Judge Sotomayor’s assertion that her particular gender and cultural background somehow makes her legal reasoning superior to others is one she’s expressed in different venues several times. It’s not necessarily racist, although that sentiment is one classic racists hold. I think her view would more properly be classifed as bigoted.

The National Review is cleverly asking the question by what form of enlightenment the judge came to her conclusion and ties that question to the currently popular fad in the legal academy of “empathy” over rule of law. That the first instinct of hyper-partisan twits like Yglesias to cry “racism!!!!11!” makes the other point that liberals almost always reflexively employ such tactics to deflect attention away from legitimate criticism. The NR has driven this point home beautifully.

GF et al -
I have already made this comment elsewhere, however, what the numerous white conservative MALE commentator fail to understand about Judge Sotomayor’s comments is that most WOMEN probably think their judgement on any given issue is superior to most men.

Get over yourselves, you are not that important.

‘Go_Fish’ expresses my own perspective on the issue - and does so masterfully.

Nothing need more be said…

I have to agree w/ RHarnack-
My wife always thinks she is right and superior. You can either argue or be happy.

Steve,

You answered your own question when you mentioned that your representative of opinion, Matthew Yglesias, is a “liberal blogger”. The lines are being drawn in the sand re Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. All who oppose her confirmation will be labeled rascist in the hope of cowing any Senator who might have a tough question re her judicial philosophy or past decisions.

We’ve already heard Senators Schumer and Reid proclaim that Republicans shouldn’t dare to offend Hispanics by standing against Sotomayor at her confirmation hearings. It’s patently obvious and hypocritical after Democrats stood against Miguel Estrada when he was nominated by President Bush, but it will probably be effective in muting GOP opposition. When Colin Powell can publicly endorse the Democratic candidate in the 2009 election and still call himself a Republican, and looney Arlen Specter feels free to go on national TV and boast of his principled stand as a “real” conservative, the Pachyderm Party is about as irrelevant as it gets.

I have a slightly different twist RHarnack. Men (conservative and liberal) often think that they have superior judgement, only to experience many of those “I told you so” moments when things fall apart. A woman’s point of view often provides a nice check and balance.

Mrs. Sotomayor certainly is entitled to her opinion, but if a male were to have publicly expressed like views, he would be tarred and feathered within minutes.

The word is now ‘racialist’. Don’t you listen to Newt? Or, is it ‘racialisticated’ or ‘racialistified.?

“what the numerous white conservative MALE commentator fail to understand about Judge Sotomayor’s comments is that most WOMEN probably think their judgement on any given issue is superior to most men.”

So you would have no problem supporting a white male nominee for the SC who said that because he was a white male, he could make better decisions than a latina female?

Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum said: So you would have no problem supporting a white male nominee for the SC who said that because he was a white male, he could make better decisions than a latina female?

Only if he’s knows going in, that his male ovaries “Gonads” will be handed to him on a silver plate by the Racist press.

Sotomayor fractured her ankle. Guess she did that better than a white male.

Fear mongering is a common tatic of those that support government by force of arms rather than law. The laws governing speech are limited in that any malicious speech is illegal. This concept is as traditional as any in these United States. Malice is implied in a lot of rightwing positions on the issues. It is getting more and more difficult to contain these hatemongers. The rule of law implies that one is to be free from unwanted infringements upon ones life, liberty, or happiness. People have a right to their own name, image, and likeness as a matter of property rights. Public figures have a limited right to their name, image, and likeness especially when malicious intent is apparent. Fascist propaganda is illegal in these United States hate speech can and should be constrained especially within ear shot of the intended victims many times those advocating for the rule of law. The judge needs defending. What is endangered is our right to speak our piece in court that is what needs support from the media.

Does it matter? It’s a cartoon

SVPB -
I would not have a problem with any judge who had at least the same amount of experience, education, intellect and time on the bench that Judge Sotmayor, however, in recent appointments we have gotten “conservative” judges with less experience than Judge Sotomayor.

— RHarnack said: in recent appointments we have gotten “conservative” judges with less experience than Judge Sotomayor.

I know it great that the last two picks wont giveaway the country vie the bench! Here’s hoping the republicans gets some GONADS and BORK her. I think its time our country has another BORKING.

Why hasn’t anyone noted that this is a joke about her being Buddha, and thus a joke on her “wiseness”?

