Obama: I'm Sure Sotomayor Would 'Restate' Line From 2001 Speech
In an excerpt of a yet-to-air interview with NBC, President Barack Obama says his Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor probably should have chosen different words to convey the sentiment she was trying to convey in her now-famous 2001 speech.
Conservatives have latched on to this sentence--"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"--to suggest that Sotomayor is unfit to serve on the Court. Some have even gone so far as to call her a racist. Unsurprisingly, a fuller context of her remarks, which appear below the fold, tell a significantly different story.
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. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Obama is going to have stand up to the right wing sooner or later.
May 29, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did stand up to the right wing. And won. That's why we call him President Obama.
May 29, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He won because the right wing put us into a depression.
May 29, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
He won because he outmaneuvered first Hilary Clinton, and then the entire Republican political establishment.
May 29, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct!
May 30, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Masher,
the Obama campaigner isn't the Obama who won.
May 29, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's bullshit. The campaign Obama is exactly the President Obama. People who think this is a different guy either (a) wasn't paying attention or (b) painted your own picture of him irrespective of the facts.
May 29, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free Rider
He was the Bush War on Terror's worst enemy as a candidate, as President he's adopted many of Bush's ideas. His most recent hypocrisy is his plan to keep people jailed indefinitely without a trial (preventive detention). Oh, did I mention his newly discovered love of the state secrets act and the military commissions?
It wasn't a picture I painted of him, its a picture that he painted of him.
May 30, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has always been a pragmatist; he makes cold rational decisions based on what he *thinks* will work. I believe that as president he's doing what he belives will work. Pragmatic.
He has modified the military commissions to a great extent. He is currently reviewing the state secrets policy. But unless he throws out everything Bush did, he'll always be a traitor to you.
Folks made Obama out to be some idealistic peacenik which is a complete joke. If you wanted an ideologue, you should have voted for someone else because that is not and never has been Obama.
May 30, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
BRAVO!!!!!
May 30, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down. It's rope-a-dope, as hello_world pointed out below. It's also fact - truth is, she probably would want to couch her sentiment in different words if she had the chance. It'd have been worth it to avoid all this bullshit.
May 29, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she's intimidated into restating her opinion now, I hate to think what would happen when she comes up against the gang of five.
Maybe we have a little gender difference here but I don' know any women who like men restating their words for them.
May 29, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with "Bluebell".
Why is it that these folks in Washington can's just say "ASK THEM" instead of restating others comments so they fit into someone else's agenda?
This occurs over and over and over with BOTH mobs, not just one.
Oops... I seem to have answered my OWN question...
May 29, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a media blackout for the nominee during this period so you can't ASK HER until her confirmation hearings.
May 29, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't restate her opinion. She's "restate" the line. Read the entire passage and you can easily see that the "controversial" line doesn't really fit what she was trying to say overall.
So, it's perfectly reasonable to say that she would probably restate it. Restate it make her point more effectively.
Saying an effort to clarify means she'll be a wuss on the bench is pure bluebell-ism.
May 29, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've just read her somewhat boring speech and think it's pretty clear that she meant the line exactly the way she wrote it. The context, to me, very clearly supports only that interpretation. It's no stray remark and there is no broader context: she builds up steadily to the point, and it is a conclusion she reaches after a whole line of supporting discourse. It was an obnoxious, chauvinistic observation, and she should *never* have put it into words whether she thinks this or not. It was idiotic.
The fact that we want the above not to be true does not change it.
May 30, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's talking about race and gender discrimination. If you don't think that a minority woman can bring something different and more insightful and poignant to that topic, then you're not living in the real world.
Why do we defer to combat veterans on matters of war? Why do we defer to battered spouses on matters of domestic violence? Because they've been there!!
Sorry. When you're talking gender and racial discrimination, white men haven't been there.
May 30, 2009 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...about race and gender discrimination ... a minority woman can bring something different and more insightful and poignant to that topic"
That's what you're saying. Not what she said. Maybe it's what she meant to say. As I say on my blog in here, there's a big problem here, and it won't be wished away. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/2009/05/the-sotomayor-problem-is-real.php
May 30, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
In essence, your blog says "Newt is gonna get us. When Newt speaks people listen. Oh, what will we do?" That alone earns you a big ole raspberry. Who gives a fuck what Gingrich thinks.
