The NYT article tells us that Sotomayor’s remarks were published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal and that she also said:
“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.”…
… Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.
So has Donald Trump refrained from doing a disservice both to the law and society?
—-Ann Althouse, making a slam-dunk point about the hypocrisy of the uproar over Donald Trump’s “racist”suggestion that a Hispanic-American judge might be biased against him.
Althouse and I are right, and almost everyone else is wrong. It’s obvious, and beyond rebuttal on the facts. Althouse has joined me as one who also deplores everything about Donald Trump but who is determined to call out intellectual dishonesty and unfairness in the attacks against him. She also posted this…
“If you have been watching CNN, you know Anderson Cooper has been reporting about the discovery that a sitting judge is actually a robot. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is presiding over the Trump University case. Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot.”
Writes Scott Adams, saying in what might be the funniest and best observation about judges I’ve ever read (and being an long-time law professor, I’ve read a lot)
I think I’ve figured out what this “Trump made racist comments about a Hispanic judge!” lie has been so universally embraced and accepted. Democrats and progressives, of course, use accusations of racism as their weapon of first resort, and the news media is their loyal ally, so that part is easily explained. But why so many conservatives and Republicans?
It’s buyers remorse. These fools in the Republican Party leadership should have told Trump that he was unfit to be a candidate for its nomination when he first wanted to run in the primaries (as Ethics Alarms advised them, long long ago), got trapped once, then endorsed him thinking that he might win (“the ends justifies the means”), and now, oh, only about nine months late, have suddenly come to the realization that he is uncontrollable, unstable, undisciplined, and has no business running for President. The accusation of racism is the one magic tactic that can accomplish miracles; this has been the primary lesson of the Obama administration. So the Right finally believes, and is trying out the spell itself. Maybe, just maybe, they can get rid of Trump after all with this bogus smear, when the GOP didn’t have the sense, guts and integrity to oppose him for the real reasons he’s unfit to lead.
Whether it works or not (and it won’t), I have no sympathy or respect for the likes of Sen. Mark Kirk, who endorsed Trump but now says he can’t, or Lindsay Graham, who pronounced Trump unfit, then endorsed him, and now is unendorsing him because Trump took Suprem Court Justice Wise Latina at her word.