
There's no excuse...
"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."
There's no excuse for the racist and sexist bigotry she espouses, unless one is condoning hate movements. She certainly appears to have her connections to those and her words reflect it, IMO. We are beginning to see Obama define his administration in detail.
Jim Crow Misandry
Agree
Insightful post, Dave. Based on what I've read of Sotomayor I am hopeful that she will see beyond the curtain of bias we all have. I would agree that for most people, her statement probably applies. It's the same reason that so many women have a problem with men's rights - they only see the issue from their own point of view.
They are guilty of bias.
However, if one recognizes his or her own tendency to be biased in this way, one can teach oneself to look honestly at an issue from an opposing viewpoint. I have done this, but I'm a bit of an oddball in that I don't take society's fundamental assumptions about how the world should be for granted. Many men snicker at the men's rights movement because they accept the classic male role as disposable hero unquestioningly.
They are guilty of being sheep.
I am disappointed that Sotomayor assumes nobody out there can see past their natural bias but I am hopeful that she can make efforts to see past her own.
Correction:
I didn't even read the whole thing: "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."
Sotomayor doesn't assume that nobody out there can see past their natural bias. She acknowledges, "Many are so capable." I think she gets it. And if that's the case then it's a damn fine day for the men's rights movement.