May 26th, 2009
Sotomayor’s “wise Latina woman” > “White male” remark is getting all the attention (and why a White “male” and not a White “man,” by the by?) but this is what snapped my head around:
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” [emphasis added]
Isn’t that viewpoint normally beyond the pale? (So to speak.) Or is it only career-destroying when Steve Sailer brings it up?
Update: For all her bravery in bringing racialism, it’s pretty easy to “terrify” Sotomayor.
Also, I understand that the position of Supreme Court Justice is slightly higher on the prestige meter than Attorney General of the United States, but to argue that “to Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark” seems to completely forget AG A.G., no?
Or maybe the real lesson is: Only Democrats get credit for diversity hires.
No comments yet, be the first:
