It seems the latest argument against Judge Sotomayor is a comment made by her,

“…that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

The first thing that comes to mind is the context of this comment. Seeing as it was delivered as part of a speech on law and multicultural diversity, the point rings crystal clear to me. That in today’s evolving legal society, the context and background of the accused helps to explain the sociological faults for which the crime was committed. I think her point is simple; Latino women can and will empathize and understand better than a white male where and how another Latino person might have reached the conclusion to possibly commit a crime. This isn’t an argument of what race or gender combination has superior legal knowledge, this is an argument of understanding. I think Chapman is completely missing the point here.  Chapman asserts:

“What is clear from the full text is that her claim to superior insight was not a casual aside or an exercise in devil’s advocacy. On the contrary, it fit neatly into her overall argument, which was that the law can only benefit from the experiences and biases that female and minority judges bring with them.”

This isn’t the argument at all, this is a distortion of what Chapman perceives to be the argument.  The issue at hand is one of culture and its impact on social values and norms.  It’s about tracing the root of the problem and using a methodology to eventually solve the problem of diversity based crime If we are honest, we can see that minorities are more prevalent in prison than Caucasians. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.

What we have is Randian virtues being applied at the looter level of the economic chain. Ironically, I would think the right would be for  this sort of ideological thinking as theives are fulfilling their own self interest.  While it is theft of property, it is none the less some form of Social Darwinism, those that can take, will take, thus abusing the weaker of the species.  The only difference with top-down economic theft is it is legal and renamed “Capitalism”.

Crime has a direct impact on community, and this concept seems to be missed by many people of all economic statuses. The root of a good community is their inherent value of each other, not the economic well being of the community. A good community is built from the base level, and operates in a manner that actually benefits the community as a whole. Victim based crimes are the result of the self, and are ego driven at heart. What society needs at whole is a new grasp of how connected we really are to each other. I am going to provide a simplified model to prove my point.

Let’s say we have a ten person community.
1 Banker
1 Grocery Store Owner
1 Cop
1 Electrician
1 Supply Store Owner
1 Energy Plant Operator
1 water Plant Operator
2 Homeless People
1 School Teacher

So this is a tight knit community. Let’s focus on theft too. For the sake of argument, let’s say the government decides to raise taxes. The raised taxes directly impact the amount of possible charity to the homeless people, and less charity equates to a die or survive dichotomy for the two homeless people. If they choose to survive, they are left with theft as a means to acquire what they need to survive. So they raid the grocery store. The grocery store owner will most likely have to act in some manner to avoid having his store broken into again (some means of security). Thus he might have to raise his food prices to cover the new fixed cost, and that fixed cost directly impacts the remaining consumers of the community. So the point I am getting at here is this: jail isn’t a means to solve crime, it is a deterrent, but the real solution to crime is through social change, and through social awareness.

Now to get back to the “arguments” with Judge Sotomayor, the context is just that, she’s advocating that we need to understand the why behind the crime in order to prevent the how of the crime. I think it’s a valid point and one that needs to be addressed. It is also a complicated issue and one that will never be fixed overnight. Social evolution is a slow process, so the seeds have to be planted and as a society we must be patient and wait for those seeds to evolve.

-Sophist

Editor's Note: And now, the first of our guest contributors
-a southern gentleman and a scholar- please welcome Sophist.

As my first official post on Row Knows, I would like to take a moment to thank my gracious host for having me on as a contributor to his site, so thank you, Rowjimmy.

A few (most likely none of you) will recognize my handle from week4paug.net.  I will spare the introduction and get to the heart of the matter at hand:  American Idol really screwed the pooch this season.

Actually, the usual bout of chaos seems to be present on the political front.  The Republicans are up in arms about Obama’s nomination for Supreme Court Judge.  My favorite blog: Obsidian Wings, has several links containing detailed information about the nominee, which includes detailed summaries of her positions on various issues.  Credit should be given to Hilzoy for bringing this information forward, and posting it.

From my readings of the above links, I have no concerns about this choice for Supreme Court Judge.  To me, the points made against her are rampant with Straw Man Arguments.  Surprisingly, I have yet to see the usual Ad Hominem arguments by the right, in turn; the right has been focusing on the usual issues: abortion, gun rights, and gay marriage.  The standard “threats” to America, the type of shit that will drown this country.

What concerns me with the left is the steadfast appeal in which this nominee was absorbed.  She was instantly a champion of the left, and as history tells us, I see this as dangerous.  We need to be objective, and we need to question everything with regards to government.  The use of government is good, and brings about the completed tasks that we require to function as a society, but I feel like we are slowly derailing ourselves due to the comfort of this administration.  It’s an aphorism I use frequently, and will continue to repeat, so it needs to be said:  The absence of doubt is the emergence of institutional oppression.

We as a society need to be objective and choose what is best for the country not for a particular party.  These are crucial times, and to me, it feels like both sides forget this, and resort to playing politics.  It does concern me, that right off the bat we see the same partisan talking points from the same people, I didn’t expect a new administration to change Washington, but I did expect the politicians to listen to the people for once, and heed our want for change.

So I ask of you, to read up on this nominee and voice your thoughts to your politicians, friends, family, pets, or whatever the hell else you find comfort in conversing with.

-Sophist