The Context Of Sotomayor’s “Wise Latina” Statement…Still Looks Like Crap

Loading

Jim Manzi on the argument from the left that Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment is being taken out of context:

I’m not so sure it looks better in context.

~~~

…Sotomayor makes the indisputable point that decisions made by judges are at least partially impacted by their biological characteristics and life experiences. Human judgment clearly plays a role in such decisions; hence the need for human judges, as opposed to “law interpreting algorithms” in the first place. A key point, of course, is that in the passage under consideration, she goes beyond this and asserts not just that her decisions would therefore be different than those made by a white male but “wiser.” What she doesn’t address is that if we take a relativist approach to making judgments, how can one judgment said to be wiser than another? What is the objective standard of wisdom to which she implicitly appeals when making her assertion?

This opens up what I think is the much more serious problem with her speech. She attacks an extreme position (a cartoon really): that there is literally no role for inherently subjective human judgment on the bench. That is, she disputes the cartoon of absolute objectivity. Fair enough. Of course, this is not exactly a new insight. It seems to me that a thoughtful jurist would then be compelled to find the limit condition to subjectivity, or else assert that there is no such limit. In other words, is anything asserted by any judge equivalently valid as an interpretation of the law as any other statement? Is there any such thing as law, really? Or is it all just rhetoric used in support of power politics? With no stopping condition the legal philosophy that refuses to accept the idea of objectivity becomes legal nihilism: The law is whatever those who have the loyalty of the armed forces say it is, or more precisely, act as if it is.

Completely valid arguments because if we go full circle on their being no absolute objectivity then there really is no law, only the dictates from those in power. I’m sure the left would love that when their guy is in power but I have a feeling they wouldn’t be too keen on the idea when a conservative is at the head of the table.

Some lefties are arguing that Alito said the same thing here:

Which is completely invalid since he doesn’t say what Sotomayor said, he never said he would be MORE qualified due to his life experiences. Just that it impacts his rulings somewhat.

Now, to add something to my post yesterday on Sotomayor’s Ricci decision, the LA Times believes the case will be overturned:

In a decision that could fuel controversy over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, the high court this month is expected to overrule one of her key appellate court rulings.

~~~

The ruling in the firefighters’ case promises to be one of the most important of the Supreme Court term because it could affect public agencies across the nation. It is sure to gain even greater notice now that President Obama has nominated Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Critics contend that Sotomayor’s opinion shows that she would tilt in favor of racial minorities.

Tilt in favor of racial minorities eh? As she alluded to, absolute objectivity is hogwash so why not ignore the law and make new ones to prop up those races she feels are the wiser ones?

UPDATE

Tom Elia on what the other jurists on the Supreme Court will argue based on their upbringing:

Chief Justice Roberts: “As a man of Czech ancestry, I had occasion to eat a lot of cabbage and dumplings growing up in Indiana, which doubtless contributed to my status as a slow-footed high school linebacker and wrestler — so you clearly don’t understand why my point-of-view is the only correct one.”

Justice Stevens: “I may be an 89-year-old man, but as a child of privilege who met Amelia Earhart and Charles Lindbergh at one of my father’s luxury hotels, saw FDR give his nomination acceptance speech at the 1932 Democratic convention, was in the stands to see Babe Ruth’s “Called Shot” against the Cubs in the 1932 World Series, then saw my father’s hotel business go bankrupt during the Great Depression — and saw him wrongly and unjustly convicted of fraud, I’m very sorry to say: I’m right, you’re wrong.”

Justice Scalia: “My father was born in Sicily, and my wife and I have raised nine children. Clearly, you lack my background. As the senior Catholic on The Court — the de facto judicial Papal Nuncio, if you will — you as the junior Catholic member should follow my argument, because I’m the one who is right. Have some garlic, it might help your thought process.”

Read the rest.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

You hit it; where there is no objectvity there is no law, rule of law or equal justice.
Worse, her claim to racial tribal experience is specious and blindly ignorant. She does not “share” the life experience of over 95% of her Puerto Rican community and the “latina” thing is pure dumb, as she knows no latin and the loony left “latina” identifier is based on a politically correct language thingee, not DNA. I think both the Firemen case and the 2nd/14th Amendment cases now going to the Court show she uses the “because I said so” legal rationale, more common to the Mafia and Stalinists than America. If only we had congressional leadership…

She doesn’t share the life experience and ethnicity of Men, Asians, Caucasians, Native American and Negroid races either. Since she has so verbosely staked her judicial opinion on her experience as a Latina, over that of “old White men,” and based on some of the already noted judicial activist decision she has made. We clearly can not expect Sotomayor to follow the Constitution’s requirement of equal protection under the law clause.

That is why she is unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She doesn’t understand the job.