See, this is where your appeal to logic and reason completely breaks down.

I'm curious. Who are people like me? Unlike you I won't speak for others that I do not know, but personally I would not be "screaming to the high heavens and making racist claims left and right." And I challenge you to find something I have written that would lead you to that conclusion. Though the irony of this statement in context of the current discussion is not lost on me.

You are trying to prove your point by defining the parameters for the discussion and so far no one seems to agree with those parameters. That alone should be proof that what is racism is more in the realm of opinion than fact or FACT or even Fact.

It's why I always win these debates. :D

Yes, you are truly a legend in your own mind... ;-)

again, i don't dispute that you believe this, but there is no established consensus that such is the case. thus, we're back at gathering data. if you're right, then the results will bear out your view. if i'm right, then they won't.

Considering all the empirical evidence that shows Sotomayor's continuous expression of racial superiority, it's well established that this is, in fact, her true "belief" and not just a random or single miss-utterance.

It is clear from Sotomayor's own words, spanning more than a decade that she believes that a Latina woman with her experiences is superior to a white male without those experiences.

That is, by definition, a racist claim.

Now, if her words had expressed that she believes that HER experiences (PERIOD) makes her wisdom superior to another person's wisdom that DOESN'T have those experiences, THAT would not be a racist statement.

But, by stating that "a Latina woman" (ANY Latina woman) with her experiences would have superior judgement, that, BY DEFINITION, makes it a racist statement.

Even taking into account your "belief/emotional" argument, it is clear that, due to MULTIPLE INSTANCES of Sotomayor making this "Latina woman's wisdom is superior" claim, Sotomayor, in fact, believes her race is superior to another's race..

A textbook definition of racism... But I understand how you cannot concede the point because it would force you to agree with Republicans like Limbaugh and Gingrich. And, gods know, we can't have THAT, now can we??? :D Political bigotry at it's finest..

@CW

The question before her, as a member of an appellate circuit court, was whether the law had been applied correctly in the lower court's ruling. What was the law? Did the ruling follow the law? Is the law constitutional? Sotomayor, in this case, decided that whatever her own personal empathetic feelings were, that the law was clear — what New Haven had done was legal, in other words — and that the ruling did indeed follow the law as written.

I dispute the claim that Sotomayor et al followed the law..

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci,_et_al._v._DeStefano,_et_al.

There are actually two competing "laws" in this regard. In short, you have the "law" that requires that minorities be well represented in promotions.. On the other hand, you have the "law" that requires the city to certify the results of a promotion test, unless the test itself can be shown to be flawed..

Pursuant to a City regulation known as the “rule of three,” once test results are “certified,” the Department must promote from the group of applicants achieving the top three scores. Immediate application of the “rule of three” to these exams would not have allowed for the promotion of any black firefighters. More broadly, black applicants’ pass rate on the lieutenant exam was approximately half of the rate for white applicants – a disparity more marked than for prior exams. However, if additional vacancies opened, black applicants would have been eligible to be considered for those promotions, based upon these exams’ results.

By failure to certify the exam scores, the city violated Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause.

Who are the Plaintiffs?? The lead plaintiff is Frank Ricci who is representative of the 18 New Haven firefighters. Ricci is dyslexic and spent $1,000 of his own money buying books and getting some texts recorded so he could study more effectively. He finished sixth out of 77 and earned promotion. But Ricci failed one test and one test only. Ricci was white.

So, Sotomayor chose to support the law that would benefit minorities at the expense of the white and hispanic firefighters..

The City of New Haven's position is blatant racism, as they refuse to certify the test results because there were no black people amongst the top three.

ANY person who would side with the City in this instance has no business even being considered for the SCOTUS.

The more I learn of Sotomayor, the more I believe she is NOT well-suited to be appointed to the Supreme Court Of The United States.

Michale.....

incorrect on both counts, it's a factual argument, and not my only argument. the word "belief" is the second word of the definition of racism, after "the." that's a fact. The term racism is abstract, just like love and freedom; another fact. abstractions can only be termed factual when a consensus has been established (fact). a consensus has not been established (fact).

Q.E.D.

which leaves us back where we were, gathering empirical data to build a consensus and determine whether or not your point of view is as factual as you've claimed it to be.

PROVE IT..

All you have been able to come up with is a "belief" argument which is, like Bashi's argument, an emotional argument..

Show me FACTS that support your contention that an expression of racial superiority is not a racist statement.

