Wise Latina, Brainwashed Zionist, Rechtstaat

Because Obama welcomed Santomayor to Supreme Court yesterday, revisiting her famous "Wise Latina" comment is worthwhile.

Santomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The comment is in many ways quite unremarkable. Judging is often close to hubris. If Sotomayor does not believe that she is the wise Latina, who will reach the better conclusion, obviously she should step aside for somebody that will.

The accusation of implicit racism in the comment comes from a profound misunderstanding of the nature of trial in the modern Rechtstaat.

According to the myth of the Rechtstaat, the trial is essentially a game with two participants, and the judge is the unbiased umpire, who manages the trial according to a clear set of rules so that either the judge or the jury can pick the winner without prejudice.

Obviously, bias or lack thereof should be an issue, and Sotomayor's critics prefer the current system, where mostly white males judge, but identifying this particular subtext of the confirmation debate is a superficial critique of the complaint against Sotomayor.

If bias played no role in US trials, the anti-Sotomayor position would imply that a judge could be replaced by a rules-based expert system, but to do so would be a misunderstanding of the American trial system, in which the process is a three-sided game when there is no jury and a four-sided game when there is, and all the sides have different ways of winning. If appeals are considered as well as executive pardon, there are actually more players in the game. From this standpoint, the greater a player's

• knowledge base of the issues,
• understanding of the connection of history with rules or precedents, and
• ability to comprehend the various perspectives of participants or observers in the process,

the more likely the player is to win in his sense of winning.

In other words, Sotomayor's white male, who has not lived the Latino life, might be analogized to a chess player, who only knows king's pawn openings, while the wise Latina, who perforce must understand the dominant culture and also knows Latino culture, is like a chess player, who knows king's and queen's pawn openings. This Latina would be a better chess player, and I would certainly bet on her to win.

By the above logic increasing judicial diversity is almost certainly a good thing with the qualification that a very specific sort of disproportionate diversity has become a serious threat to justice in the American court system.

The real problem in the American legal system lies in the disproportionately Jewish composition of the judiciary.

Jewish judges like retired Alan Greiman of Chicago have injected all sorts of racist Jewish or ridiculous Zionist nonsense into their decisions.

Even worse the covert Jewish social networks associated with business, finance, and other activities often include judges. While Jews are not necessarily worse than non-Jews in this regard, American Jewish upbringing conditions American Jews to subordinate everything to question of "whether it is good for the Jews." (See Red Herring: Resisting Islamic Law.) This common sort of Jewish behavior is definitely unacceptable for a judge and outside the rules of the American legal system.

If Americans began to apply to same standards to Jewish judges as Sotomayor's critics used to argue against her confirmation, many if not most Jewish judges would have to be removed. To push the metaphor, now that the can of worms has been opened, it is time to bait some hooks to catch some really stinky fish within the American judicature.
Sphere: Related Content