The White House warned me that I better not criticize Sotomayor. Oh well. This still is America.
Sotomayor is well-nigh impossible to understand. At least, her speeches are rambling bits of broad generalization masquerading as somber, deep refleection.
Maybe this means something to her, but it is just pseudo-intellectualism to me:
I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
It makes no sense. I have read it four or five times, and I still have no idea what she is trying to say.
She seems unable to expresss a single thought clearly:
The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy. Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions; although changes cannot be made lightly, yet law must be more or less impermanent, experimental and therefore not nicely calculable. Much of the uncertainty of law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value.
My head hurts. What did she just say? The legal system must be adaptable, I guess. I just said it in 6 words. She blabbered on for a paragraph that said little or nothing. That blue part is one long sentence.
She is a bad writer, if this is any indication.
It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society.
She’s bloody incoherent! So an unpredictable system of justice is a good thing! And it’s the job of the liberal judge to explain this to the little people. Oh, please be patient with us, oh Great Ones!