Lowry was right to imagine that NR would be called racist because that’s the standard Leftist MO for this sort of stuff, even though satire cuts across ideological lines. (Obama New Yorker cover anyone?) Yglesias parodies himself by pushing the “hidden racist Right” meme because it is so easy to anticipate these days. Which Lowry did. So good job reporting the “conservative pub stokes controversy and knows they’ll be called racists like I’m calling them racists right now” story, Yglesias. Joke’s on you.

Gov

I like your use of “Bork” as a verb. Very clever, and on the mark in its use.

Mark

I agree with you. Yglesias did have the usual left-wing reaction, as did many other noted liberals. Without these outcries, I would not have even heard of this story in the NR. Free publicity is great. The joke is on Yglesias and his ilk.

I have a question for everyone. Has the appointment of a supreme court justice had a real effect, positive or negative, on your lives? I am in my mid thirties, and every time an appointee is being named, the right, and yes my beloved left, always get so worked up and predict the Apocolypse if the ruling party at the time gets the person they want. It seems to me like a lot of time and energy is wasted for nothing, deflecting attention from real problems.

In school, we read about monumental Supreme Court decisions, and they seemed like things getting worked up over. It does not seem like that now. Please educate me if I am way off track.

CLYDE:

Good question. I’ve posed it in the Editor’s Desk blog, since it extends beyond race and also deals with media coverage of nominations. Thanks.

“Since I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means, and in any context, whether it’s judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences in and of itself, bring merit to the system.”

That’s Sotomayor, claiming that life experience is an important aspect of being a good judge. In her view, simply being a Hispanic female is enough to be a good justice - a very strange thing to say if she was confident in her judicial philosophy and training. If the White House is so confident of her judicial experience, why do they feel the need to make such a fuss about her ethnic background?

Sotomayor has come out and said she was an “affirmative action baby” who got into Princeton and Yale despite having lower scores on her tests. She says the lower scores are a result of cultural biases.

In other words, she doesn’t think minorities can make it on their own. They have to be judged on a separate system than whites.

So while the far left Soros-funded Yglesias, who is fascinated by Race and believes that Hillary Clinton Zell Miller, and all Republicans are supported by racists, gets ink about this cartoon, the subject of the cartoon is on record saying Hispanics aren’t good enough to compete with whites because of cultural biases.

If this is a post-racial presidency, how come we keep having to debate the issue of race? Is the Obama administration using racial politics to slide less-than-worthy appointments into office? Why couldn’t they just let her stand on her record?

Considering Democratic Senators in the Judicial Committee had a written strategy to actively oppose Hispanic nominees under George Bush strictly to prevent Bush from placing the first Hispanic SC Justice, this issue should showcase the rank hypocrisy of Democrats on race issues, not the cartoon cover of National Review.

Sotomayor was nominated so Democrats could go to Hispanic voters and claim their loyalty.

It’s hardly an inspiring vision of the future.

“Sotomayor was the class valedictorian of Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, and was awarded a full scholarship to Princeton University. There, she graduated summa cum laude. She attended Yale Law School, and served as editor or the Yale Law Journal. She obtained her law degree in 1979.” Source: http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2009/5/26/hispanics_praise_selection_of_sotomayor_for.htm

For those who think that “borking” is a good idea, try to remember (or learn for the first time) that Judge Robert Bork was rejected 9-5 in committee and 58 - 42 in the full Senate. Quitter that he is he left the federal bench in 1988.

Fortunately, for now at least there seem to be a goodly pro0portion of grown-ups on the Senate Judiciary Committee, so the hearings will be thorough and tough.

Interesting comments by everyone. For myself, I think the cover does what it is supposed to do: It gets people talking about their publication. That only leads to an increase in sales. Remember peeps, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

The question isn’t “is the cover racist?” The question is “How many more copies did the Review sell this issue?”

“Since I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means, and in any context, whether it’s judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences in and of itself, bring merit to the system.”

Jim Durban says - “In her view, simply being a Hispanic female is enough to be a good justice”. How do you get that interpretation Jim?

Could she more likely mean that one’s life experience is a valuable component in defining merit, just as other factors are valuable like say legal/judicial experience. I don’t read in her statement that she is saying life’s exerience is all you need, at the exclusion of all other factors, to be a good judge.

Mo, I don’t see where “precedent” and “life experiences” intermingle, do you?