I was wrong about Sotomayor speech

The NYT has a link to the entire speech in which she made the comment about the "wise Latina" reaching a "better" verdict than "a white male who hasn't lived that life." I'm still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point, and I am relieved by this passage:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.

Relieved, because it strikes me as both idealistic and realistic. I am sure Sotomayor and I have very different views on the justice, or injustice, of affirmative action, and I'm quite sure that I won't much care for her rulings as a SCOTUS justice on issues that I care about. But seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling. As some of you have noted in comments.

UPDATE: In fact, come to think of it, I can remember a couple of occasions at The Dallas Morning News, sitting in on editorial board meetings with judicial candidates, in which I was favorably impressed by aspiring judges who talked about, well, empathy. One candidate who comes to mind had grown up poor and a racial minority, but had worked her way out of deprivation and built a strong legal career. She came to us as a sitting judge who sought higher office. We asked her to talk about a case or cases that would give us an idea of the perspective she would bring to the bench. She spoke about how she came to learn early in her bench career that the decisions she made affected not just the person at trial, but his family. She spoke about how it gave her a greater appreciation for the dimensions of the law, and what constitutes justice -- to be specific, that justice is not something mechanical, a result that can be obtained by feeding facts into a program, and having a computer spit out the "correct" answer. Rather, it requires wisdom, and its application. As I recall that meeting, the judge's answer struck me as wise about human nature, and how the law provides a framework for justice, but doesn't guarantee it -- and how sometimes, subjective factors necessarily influence a judge's decision about the right outcome in a particular case.

Also, I recall a black judge who came in for a candidate forum once. We put the same question to him. He talked about his hardscrabble background, and how he always tried to keep squarely in front of him when he had a black male defendant, "There but for the grace of God go I." His point was clearly not to assert that he had a different standard for black men who come into his court, but rather that his empathy (that word again) helped keep him humble in his approach to decision-making. If I remember correctly (this was a couple of years ago), I came out of that meeting thinking that I would feel pretty good about going before this judge's court as a defendant, because I could trust that judge to put himself imaginatively in my place, and try to see things as I did. That's not to say he would rule in my favor, but that he is at least aware that justice is not the same thing as rote application of the law; i.e., that while justice must never be entirely, or even mostly, subjective, it nevertheless requires taking into account particulars of the case. This is called wisdom. This is called judgment.