She didn't say something stupid. Her point is both valid and correct, although it was not made as well as should have been.
But you're saying that a minority woman does not have better insight on matters of gender discrimination than a white man? That's just mad crazy.
Next you'll be saying that men know as much about being pregnant as women because they gotten a lot of women pregnant.
May 30, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But you're saying that a minority woman does not have better insight on matters of gender discrimination than a white man? That's just mad crazy."
Jiminy Cricket, I DIDN'T SAY THAT! *YOU* DID!
May 30, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
And. There's no big problem. Stop being such a pussy running scared because Rush and Newt and Beck call her a racist.
May 30, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there was no big problem, the President would not have had to resort to the tortured circumlocution,
"I'm sure she would have, uh, restated it..."
What tense is that even in?
May 30, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, that's a LONGGGGGG way from a "big problem."
Clarifying = housekeeping.
Big problem = withdrawing her nomination.
May 30, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although we haven't seen the end. So we'll stay tuned.
As I wrote on the blog, "dude," maybe this blows up in Gingrich's face.
May 30, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No "maybe". For sure.
Gingrich and the other nutters have gone too far. You don't call someone a racist based on one poorly-phrased statement when there is NOTHING else to support that.
In addition, they're questioning the intellect of a woman who graduated #2 in the whole class from Princeton and edited the Yale Law Review. Everybody sees that for what it is: sexist and racist.
Keep digging!
May 30, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not digging. But they are. Maybe they come up snake eyes, I hope so.
May 30, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no! I meant the right wing keeps digging their hole deeper.
May 30, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect subjunctive, I believe. Perfectly grammatical and coherent in any case.
May 31, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a mere sinner and one of his biggest fans, Father, I'll give the President the benefit of the doubt on this alien construct.
May 31, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe pluperfect conditional...same goes no matter what tense an mood it falls into.
May 31, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's this, then?! Uh, Father, when you waiver, pluperfect, Magooperfect, the flock gives a shudder, and grows uncertain -- *restless.* We need for *you* to be strong for us, above all!
May 31, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, bullshit. 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.
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. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
Try actually reading the speech. Or do you prefer to just lie about what she said?
May 30, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty creative. You took the selective pablum quote from above, pasted it here, and wrongly accused *me* of not reading the speech and being moreover a *liar*?! Wow!
Here's what she said, in pertinent part, and get used to it, because you're going to hear a lot about it:
"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."
May 30, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
And then you stopped reading, obviously. A pity about your attention span, because if you had actually kept reading, you would have realized that you took her quote out of context.
Assuming you are not just a liar, of course.
May 30, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the entire relevant passage and you're calling it "selective." You are still fixated on that one sentence and it colors everything else you read. Your brain shut down after you read it, because clearly the rather lengthy context that follows meant absolutely nothing to you. You're doing exactly what Newt and Tancredo are doing.
May 30, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, Father, mea culpa, it's not so selective, you got me. That doesn't change the fact that it was a reckless and hugely idiotic thing for an Appellate Federal judge to say. You can add more paragraphs at the top and below and it won't change that one wit.
May 30, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical moron who simply can't understand the obvious. Her statement was made within the context of discussing racial and sexual discrimination. Noting that, there really is nothing whatsoever controversial or wrong about her statement at all.
Those who say there is are simply being boneheaded, racist morons themselves. To deny that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT a "wise" Latina woman would reach a better conclusion regarding a case concerning cases of racial and sexual discrimination than a white male who's NEVER in his life dealt with discrimination is the height of absurdity.
What will you tell us next, that white males MORE OFTEN THAN NOT are able to write a better hip hop song than a young black male? Or perhaps you'll tell us that they're MORE OFTEN THAN NOT able to make better sushi than a native-born Japanese sushi-chef? Or perhaps you'll astound us with the tale how a white male MORE OFTEN THAN NOT can empathize with taking it up the backside than a homosexual can?
Come on, people...lol
May 31, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have no business calling me a moron, just cause you disagree. It's inappropriate. If we were on RedState.com or whatever it's called, they'd be calling you the moron. Similarly inappropriate. And completely unnecessary.
May 31, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Overreach,
agreed, the insults are inappropiate.
May 31, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thx! It's getting so every post I'm half-expecting to be vulgarly denounced! Appreciate this!
May 31, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely my point: no amount of context is going to budge you off that one sentence. Your mind went to concrete as soon as you read that. Your penance is 1,000 Hail Marys and 2,000 Our Fathers. Go now, and sin no more.
May 31, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
1000? 2000? You're like the "Maximum Bob" of contrition, Father! Amen. :)
Oh...Father?
Nice hair!
May 31, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not one of those people that thinks that anything and everything that Team Obama does is some brilliant political ploy, but I'm honestly sensing a trap here. Regardless of how hard they push attacks hinging on race, they do much MUCH more damage to the Republican party than they do to Obama or to Sotomayor. In the end, she will be confirmed, while the wingnut xenophobes will have center stage during the debate, and Latino voters become more and more repelled by the GOP.
In showing "weakness" here (in a Friday newsdump no less to minimize the impact) Obama is waving a red cape at the wingnuts. And they'll take the bait. They won't be able to help themselves.
May 29, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm watching Ed and Hardball and this statement is being called "Breaking News". Really? I personally wish that Gibbs/Obama had not "walked back" on her statement but the WH is winning this fight. She will be confirmed, most Americans favor her, Obama has strengthened his Hispanic base(for now), the whackos in the GOP are coming out of the woodworks and the msm, by putting them front and center, makes them the face of the GOP. What more can you ask for?
What happened to the days when Breaking News was serious and had you on the edge of your seat?
May 29, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, it bugs me that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices would be Catholic, if Judge Sotomayor were confirmed. This is a religion that condones pedophiles as its representatives, accepts an ex-Nazi as its grand poobah, stops traffic because a mineral deposit on a window looks a little like the Virgin Mary, thinks wine actually turns into water, gave out dispensation for money, and uses images of capital punishment as its symbol.
About 25 percent of the US population is Catholic. Give me a anybody, an agnostic, a Lutheran, someone who does not think, in the back of their mind, that they will burn in hell if they legislate a certain way.
May 29, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point! How did they (the catholics) get to be so over-represented on the court?
BTW, I think they believe that wine turns into blood, not water -- but not really certain now that I'm thinking about it. I've never known a catholic who wanted anything with alcohol to change to WATER!
May 30, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually had never thought about that, and I'll have to research this to be certain your numbers are correct, but if they are, I would have to agree it is a bit troubling. Not majorly so, considering the split in the court isn't along religious lines but on political lines, but a little bit troubling nonetheless.
If the numbers are correct, then I would hope the next appointment Obama makes, especially if it's of one of the Catholics on the bench, is someone who's not Catholic.
As an agnostic myself, I only wish they would appoint an agnostic, but I recognize that's hardly feasable yet in this country. Religious wackos still control the dialogue to some extent, and it's still not possible to reach high office yet if you admit to not being a Christian. Heck, it's next to impossible to hold ANY office in this country without saying you believe in some God, even if it's Allah or Jehovah.
Considering more and more people are identifying themselves as agnostics and atheists, hopefully this will someday soon change (although atheists are no less believers in a religion, since Atheism is a belief system based on faith).
The only truly sane people on the planet are agnostics, who admit they don't know what they don't know. Everyone else pretends they know something they don't; how we got here and why we're here. Agnostics are sane and adult enough to recognize no one could ever possibly know the answer to those things.
May 31, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm actually pretty disappointed in this. I mean, Sotomayor's statement is exactly the corporate diversity approach. As a result of her diverse background, she is able to approach things differently than many other less diverse folks. She understands complex problems; she understands them because she's lived through them. Going to, you know, prep school, Harvard and Yale doesn't give someone nearly the background that Sotomayor has. He needs to stand up to that right-wing media or they will bury him.
He should have simply said, "you're taking statements she made out of context. At her hearing, she will speak to this more fully." Instead, he apologizes for her -- until there is another line in another opinion or another speech or something else that these delinquents find and he'll have to try to apologize then. It's not a campaign. He's got to stop doing this.
May 29, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Plus, he was making points with the kind of women who preferred Hillary by picking a sassy woman. I can't imagine why you'd pick one and then muzzle her.
May 29, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her *intent* was the corporate diversity approach; her *statement* was not. That line didn't jibe with the overall intent of the passage.
Corporate diversity doesn't say blacks or Latinos or single moms can do the job better (as she said); it says they offer a different perspective.
May 29, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
it says they offer a different perspective.
Which is what she went on to say, you idiot.
May 30, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You asshole . . .
But that's NOT what she said in that line, which is why the president says she would probably restate it. The "controversial" line was out of synch with the point she was trying to make.
By the way, you're an idiot and an asshole.
May 30, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by focusing obsessively on that one line out of context instead of the line in context you've got your knickers in a twist over nothing. Stop being such a pussy.
May 30, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I first answered, I thought I was still arguing with Overreach THIS!
I think you and I are basically on the same side. That is, we are looking at the whole context. You seem to think that the sentence in question is worse than I do, but I think that we are both arguing that there's no problem with what she was trying to say (and what she did say in the rest of the speech).
May 31, 2009 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think the sentence in question was bad at all. I think that "sentence" gave assholes an opening to attack her. That's why I think she probably would "restate" it just to take away the opening.
I don't think she is or ever would back away from the overall point because it's the right point to make.
May 31, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, well, then we really do agree. Now I really feel stupid.
May 31, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama just joined the other spineless Democrats who cave to the worst right wing attacks.
Apologizing or simply walking back what was said does nothing but encourage the wingnuts to increase their vitriol.
May 29, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, democrats tried the whole "explain the context and clarify the comment" as their counter-rove strategy. It didn't work.
With one sentence, that "she would have said it differently" you can take several meanings:
She didn't realize her every word would be scrutinized and would have more careful not to give her opposition sound bites.
She should have put the context (about making better judgments about racial discrimination if you've been discriminated against) more closely around the sensitive part of the quote
Most importantly, saying "maybe she should have phrased it differently" puts distance between Obama and the sensitive part of the quote while still saying "I have nothing negative to say about the substance of the matter".
I
May 31, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was nothing wrong with her comment, except when read out of context. The dumbing down of America is criminal. Nothing other supreme courts justices have not also said. Stand by your people.
May 29, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct. It was not very astute of Gibbs and then Obama to hand ammunition to the racists by giving the impression that there was something wrong with that speech by Sotomayor. There was not a goddamn wrong with it. Not with the content, and not with the phrasing.
Sorry Obama apologists, he screwed up in this case, giving new life to a non-issue, and your defenses of him are out to lunch.
May 30, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve lets get this one stright before I state my business on the subject, i'm a supporter of the man and not a apologists. Second although FreeRider made some great points on the mstter and i'll commend him for it, there is no reason for them making Sotomayor backtrack here comment she msde eons ago. I saw the statement about it and saw nothing wrong with it. Only things is I don't see him getting burned for this what with all the screwed up statements going on about here, it's hard to pay attention to everything said about Sonia Sotomayor. Plus this is being said on a friday, no one pays attention to the weekend news cycle, it's dead on the weekend. By monday we'll have something different to talk about regarding the SCOTUS nominee.
With that said I wish Steve, FreeRider and everyone else a happy weekend as i'm going to Detroit this saturday.
May 30, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you agree that this was a mistake. I in turn agree with you that in the grand scheme of things it will not turn out to be a very significant mistake- but it is irritating. It's too reminiscent of the defensive crouch that too many Democrats have been in for too many years.
May 30, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama apologist? Everybody who doesn't wring their hands and declare "OMG, he really, really fucked up this time! We're doomed!" everytime Obama says or does something "off key" is an apologist to you.