Do you have any facts??

No, you do not..

Do I have any facts?

Yes I do...

For sheets and greens, let's take Judge Sotomayor's speech and plug in a different race into the values where she makes claims of race.....

"I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my WHITE identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.

I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate…"

Now, tell me.. Honestly and truly.. If a white Republican had made a speech such as that you and people like you would be screaming to the high heavens and making racist claims left and right.

Is this or is this not true?

Yes it is...

So please don't insult my intelligence by trying to define what 'is' means. I know what it means.. I also know that an expression of racial superiority is a racist statement...

Michale.....

i understand why you believe they do, and if your limited perspective were the only valid one, you'd be right. but it isn't, and you're not.

We can dance around the definition of 'is' all night long.

the definition of 'is' is concrete. either something exists, or it doesn't. the definition of 'racism' on the other hand, is defined as "a belief," abstract and therefore subject to consensus and context, like Love, Success, Freedom, or Feminism.

And the facts are that Sotomayor, on many occasions, has made statements expressing a racial and gender superiority.

OR she's expressed her own individual superiority as a means to empower a disadvantaged minority, which does not imply a belief in racial and gender superiority. but you have chosen not to see that possibility.

to paraphrase:
"it is futile to try to prove that there was {racism}"
Lt. Kaffee

or if you wish:
"{michale} hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest"
-paul simon

You see, unlike some on here, I attack the message and not the messenger…

It's why I always win these debates. :D

the undisputed fact is that you do tend to attack, apparently without the consideration that your position might be wrong. your argument is insular and circular, without any opening for the possibility of a different understanding of the issue. this is why, (and i write this in concern, not in contempt) even if in your own paradigm you win, you still lose.

Yes they do.

The fact that she has made nearly the same statement at least a half-dozen times also puts lie to Obama's claim that Sotomayor "misspoke"..

We can dance around the definition of 'is' all night long. But that will not change the facts.

And the facts are that Sotomayor, on many occasions, has made statements expressing a racial and gender superiority.

To paraphrase:

"These are the facts. And they are {indisputable}."
-Captain Jack Ross

you simply name-call and refer to these criticisms as childish and immature personal attacks.

I stated that your argument is childish and immature. I didn't say that YOU were.

You see, unlike some on here, I attack the message and not the messenger...

It's why I always win these debates. :D

Michale.....

even if one were to concede your limitation to the concrete definition without context, which i don't, the first two words of the definition of racism are "a belief." if racism is a belief regarding the rest of the definition, even under your own terms of interpretation a statement could not be racist unless it also were proven to be a belief, which in this case, it hasn't.

instead of addressing criticisms of the vast holes in your argument, you simply name-call and refer to these criticisms as childish and immature personal attacks. therefore, i accept your concession of the argument.

I have absolutely NO problem admitting when I am wrong. As many here who know me can attest to, when confronted with the facts, logically and rationally delivered, I am ECSTATIC to concede the point. It means I have learned something new and it thrills me to no end..

But, as those same people can tell you, when I am right, when I KNOW I am right, when I have logic and the facts on my side, I am like a pit bull insofar as I will never let it go.

So, if you want to prevail, your choice is simple.. Provide me with FACTS and do so in a logical, rational and, above all else, mature and adult manner...

Until you can, we'll simply have more of the same... You with your emotional and subjective arguments and me wiping the floor with same... :D

Michale.....

It's quite easy...

You wanna know why??

Because no one, repeat NO ONE, has denied my assertion that, if a white Republican male had made a similar statement to what Sotomayor had made, ya'all would scream RACIST to the high heavens..

Ergo, if the statement is racist if a white Republican male says it, then it is racist when a hispanic Democrat female says it.

I am honestly surprised I have to explain such basic logic...

But, if you want to continue to play, by all means, let's play..

Question #1:
Does the definition of racist include a stated claim of superiority or inferiority?

YES or NO... Of course, the answer is YES...

Question #2:
Does the definition of racist require a declaration of race as a determinative factor?

YES or NO... Of course, the answer is YES.

Question #3:
Does Sotomayor's statement express a claim of superiority?

YES or NO... Of course, the answer is YES.

Question #4:
Does Sotomayor's statement include a comparison of race?

YES or NO... Of course, the answer is YES.

These are FACTS.. Not "emotions" or "beliefs". These are FACTS.. Not because I say they are, but because they simply are.

