In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Name That Quote.

Jill

Who do you think made this empathetic, identity-politics-reliant statement?

I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.
…
I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”

When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

Justice Sam Alito. And yet I recall no right-wing bleating about how he is unfit to be a Supreme Court justice because of his view that his personal experience and identity have shaped him as a human being and as a judge.

Now why in the world would there be a difference between conservatives’ treatment of Alito and Sotomayor? How mysterious.

18 thoughts on Name That Quote.

  3. Here’s the difference: Alito didn’t say because of his immigrant experiences, that he’d be a better judge than a Native American judges. He didn’t say that because he’s a man, he’d be a better judge than a woman in certain cases.

    He didn’t say anything about his experiences making him a better judge than someone else with different experiences.

    To say that one’s experience simply as a result of gender or race makes one better than another is sexist and/or racist.

  4. I was going to guess Scalia, actually. But wow. It’s too bad Alito doesn’t, ya know, live up to that from what I’ve observed. Maybe once he’s not the new kid on the court, he’ll get louder? Nah, probably not until Scalia resigns or dies.

  5. I had guessed Clarence Thomas, who often talks about his grandfather and how his grandfather’s rights were systematically violated.

    Jumping Jiminy: To say that one’s experience simply as a result of gender or race makes one better than another is sexist and/or racist.

    Well, that depends on the circumstances: “better” at what specifically? Better at bringing fairness, diversity and inclusiveness to a now-majority white male institution? Then I’d say she’s right. Of course she is.

    “Better” at chemistry or football or sewing or any other neutral activity? Probably not. But we are talking about what unique talents she can bring to an already-sexist, racist institution, aren’t we?

    Jesus H. Christ people.

  6. So you agree with the statement that someone being latina makes them more fair than a white male? You don’t have to know the life experiences of these two individuals but just know inherently that the latina is more fair? A latina from the upper wealthy class of Mexico is more fair than a poor white man struggling in the coal mines of West Virginia?

  7. OMFG. You know what, Jumping Jiminy, let’s just make this short. -raises hand- Yes. I agree with it. Sure. Whatever. It’s fair. I’m not. Neither is life. And in that vein: Guess what? Sotomayor’s still going to be confirmed. No matter how much you lot scream. Get used to it. Feel free to start an association for disenfranchised white dudes who aren’t getting a fair representation in SCOTUS at any time. Including all the coal miners about whom no doubt you and all the rest of the current squawkers were -deeply- concerned get into office previously. Yes.

  8. and I mean, it just so happens Sotomayor -isn’t- from the upper classes of wealthy Mexico, but y’know, -hypothetically-. -Hypothetically-, in Hypothetical Objectivity Land, where we all dwell, and indeed have done lo these past two + centuries or so. IF only racists like Sotomayor wouldn’t come along to throw everything out of balance and fuck everything up.

    -plonk-

  9. or, as the gentleman says:

    http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/05/27/statement-from-william-k-wolfrum-we-white-men-are-now-an-infinitesimally-oppressed-slightly-less-powerful-majority/

    Now, sure, I understand there are white men out there that will help white men like myself bridge the infinitesimally small new gap. I also understand that white men still make up 90 percent or more of Congress, and roughly 100 percent of the mainstream media. But these privileges are no longer purely a given, and in fact have the unseemly feel of large-partism just thrown our way by the minorly less impotent minority class.

    Because, you see, not that long ago, when a Supreme Court seat opened up, I had the warm comfort of knowing that I – with no law experience whatsoever – had a much better chance at becoming a Supreme Court Justice than a woman with a Puerto Rican heritage. A woman who would have never even have been given the opportunity to gain law experience not so long ago. But now, I feel the same oppression as the blacks that were enslaved in the U.S., and the Native Americans who were slaughtered. I am now part of an oppressed, negligibly less powerful majority.

    So what happens to me now? This year the Supreme Court is off limits to a white, non-law-practicing male like myself. And the Presidency is now firmly in the hands of someone who lacks the comforting whiteness that I and my fellow white men have come to accept as the norm. As someone who once had limitless opportunities, I now find the ease of which I could stumble into those opportunities limited ever-so slightly. But I believe that we White men can come back and reclaim the absolute and complete power we once held. We must begin our own civil rights struggle. We must take to the streets. It is time for a white male movement.

  11. @Galling Galla–

    He is seen as white NOW. I can pretty much assure you that his parents were not, his grandparents were not, and he may not have been as well. Italian, especially darker skinned Italian, has only recently become “white,” my parents saw the change over their lifetime and are roughly Alito’s age.

    So, no, I don’t necessarily think being a minority automatically makes you a better judge. Like Sotomayor, I “would hope” that it would, but you never know what people take away from their experience. ( Speaking of which, why is no one noticing that *she used the conditional*!! ) My mother in law didn’t speak English growing up, dragged herself out of the Bronx to the Ivy League as well–and is now viciously prejudiced against anyone who didn’t “work as hard” as she did and make it out (as well as against any minorities that aren’t her own). Because of course, it is only a matter of working hard…

  16. Speaking of which, why is no one noticing that *she used the conditional*!!

    Only a racist “uses” “the” “conditional.” Everyone knows that. Racist racist racist.

Comments are currently closed.