The 'Empathy' Nominee - WSJ.com
The heart of the unconstrained vision is that current thinking, feeling, practices and opinion are superior to any strictures of the past, including a written constitution. Thus we have:
I'd argue that is very much a racist statement. The criteria I like to use is what the attitude would be if the statement was reversed. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with
the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a
better conclusion than a minority woman who hasn't lived that life.
My wordview is that if the second formulation is seen as racist, then the first must be as well, else the term "racism" has no meaning.
Naturally, the idea of ideas and words "having no meaning" is what her first formulation means. There can NEVER be a universal definition of wise. Translation, all points of view are relative, and it is perfectly reasonable for mine (or BO's) to be the one taken as correct -- and NOBODY (least of all, say "God") can EVER declare that there is some "universal truth" ... of which a better understanding would be "wise".
So, BO has appointed a relativist, racist that no doubt will see fit to re-write whatever law she sees fit as often as possible to the court and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
The heart of the unconstrained vision is that current thinking, feeling, practices and opinion are superior to any strictures of the past, including a written constitution. Thus we have:
In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope 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."
I'd argue that is very much a racist statement. The criteria I like to use is what the attitude would be if the statement was reversed. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with
the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a
better conclusion than a minority woman who hasn't lived that life.
My wordview is that if the second formulation is seen as racist, then the first must be as well, else the term "racism" has no meaning.
Naturally, the idea of ideas and words "having no meaning" is what her first formulation means. There can NEVER be a universal definition of wise. Translation, all points of view are relative, and it is perfectly reasonable for mine (or BO's) to be the one taken as correct -- and NOBODY (least of all, say "God") can EVER declare that there is some "universal truth" ... of which a better understanding would be "wise".
So, BO has appointed a relativist, racist that no doubt will see fit to re-write whatever law she sees fit as often as possible to the court and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
No comments:
Post a Comment