The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
- The War in Afghanistan: Reassessment, Eight Years On
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Sotomayor and Hispanic Judges: Doing the Math
May 27, 2009 8:37 AM
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been getting heat from critics for her comment in a 2001 speech saying she’d hope “a wise Latina woman… would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” But it’s another line from that same speech that jumps out at me – one illustrating how differing perspectives might inform different approaches to data.
Sotomayor delivered the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, in October 2001; the full speech is an exploration of cultural differences from the perspective, as Sotomayor describes herself, of a “Newyorkrican” turned Latina judge. In it, she says, "we have only 10 out of 147 active circuit court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population."
Let’s look.
The figures given by Sotomayor represent 7 percent of circuit court judges and 5 percent of district court judges. Hispanics at the time accounted for 13.3 percent of the nation’s population overall (U.S. Census Bureau 2002), but a considerably smaller share of eligible voters, 7.1 percent in 2000, according to Pew Research Center estimates, given the numbers of noncitizens (and minors) in this population.
One approach would be to say the share of circuit court judges was 53 percent of the share of the total Hispanic population, and the share of district court judges was just 38 percent of the total population share. Another - given the fact that percentage differences can make small numbers look bigger - would be to say that judges in these two categories fell about 6 and about 8 percentage points short of the population share. Yet another, eschewing percentages, would be to say that to hit 13.3 percent would have taken 10 more Hispanic judges in the circuit courts and 48 more in the district courts.
A final approach would be to compare the 7 and 5 percent figures for judges in these categories to the slightly over 7 percent Hispanic share of eligible voters (who have the clout to change things), rather than the entire Hispanic population, adult and child, citizen and noncitizen. In that case the differences are far smaller.
I wonder if critics might latch on to Sotomayor’s comment to suggest she was implicitly advocating quotas, which have been unpopular both in public opinion and on the high court itself. In any case, sticking to the numbers, the phrase "grossly below our proportion of the population" is perhaps in the eye of the beholder – which, if you read the judge’s speech, seems to be precisely her point.
May 27, 2009 in Supreme Court | Permalink | User Comments (8)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"we have only 10 out of 147 active circuit court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population."
This simple statement alone is why I have issues with her!
Newsflash to you liberals!. STOP THE BS OF SOCIAL ENGINEERING!
CHR!ST, everything in life does not function on some foolish quota system. People are people. Some good, some bad. Some of color, some are not. some are college educated, some are not. some are pro athletes, some are paralyzed. You cannot ENGINEER the society to fit some mathematical equation to suit your political needs.
You cannot just sit there and say, the must be more Latinas on the bench. If more want that career and earn the position, so be it.
You can't simply say it's wrong that we don’t have the same percentage breakdown in every possible field and endeavor in life as the ethnic breakdown of the society. The entire concept is stupid from the start. Should be tell the NBA that it is discriminating against Caucasians? Should the NHL be forced to employ a particular number of players with an Asian background? Should the rap music industry be made to reduce the number of African-American artists? Should your local grocery store be made to hire people based on the ethnic break down of the county you live in?
Exactly WHO gets to decide this …. In the END the Supreme Court does!
We don’t need any social engineers on the court!
Posted by: Mike_C | May 27, 2009 5:09:04 PM
Stupid Republican talking points. Typical reactionary garabe. Obama won a mandate for CHANGE. Get over it. By the way Rush, Newt, etc:
an oppressed minority cannot, de facto, be racist.
The racist, capitalist system controlled and run primarily white males of European extraction exploits women and minorities, especially those of color. Because the system itself is racist and all members of the controlling cabal benefit from the racism and class exploitation (whether they consciously act racist or not) means that those who are oppressed and exploited cannot be racist. Only once the white male capitalist hegemony is broken and replaced with equality and the worker's paradise could a minority, and other reactionaries, be racist. Or so the folks at the University tell me. I'm sure Comrade Obama would agree....