What is happening here is that ya'all, due to political bigotry and emotionalism, are trying ever so hard to convince me that the sky is green and that water is dry. You have been sucked in by your own partisanship that you are forced to deny reality to further your own argument. When that fails, you make emotional or belief-based arguments. And when THAT fails, you resort to childish and immature personal attacks...

Sorry, son.. I don't ride that bike...

NO ONE has been able to refute the facts with facts of their own.

Until such time as you are able to do so, you will always come out of this debate, wanting...

It's really that simple...

Michale.....

I accept your concession of the debate.

you accept an awful lot of concessions that were never offered. i never conceded anything, but i accept your tactic of incitement. well done. *golf clap*

the validity of the statement has absolutely NO BEARING on the fact that the statement, in and of itself, IS a racist statement...

a distinction that has been offered by you, but by neither dictionary you cited. oh yeah, i forgot; you say it's a fact, therefore it must be a fact.

your criteria proves my argument to be true and valid.

first of all, the singular form is "criterion." secondly, it does no such thing. Sotomayor's statement does not claim that Latina females have inherently superior wisdom, nor does any of the surrounding context imply that to be her meaning.

As with Osborne, you can't win the debate on the facts, so you take to insulting your opponent... [snip] you have to resort to childish and immature personal attacks

aw, don't go and get all defensive now, buddy, and imagine all these presumed insults. the deck of cards analogy is just an abstraction to your refusal to address the full measure of the facts, rather than just a few selected ones. considering how many people here you've called bigots and other pejoratives, i don't think you can sit there and call anyone else a hypocrite, "cupcake."

As with Osborne, you can't win the debate on the facts, so you take to insulting your opponent..

I accept your concession of the debate.

As to your "criteria"..

3. The person must BELIEVE in race as the criterion.

This is only required as to prove that the person making the statement is a racist.

It is not required to prove that the statement in and of itself, is racist..

Example:

"Black people are lazy" is a racist statement in and of itself.

If I were to BELIEVE that black people are lazy, that would make me a racist. However, my belief (or disbelief) in the validity of the statement has absolutely NO BEARING on the fact that the statement, in and of itself, IS a racist statement..

Do you comprehend the logic of this position? Do you understand the difference between the person making the statement and the statement itself?

"Belief", like "emotion", has absolutely NO bearing in the determination as to whether or not the statement is a racist statement..

4. race must be THE PRIMARY determinant of differences.

In Sotomayor's statement, race WAS one of the primary determinants. Along with gender.. So, by your own criteria, Sotomayor's statement was a racist statement.

5. those differences must produce an INHERENT (i.e. not learned) superiority.

Again, your criteria proves my argument to be true and valid. Sotomayor's statement claims that a Latina female's wisdom is inherently superior than a white male's wisdom. If she wanted to indicate HER OWN PERSONAL wisdom would be "better", why did she bring her race into the discussion at all??

Why are you so adamant about ignoring the facts?? You claim no political bias, yet you are fighting tooth and nail the reality of her statement and the FACTS that define her statement.

The simple fact that you have to resort to childish and immature personal attacks simply proves to me that you have run out of any sane arguments, emotional or otherwise...

Michale.....

Dictionary:
"a BELIEF that race is THE PRIMARY determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Michale:
1. Mention of race as a determinative criteria
2. An expression of superiority or inferiority

Criteria abjectly ignored
3. The person must BELIEVE in race as the criterion.
4. race must be THE PRIMARY determinant of differences.
5. those differences must produce an INHERENT (i.e. not learned) superiority.

Other Michale arguments:
you let partisan bigotry color your assessment
These are the facts, stripped bare of all political bigotry or spin…
This has been PROVEN
the facts are
the answer is a logical and factual
etc. etc. ad nauseum.

You're not arguing with a full deck michale, or even a half deck for that matter, but you sure can stay on-message.

Let's face it. The facts are not on your side in this issue..

Rather than concede the point, you try and obfuscate the argument with an emotional appeal.

Why can't you just acknowledge the facts and concede that you let partisan bigotry color your assessment of the facts in this issue??

Because that is exactly what has occurred..

Michale.....

To paraphrase: you don't want an honest discussion of racism, you just want others to agree with you.

Good luck with that.

1. "I would hope that a black man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

2. "I would hope that a Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

3. "I would hope that a white woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black male who hasn’t lived that life."

