Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Sotomayor clear about opinions

Published: Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 16:06

Imagine this: a student applying to become a Student Government Association justice says because she is an intelligent Latina woman who worked hard to rise out of poverty and go to college, she will make better judicial decisions than a rich white male.

Current justices take offense and UCF's student body is polarized as they pick sides and decide if her comments were racist.

Thankfully this is not a reality on campus, but, sadly, it is a scenario unfolding within the highest judicial body in the U.S.

When U.S. District Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's Supreme Court justice nominee, said in a 2001 speech, "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," she was suggesting that a white man cannot be fair in a courtroom when making decisions about women or people of color.

If that is true, then how can a Latina woman who hasn't had the same cultural experiences of a white man make the right decisions about his case?

The argument is a slippery slope and President Obama and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs shouldn't be covering her tracks, insisting that she would rephrase the statement, when she is perfectly capable of retracting or clarifying the issue herself and hasn't.

Clearly, this is the way she feels.

While calling her a racist or claiming this promotes "reverse racism" is a bit of an exaggeration, the fact that she believes "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see," and, "ignoring our differences as women or men of color [does] a disservice both to the law and society," as stated in her speech, indicates that she has no problem making race an issue.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

7 comments

Print a retraction
Mon Jun 8 2009 06:57
Wow. I’m crossing my fingers that you don’t go to UCF.

You say: “The author is simply saying that what Sotomayor did say in her speech was a slippery slope, and that she ended up contradicting herself in her own speech”.

Enlighten me! Where does the author say that Sotomayor contradicted herself in her speech?

You know what you also don’t see? Any mention about Sotomayor’s clarrification in the two paragraphs after the infamous “empathetic” line.

INESTEAD, the author of this article writes “she is perfectly capable of retracting or clarifying the issue herself and hasn’t.”

Look. READ the first post in this discussion board. I put it there for a reason. I can only laugh at you saying that the author read that statement because it’s obvious that you didn’t yourself!

Come on Central Florida Future. You can do better than this.

DUDE
Sun Jun 7 2009 19:05
Laura. Maybe I should assume your real name is Tamra Martin or Jennifer Ross as few UCF students would defend this article? Somebody actually posted the whole "speech in context" as the first post. After reading that, both your comment and this article look pretty stupid. Read it before you write another comment.
Laura
Sun Jun 7 2009 17:22
To "print a retraction,"
The reason this paper is probably "killing you" is because you are shocked that a journalist isn't writing an opinions column from an extremely liberal viewpoint. I was just as shocked after reading this and realizing it didn't have a liberal slant. I think it's pretty clear that the author of this article did read Sotomayor's speech. I also think you are completely missing the point of the article. The author isn't saying that Sotomayor is a racist or anything of the sort, in fact, she makes it very clear towards the end of the article that calling Sotomayor a promoter of reverse racism is a bit of an exaggeration. Does the author need to clarify her own article or do you need to re-read the article and quit being lazy? The author is simply saying that what Sotomayor did say in her speech was a slippery slope, and that she ended up contradicting herself in her own speech, which you so nicely pointed out in your own comment about the article.
Laura
Sun Jun 7 2009 17:20
To "print a retraction,"
The reason this paper is probably "killing you" is because you are shocked that a journalist isn't writing an opinions column from an extremely liberal viewpoint. I was just as shocked after reading this and realizing it didn't have a liberal slant. I think it's pretty clear that the author of this article did read Sotomayor's speech. I also think you are completely missing the point of the article. The author isn't saying that Sotomayor is a racist or anything of the sort, in fact, she makes it very clear towards the end of the article that calling Sotomayor a promoter of reverse racism is a bit of an exaggeration. Does the author need to clarify her own article or do you need to re-read the article and quit being lazy? The author is simply saying that what Sotomayor did say in her speech was a slippery slope, and that she ended up contradicting herself in her own speech, which you so nicely pointed out in your own comment about the article.
Lauren
Sat Jun 6 2009 23:24
This article is a prime example of why I haven't read this newspaper for a few months. I came back to see if you people decided to educate yourselves properly, but lo and behold, you still have nothing intelligent to say. Back to reading a REAL paper, not this frivolous garbage you call "news".
print a retraction
Sat Jun 6 2009 21:45
You guys kill me. What is happening to the UCF newspaper?

This is what you said:

“she was suggesting that a white man cannot be fair in a courtroom when making decisions about women or people of color”

This is what she said:

“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.”

Come on guys. Step it up. I’m embarrassed to read this paper and I don’t even write for it. Tell me guys, does she need to clarify her own speech, or do you just need to read the speech yourself and not be lazy? Please, please, PLEASE! RESEARCH BEFORE YOU WRITE!!!! This doesn’t just look bad on you, but it looks bad on all of the student body and alumni when this is the junk that represents “our stance”.

Speech in Context
Sat Jun 6 2009 21:30
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.

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.







log out