Posted by: Ed | May 27, 2009 8:37:57 PM
Drink that koolaid Mike C, if you keep telling yourself its true , you will actually believe it.
Posted by: plopsdad | May 28, 2009 8:37:18 PM
You are forgetting to add to your numbers the rest of the democratic support to hispanics. That is what counts at the end.
Posted by: Chris | May 29, 2009 9:16:21 AM
She said, "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." That is not only racist it is also sexist! I f, I as a white man said "I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life." Do you think for one moment that I wouldn't be branded as a racist and a sexist! Come on now what time and country do you live in!!!!
Posted by: joefaver | Jun 2, 2009 8:27:10 PM
I have noticed the intentional attempt to quote this this "latina" comment without adding the "who has not lived that life" part of it. I see this as the core of that statement and another word for Experience.
For those of you who do not know it was a renouned jurist Lord Denning who said "The life of the law is not logic"
This is a cardinal aspect of the larger judicial system. It is the reason we pick people who have had some experience in a sector to preside in mediation and Arbitartion hearings.
We have heard some say can a white mana get justice before this judge?
If you belief this thought process, then you probably do not think that any educated person of color can be fair to a white man. Is this paranoid or what?
This was the undercurrent of the new era of our polity and the majority opted to loose the fear.
So I say to all who are holding on to this "fairness to white males" concept. Look at what you are really afraid of and get on your knees and pray. Its O.K the lord is a forgiving God.
Posted by: Phil n' Fresno | Jun 18, 2009 10:49:16 PM
I would be much more concerned for the Hispanic population receiving proportional representation in government if the majority of them hadn't aided and abetted an illegal invasion by Mexico with the intent to steal jobs and 'Reconquer' the country.
As it is now, I'm more concerned with trying to figure out which ones are Pledging their Allegiance to Mexico, Mexican Citizens, and Illegal Mexican Invaders and which ones are Pledging their Allegiance to the United States and their Fellow United States Citizens.
You can't be upholding your oath to your fellow American Citizens if you are aiding and abetting illegal Mexican invaders to come into our country and steal our jobs, break our laws, and evade taxes. If that's your idea of being loyal to your Fellow American Citizens, then I hope you receive NO representation in our government.
BTW, if a Caucasian Male candidate had used Sotomayor's words with the terms reversed, he would have been ripped to shreds instantaneously before even getting out of the gate.
Being in the minority doesn't automatically make someone racially oppressed. I think some minority races assume that they are oppressed by the majority Caucasian government because they are of a different race. That's a very racial interpretation. I'm a Caucasion and I can assure you that it's more likely that minorities have been oppressed because they are poor rather than because they are a different race. I feel oppressed even though I'm in the majority racially but the reason I feel oppressed is because every rule of law coming out of the Caucasian Majority assumes that everyone should have enough money to comply with laws and societal rules that are based upon their standards for living. Unfortunately, their societal rules and their standards for living often require significantly greater income levels than many minorities are able to generate from their lower paid work. So let's get the facts straight. If the Caucasian Majority hates a minority, it's not because they are racially different, it's because they are unacceptably poor. I know, because I'm a poor Caucasian and they hate me most of all. There's no excuse for being a poor Caucasian. I would scream racism too but if their not buying it from the Hispanics and Illegal Mexicans, they darn sure won't buy it off my blonde-haired, blue-eyed butt. The best way to protect yourself from racists is to stop being one.
Posted by: Fakename | Jun 28, 2009 3:29:58 AM
so if Sotomayor is so great because she "represents" something all you libs like so much in the hazy world of identity politics -- and if you haven't yet figured out that not everyone "profiles" people this way -- why are you not complementing and making a saint of Gov Sanford who was clearly getting advice from a Wise Latina Woman!
Oh wait,I forgot, you have no real principles!
Posted by: John Smith | Jul 25, 2009 12:55:46 AM
Post a comment
