Judge Sonia Sotomayor "Wise Latina" Speech, Part 1

[OlderG0ds]

It's people like this blissfully ignorant dickhead that are destroying our once great nation.

Stupid liberals, they love to dig their own graves.

[SockPharmacy]

jawline reminds me of Glenn Quagmire. Giggidy giggidy.

[SpartyWorld]

Why are you kissing this fat beaner "wise" Latrina's ass? What's wrong with white people? They welcome their own demise, how pathetic. The USA was NOT created to be a diverse hell hole. It was made by whites for whites. Period.

[oracleofdelphrey]

We don't need multiculturalism. White people were doing a pretty good job for hundreds of years.

[ebraco30]

Sir, so your purpose for this video is to bring out Sotomayor's past tongue hubris? Lets say she even made a very bad remark. Will you agree with me to go back in history to see who said or did what? You're complaining about a remark. Do you know how many have the right to complain about actions - actions that forfeited their humanity and reduced them to slaves, etc? But did such actions deter George Washington from becoming president? Please, lets co-exist and hug each other!

[RealNahaj]

It's not "A" speech it's numerous, and what she implied in her comment was that a latina of her background has better background for judging than the white men in the supreme court.

She says that gender and race will affect how good someone will judge - which is extremely racist, and then she pushes it further by claiming a Latino woman would be a better judge than a white male.

She's a disgrace - period.

[RealNahaj]

What she should've said if she wasn't a racist she should've said .

A wise latino would make a equally good judgement as a white man, your race or gender does not make you a better judge but your life experience may.

I'm ashamed for her behalf for being so ignorant.

[TremickWorld]

If you understand her speech, and the entire context, it makes sense. She herself has now admitted the phrase didn't go off well, but she has made clear how people are understanding it is not how she intended it. Her own testimony pretty much bears out my interpretation. Understanding is the thing. If you can't understand a speech and insist on applying your own interpretation to the exclusion of the intended message, that's a problem. The Republicans seem to have this problem in common.

[RealNahaj]

I think most people understand what she tries to say, but the conclusion is based upon incorrect logic. It's based upon that a latino female such as herself would differ more in experience than between a white male and another white male.

[RealNahaj]

I'd say it doesn't matter what gender you are, or what race you are from. But instead what kind of enviroment you were raised in/live in.

For example a latino female being born and raised in Beverly Hills would probably differ much less from a white male being born in the same area, than a white male being born in for example rusia.

I think her generalization of white males being all born in "easy homes" and having similiar experiences and thoughts is racist and disgraceful -

[austinf12345]

I have read her speech and heard her explanation of the now now famous "wise latina" comment. I believe I now better understand her meaning of what she said. I believe that her word choice was poor. Her quote that " 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" clearly makes a distinction between two races and the quality of the decision

[austinf12345]

As I said, after hearing her explanation of the speech, I understand she believes that everyone's beliefs and actions may be limited to their previous experiences. I think she should not stand by this phrase, as it does not contribute to what I believe her overall message to be. I believe she did have good intentions with what she said in her speech, but her wise latina quote clearly had a negative impact. I consider her defense that people are misinterpreting what she said as inexcusable.

[freightshaker007]

may the lakota live forever. i am part cherokee

[mmmmmarcus]

I am irish, and half lakotah, and frankly, blacks and mexicans whine too much. My ancestors were fucking annihilated and i dont whine. This is political correctness, a weapon designed to destroy western civilization. If you believe in political correctness, you are siding with Hitler! No bullshit!

[poolerboy0077]

Hiter was politically correct?

[allTRIPLE1]

Blacks and Mexicans would not have any rights if we accepted wrongs.

I do agree Political Correctness is going to far, too the point, no one can give honest opionion without being labeled this or that.

[TeeBeeBad63]

Tremickworld, face it, you are a gullible idiot......

[TremickWorld]

Respectfully, I disagree. I prefer intellectual discussion, however much those involved might disagree, not name calling.

[TeeBeeBad63]

Scratch idiot, just gullible will suffice.

[ShadowBritt]

by it's very nature a summary is a statement which contains the bias of the summarizer.

Why did you delete my comment wherein I provide a link to the full text of the speech?

Bias.

[TremickWorld]

Hello. To my knowledge I deleted no comment, so I'm not sure what to say about that. I think I acknowledged that it was my own summary in the video, but the concepts come straight from the speech, I injected nothing into her ideas, unless I misinterpreted what she said, or interpreted it differently, which you might call a standard deviation.

[ShadowBritt]

I would suggest STRONGLY that you could have posted a link to the speech, as I attempted to before it mysteriously disappeared, then let people decide for themselves, your summary means nothing it is YOUR INTERPRETATION.

If you replace the words, Hispanic, Latina, and Latino with the word Caucasian, and replace the word Caucasian, does it not sound like a racist speech you may have heard in the 1930's?

Try it, then decide whether or not she is a racist.

[TremickWorld]

I did include a link to the speech in the description of my video. All I can do is again point out that I made clear it is my interpretation, so I have made no attempt to misdirect anyone. If you don't trust it, I don't ask you to. I do not believe your experiment holds because Caucasians have never been a minority in this country and have never had to defend their experiences or their point of view. To work, not only the word, but also the circumstances would have to be reversed.

[ShadowBritt]

Yes, yes I have. As the only white guy in my army unit, I was persecuted. As the only white guy in my army unit I was beaten, had my shit stolen, etc.

Oh, and by the way, I have never owned slaves, nor have my forebears, my forebears came to German town as slaves of the english.

[TremickWorld]

It is unfortunate that you had to experience that--it is never right. I can only speak in general, that whites in the U.S. have been historically and tend to be still in positions of majority, socially speaking. That said, granted there are situations like yours where the situation is reversed. I should like to think that most in positions of minority would desire equality, not supremacy, and would think the former of Sotomayor. Others would, but then they are no better than their oppressor.

[TremickWorld]

I do not believe Sotomayor is a racist, for a few reasons. 1. The idea only came up because raving Left-hating fear-mongerers like Limbaugh were ignorant enough to use the word. 2. I took the time to understand the context of her words. 3. Nowhere in her years on the bench do her rulings suggest a bias, so even if she does have them, it has never interfered with her work. Simply not an argument that holds any water.

[ShadowBritt]

I am glad that you don't believe she is a racist. Good for you. But in your argument you suggest that because some caucasians in the past have done some persecution to persons of other races that therefore caucasians in general can not be discriminated against, therefore there is no racism.

Like I said, you are an idiot. Racism lives, alive and healthy, because persons likeyou think that it is only when applied against a minority that it is real. Wrongo. Dictionary, buy it, read it.

[TremickWorld]

Wow, nowhere in there did I suggest racism doesn't exist. If you read what I did write, you will see that I acknowledged your experience and the fact that caucasians can be discriminated against, that it is real and that it is wrong, no matter where it comes from. That being said, show me the time in U.S. history when caucasians were kept as slaves? When they forced onto reservations? When they were denied the right to vote?

[pooper189]

Not necessarily in the US history did this exist, but in other countries including Jamaica, plenty in Africa, and take almost any middle eastern country, and you'd see racism against white people. In Africa, they kill because you're not black enough, rather than whiteness. Just because you can't see it here (and it is here, as well), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[pooper189]

I believe that the government shouldn't have to mandate the appropriation of funds to "help" one race and push down another. I believe that individuals will find ways to attend college, get better jobs, etc. because the phrase "where there's a will, there's a way" applies. The government allows society to become lopsided due to it's programs and handouts. Trust me, we've read books on this phenomenon in college, and as with all bureaucratic government action, it will be too little, too late.

[pooper189]

And trust me, just because Obama promised "change," it is almost certain that it won't happen. Obama's change is the kind of change that stays the same, under a new banner. It'll be synonymous with the change of the Bush Administration, and the Clinton Administration. It only means more government, more restrictions, and more tyranny. As we march toward oblivion, we're uniting under a banner similar to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. It's scary, the similarities. We've embraced our destruction.

[ShadowBritt]

You are an idiot. I could give a rat's ass about your summary. You want to really prove that she is not racist, WTF is 'reverse racist' you are either a racist or not, then you post WHAT SHE REALLY SAID, not your summary. a summary by it's very nature is not what was actually said.

[TremickWorld]

I made it clear people should go watch or read the speech for themselves, I'm just concerned that too many other people are idiots and wouldn't go to the effort and so made it easier--if you chose to trust my summary, your choice completely. I think that sometimes summaries can cut right to the heart of what's being said, but I would never claim to be the master summarizer. Hence the first phrase of this response.

[devadanderbeef]

One would be INSANE to assume a person could never base a judgement on some sort of prior belief or experience. This is how we grow as intelligent humans. We make better decisions in our future based on knowledge and experience of our past. Keep up the good work!!!

[devadanderbeef]

Fine work. You've caught something that many people never realize. Of course minorities experience bias in any setting, whatever the race. Different perspectives and experiences bouncing off of eachother brings about understanding in my opinion.(as long as both sides are willing to listen and care to find common ground)