Everybody who doesn't declare him a traitor when he (a) makes a move we don't like or (b) doesn't move fast enough to fix the world is an apologist to you.
In that case, I plead guilty.
May 30, 2009 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Free Rider said:
Your screeds against people who criticize Obama
sound familiar, kind of like the screeds offered by Bush sycophants replying to criticism of the Bush/Cheney gang.
May 30, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your screeds against the president sound familiar. The usual whining by people with purity tests who reject the good because it's not perfect. Of course, they end up with ZILCH because nothing is ever good enough for them.
We have different perspectives. I choose to focus on the 75% he does that I like while you (having to prove your holier-than-thou bona fides) focus on the 25% you don't like.
Good luck with that.
May 30, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Free Rider,
I was specific mentioning things regarding his adopting some of the Bush/Cheney gang's tactics vis a vis the war on terror that I didn't like; tell us about the 75% you like.
as to what you said here:
The usual whining by people with purity tests who reject the good because it's not perfect.Who rejected Obama?
and this:
Maybe the difference between us is that I question my leaders about the 25% I don't agree with.
May 30, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you and several others EVER mentioned anything positive the president does, you'd have more credibility. But you don't. You just complain, complain, complain. It's so boring.
75% Positive = not embarrassing me as president, pushing hard for healthcare reform, ending torture, committed to closing Gitmo, pushing for education reform, pushing for energy reform, ending the gag order on family planning, sighing pay equity, signing SCHIP, picking a pragmatic liberal minority woman for the SC, putting the screws to Bibi/Israel, passing the stimulus, putting forward the most progressive budget since LBJ, improving military commissions.
25% Negative = still having ANY military commissions, not coming out hard enough for a public healthcare option, backing Arlen Specter.
But, hey, my significant other pisses me off 35% of the time but I don't want others talking shit about him either because he's a great guy who tries real, real hard.
May 30, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
All throughout History leaders have been able to get away with all kinds of shit (Bush/Cheney, etc.)and one of the reasons is because they had sycophants who defend all that they do and viciously attack anyone who may criticize, regardless of what camp they come from, supporters or political opposites.
I supported Obama during the campaign with contributions and writing Guest Opinions in our County Paper. Me, my wife, and my immediate and extended family voted for him and it appears that accoring to you that isn't enough, I must still support him regardless of what he does and never speak out if he disappoints me.
People like you who attack Obama supporters because they aren't as fully supportive as you
won't serve Obama very well.
Perhaps you should take a tip from Obama himself on how to handle those that disagree with you.
I don't seem to remember him speaking down to, disparaging, or insulting those who disagree with him on certain or all issues.
May 30, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free Rider,
take the last word.
May 30, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sure have a thin skin for a person who does nothing but criticize the president.
True story: Growing up, my mother ONLY told us what we did wrong. All A's = complete silence. 15 minutes late for curfew = a day-long scolding.
My dad, on the other hand, praised us for the good and got on our asses for the bad. After a while, none of us gave a shit about what Mom said because there was no pleasing her. We worked our asses off to make Dad happy, however.
If you don't mix your criticism with some praise on occasion, you will become irrelevant because there's no pleasing you so why bother trying.
And, no, what you did for Obama during the campaign is NOT enough if you spend his entire presidency trying to turn everybody against him. (Which you seem hell bent on doing.) See how much you get from a president with a 35% approval rating.
May 30, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was speaking extemporaneously. She probably meant to say "different" but she said "better." I'll bet if she had reviewed that, she would have edited it to say something like "different perspective."
People mispeak. Why you people are acting like she's being sold down the river by admitting that she could have phrased it better is beyond me.
May 29, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but you guys seem to think the context here ONLY applies to the words surrounding the statement. It doesn't. The FULL context includes what the ENTIRE conversation was about, which can not be found ANYWHERE in the text, but can be found if you find out what the whole speech was about, namely judicial diversity in regard to cases of racial and sexual discrimination.
In light of THAT context, ALONG with everything else she said there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with what she said. Not one damn thing. Those who say there is are either ignoramuses, idiots, or simply racist scum who will say or do anything to smear Obama's pick and have NO interest in the truth.
