White House Says Judge Sotomayor Would ‘Say Her Word Choice Was Poor’ in Controversial 2001 Speech

Is Obama ready to call the next liberal scarecrow's rant nonsense. Let's just see. The truth is we are as conservatives more sensitive and careful about this than liberals. What idiots!!

If Sotomayer would say it, why hasn't she said it? Why are the White House ventriloapologists saying it for her?

DON'T FORGET THAT Sotomayor is also a member of La Raza, the most racist Hispanic organization in the country. It's not only words that indicate she is a racist.

The comment should not be reversed, reworded, or generalized. What she said was wrong for two reasons. It was racist and it was sexist. She states, "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." She is a member of the Supreme Court. Her job as well as that of every other justice is to make judgments based on examining the law and how it applies to ALL. It is a persons knowledge of the law not their personal experience or gender that would cause them to make a better decision. If she is doing her job correctly, being a latina female or being a white male should make absolutely no difference.

Instead of reversing the roles in Sotomayor's statement, why not try making them generic?

Like this: "I would hope that a wise underprivileged woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a privileged male who hasn't lived that life."

"Now the REAL sense of Judge Sotomayor's remarks can be seen, and once again that sense IS NOT RACIST: it is REALITY!"

Nope, now it is a sexist comment. Next try to explain away her bias.

President Obama says this is "nonsense".. Well, Mr. President this is not nonsense.Why is it okay to bash white people and get away with it? Is this your payback? We have to come together as a country (all races). I understand what she was trying to say, but remarks like that show her racism.
No Mr. President this is NOT nonsense.

Her getting caught was the problem. Like with Comrade Nancy. What do they care? They'll just go on with whatever it is they want to do anyway.

JOrdan, I agree with you that a better lens for viewing her remark is to cast it in the generic sense, rather than reverse it. Where we differ is in how to interpret the resulting statement. You wrote, "Like this: "I would hope that a wise underprivileged woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a privileged male who hasn't lived that life." Now the REAL sense of Judge Sotomayor's remarks can be seen, and once again that sense IS NOT RACIST: it is REALITY!"

No, her statement is not particularly racist. It is, however, still wrong. What makes a privileged male who has not been poor inherently unable to reach the same legal conclusion as a woman who has been a poor minority? You claim that her remark is factually correct, but I do not agree. Would you argue that Clarence Thomas, because he was raised as a poor black boy in south Georgia, has greater wisdom and judicial skills than a white 'privileged' woman? I didn't think so. (And no, that is not a knock on Justice Thomas, whom I respect)

As a Latina woman, also from the Bronx, I understand the sentiment Judge Sotomayor was attempting to communicate. That is, none of us are divorced from our heritage, our families, our communities - be it North, South, East, West, rural, urban, immigrant, native-born, male, female - after all, none of us sprung from the womb at the age of 21 (luckily for our mothers); and when she said that as a Latina woman her esperiences would allow her to "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life", what I understood her to mean was that she had a different perspective. After all, neither Judge Sotomayor nor this Latina have ever been white males.
I do believe that we are stronger as a society when we strive to respect our varied opinions and perspectives. Since, after all, those are some of the founding principals of our country.This is how we ultimately come to learn that we all share the same hopes and dreams for ourselves and our families. As is all too clear from the world's current political strife, intollerance is not something we should be promoting at home. To suggest that racism should be injected into her comments is quite a stretch.

if she can say that to an audatorium full of people, just imagine how deep her hate really lyes for white people. love it or leave it, this country may have it's problems but it doesn't need one more.

The double standard being portrayed is rediculous. I don't care what party you belong to. What would the results be if a white male made a comment in reverse? Can you imagine!!!

So it was a use of "poor" word then by the judge. I accept the explaination. But can we all return the same benefit of the doubt next time when some one (typically a white person) accidentally making a similar statement? There were too many cases that the non-white groups beat to death some sensitive remarks by white politicians. By the way I am not a white race.

"I would hope that a wise underprivileged woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a privileged male who hasn't lived that life."

Now the REAL sense of Judge Sotomayor's remarks can be seen, and once again that sense IS NOT RACIST: it is REALITY!

...Except - that is -, in the minds of a bunch of Republican LOSERS who are trying desperately to prop up their own fallen egos in the face of their own blatant failures and the imminent successes of their more successful opponent!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

....Except- that is NOT what she said, is it?

As a woman from a family of Puerto Rican culture, I felt patronized by the appointment of this woman. She is not a good choice. She doesn't understand the Second Amendment.

"So will the left be condemning Sotomayor's for her direct support of La Raza who is calling for the Southwestern States to secede from the States? Hmmm "

A) This is factually incorrect.

B) Didn't the Governor of Texas talk about secession just a few weeks ago? The REPUBLICAN Governor?

You now what we all support charities close to our hearts that we identify with. More over as much as I agree it was a poor choice of wording. It was a mispeak in reading the rest of her speech her position is very clear regarding people form all backgrounds on the SC coming to the same conclusion. She meanat to say ( I think) she hopes her voice adds an extra dimension of understanding. No one wants to be judged on one mis speak and everyone should be judged on the sum of all things not one.

And let's get one other thing straight. This woman, for the lack of a better term, ISN'T making history as hispanics would like to believe. There are already racists, women, and a latino on the SC. Just not all wrapped up in one big package like this loser.

Put back into the context of what she said, she needs no defending.

It is unfortunate the right wing is so hot to trot on smearing anything President Obama undertakes... Posted by: danita

Well, that IS the motivation. This hoopla is not at all about Judge Sotomayor, nor about "race", nor even about Latinos. (Her heritage is trom Puerto Rico - not Mexico or Central/South America - and Puerto Rico has been a part of the U.S. for a VERY long time!)

Rather, this is all about right-wingers and dedicated Republicans trying to tar everything President Obama does. Essentially, they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and now they are screaming every way they can to try to get the attention off of their own stupid acts. Moreover, they are engaging in foot-dragging in every manner they can figure - some even trying to find more than two feet to drag!

It all reminds me of trying to get a cranky 5-year-old to go to bed!

she wrote her paper for her thesis an said no one should own a gun and the secound admendment was not for the people get her out of here now.