4. "I would hope that a white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a hispanic female who hasn’t lived that life."

Using your argument, NONE of these statements would be racist..

Yet, it is obvious to a logical and objective person that ALL of these statements are racist statements.

They ALL have BOTH elements that define a racist statement.

An expression of superiority or inferiority.
Race-based criteria as a determinative factor.

ALL 4 of those statements satisfy the definition of being racist statements.

Michale.....

Because of this emotional charge, attempting to force an absolutist binary determination to the word does not add anything to the conversation.

Any emotional charge is completely irrelevant to the topic and is only invoked to obfuscate the facts.

The facts being that, by definition, Sotomayor's statement was a racist statement.

Personally, the preface of Sotomayor's quote, "I would hope…" does not pass my racist threshold filter, therefore I would deem it not racist.

However, if a white Republican male would make the same claim using the same "I would hope" phrase, you WOULD consider it racist.

Don't bother denying it because we both know it to be true.

The simple fact that ya'all would consider the statement racist if it came from someone you politically disagree with simply supports the validity of my argument.

There is no gray area..

There is no "emotional charge".

There is only logic and facts.

Racism is defined as an expression of superiority or inferiority using race-based criteria..

FACT...

Sotomayor's statement included an expression of superiority.

FACT...

Sotomayor's statement included race in a determinative and/or criterial context.

FACT...

Ergo, by any logical or rational thought process, the only possible conclusion is that the statement was racist.

Now, if you want to throw in an emotional argument that is, of course, your prerogative.

But logic always trumps emotionalism..

Michale.....

I can assure you of two things. One: you definitely have an inherent bias (everyone does) and two: you do not know the inherent bias of everyone here.

The problem with your dictionary definition of racism is it's clinical nature. It does not show the strong emotional charge of the term. Because of this emotional charge, attempting to force an absolutist binary determination to the word does not add anything to the conversation. Hence, no one falling for your game. It's the shades of gray that are important not the black or white. That if you force a binary determination of racist or not racist on to a statement someone makes, everyone applies their own personal threshold filter to it. This threshold is not like tennis where 99% out is 100% in. Each person has a different threshold as to what is racist. This puts that determination thoroughly in to the realm of opinion.

Personally, the preface of Sotomayor's quote, "I would hope..." does not pass my racist threshold filter, therefore I would deem it not racist. On the other hand if you wanted an honest discussion of the subject, on a graduated scale from black being extreme "I like to lynch someone of another race before breakfast" racist to white, "I don't understand why skin color is used as a differentiation at all" not racist, I would put her statement at about light gray.

OK, I like the Miriam definition better because it proves even MORE so that the statement in question from Sotomayor is, indeed, racist.

The definition:

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Sotomayor's statement:

"I would hope that a Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Sotomayor stated that she would hope that a Latina woman would come to a BETTER (IE "superior") judicial decision than a white male.

Looking at your definition as well as mine, there are two factors that determine racism.

1. Mention of race as a determinative criteria
2. An expression of superiority or inferiority

Now, looking at Sotomayor's statement, is there a mention of race in a determinative manner? Yes there is.

Is there an expression or statement of superiority. Yes there is.

Ergo, with BOTH elements of the definition of racism satisfied, it is therefore factually determined that the statement is a racist statement.

in my view, there is NO way any sane individual could read that speech and come away thinking she espoused that definition of racism.

I have already conceded that the speech may or may not be a racist speech. I don't know because I haven't read it as it is not relevant to my point. But I will trust you and Liz's et al word that the speech is not a racist speech.

However, that one particular statement IS a racist statement.

This has been PROVEN by two different definitions and by the fact that, if the same sort of statement had been uttered by a GOP white male, ya'all would AGREE with me that it is a racist statement..

What more do ya'all want?? A signed document from the gods?? :D

Michale.....

but that aside, michale, you really are completely off in the way you're interpreting the dictionary definition you cited. the word "superior" in that definition of racism refers for the most part to being more able or more desirable in general.

merriam-webster phrases it differently:

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

in my view, there is NO way any sane individual could read that speech and come away thinking she espoused that definition of racism. i'm not calling you crazy, but i think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. or i'll agree to disagree and you'll refuse to acknowledge. either way.

I accept that you have voted Republican on occasion..

But, other than voting, (I have voted Democrat in the 2006 and 2008 elections) what Republican positions do you support?