May 31, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The line was taken completely out of context?
BALONEY! It is a conclusion to long line of supporting discourse. The context enforces the point rather than distinguishing it. That's what's so troubling -- a look at the context makes clear she meant this! Accordingly, this line in the original post is completely false: "Unsurprisingly, a fuller context of her remarks, which appear below the fold, tell a significantly different story." Would that it were so! I don't know if it's good strategy for WH to walk it back or not (they certainly can't defend it!), but it was a thoroughly improper thing to say.
Take a breath, people: *Judges* are not supposed to say idiotic, chauvinistic things.
I hope it was extemporaneous as FreeRider reports. That wouldn't fix it but it would make it easier to excuse. I hope there's not more of this in her background, BTW.
And yes I support her and yes I think she'll be confirmed and yes it gives Republicans a hotfoot.
May 30, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may have been able to read the entire passage, but you certainly didn't understand what she said.
May 30, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is opinion. Her critics will say it's you who didn't understand, Father.
May 30, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, from my point of view, the Jedi are evil.
May 31, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely the point, Lord Vader!
June 1, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Overreach THIS!, but your take on this is completely and utterly incorrect. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s simply because you don’t REALLY know the entire context within which her statement was made.
However, here it is in a nutshell.
First, Sonia Sotomayor's statement was made within the context of speaking about judicial diversity and its impact in regard SPECIFICALLY to cases of racial and sexual discrimination. This means that she was NOT making a statement about ALL types of cases, but ONLY about those that dealt with racial and sexual discrimination. Given that, it's clear to ANYONE with a brain that there is nothing whatsoever controversial about her statement and that she was in no way saying that Latina women come to better conclusions overall than white males or would make better judges. Saying that she "...would HOPE a wise Latina women with the richness of her EXPERIENCES [as a minority woman] would MORE OFTEN THAN NOT reach a better conclusion [on racial and sexual discrimination cases] than a white male who hasn't lived that life [and has no real life experience about how minorities and women are treated to draw from]" is perfectly realistic.
Second, she also went on to qualify her remark by reiterating that white males have many times reached fabulous conclusions in cases of racial and sexual discrimination (citing the white male Supreme Court justices who reached a great conclusion in Brown v Board of Education among many other examples) and made it clear that she has no belief whatsoever that a white male can't be just as empathetic to, and understand all of the nuances of, racial and sexual discrimination cases. The fact she believes, as anyone with a brain would, that it's a much easier thing for a Latina women to be empathetic to, and understand the nuances of, racial and sexual discrimination cases because of her own real life experiences than it would be for a white male who "hasn't lived that life" is so unremarkable as to beg how anyone could possibly believe otherwise. She also demonstrated how this is absolutely factual since there have been cases where supposedly “wise” white male justices such as Oliver Wendell Holmes have reached (what nearly everyone today would agree were) wrong conclusions in such cases.
Third, if you do believe otherwise, I would only challenge you to explain how you believe such tripe. In other words, please explain to me what in a white male's real life experiences, where he's NEVER been subject to racial or sexual discrimination, would make it easier for him to empathize with, and understand the nuances of, racial and sexual discrimination cases than it would be for a wise Latina woman? Please, if you can answer that with a reasonable argument, I'd love to hear it.
I mean, seriously, buddy. Are you going to tell me that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT a white male would be able to make sushi better than a native born Japanese Sushi-Chef? Because if you're not, then you'd be conceding that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, a native born Japanese sushi chef, with the richness of his experience in making sushi, would be able to make better sushi than a white male who's never made sushi in his life.
Do you get it now, buddy, or do I need to make it even easier for you to understand?
May 31, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
As to your context, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and tell you that if you take that to Kaoshiung City Taiwan, that context plus 20 New Taiwanese Dollars will get you on the subway.
And I didn't say the condescending and entirely irrelevant shit below, you did:
"Third, if you do believe otherwise, I would only challenge you to explain how you believe such tripe. In other words, please explain to me what in a white male's real life experiences, where he's NEVER been subject to racial or sexual discrimination, would make it easier for him to empathize with, and understand the nuances of, racial and sexual discrimination cases than it would be for a wise Latina woman? Please, if you can answer that with a reasonable argument, I'd love to hear it.
