re: #99 Charles

Her point was that in cases related to racial discrimination, a “wise Latina” might make better decisions than a “white male” who had not gone through the same life experiences. I suggest you read the speech in its entirety.

You may disagree with the idea that a judge’s life experiences may affect their rulings, but it’s not a simple case of “reverse racism,” as it’s being portrayed. She has an arguable point to make.

I don’t disagree that a judge’s “life experiences” might affect their rulingss — but that’s not what she said. She threw race in there, incorporating the notion that a racial minority will inherently have a superior or wiser opinion on discrimination cases than a “white male.”

If she had just mentioned life experiences, it wouldn’t be controversial. She’s implying that race is a factor in wisdom or thinking skill. That’s where she’s flirting with bigotry.