Sotomayor to Senator: ’01 Comments Meant to Be Inspirational
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: Maine Republican Susan Collins met this afternoon with Sotomayor and, while Collins did not seem to be familiar with the ’94 speech and its gender-based assertion woman with “the richness of her experiences” could reach a better conclusion than a man,” she did say she asked Sotomayor about the ’01 Berkeley speech – the ethnicity-based “wise Latina woman” iteration.
Collins said she found the speech troubling, but said Sotomayor told her she “meant is as inspirational” to the students at the conference sponsored by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.
Collins said Sotomayor assured her that while she used the phrase before, “she said she would not be using it again, which does not surprise me,” said Collins. “She’s clearly a very bright individual who learns from her past mistakes,” Collins said.
Later, Collins added: “I’m still uncomfortable that she made the statement, particularly as a sitting judge. I can understand her explanation that it was intended to be a statement to inspire the young people to whom she was talking and that it did not reflect how she approaches the cases before her.”
Otherwise, Collins said she was a bit frustrated that Sotomayor would not discuss the controversial New Haven firefighters case. But Sotomayor did point to a particular case, Pappas v. Giuliani as one that she told Collins exemplified her judicial philosophy.
In her dissent in the case, Sotomayor argued that the New York City Police Department infringed on an employee’s first amendment rights when it fired him for sending racist slurs in the mail. Liberals are seizing on that opinion, exemplified by this Salon piece.
Also – who is Sotomayor’s favorite Supreme Court Justice? Collins said its Benjamin Cardozo.
Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
This is a big brew ha ha over nothing. We are all the product of our experiences and to parse this and denigrate her for those or expressing those is juvenile. Logical grown-ups get it – just not the right-wingers.
Posted by: Padma | June 5, 2009, 1:00 am 1:00 am
If she’d say what she really means, even us stupid right wingers would get it. A Supreme Court Justice needs to be able to choose her phrasing wisely.
A racist is a racist.
Posted by: Charlie C | June 5, 2009, 2:01 am 2:01 am
“Today is the day, the Lord hath made, Rejoice, and be glad in it.” Judge not lest ye be judged. If the shoe fits wear it. ad nausem.. For those that ‘are blind, and cannot see’ pull that splinter from thy eye.. I ‘see’ nothing racist about what Ms. Sotomayor said. In my opinion, she spoke from a ‘mother’s love,’ caring for her children. Men do not have the love of their children like women do. They are (were anyway) the protectors and the women were the nuturers of a family. Even the Good Books state ‘let clergy’ be your jury for trials. Why? cuz of compassion, love for our christian bretheren, of which we are ALL apart of. Thank you Jesus, praise God!! Peace everyone..
Posted by: praywatchlisten | June 5, 2009, 7:45 am 7:45 am
Charlie C – But you had no issue when Justice Alito said pretty much the same thing, right! So, your only a racist if your a person color explaining your view of the world. Alrighty!
Posted by: Try the truth | June 5, 2009, 8:43 am 8:43 am
“This is a big brew ha ha over nothing. We are all the product of our experiences and to parse this and denigrate her for those or expressing those is juvenile. Logical grown-ups get it – just not the right-wingers.”
————————————–
Padma ,
Strange that particular arguement NEVER seems to apply to conservatives. Would you have the same opinion of a woman who is pro-life and said that her personal experiences helped to shape her opinion? Would you support her as well ?
Posted by: Mike_C | June 5, 2009, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm
Mike_C – It would be nice if the far-right would evaluate her on her judicial philosophy instead of the character assassination they are currently conducting. Any “pro-life” or pro-choice stance/past judicial decisions would fall under judicial philosophy.
Posted by: Padma | June 6, 2009, 9:17 am 9:17 am