I mean, seriously, buddy. Are you going to tell me that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT a white male would be able to make sushi better than a native born Japanese Sushi-Chef? Because if you're not, then you'd be conceding that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, a native born Japanese sushi chef, with the richness of his experience in making sushi, would be able to make better sushi than a white male who's never made sushi in his life.
Do you get it now, buddy, or do I need to make it even easier for you to understand?"
As for your context,
May 31, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can see that trying to clue you into reality and truth is a waste of time. I mean, I don't even get that really, because from some of your comments you seem to indicate that you're not a Right-Winger and actually support Obama.
If that's true, I can only surmise that you're simply a jerk who can't admit he was wrong, even when it's broken down to him in terms simple enough for a four-year-old to understand.
Anyway, have a nice time in that fantasy world you live in, pal.
May 31, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
20 NT Dollars. That's only the first zone, though.
May 31, 2009 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, it's a free country and people should be able to express themselves.
Second, I think it's great that the republicans are being presented with an opportunity to express their hatred for women, people of color, gays, etc... The best thing that can happen to the political system right now is to let everyone hear just how much the republicans loathe democracy and most people who are not white, male, and redneck. I want to hear them go over the top with their vitriol. I think it's time at least some of the american public find out who they've been voting for.
May 30, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard the question posed by Scott Simon on NPR today, using the same words but reversing the white men/latina terms, with the conclusion made that if a white guy had said it, it would have been a racist comment. I got to thinking....
What if the Supreme Court for its 200+ years had been made up 99.9% of the time of Latina judges, and a white guy was being considered...if he had such a quote I don't think it would be considered racist at all; just someone making the point that new perspectives are valuable in a deliberative body.
May 30, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you (as noted elsewhere here), but it is interesting that Scott Simon got into it in that depth. He's doing Gingrich's work for him to an extent, and the "radical" discussion may become mainstreamed.
May 30, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know CVille Dem, I hadn't thought of this as an argument, but it's a damn good one.
Even better would be, to anyone who poses that lame question of "What if a white guy had said that" would be, okay, but we'll have to put that white male nominee in say...Mexico, being nominated for the Supreme Court of Mexico, where no white males have ever served on the Supreme Court. Then ask them, would you believe the white male was making a racist statement in that situation?
LOL
May 31, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Barack did the right thing the right way with this comment. Stop parsing the lyrics for a minute and listen to the music.
He is changing the tone. Yeah, we know some folks are distorting what she said, but if you look at the whole statement in context, it is clear what she was saying. Let's move on to serious stuff, shall we?
May 30, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
oskieoski said:
Agreed. Some of his supporters in here should follow his lead and knock off the uncalled for attacks and insults on those who disagree with Obama on some issues.
May 31, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admit to being inept at mind reading and would rather have Ms. Sotomayor state what she meant, since having read all these comments, I now have a multitude of folks who apparently are adept at reading others minds...
And apparently, she is a rather confused person if ALL of you are correct....
May 30, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The confusion is not likely hers. The rightwing has succeeded in sowing this evil seed and Obama unwittingly added a bit of fertilizer to the ground.
May 30, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The truth is, Obama's statement, as innocuous as it seems on its face is a slight backdown and this is a mistake with these rightwing trolls. They must be smacked down and smacked down hard when they peddle this bullshit. Yesterday's comments, both from Gibbs and the President, were unnecessary and probably encouraging to the wingnuts. Even a simple statement that Judge Sotomayor will have ample time to answer any questions about that in the confirmation hearings would have been OK. But to speak for her and, in effect, apologize on her behalf--probably not something she's inclined to do herself if her reputation is correct--was just a weak ass thing to do.
May 30, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
FrJack,
agreed, the slightest sign of vacillation just feeds the cretins as they see it as a sign of weakness and they come back twice as vicious.
May 30, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we saw that in the most recent Newt insanity. He/they still end up looking like hysterical morons but it provides them oxygen.
May 31, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink