Still, she then goes back to the "racism is good" theme:
We "must accept" that ethnicity matters in judicial review? We "must accept" that ethnicity has relevance in the interpretation of the law? We "must accept" that Judge Sotomayor cannot say how her Latina heritage bears on her rulings, but that she gives her own Latina heritage weight alongside the facts of a case?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. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
How can any judge who presents this as a serious question be taken seriously?
The correct answer is NOTHING.For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering?