Reverse Sotomayor-alogy

Imagine if you heard me say:

I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

Would you call me a...

1. Male chauvinist?
2. Racist?
3. Conservative fascist wingnut?

I'm betting all three.

So how is it any different from what Sonia Sotomayor, our next member of SCOTUS, once said?

Ah, but she...

1. Has an amazing story
2. Is drawing from her experience
   
3. Has great empathy
   

Great stories, life experience, and empathy all being central themes within the Constitution, and impeccable qualities for interpreting it, of course.

Moonbats and their stupid logic.

UPDATE: Obugger, naturally, is sure Sotomayor would restate her comment:

"I think that when she's appearing before the Senate committee, in her confirmation process, I think all this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is," Obama said in the broadcast interview, clearly aware of how ethnicity and gender issues are taking hold in the debate.

That's funny...since Barry hasn't spoken with Sotomayor about her beliefs, he has what we do to go by: Her statements and deeds. As his mouthpiece said the other day, b. Hussein is comfortable with lots about the judge, presumably by telepathy because neither Sotomayor nor TOTUS filled him in:

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama did not specifically ask Sotomayor about the right to privacy. The debate over that right has come up in the context of several matters involving the court, including abortion rights.

As a candidate for president, Obama promised that he would not appoint anyone who doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

Pressed on the matter, Gibbs would only answer broadly, saying Obama was very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to his.

Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't believe in the Constitution at all, since the mysticism of empathy is a qualification for jurisprudence divined from the Founders, apparently, by The Diety himself, but not from any sane person's reading of the actual document.

Truth is, Sotomayor doesn't even live up to his word about finding some empathetic person who would, presumably, heal all racial divides with the wave of her gavel:

In addition to making statements about the importance of life experience, Obama has also repeatedly stated that "empathy" is a vital quality that he seeks in judicial nominees. Sotomayor's time on the Second Circuit has given her ample opportunity to demonstrate the role that "empathy" plays in her decision-making.

Most notable is the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which Sotomayor's three-judge panel sided with New Haven, Conn., officials who threw out the results of race-neutral fire department promotional exams because they did not yield enough high scores from African-American firefighters. When no promotions were given as a result, Frank Ricci, a dyslexic white firefighter who came in sixth in the competition for eight lieutenant spots, filed a lawsuit with 19 other firefighters alleging racial discrimination.

Some might feel "empathetic" toward a learning-disabled civil servant who overcame the disadvantage by spending every spare hour studying after he had a friend record his textbooks onto tapes. Better yet, a constitutionalist would find the city's race-conscious criteria to violate the requirements of Equal Protection. But Sotomayor wasn't moved.

Like other liberal activists who assert the importance of empathy, Sotomayor remarkably finds the need to reach into her "heart" only when the litigant's cause aligns with her own. In fact, as Clinton appointee Judge José Cabranes noted with some frustration, Sotomayor's "empathy" with New Haven's position was so relentless that she took unprecedented procedural steps to bury the claims of the firefighters.

In an attempt to prevent effective review, Sotomayor's three-judge panel originally issued a one paragraph summary order affirming the district court's ruling, then withdrew it and issued an unsigned opinion.

In fact, I'll say it right now.

Since b. Hussein appointed such a non-empathetic figure to SCOTUS -- a figure, one would think, who should understand the racial injustice done to Ricci, having been, we're lead to believe, the victim of racial injustice herself -- we have only his actions to go by as well, which lead to the entirely logical conclusion that:

Maybe b. Hussein, too, thinks minorities can do a better job.