[oh_sigh]

1) Mexican isn't a race - it is a nationality. There are people of all races that are Mexican.

2) Curiels parents were illegal immigrants, and exactly the kind of people that Trump says he would deport.

3) Curiel has mentioned in the past (in a NYT article from the early 2000s, I can find a link if you like) that his Mexican heritage has had an impact in his practice of the law.

4) Curiel isn't a robot. Imagine if he ruled in favor of Trump...how popular would he be at the next family gathering?

5) Was it racist when Justice Sotomayor said that a "wise Latina" could make a better judicial decision than an old white man?

[whatyoucantsay]

I'm curious which of these points downvoters are disagreeing with. I say this as someone with family members who look very much "Mexican" to most Americans.

I don't like Trump's talk at all, but how would anyone with illegal immigrant parents would have comfortable family gatherings after supporting Trump? Job or not, family is strong.

Is this just an example of herd HN behavior?

[JabavuAdams]

Point 1: substitute "bigot" for "racist". There's a common but foolish (or self-serving) argument that X can't be racist, because Y isn't a race. A contributing factor is that many people say/write "racist" when they mean "bigot".

The point is that bigotry is no better than racism, so the reader/listener should just substitute the words and see whether the argument still makes sense rather than offering a vacuous counter-argument.

EDIT> French isn't a race, but if I want to round up French people and put them in camps, I'm still a shit-bag.

[meira]

The last one - 5. There is no such thing as reverse racism.

[googlryas]

So your point is that, it is impossible for a Latina to be racist, because, by definition, minorities can't be racist?

[seany]

You're not wrong. It's just plain old racism.

[Miner49er]

It's still making generalizations about a large group of people and assuming it's true for a particular person which is what racism is for race.

[googlryas]

If that's the case, perhaps we should just use the words that mean the things we want to say, instead of using words that don't mean the things we want to say to say the things we want to say?

It isn't a great start when people leveling criticism at someone don't even understand(or care) about the meanings of the words they say.

[Miner49er]

Yeah I agree, racism is unfortunately used synonymously with discrimination by many people. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

[sp527]

Arguing that someone may be biased on the basis of their race is not racism. It's at worst generalizing or ad hominem. This had nothing to do with Curiel being Mexican specifically other than the nature of the circumstances (Trump might have advanced a similar argument about a Muslim judge, for instance).

Progressives going after this specifically was misguided overreach. There's a reasonable basis to assume someone may be biased by their racial heritage. There's so much else Trump has done that is totally egregious that I find it mind-boggling to call him on this specifically. If anything, it gives ammunition to the anti-PC crowd.

[noobermin]

I'm not sure what you said discounts the fact that what he said is racism. The post he is replying to is asking for an example and he gave one. Also, how is 5 related to this event?

[googlryas]

OP was giving reasons why what Trump said in that case was not racism. I'm guessing 5 is related because it shows a sitting supreme court justice saying that her "race"(if we are defining heritage/ethnicity as race) plays an important role in her judicial decisions.

[dragonwriter]

> I'm guessing 5 is related because it shows a sitting supreme court justice saying that her "race"(if we are defining heritage/ethnicity as race) plays an important role in her judicial decisions

Specifically on issues of race or gender discrimination, she holds out that her background -- largely through life experiences, though she is expressly less eager to completely discount the possibility of an inherent or cultural contribution than a particular other commentator -- provides an advantage in the quality of her decisions, sure.

Extended quote from the 2001 speech in which the "wise Latina" remark appears (it was later repeated, on the same issue, several times in other speeches by Sotomayor.):

---

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice 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. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, 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.

---

Certainly, I don't think its particularly controversial to say that, with otherwise equivalent general "wisdom" (insofar as that can be quantified and compared, something that Sotomayor correctly points out is not necessarily realistic), a person with deeper relevant life experience on the subject being addressed might do better.

[googlryas]

Key quote is "a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

I don't think it's fair to argue that gender/national origin can only make a positive impact on judgement, and not a negative impact as well.

[dragonwriter]

> I don't think it's fair to argue that gender/national origin can only make a positive impact on judgement, and not a negative impact as well.

Sotomayor does not argue that. She only argues that personal experience and perhaps cultural/innate differences (she doesn't argue for the latter, just notes that she is less opposed to the idea that it is possible than another who has addressed the issue) make a difference in judging, while stating that she hopes that the difference in the experiences she has due to her background (from those of a white male) would lead to a positive outcome on a particular class of issues.