As I indicated previously, with 4 exceptions, I support all liberal positions. Being a registered NPA (No Political Affiliation) here in FL, I am completely and 1000% politically agnostic.

Which is why I can be completely objective in the political arena as far as Political Parties are concerned..

It is this objectivity that allows me to view the FACTS in a completely cold, objective and logical manner..

And, in this case, the facts are that Sotomayor made a racist statement. Period..

Her intent, her meaning and the context is completely irrelevant to a logical and rational assessment.

These are the facts, stripped bare of all political bigotry or spin...

Michale.....

even broken clocks are right twice a day. three times if they're stuck on twelve when daylight savings ends. i think newt is right more frequently than rush, probably because he doesn't have to worry about ratings (and neither is right even close to as frequently as CW, which is why i continue to comment here). though i don't recall the specific instance, i remember at some point thinking newt was way smarter than he's given credit for.

i don't recall all my votes that have gone to republicans, but i did vote for marcelo llorente for state house this time around.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/SECTIONS/Representatives/details.aspx?MemberId=4286

not that i agree with most of his views, but i think he's sincerely trying to help our district, and his democratic opponent i wasn't so sure about.

Is it possible that Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh could ever be right in how they describe Republicans??

Please change that to read "Is it possible that Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh could ever be right in how they describe DEMOCRATS???

One tee meenie martoonies... :D

Michale....

Is it possible that Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh could ever be right in how they describe Republicans??

A simple YES or NO will suffice..

Regardless of that, please offer into evidence ANY points that might show you to be politically agnostic...

My liberal bona fides are well established... What exactly are your conservative bona fides??

Michale.....

ah, so we're all politically bigoted. that's a much neater explanation than admitting the possibility that you might be wrong. do you have any proof to offer for my political bigotry against republicans, other than the fact that i frequently disagree with you?

as it happens, i've supported and voted for certain republicans as recently as this past november. got any other pet theories?

But ya'all have an inherent bias that I am not suffering from.

Ya'all are biased against anything Republican and, by extension of that, you would be prejudiced against the claim of racism.. In your mind, it is simply inconceivable that a Republican claim could possibly be true.. Granted, amongst ya'all, there are different levels of inconceivability, but it is nonetheless, present...

Rush and Newt have stated that Sotomayor's statement was racist and you, by darn, will NEVER agree that Rush and Newt could POSSIBLY make a correct statement. You would disagree with Rush and Newt if they said that the sky is blue and water is wet.

Ergo, you simply ignore the facts because they are inconvenient to the political virtual reality that you have created for yourself..

You offer PHILOSOPHICAL proof..

I offer facts..

And the fact is that racism is defined as an expression of superiority of one race over another.

And Sotormayor expressed that she hoped her race would have superior judicial wisdom over another's race..

THAT is the very definition of racism..

And your refusal to accept this simple fact is the very definition of political bigotry..

These are the facts, your philosophical argument notwithstanding....

Michale.....

So you, like Bashi, want to discuss the mechanics of the language. You want to determine what the meaning of 'is' is.

incorrect. i want to discuss what the MEANING of language; specifically the meaning of 'RACISM,' not the meaning of 'IS.' the "mechanics" of language are called syntax, which is not what we're discussing at all. the study of meaning is called "semantics," which is much more germane.

1. unlike the verb form 'is,' or any number of other words, the noun 'racism' and associated adjective form 'racist' has a certain quality known as being ABSTRACT. this means that it is something that does not exist in the mass, and can therefore not be defined in concrete terms.

2. because they cannot be measured concretely, abstract concepts differ according to an individual's perception of them, and can therefore only be termed factual inasmuch as there is a general consensus (presumably among most educated people).

3. between myself, liz bashi and (certainly not least) cw, at least four presumably educated people disagree with you about the factuality of your interpretation RE: the semantic range of the dictionary's definition of racism.

4. there exists no consensus regarding the abstract concept which you claim as fact.

Q.E.D. that which you consider fact has not been adequately established as such.

i have provided a philosophical proof to back up my point of view. what have you provided, other than:

"It's a racist statement that no amount of spin can change... (i.e. nyah nyah, i can't hear you)

Let's review the FACTS.

We have a person of one political persuasion who makes a racist statement.

Her opponents jump on this racist statement and, ignoring the facts of other data, attempt to use this statement to paint this person in a BAD political light.

On the other side, we have her supporters who ignore the FACTS of the statement itself in an attempt to paint her in a GOOD political light..

