Over, and over and over again. As Ann Althouse notes, you’d think that a wise woman would know better than to continue to repeat such a “poor choice of words” (as the White House put it). Unless, you know, she actually thought it was a good choice of words, at least until some non-racialist actually liberal stick-in-the-muds started criticizing it, and she was up for a SCOTUS nomination.
Why, it’s almost enough to make one question her wisdom. Not to mention her probity.
[Update in the afternoon]
Explaining what a “liberal” is to Judge Sotomayor, who claims not to know what it is, even though she also claims she is one.
How about simply questioning her IQ? This excerpt of a transcript of the Ricci appeal hearing is illuminating. “vagrancies of the vacancies”? Does she have a plus-100 IQ? Are her SAT scores available anywhere?
I can understand the Obama administration’s political reasons for walking back her words, but what’s so wrong with them?
Does she have a plus-100 IQ?
She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton. If she did that with a sub-100 IQ she’s a savant.
Are her SAT scores available anywhere?
Would a standardized test taken nearly forty years ago tell you more about her qualifications than the dozens of opinions she’s written on the federal bench?
She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton. If she did that with a sub-100 IQ she’s a savant.
Yes, and W Bush got his MBA from Harvard, but he cluelessly let Paulson convince him to give $700 billion to failing banks.
I wonder why people talk about NE schools as if they are centers for intelligent learning.
I wonder why people talk about NE schools as if they are centers for intelligent learning.
Because they are centers for intelligent learning. Neither human intelligence nor human learning prevent truly stupid actions. Often they just enable the learned, intelligent human to provide an excellent rationalization for a truly stupid action.
Yours,
tom
sorry about the formatting error.
I can understand the Obama administration’s political reasons for walking back her words, but what’s so wrong with them?
If there’s nothing wrong with them, why would the Obama administration have a political reason to walk them back?
Why would the Obama administration have a political reason to walk them back?
One possibility: They believe her words are true but unpopular.
Yours,
Tom
Thanks Tom. I am glad you were here to keep the tone serious for a Friday.
Would a standardized test taken nearly forty years ago tell you more about her qualifications than the dozens of opinions she’s written on the federal bench?
A standardized test of 40 years ago would indicate an approximation of her IQ. Doing well at princeton (michelle obama’s alma mater) would not necessarily do the same. As for her qualifications to become a SC Justice and her written opinions, her written opinion in the Ricci appeal has been widely criticized as being wholly inadequate.
I don’t believe I would like any Obama selection because of ideology but let’s not debate IQ. Any person that graduates college can be assumed to have an adult IQ.
She said what she said and that should be enough to disqualify her.
I get very angry every time I hear some spin doctor say, “What she meant was…”
Words have meaning and all of us face the consequences of those we choose to use.
Leland,
My humorless, boring prose is available anytime for all your sleep needs.
Yours,
Tom
One of the commenters mentioned that ‘wise woman’ is a wiccan reference. Wouldn’t that be a bombshell?
Also found this blog post…
http://sillielizziesrock.blogspot.com/2009/05/sonia-sotomayor-radical-racist-sexist.html
…that touches upon the IQ issue.
The phrase “adult IQ” has no useful meaning. Could you please rephrase?
She said what she said and that should be enough to disqualify her.
Why, exactly? Do you think it’s impossible that a wise Latina judge could make a better judgement than a white male?
If there’s nothing wrong with them, why would the Obama administration have a political reason to walk them back?
Because politics is about perception as well as truth.
A liberal judge hides her support for racial quotas behind gauzy euphemisms.
When she’s able to. When she can’t, as she couldn’t in the Ricci appeal, her opinion (or a joint opinion in which she is a partner) ends up short and incoherent. And if she sits on a federal appeals court, the result of that incoherence is a new supreme court case.
Yes, all of us face the consequences of the words we choose to use. (well… most of the time anyway)
Why, exactly? Do you think it’s impossible that a wise Latina judge could make a better judgement than a white male?
No, I don’t think it’s impossible. But that’s not what she said. She said “would”, not “could”, and added “more often than not”. That’s what took the statement over the line into prejudice and stereotyping.
No, I don’t think it’s impossible. But that’s not what she said.
Don’t mind “Jim.” Straw men are the only arguments he can win.
She said “would”, not “could”, and added “more often than not”. That’s what took the statement over the line into prejudice and stereotyping.
She also said “wise”. What is controversial about a prejudice in favor of wisdom?
She also said “wise”. What is controversial about a prejudice in favor of wisdom?
Nothing, if that had been the only adjective she used. Are you really this obtuse, or simply continuing to be disingenuous?
So she’s not allowed to say that wise Latinas have better judgement than white men of unspecified wisdom?
What is so threatening about the idea that there are Latinas who think they can do a better job than some white men? Why would a Latina go into a profession dominated by white men if she didn’t think she could do better than some of them?
So she’s not allowed to say that wise Latinas have better judgement than white men of unspecified wisdom?
What would be the point of such an obviously true statement (hint: it’s not a reasonable interpretation of what she said)? You make her sound as pointless as you. Why would you slander her so? I (unlike, apparently, you) think that she was attempting to make a point.
Of course, she is allowed to say anything she wishes.
We are allowed to think whatever we wish about what she says, and discuss it. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.
We are also allowed to think whatever we wish about what you say.
So far. I’m sure that you and Obama have plans for that, though…
I (unlike, apparently, you) think that she was attempting to make a point.
I’ll bite, what point was she trying to make?
So she’s not allowed to say that wise Latinas have better judgement than white men of unspecified wisdom?
Jim, you are being dishonest. The context of her remark was a rebuttal to Justice O’Connor’s statement that a “wise man” and a “wise woman” would often come to the same conclusion. So wisdom was specified.
I’ll bite, what point was she trying to make?
Ah, more ingenuity from “Jim.” A major reason that no one here takes him seriously.
The phrase “adult IQ” has no useful meaning. Could you please rephrase?
Ok. I was sloppy, but you could have translated to adult intelligence without my help.