>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^dirtythirtyix:
It's kinda like Satanism....you can't be Satanic without being Judeo-Christian.

WRONG! LaVeyan Satanism. No belief in a god.


Reading LaVey is what lead me to that conclusion. If your philosophy is just the antithesis of another, than it doesn't exist outside the context of the other. 2 sides of the same coin, etc...

>> ^Pprt:
Here's her quote:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”—Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001


Taken out of context, no surprise, coming from you.

Here's a little better snapshot of her sentiments:

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.

New York Times

>> ^dirtythirtyix:
It's kinda like Satanism....you can't be Satanic without being Judeo-Christian.

WRONG! LaVeyan Satanism. No belief in a god.

>> ^Psychologic:

but I have a had time believing that he wouldn't even consider the effect race and gender would have on the public discussion.


So, when Obama was prez of Harvard Law Review, why didn't he practice this same type of thinking? I mean, out of 60+ members, he only appointed 4 other African-Americans.

So at what point in Barack's life did he start thinking about race and gender?

I understand you may feel that this was part of his thinking, but gut-instinct ≠ fact.


[edit] Considering the "effect race may have on public discussion", is a lot different than using race or gender as a precursor for who Obama selected. I didn't vote for Obama because he was the black dude, I voted for him because he was most qualified, knowing what effect his race "may have on public discussion".

>> ^volumptuous:
Psychologic said:
"I'm sure Obama's choice was partially based on race/gender, but as long as he chooses qualified people then I really don't care what color/gender they are."
You're sure of that? How are you sure of that? Did you ask Obama? Do you have some sort of telepathic connection to his psyche? What if it were all white males he picked? What if it were two white males, two white women, and two black males?
What combination of races and gender does it take to bring people to believe Obama only chose those who he deemed most qualified?



Well, I said "partially based". I don't think it was his primary concern, but I have a hard time believing that he wouldn't even consider the effect race and gender would have on the public discussion.

Obama knows that Republicans are looking for any little thing they can find to fight him on, so he chooses a highly qualified person who most Republicans are afraid to challenge (and the ones who have looked pretty silly from their reasoning).

I have no reason to think that Obama favors any race over another, but it would be very short-sighted of him to completely ignore the perceived importance of race in this particular situation. So yes, I'm fairly sure that Obama did consider her race when making his choice (if nothing else, for political implications).

For anyone who wants the full text, it's here.

It's a long article whose main point is that a diverse court is likely to be a more wise court because of the expanded perspective, but don't take my word for that, read the whole article and see if it's "Latinas uber alles" as is often parroted by right wing tools.

If you're too lazy, go to PolitiFact and read what they say.

If you're too lazy to read even that, they don't respond to the ludicrous charge of racism, but instead the merely silly notion from the right that one's life experience must not color their decisions; she admits that she thinks it does have an impact, and that that's not such a bad thing.

Here's her quote:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”—Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001