In essence, BOTH sides are guilty of playing political games, picking and choosing which facts they want to present and which facts they want to ignore, all in pursuit of pushing their specific political agenda..

And yet, the facts remain.

Sotomayor made a racist statement.

Sotomayor has, to the best of my knowledge, not exhibited any other racial prejudices.

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

As I said.... Fascinating... :D

Michale.....

So you, like Bashi, want to discuss the mechanics of the language. You want to determine what the meaning of 'is' is.. :^/

It's a racist statement that no amount of spin can change..

It's irrelevant as to whether or not Sotomayor *MEANT* it as a racist statement. As I have proven by the dictionary definition of "racist" and by giving comparable examples that are also undeniably racist. I have also shown that, if a comparable statement had been made by a white Republican male, ya'all would have screamed RACIST to the moon and back..

If you have any FACTS to dispute the afore, then (as Ross Perot said in the 1992 Presidential Debates) "I am all ears."

imply neither racial superiority

Sorry, you are wrong. Sotomayor said that a Latino woman would make a BETTER judicial decision than a white male..

BETTER = Superior

And when given a racial criteria (as Sotomayor did) Superior = Racist..

I am really surprised I have to explain this stuff. All I need to do is remind ya'all of the converse. If a Republican Male had made the same comment, ya'all would be screaming RACIST to the roof tops...

What more proof do ya'all need???

@CW

It wasn't so long ago that white men WERE making statements like the one you put together, in public, and quite often.

And, we are all agreed, that was racist..

Sotomayor isn't claiming racial superiority, as I see it, she is making a personal statement that she aspires ("would hope") to be better than a white man "more often than not."

If it was her intent to hold herself up solely, then she should have said that "I would hope that I, with the richness of my experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than any other who hasn’t lived that life."

But by invoking her race and comparing it to another race, she made the statement a racist one..

At the risk of being looked upon as an arrogant ass (too late!! :D) I am surprised I have to explain this to liberals! :D

I actually agree with the spin paragraph you wrote, except I would phrase it as "…in the context of a speech on race and justice, made a comment that, taken out of this context, has been called "racist in nature" by her opponents." But, on the whole, that's a fairly good paragraph.

I am not her "opponent".. I am completely and 1000% objective in this issue. I have no dog in the hunt, no axe to grind and no political agenda to serve.

Regardless of Sotomayor's intent, regardless of the context of her audience and regardless of ANY political consideration whatsoever..... When one looks at the FACTS in a cold, impartial and objective manner, the statement is a racist statement. Pure and simple..

That is all that I am claiming..

Just the facts.....

Michale

Sotomayor, from a speech years earlier (1994):

"Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of 'wise.' Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

This remark didn't even come up during her confirmation hearing for the Second Circuit...

-CW

I think "poor choice of words" is code for "politically, this is a headache that could have been avoided by changing one word." It's kind of Washington-speak, and should be seen through that lens.

Michale -

It wasn't so long ago that white men WERE making statements like the one you put together, in public, and quite often. Look at "the other side" in the Civil Rights era, for instance. Women and minorities have always fought against this historic headwind, and they sometimes feel that they have to be twice as good as a white man to get half as far. This is the underlying context to Sotomayor's comment, in my opinion. She is saying she "hopes" that she'll make a "better" decision than a white male "more often than not." Now compare that to the actual racist and sexist commentary from the 1960s or even 1970s when it came to minorities or women advancing professionally. Sotomayor isn't claiming racial superiority, as I see it, she is making a personal statement that she aspires ("would hope") to be better than a white man "more often than not." Maybe that's a racial criterion she is holding up for herself (see comment about twice as good to get half as far)? She mentioned race because the whole speech is about race, and her pride at being a Latina judge.

I actually agree with the spin paragraph you wrote, except I would phrase it as "...in the context of a speech on race and justice, made a comment that, taken out of this context, has been called "racist in nature" by her opponents." But, on the whole, that's a fairly good paragraph.

I think Rush and Newt are getting a few talkings-to by Republicans who actually have to run for office, as I see they're both backing away from their previous statements. Demographically, this could kill the Republican Party's chances to attract Latinos for a generation.

-CW

it is not a racist statement because the individual making it (judge sotomayor) and the context in which it was stated (seeking equality within a racist society) imply neither racial superiority, nor the right to rule over other races. if you can establish some alternate theory of context or intent, i'd be interested to hear it, but otherwise you must accept that your "fact" is not quite as factual as you think it is.

