TPM LiveWire

Sotomayor: My 'Wise Latina' Comments Not So Different from Samuel Alito

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) started off Wednesday morning's confirmation hearings with some blunt questioning, bringing up the favorite Republican talking point of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment.

In addition to explaining what she originally meant - and admitting that her "words failed" and "didn't work" in getting her real message across - Sotomayor adopted a new strategy today, citing past comments from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Watch the video below.

During his own confirmation hearings, Alito said the following:

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Sotomayor paraphrased Alito, using it as evidence that judges can acknowledge that background has an influence while not letting that affect rulings in discrimination cases.

As a member of the current Supreme Court, Alito recently ruled on Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven firefighter case that Republicans have also brought up repeatedly against Sotomayor. So far, only a few media voices like Glenn Greenwald have asked whether Alito's Italian-American heritage influenced his decision in that case.

Still, Sotomayor sought to distance herself from her controversial remarks, saying "it fell flat. I understand that some people understood [my words] in a way I never intended."

Join the Conversation!

5 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

July 15, 2009 11:41 AM   

Sorry, Sonia, that doesn't count. Alito was lying.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 15, 2009 12:04 PM   

this whole business of trying to parse out the human factor of judging is laughable. Judges are *people*...of COURSE their own personal experience influences their decisions. If not, everybody would come to the same decision.

it's as if they want a computer doing the judging...but, wait, a *human* has to program the computer....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 15, 2009 6:00 PM    in reply to kiva

Bravo....and this is why decisions even at the SC level need only be a majority, not unanimous. If not for their individual human differences, how else would any multi-judge court deliver split decisions?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 16, 2009 6:12 AM    in reply to kiva

And who might we get to do the program? Someone from Diebold, perhaps?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 15, 2009 10:40 PM   

We should abolish SCOTUS. We have the technology to dump all jurisprudence and case-law in a database connected to a network of supercomputers and siphon it through a smart algorithm. Then, whenever a legal judgment is needed, we could just have cops SCoogle it and empower them act accordingly. Double-plus bonus: no more lawyers.

Ununanimous decisions are so 20th century.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!