That would be the same guy, yes :-)

And from the top of the page,

“They (the emperors) frequently abused their power arbitrarily to deprive their subjects of property or of life: their tyranny was extremely onerous to the few, but it did not reach the greater number; .. But it would seem that if despotism were to be established amongst the democratic nations of our days it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild, it would degrade men without tormenting them.” Alexis de Tocqueville

Seems equally appropriate.

Is that the same Randall that said “This job would be great if it weren’t for the f***ing customers.”?

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”

Facts are facts, no matter if you are white, brown, male, female, or whatever. What she seems to be saying is that she only chooses to see the facts that she wants to see or the things that go along with her “personal experiences”. Basically ignore the facts that don’t agree with your ideology. That to me is worrisome. Her job is not to ignore facts, but rather to look at all the facts and determine if they are constitutional or not, irregardless of your political or ideological beliefs.

“In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”

It is like having a stupid ass white boy ask me why I am taking electronics, and being upset that my grades were better than his.

If you can intrepret her words so can I.

“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.”

She makes no mention whatsoever of her JOB experiences making her more qualified (reach a better conclusion) than a white male.

If you want to choose to infer a different meaning (“oh, what she MEANT by that is….”), that is your choice. Heck, people have been forced to do that in order to rationalize and excuse away the nonsense that flows out of Joe Biden’s mouth, at least a couple times a month, since the nomination. Why not here, too?

But I will choose to infer, that as a lawyer/judge (a profession of WORDSMITHS, where precision in the use of language is of paramount importance) she meant exactly what she said, and said exactly what she meant.

Which is precisely – she stated that the richness of experience she got, AS A WISE LATINA WOMAN – PERIOD….(no mention of anything else) allows her to ‘more often than not’ reach a “better conclusion, than…a white man “WHO HASN’T LIVED THAT LIFE.” What life? Answer: The life of a “wise Latina woman.”

Parse away all you want, but it’s ALL about the ethnicity.

Not that it matters in the slightest. Unless some presently unknown bomb shell drops during the confirmation process, there is no way she will not be confirmed.

Randal said, and I’m inclined to agree:

“I’m a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule.”

I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a minority woman who hasn’t lived that life.

I sometimes forget that only white people can be racists.

I thought it was the other way around? But as Brad said I’m not at all surprised by her beliefs, just her blatancy.