"Yes, Judge Sotomayor, in the context of a racially exclusive lecture, made a comment in a speech that was racist in nature. But to claim that Judge Sotomayor is racist due to that one in context comment is ludicrous. Given Judge Sotomayor's history prior and subsequent to that one comment, it's impossible that one can make the case that Judge Sotomayor is a racist."

A perfectly logical, rational and non-emotional response to the FACTS of the issue...

By trying to re-define what the meaning of 'is' is, ya'all are doing more harm to your argument then you can possibly imagine..

Call a spade a spade and move on.

Michale.....

And, like Liz, you buy into the accuracy of the statement itself..

It doesn't matter if the claim is ludicrous or not.

The fact that there is a claim of superiority based on racial criteria is what makes the statement a racist statement..

after reading the whole speech, i see it as unequivocal that she was not talking about the experiences of just ANY hispanic female, she was talking about herself in particular,

Then why bring race into it at all???

Why didn't she say, "A person of my experiences would make more wise judicial choices than a person who didn't have my experiences."

That conveys the exact same point (as you claim the point to be) without ANY racial overtones whatsoever..

The **FACT** that Sotomayor chose to invoke race as the deciding criteria is what makes the statement racist.

And no amount of liberal spin will change that one simple fact..

By invoking race as the determinative criteria, Sotomayor made a racist statement.

Period..

Michale.....

on the other hand, our country has a very real dearth of women and minorities in power. furthermore, there is a widespread and unfair belief that this is due to women and minorities lacking the inherent merit (see "the bell curve"), or because their cultural experiences put them at a disadvantage. the first page and a half of that speech is about judge sotomayor's personal history, and the snippet in question is about whether or not that history matters in the judgment she brings to a case.

after reading the whole speech, i see it as unequivocal that she was not talking about the experiences of just ANY hispanic female, she was talking about herself in particular, or any superior INDIVIDUAL who might have to deal with the stereotypes of the "lesser" arrayed against them.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/cartoons/gallery/69175.html

Michale.....

I'm saying that the two situations you describe are simply not equivalent…unless you are saying that the white man's experience in America is no different from the experience of any man of colour or of any woman. If you are saying that the experiences of these groups ARE the same, then we have nothing further to discuss on this issue.

You are keying on the accuracy of the statement itself.

Whether or not a white male's experiences can makes one's wisdom superior or inferior to a hispanic female's experiences is completely irrelevant.

The claim that a white male's wisdom is superior to a hispanic female's wisdom is racist, pure and simple..

Just as claiming that a hispanic female's wisdom is superior to a white male's wisdom is racist.

The validity of the claim is not the question here. The question is, "Is such claims of superiority racist."

And, by definition, the answer is a logical and factual YES...

Judge Sotomayor's quote has nothing to do, whatsoever, with superiority of one race over another. Have your read her entire speech? It's a dandy and I'll bet that she had a similar conversation with President Obama and that it made his decision an easy one!

Sotomayor's speech may not have nothing to do with race. But that quote does..

If the quote had nothing to do with race, then why did Sotomayor mention race in the quote??

Once again, if I may add, the media is proving its collective cluelessness on this one. But, what the heck else is new.

Agreed..

I just saw a news report in which I think Senator Feinstein said that Judge Sotomayor indicated that she used a poor choice of words in the infamous quote.

Online or on TV?? If online, I would like a link, if you could. It seems like, to date, everyone BUT Sotomayor has agreed that it was a poor choice of words.. Anytime a public figure tries to express superiority using racial criteria, it's ALWAYS a poor choice.. Regardless if it is a white person, a black person, a hispanic person or a vulcan person.

Michale.....

I just saw a news report in which I think Senator Feinstein said that Judge Sotomayor indicated that she used a poor choice of words in the infamous quote.

I still strongly disagree that her choice of words was a poor one, though it certainly is one that most people refuse to understand. But, that may be just me...literally. So be it.

I'm saying that the two situations you describe are simply not equivalent...unless you are saying that the white man's experience in America is no different from the experience of any man of colour or of any woman. If you are saying that the experiences of these groups ARE the same, then we have nothing further to discuss on this issue.

If you want to provide an equivalent or reverse situation, then provide one that makes sense. For example, how would the Democrats react if a Republican president had nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the high court, or someone who had made a similar statement? Would they be jumping all over this infamous quote? Maybe they would.

