Mitt Romney for President My Man Mitt: Romney at the RPV Convention


	1 Comments: About judge sotomayer. Below is the link of the speech by judge sotomayor where she spoke of a white man's opinion not being the same as her own. Her comment in context is not particularly racist. However she states a judge's impartiality as an aspiration and spends a great deal of time taking about how experience colors judgement as a fact. I don't think that someone who has not achieved this aspiration is ready for the supreme court. She should be asked if she aspires to and has achieved impartiality as she stated this is what a supreme court justice should be (any judge should be)? In her confirmation hearing she should be quoted back to herself. White judges passed civil rights. They necessarily did not have experience at being a minority. Her answer to this is in the speech is that those who argued as lawyers on the issues were not white. What seems to be lacking in her speech is a recognition that attorneys have freedom of choice. Judges for the most part do not. Ask her whether or not she aspires to be impartial as she stated judges should do. Ask her what personal experience she will draw upon if reviewing a case on reverse discrimination such as fireman not being promoted based on their race? Ask her if she would seek the counsel of someone who grew up as a working class white person to gain an impartial perspective? If she fails to answer, remind her that no experience is necessary if one truly aspires to be impartial. One would necessarily seek out the experience needed through interaction with others regardless of the situation and never rely soley on personal experience and, ideally, never apply personal experience at all in the ideal? If a white judge can pass civil rights legislation with no racial experience then has he not achieved her stated aspriation of impartiality? Would Sotomayor have to admit that she might not reach a better conclusion than a white male judge if she cannot aspire to be and have achieved impartiality at the highest level as a qualification for the highest court? Is it not her statment that is troublesome but her assertion that an aspriation to impartiality can be partly or wholly discounted for judges? Her own speech recognizes this to be wrong. It is both equally arrogance and laziness to assume that you do not need to seek advice outside of yourself on any issue to be judged. I don't think she is racist. I do think she needs to examine her motives in quoting examples of laziness and labeling them as gender bias. To state an aspriation is never achieved where it must be strived for implies you have given up. If anything she is lazy as she seeks to tear down an ideal by inserting her own opinion. To seek out other opinions requires research and discussion with others which is the work that judges are supposed to do? Her words are below. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml By Anonymous, at May 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM Post a Comment