NYT: It's Sotomayor

The NYT via American Power says it's Sotomayor.

From the Corner: Ed Whelan on Sotomayor's selective empathy. He quotes Stuart Taylor from the National Journal. Excerpts from Mr. Taylor:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

The above assertion and the rest of a remarkable speech to a Hispanic group by Sotomayor -- widely touted as a possible Obama nominee to the Supreme Court -- has drawn very little attention in the mainstream media since it was quoted deep inside The New York Times on May 15.

It deserves more scrutiny, because apart from Sotomayor's Supreme Court prospects, her thinking is representative of the Democratic Party's powerful identity-politics wing.

Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere "aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others." And she suggested that "inherent physiological or cultural differences" may help explain why "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

[. . .]

Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.

Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: "I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" -- and had proceeded to speak of "inherent physiological or cultural differences."

The double standard has evolved to astonishing proportions.

But don't worry: the RNC is asking the GOP to adopt a demeanor of neutrality on the nominee. From Kathryn Jean Lopez:

SCOTUS Nominee Response: What Not to Do

Over the weekend, I was forwarded a request from the Republican National Committee from someone who was being asked to be a surrogate for the RNC on the Supreme Court pick — that is, talk on TV and radio on behalf of the RNC. The request included the guidance that the RNC is "looking to come out very neutral on the subject."

Neutral? The Left sure isn't "neutral" on the Court or on Republican presidential nominees for the Court. By all means, be reasonable. But the RNC wants to be "neutral"? If the RNC is neutral is there anyone left in America to join the likes of Cheney and Gingrich (as Bill Kristol puts it; scroll down) to oppose Obama-administration moves?

I was thinking more along the lines of fighting the nomination with tooth and nail. Conservatives are being betrayed by the RNC.

Most recent posts here.