Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Exit Steve Rattner | Main | Something Not Adding Up »

Jul 14 2009, 10:23 am

Sotomayor: I've Been Misunderstood

Today we got our first chance to hear Sonia Sotomayor respond to charges of racism and bias, as she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her second consecutive day of hearings.

In addressing the "wise Latina" quote, Sotomayor said she made it in the spirit of the equal capacity of men and women to wisely decide cases.

"You've been referred to as being a bigot, and to the credit of Republican senators and the Democratic senators, they have not repeated those charges, but you have not been able to respond to any of those things," said committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the first senator to question Sotomayor and a staunch backer of her nomination.

"So tell us, you've heard all these charges and counter charges, the 'wise Latina,'" Leahy said. "Here's your chance. Tell us what's going on here, judge.

Sotomayor's response: her words have been taken out of context. She said she made the comment in the same spirit Sandra Day O'Connor

"No words I have ever spoken or written have received so much attention. I gave a variant of my speech to a variety of different groups, most often to groups of women lawyers or to groups most particularly of young Latino lawyers and students," Sotomayor said, asserting she had sought to inspire her audiences "to believe they could become anything they wanted to become."

"The context of the words that I spoke have created a misunderstanding," Sotomayor said. "To give everyone assurance, I want to state up front and without doubt: I don not believe that any racial, gender, or ethnic group has an advantage."

"The words that I used I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Say O'Connor was attempting to convey. I understand that sentiment to be what I just wpoke about, which is that both men and women were equally apable of being wise and fair judges," Sotomayor said.

She then went on to parse O'Connor's comment, that a wise old woman and a wise old man would reach the same judgment on a case--certainly, a different statement, at the literal level, from what Sotomayor said in her speech.

"That has to be what she meant, because judges disagree about the legal outcomes," Sotomayor said. "It can't mean that one of them is unwise, despite the fact that some people think that. So her literal words couldn't have meant what they said, she had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and partial."

So her argument, in short: the "wise Latina" quote was about "the equal capacity to be fair and partial."

The explanation was not enough, by any means, for Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL). The former prosecutor immediately went after Sotomayor with a tough line of questioning on her statements that personal background affect judgment.

After suggesting that her comment "goes against the American ideal and the oath that a judge takes to be fair to every party, Sessions asked: "How can your reconcile your speeches, which repeatedly assert that impartiality is impossible...with your oath that you've taken that requires impartiality?"

Sotomayor then said she was trying to "play" on O'Connor's words.

"I was trying to play on her words. My play fell flat--it was bad," Sotomayor said, because it left the impression that personal biases are permissible.

Comments (8)

Here’s the video of Sotomayor addressing the “wise Latina” remark:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/07/sotomayor-responds-to-whole-wise-latina.html

Finally a chance for her to formally correct the record and the fools labeling her a racist.

smilly124 (Replying to: Twohearted)

So basically, you're saying what was said in the girls locker room, should have stayed in the girls locker room. After all, she was only trying to "inspire" the other ladies in the room.

"judges disagree about the legal outcomes...she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and partial."
It shouldn't matter if the judges are a certain race. They are going to disagree anyway. So why bring up race?

You have to admit that a great many civil rights groups would be up in arms if the same statements were made (in the same context) by a white male.

24AheadDotCom

Given that she admitted in the past to being an "affirmative action baby" and all the other examples of her being steeped in affirmative action, her defense falls flat. She didn't "correct the record", she offered an explanation Tommy Flanagan would have offered. Yea, that's the ticket.

The way to block her - or at least get some concessions - is to reduce her popularity even more. The GOP and major bloggers aren't really trying to do that, so you have to. Here's how to block Sonia Sotomayor. Please send that link to all your friends and urge them to get involved. Don't expect the GOP to do that: you have to.

AlchemyToday

I suppose she's just trying to be polite to Senator Sessions. If I were her, my response would be:

Senator, with all due respect, there is nothing remotely controversial or prejudicial in this speech when it's heard in context. Would you deny that your experiences make you more likely to understand similar situations encountered by others? In Plessy V Ferguson, Judge Brown wrote that segregation does not employ inferiority; someone who grew up a victim of segregation would not agree -- in fact, someone on the other side of segregation who at least observed it rather than growing up in New England wouldn't likely agree. Anyone who actually lives with segregation understands its brutal reality. Furthermore, it is incredible that someone who suffered in their judicial career for opposing civil rights legislation and calling civil rights groups unamerican could not possibly understand this point. In retrospect, Senator, would you have joked that the Klan was OK had you grown up in a community only a few years removed from devastation at the Klan's hands? Pointing out that living as a minority in America and in your profession imparts some wisdom on these matters isn't controversial, and it doesn't imply bias. It implies a lack of an ignorance that you'd apparently prefer be better represented on the Supreme Court.

AlchemyToday (Replying to: AlchemyToday)

employ = imply

24AheadDotCom

Here's a post basically calling her a liar.

Troll alert - 24AheadDotCom!!