Judge Sotomayor's quote has nothing to do, whatsoever, with superiority of one race over another. Have your read her entire speech? It's a dandy and I'll bet that she had a similar conversation with President Obama and that it made his decision an easy one!

Once again, if I may add, the media is proving its collective cluelessness on this one. But, what the heck else is new.

Seriously, if a white male appointed to any high office ever made a comment like that, he’d be laughed out of court, so to speak.

So, you are saying that it's OK for a hispanic female to make a comment that a white male could not make?? (Besides the obvious gender-related statements??)

How is this not bigotry and racism??

the situation you describe here is NOT the equivalent of a ‘reverse situation’ but rather a situation that, should it ever occur, would be hysterically funny, if not entirely pathetic.

Explain??

It sounds like you are buying into the racist idea that one race CAN BE superior to another race.

That isn't what you are claiming, is it?

Michale....

Actually, I don’t think Senator Feinstein read the entire Sotomayor speech in question. If she had, then she would know that Judge Sotomayor did not mean to say ‘different’ instead of ‘better’. A careful read of that speech clearly shows the point that the judge was making and her quote makes perfect common sense within that context.

There is another part of that speech that everyone seems to ignore - the part where Sotomayor suggests her disagreement with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s quote that, to paraphrase, a wise old male and a wise old women would reach the same conclusion. I tend to agree with Judge Sotomayor.

If President Bush - or any other president, Democratic or Republican - had nominated for Supreme Court justice - or for anything else - any white male who would say that a “Caucasian man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female who hasn’t lived that life”, then that would be grounds, in my book for impeachment of the President, ridiculing of the nominee, and shame on everyone else who would not call for the same action!!!

Seriously, if a white male appointed to any high office ever made a comment like that, he’d be laughed out of court, so to speak.

You may be right that the GOP is simply reacting hysterically about this to serve a political agenda. I also agree that, Democrats may act similarly in a reversed situation.

But, my point is simply this.. the situation you describe here is NOT the equivalent of a ‘reverse situation’ but rather a situation that, should it ever occur, would be hysterically funny, if not entirely pathetic. In other words, find a better analogy, or reverse situation, and your arguments may make more sense.

In any event, I just think this whole uproar is so much ado about nothing.

That's pretty much the whole attitude from the Left in general and is my exact point.

That point being, if it had been Bush that nominated a Republican White Male and said male had made the comment that

"I would hope that a Caucasian man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female who hasn’t lived that life."

would the Left not be reacting with MORE hysterics than the Right is acting now??

Of course they would.

Personally, it IS much ado about nothing, since the comment, while being racist, is one little grain of salt in a sea of other information and data.

The GOP is simply reacting hysterically about this to serve a political agenda.

As the Democrats would do if the situation was reversed.

That has been and will always be my only point..

Michale....

Now, I'm no big fan of Feinstein or anything, but I thought she did a pretty good job summing the issue up.

I also read something by the Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting folks after I had posted this which pointed out how many news orgs chop off the beginning of her sentence too, which is also a qualifier on what she was saying: "I would hope that..."

I thought that was a good point, and one that I had missed (I notice more when people drop the "more often than not" personally).

-CW

I don’t think that replacing ‘better’ with ‘different’, as some are suggesting, makes a whole lot of sense. I mean, the point of what Judge Sotomayor said, as far as I understand, is that a different background/race/gender (as opposed to privileged white males) can lead to judgements that are more sound, not judgements that are just different. Isn’t that the whole idea of wanting to make sure that the justices that make up the Supreme Court are from diverse backgrounds and are more representative of what America is?

I guess what I’m saying is that the use of the word ‘better’ is entirely appropriate in the context of Judge Sotomayor’s entire speech. Far from being ‘racist’ or expressing a notion of superiority, the quote in question simply states the obvious about how diversity based on gender, race, socio-economic position etc. can help to improve the odds of reaching a more sound judgement and decision when resolving legal issues, especially those issues involving discrimination, the American psyche notwithstanding.

In any event, I just think this whole uproar is so much ado about nothing. Now, if anyone can point to a case and decision in which she espoused her superior judicial philosophy, then there would be something to talk about.

But, it's a pretty safe bet that she’s going to be asked about this at her Senate confirmation hearing - the senators on the committee are probably now sparring over who's going to ask it. Here’s hoping she doesn’t pull a Dianne Feinstein!