“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.” – Sonia Sotomayor

You are spinning. Neither O'Connor nor Alito said anything like what Sotomayor said.

I have experienced reverse discrimination personally, but that would not make me a better judge of those cases. What would make me the best judge of those cases would be a THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW. Period.

The Ricci case is not only about whether the tests were thrown out. It's also about WHY and WHEN the test results were thrown out. In the Ricci case, the test results were only thrown out because no black firefighters scored high enough. The criteria for promotion were changed after the fact, because the "desired" results were not achieved. The discrimination was obvious to me, and I hope (and expect) the Supreme Court to agree when it hears the case this year. Sotomayor should be overturned.

Mr. King et al,
Here is another quote from the same speech by Ms. Sotomayor:
"I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions, and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires."

I don't see how someone could defend such a qualification if it was bogus, frank. Why would a white male judge go for that?

I haven't mentioned the Ricci case because I haven't studied it. But it seems that the your defense of the Ledbetter decision by Roberts applies here also. The Ricci case seems about whether the city could reserve the right to throw out the test results.

larry d.,
There are overt and subtle forms of discrimination. Refusal to hire someone based on their race would be an overt act of discrimination. Creating a requirement, such as having to be able to lift 100 lbs when the job didn't involve lifting 100 lbs, could be seen as a subtle form of discrimination designed to disqualify otherwise qualified women. In the second instance, I can see how a ruling could go either way.

You are the one doing the mischaracterizing, frank.

Now, her comment doesn't mean Sotomayor is a racist, as some of the knee-jerkers on the right are saying. It just means she made an unacceptable race-based comment that needs to be brought into question and clarified during her confirmation hearings. Though her comment is unacceptable, it was only one comment. There are other concerns, such as the Ricci case. If that was an example of an empathetic Latina judge reaching a "better conclusion," then we should want no part of it. Another concern is Sotomayor being on the council of an organization called The Race (La Raza), a group that has promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. If Sotomayor lets her "empathy" for illegals trump the rule of law in those instances, that should disqualify her from the Supreme Court. I'm not saying Sotomayor should be disqualified, I'm only saying these are legitimate areas of concern on which she should be closely questioned.

To put this in proper perspective for liberals, imagine if Sam Alito had said white males would reach better judicial conclusions than minorities, and Alito belonged to a civil rights group for white people that wished to exclude whites from certain laws, and Alito didn't overturn a case where black firefighters weren't promoted because no white persons got a high enough grade on the promotion test. Would Alito have been confirmed ? Not in a million years, and liberal groups would be screaming "racist" from the rooftops. They'd probably be marching on Washington D.C., and my fellow blogger, the Reverend, would probably be on his tenth "See, I told you the GOP was racist !" post by now.

There is only one standard, not two.

Can you think up a fictional (or true) case in which a white man and a hispanic woman would come to different decisions that are both within constitutional limits, yet the hispanic woman's is superior due to her richness of ethnic experience?

By the way, do you realize that those illegal aliens are being recruited by the meat packing companies? Why don't you write your senators and demand that the law prohibiting companies from hiring illegal aliens be enforced?

Anyway that Senator has already spoken out against Sotomayor. He just happens to have been one of 29 Senators that voted against her for the Court of Appeals. Maybe he remembers something from that period that still has him turned off.

Frank, I am tired of having people tell me what the lady in question really meant when she made her racist statement. She said words that can't be regrouped to make her innocent. Redefining her words this far from when she said them is nothing less than trying to rewrite history and a weak attempt at defending her.

Man…the projection is getting out of hand.

Torture, anyone?

For what it is worth, I don't know whether she will make a good Supreme Court Justice or not. I'd be willing to bet that just as Souter surprised many by being more liberal than expected, Sotomayor will be more conservative than expected, especially by those who slander her as a bigot.

When someone as dumb as myself hears that kind of comment, I condemn it, just as I would condemn a white guy saying he was superior to someone of a different ethnic background. That kind of talk is unacceptable. I thought we settled this issue in the 1960's. Equality means equality. It doesn't mean one ethnicity is better than another, under any circumstances.

You're also too smart to think that treating people as equals means assuming that their experiences are irrelevant. You're also too smart to think that it offends "liberal sensibilities" to treat people equally.

You're also too smart to think that the criticism Ms. Sotomayor faces is judging her by the content of her character. You are also too smart to think that MLK would be joining in this insane hyperbole.

You're also smart enough to realize that the crazies on the right were going to attack whomever Obama nominated.

But I hope that you and the crazies on the right continue. Just report on what it's like to walk right into Obama's trap.

Or, we can use my way, larry's way, and Martin Luther King's way, and judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, even though that makes us all "cretins," according to the Reverend.

I like our way better, even though it offends liberal sensibilities by treating all people as equals.

Maybe due to life experience?

By your rationale, white males would make the best judges when it comes to Wall Street corruption cases, and hardened convicts would be the best judges when it comes to robbery and rape.

It's ridiculous, more 'sky is green, grass is blue' from the increasingly creepy left.

Speaking of, I see Holder decreed charges against those Black Panther voter intimidation thugs in Philly be pulled, even though a decision against them had already been rendered.

Thanks Obama!

P.S. G. Gordon Liddy is worried about Ms. Sotomayor's ability during menstrual cycles.

That's where we are.