Alito: My family’s immigrant experience shaped judicial outlook.
Right off the bat let me admit that I don't know anything about Sonia Sotomayor and her opinions, and I suspect that's true for the press and an awful lot of the right wingers who are leaping over partial sentences (delivered out of context) and uttered several years ago.
However, the main thrust of the complaints against her as far as I can tell is that she might employ empathy, which I understand from listening to Rove and others, is a simply reprehensible thing to do.
However, I wonder how many of those same people attacking Sotomayor attacked Alito when he said this:
Sen. Tom Coburn, who had asked Alito to discuss how his personal experiences shows that "he cared for the little guy," Alito said that his family’s experience as immigrants influenced his outlook on immigration cases.And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Empathy anyone?
Any Republican who did not object to Alito has no right to oppose Sotomayor on the charge of "empathy", as Rove has done. That's simply being hypocritical in the extreme.
That said, I know nothing else about her, I simply detect a distinct double standard being applied here.
Tags:
10 comments:
I don't like Alito, but I don't think that statement is anwhere near as bad. He is saying that his past is affecting his knowledge and empathy for the subject. Not something he should really be saying, but it is reasonable. Sonia is saying she makes better decisions than white people. She has also said that she thinks a judge should take into account their own ethnicity when making rulings.
You've been crying partisanship on this one, but if the republicans had put up a nominee who said that a white man would usually make better rulings than a Latina woman, would you honestly have defended him? I think not.
He is saying that his past is affecting his knowledge and empathy for the subject.
[..]
Sonia is saying she makes better decisions than white people.No, SP, both are saying that they used empathy - the very thing which Rove and the Republicans abhorred in her case - in using their personal experience and history to better understand others.
Why is it acceptable for a white male to think that his life experience gives him greater understanding - as Alito does - but it is unacceptable for a Latino female to express the exact same sentiment?
Because Alito was implying that his immigrant background gave him an understanding that others might lack.
She has also said that she thinks a judge should take into account their own ethnicity when making rulings.Alito is saying that he takes his own immigrant background into account when making rulings, so where is the difference?
"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."
"'Sonia is saying she makes better decisions than white people'.No, SP, both are saying that they used empathy "
She may also be saying she has more empathy than white men, but I'm not sure that helps her case any. I don't see how you can deny my statement when it is plainly all there in her sentence.
"Why is it acceptable for a white male to think that his life experience gives him greater understanding - as Alito does - but it is unacceptable for a Latino female to express the exact same sentiment?"
I don't care about Alito, as I said in my comment, I don't like him, and I don't like what he said. Where I used the word 'reasonable', please read that as 'within reasonable deniablility of wrongdoing' rather than 'acceptable'. His was a call against discrimination, hers was one for it. He says his ancestors were victims of discrimination, she says she makes better decisions than white men.
I don't believe Alito's past is superior to the other justices for the making of good rulings. Empathy is a questionable skill for a justice. I might empathize with someone who breaks into their neighbors home in order to steal money to pay for their child's medical bills. I might also empathize with that neighbor for bludgeoning the burgler with a tire iron. Easy cases don't make it to the supreme court. Their job isn't to empathize, is it is to rule on Constitutionality. Who has the superior empathy, the one who empathizes with the plight of murdered unborn children, or the one who empathizes with the pregnant daughter of an incestuous father?
"She has also said that she thinks a judge should take into account their own ethnicity when making rulings. Alito is saying that he takes his own immigrant background into account when making rulings, so where is the difference?"
The difference is that she believes her race gives her the the ability to make better rulings than white people, while he merely admits that he thinks about the plight of his ancestors when hearing discrimination cases; why I'm defending Alito, I have no idea. It is completely irrelevant.
His was a call against discrimination, hers was one for it. He says his ancestors were victims of discrimination, she says she makes better decisions than white men.I think you are being astonishingly harsh in your reading of what she said, reading only the very worst of what can be read there.
The difference is that she believes her race gives her the the ability to make better rulings than white people, while he merely admits that he thinks about the plight of his ancestors when hearing discrimination cases;Both are saying that their backgrounds give them greater understanding in certain cases.
Empathy is a questionable skill for a justice.Perhaps it is. My only point is that anyone who objects to Sotomayer should also have objected to Alito. They are both making the same point, even if she made hers more crudely.
It isn't just a matter of crudity. It wasn't an offhand comment. It was in the published version of a prepared speech. It was published in Law Raza Law Review (Law Raza being a wordplay on la raza or 'the race' She is a member of The National Council of La Raza, a group with a strongly Latin agenda and quite a few allegations of racism.
I may be blowing this out of proportion, but I think you are letting her off too easy. I'd like to see this seriously addressed before she is confirmed. I see a Supreme Court position as being more important than that of Vice President or Secretary of State.
I try to put this remark into more context here.
I genuinely don't think she is saying what you think she is saying.
I'd like to hear that from her. Where the hell is she anyway? If this kind of thing were going around about me, I'd be out there setting the record straight.
I want to hear her say that she doesn't think that she would come to better conclusions because she is a Latina woman rather than a white man. I'd like to hear her explain what she meant.
From Obama, I'd like to know if this was a quota pick or not. I know the left is somewhat of a fan of quotas. It wouldn't surprise me if he looks favorably on Affirmative Action. If he does, he shouldn't be afraid to say it, and if he doesn't, then I'd like to see what he saw in her that put her above the rest, and none of that 'saw into her soul' crap that Bush would pull.
I want to hear her say that she doesn't think that she would come to better conclusions because she is a Latina woman rather than a white man. I'd like to hear her explain what she meant.
I explained what she meant in the piece I linked to. Did you even read it?
Yeah, I read it when you posted it, and reread it now. I read the context. It doesn't ease my mind. It is an indefensible statement. If she just chose poor words, then I question her competency for a job that requires clarity in the extreme. If she was pandering to a group with a Latino advancement agenda, then it weakens my opinion of her integrity, and if she wasn't then I question her impartiality.
I see that you explained things, and I understood your position, but I don't need to hear it from you, I need to hear it from her. I'm sure she will be asked all of this in confirmation. Until she addresses this directly it will be a growing stain on her record, whether she is confirmed or not. If we are misinterpreting her, all she has to do is explain it to us.
But if you read her entire speech it's very clear what she was saying.
Indeed, the reading which certain conservatives have put on that one sentence would require you to reverse the entire thrust of the speech.
But if you need to wait until the confirmation I'm sure it will be cleared up then.
Post a Comment