For weeks now, a good fraction of what NPR has covered has been Sotomayor. And ever single story I've heard from them, since the day she was nominated, has been uniformly glowing and positive. The one time I've heard negative information, the moderator was reading very carefully selected criticisms (a few of which were plainly absurd) to a pro-Sotomayor colleague for rebuttal.

I've also heard the debate on her statement to the effect that a Latino woman would be able to draw a better conclusion than, say, a white male judge. Sadly, idiotic pro-forma racism is quite in vogue in the academic world, and this is an example of it seeping (flowing?) from ivy halls into national politics.

I've written very little so far, in part, waiting to see what she'd say in her defense.

Now she's responded, and there's little room for charitable imaginations. She hasn't learned a thing; she's utterly unrepentant. And, as usual, it seems to me that everyone's glossing over the key point:

My play...fell flat. It was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge.

No, your honor. You were in error not because "life experiences" fail to inform results in a case (which they clearly do if you hold an activist philosophy), but because "life experiences" aren't inherently richer for racial minorities. (Further, the appreciation, interpretation, and application of life experiences is also highly individual.)

I hate to shock her, but some white boys are raised in rather poor circumstances. Some are beaten or ostracized daily for their race, their beliefs, their outward appearances or demeanor, and/or because their parents had issues. Some have had to struggle to overcome adversity after adversity including, now, a system of official discrimination against them. Some white boys who experience such things will use them to become amazing adults. Others, with nearly identical circumstances, will keep a chip on their shoulder and end up in jail.

Likewise, being a Latina doesn't mean one couldn't receive considerable advantages, nor imply one will encounter (much less make wise use of) a "richer" set of life experiences.

Her error, again, is not that life experiences don't inform judicial results. Her error is in asserting that an unnamed Latina is necessarily going to have richer and more informative life experiences than an unnamed white man. She is a racist, but more importantly, she is a very foolish racist — one who obstinately refuses to face the most problematic parts of her repeated statement.

And I'm not even going to get into her calling this "my play"...

Update: Good take by Paul, a PowerLine.