Judge Sotomayor as our supreme Court Judge.

Judge Sotomayor claimed that "a wise Latina woman" would reach better conclusions than a white man who hasn’t lived the experiences of a Latina woman. My understanding of tJudge Sotomayor statement was that if it is true than the opposite must also be true, “a wise white man” would reach better conclusions than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived the experiences of a white man.

There was no racism in Sotomayor comments; it will always depend on the case that is being judge. For example In the case of Cuellar vs. United States, it was more likely that a white male could have been more familiar with the scenarios that can escalate to money laundering than a Latina colleague such as "Judge Sotomayor". That is to say if we were to look at this presumption on a statistical map, we would have seen that white collar crimes happen in a grand scale and the chances that a Latina woman would be in charge of the whole scheme would be very unlikely.

In which case the "the white male" would have been more likely to derive at a better conclusion than his Latina counterpart "Jude Sotomayor". As it should be known, white collar crimes are more likely to be committed by "white male" who are in position of power than blacks or Latinas. Is this a racial comment? - hell no - if it is than what should we say about Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

Now, you can dispute and say that Bernard Madoff was not white, but that wouldn't make the above statement untrue, for the very reason why it is call "white collar crimes" it's because that kind of crime is more likely to be executed at the highest level of supervision. And when you look at the highest level, if your eyes are good you won't find that many Blacks or Latinas there.

"Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said he wants to expand the powers of an already powerful state law called the Martin Act so he can more aggressively prosecute white-collar crime"

Likewise, in a cases like Roe vs. Wage, the likelihood of judge Sotomayor deriving to a more rational conclusion could be more feasible than her counterpart “ white male”. You see, we seem to think that our racial background or gender should not influence our decision as a judge, that’s wrong. It is wrong because If that was the case Johnny Cochran would have settled for a “white judge” and the juries would have been all white. Had that been so,O J Simpson would have gone to jail for murdering his wife, regardless whether the decision was unbalanced.

The reason why we pick juries according to the case that is being viewed says to us that our background has a lot to do with our decisions making process. Since that is the case than why do we seems to think it would have been different when it comes to picking a Supreme Court judge?

The reason why I argued in favor of Sotomayor was never because she was a Latina Woman, but because she was right in her statement. She was not specific enough. Had she said a wise Latina woman would reach better conclusions than a wise white man on the issue of discrimination or better yet abortion, I don’t think the media would have made a big deal out of it.

It is with this comprehension that got us to understand the president claim for saying that his looking for a nominee who understands that justice “isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnotes in a case book.” This is precisely why he cited that his desire is to name someone with empathy for “people’s hopes and struggles.”

This was not to say that a “white Jude” is not capable of showing empathy for people’s hopes and struggles. Some do have that capability even though they have not experienced struggle to the same degree as a Latina would. What’s in relative here, is that our life experiences, struggle and everything we have learned in our lives do influence our decisions regardless of the facts presented before us.

This is where philosophy comes in because during the development of the case many states representatives did argued that empathy for people’s hope for struggle had no place in the court system. This would have been an acceptable answer if cases were not heard by humans. Since human being share the same experiences, feelings and emotions than that left us no choice but to think that regardless of the fact presented before the judge their racial backgrounds, gender, feelings and emotions is going to be part of their decision making process, and that include the juries who are hearing the case.

Since our perception derives from information gathered it tends to influence our judgments, because without our perception we can’t interpret what’s right or wrong. But what is important to know is that the information that influences our perception can go back from the time that we were three years old. And whether we choose to believe it or not this information can influence our decision making process even as a Supreme Court Judge –you dig?

From this analysis we can say a "wise white male" can make better decision than a "wise black male" depending on the information gathered as it relates to his life experiences. A criminal case that involves mountain climbing can be relatively common to a white Jude than a black or Latina Judge. You won't find too many black male climbing mountain or bungee jumping would you? Well, that’s precisely the point that Judge Sotomayor wanted to make, but she just wasn’t specific enough.

Relativity as it pertains to one’s life experiences is the common ground here. Our background shares a direct relationship with the way we think. If you are a child of multi culture the way in which you process information can be more flexible depending on the creditability of the informations you've been expose to . If we burry yourself into one culture than our thinking process may not be as flexible, unless off course we have a big imagination and we're able to dissect information by using logic . Otherwise, to deny ourselves that our experiences do not influence our judgment is precisely why we are politicians.

And besides there is no absolute truth, all truths are relative to prior knowledge. There are all base on a Jury’s perception which depends on information gathered. This is why sometimes a person can falsely be accuse of committing a crime, brought to justice and be found guilty without reasonable doubt when in fact he’s as innocent as Saint Peter.

After all, if our background didn't influence our decision process we might not have had so many innocent people waiting for the death penalty. You've heard the news and the statistics are there to prove it - how many times have we heard an innocent white male convicted of death penalty for a crime which he didn't commit. Now, let me remind you, as much as I love white people, I also love the truth, so lets be Clair, this is not so much about race as it is about the system. Yes! it is true some white people have been falsely accuse to the point of facing the death penalty, but when you look at the statistic, it reads a different note, you cannot compare the two, blacks are at the margin.

So please let us be real with ourselves, and not fight because we get no where when we fight. But at the same time we have to keep in mind that it is not always the police officer, but the system that they are force to work under. We have to keep in mind that the individual himself doesn't need to have negative feelings towards a particular groups, but if the laws within the system gravitates towards that imbalance, conflict between our officers and a particular group of people will be unavoidable.

We should concentrate on what unite us as oppose to the things that divides us. A qualify Latina as our Supreme Court Judge represent the face of America, which is a country that is strengthen by its working class immigrants.