‘Wise’ Quote Not So Wise
While I think Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” line falls well short of racism and is even inarguably true given the right context (i.e., that personal experience colors one’s filtering of information) it’s still amusing to see it used against her in a clever fashion.
Scott Ott weighs in with a satire piece entitled, “Sotomayor: Wise Latina Would Not Have Picked Me”
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said today that “if President Obama were a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, he would have picked a less controversial court nominee.”
Judge Sotomayor said she doesn’t blame the president for his unwise choice, “after all, as a black male, he can’t be expected to demonstrate much more wisdom than he has so far. He’s certainly sharper than a white male, but the fact remains that he’s male, and has no discernible Latino heritage.”
Meanwhile, Ann Althouse quips, “I WOULD HOPE THAT A WISE WOMAN would not keep recycling the same speech year after year.“ The link goes to a CQ report that, contrary to the administration’s spin that the line was an unfortunate one-off, it was actually a standard part of her speeches over the years.
Of course, given that it comes after a line about the impossibility of being wise, you would think that a bunch of intelligent people would realize that it’s a self-deprecating joke.
God, I’m sick of this “controversy.”
Here’s the line in its context:
I don’t see any self-deprecating humor there. She’s clearly challenging O’Connor’s declaration that an old man and an old woman will reach identical conclusions. Latina lawyers seem to agree:
I happen to think Sotomayor is right that a “wise Latina” will reach a different conclusion than a white guy, if not necessarily a “better” one.
James: but the fact of the matter is that she didn’t say a “wise Latina…would more often than not reach a different conclusion than a white male…” She said “a better conclusion.” So while it would be “inarguably true” if she had said it that way, the fact remains, she didn’t say that. It’s not inarguably true, despite the context.
Alex: Ain’t no self-deprecation to be found nowhere, pardner. But you just keep on making it up as you go along. It’s what you do best.
Just a point of order, but it wasn’t Glenn at Instapundt. It was Ann Althouse who is posting there while Glenn lightens his load on vacation.
I would love to see the uproar if a white woman or man said the same type of thing in this situation. This woman for being as wise as she is, sure doesn’t know when to stfu.
Right you are! Fixed.
I’m reading her charitably as talking about equity cases involving disadvantaged groups. If applied generally, it’s a silly thing to say.
Boyd and James,
If there is “no universal definition of wise”, how can one say that they’re a “wise Latina”?
I read that as a self-depracating joke in the Socratic vein.
Just because there is no universal definition does not mean one is not wise, at least in some regards. And that is where Sotomayor went of the rails. Yes, a wise old latina with the richness of her experiences in some instances might make a fantastic judge where others would generally fail. But she didn’t say that. Don’t try to bullsh!t us that she did. Maybe that is what she wanted to say and tried, but she failed. She should “man up” and come clean or bow out.
Steve,
This speech was addressed to law school students, and as a lawyer and former law school student, I can tell you that it read to me like a joke. I wish I had a video of the thing because I’d put good money down that the audidence took it as such and laughed when she said it. It’s very much in the vein of wordplay you’ll see lawyers crack jokes about.
Admittedly spoken humor doesn’t come through well in the written medium, but given the preceding comments [in her speech] I’m going to disagree with you unless you can find a video or someone saying, “Oh yeah, we all got a chuckle out of that line….” People heard these speeches, why haven’t they come forward?
Not Boyd or James, but the lack of a universal definition merely means that everyone isn’t going to agree on what wise means. It does not mean that Judge Sotomayor, you, or I don’t have a good working definition of what wise is, and that we do not or should not apply our definitions as we deem appropriate to the circumstances.
I am certain that there can be no universal definition of justice either, so what conclusions can we draw from that using your logic Alex?
“”inarguably?”” Did you ever read something called…. “OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY”?? [lol]
Steve,
Fair enough. But given the fact that nobody’s brought forth any evidence that she’s ruled on a decision in a racially biased manner, isn’t this much ado about nothing, anyway?
Charles,
Now you’re talking like Socrates!
Ummm, sorry, no….
Thing is, we have audio of it as well. And in one case, Video, I think. The firewall I’m behind at the moment blocks youtube, but I’m willing to bet there’s vid up of it there. IN the version I saw…and repeatedly heard…The only laughter came from obviously nervous students who, if they didn’t recognize baltant racism when they saw it, at least saw clearly that she’d stuck her foot in it.
And Alex, let’s extend your comment here just a bit.
Well, now, let’s see. You’ll recall I asked the same question hcantrall alludes to in his(?) comments:
Assuming such happened to make it by the stone wall that are the Democrats in Congress, wouldn’t there be continual questioning by the left about the “racist nature” of every ruling such a person ever made? I think you kow full well there would be. And I speculate you’d be among those demanding a resignation, based on that.
All this sturm und drang about what Judge Sotomayor said is a way to pass the time, I guess, but in the end, isn’t it pretty meaningless? I mean, barring some currently unknown bombshell, she is almost guaranteed to be confirmed…it reminds me of the Roberts and Alito nominations…Democrats may have raised a fuss to please their base, but did they really believe they were actually going to stop the confirmation of either judge…