rhetorical analysis of sonia sotomayor speech

Share full article

Supported by

Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’

The following is the text of the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, by appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor. It was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, a symposium issue entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," and it is reproduced here with permission from the journal.

"A Latina Judge's Voice"

By Sonia Sotomayor

Judge Reynoso, thank you for that lovely introduction. I am humbled to be speaking behind a man who has contributed so much to the Hispanic community. I am also grateful to have such kind words said about me.

I am delighted to be here. It is nice to escape my hometown for just a little bit. It is also nice to say hello to old friends who are in the audience, to rekindle contact with old acquaintances and to make new friends among those of you in the audience. It is particularly heart warming to me to be attending a conference to which I was invited by a Latina law school friend, Rachel Moran, who is now an accomplished and widely respected legal scholar. I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.

I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture. I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture. I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow. I thank Judge Olmos' widow Mary Louise's family, her son and the judge's many friends for hosting me. And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person. If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.

I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.

Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.

Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have. They largely succeeded. For that, my brother and I are very grateful. The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the Latina that I am. The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.

For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandules y pernil - rice, beans and pork - that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, -- pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo -- pigs' feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs' tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother's house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing loteria, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.

Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Carribean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.

If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla - pig's intestine - to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puertorriqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.

I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.

As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.

Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye's initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick's appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.

Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.

This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.

For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue, I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993. It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.

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. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area - Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. 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.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.

Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s Speech at Berkeley Law in 2001

Share article on Facebook
Share article on Twitter
Share article on LinkedIn
Email article

[Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit gave the following speech at the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal’s Twelfth Annual Symposium on October 26, 2001. Sotomayor talked about her Latina identity and how it affects her work on the bench. Today, President Obama nominated Sotomayor as his first appointment to the Supreme Court. This speech was originally published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002.]

“A Latina Judge’s Voice”

By Sonia Sotomayor

I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture. I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture. I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow. I thank Judge Olmos’ widow Mary Louise’s family, her son and the judge’s many friends for hosting me. And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person. If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor speaks with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at The White House

For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir – rice, beans and pork – that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, — pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs’ tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother’s house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing loteria, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.

If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla – pig’s intestine – to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between “the melting pot and the salad bowl” — a recently popular metaphor used to described New York’s diversity – is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.

Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye’s initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick’s appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.

Sort of shocking, isn’t it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.

This weekend’s conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then “as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically” but instead of “acting intuitively.” I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes’ movement.

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. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor — I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area – Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives – no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

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.

I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.

Sotomayor’s “Latina Judge’s Voice” Speech Revisited:

After some consideration, I have decided that Sonia Sotomayor’s 2001 speech, “A Latina Judge’s Voice” deserves more extensive analysis than I gave it in a previous post . I still believe that the speech shows that Sotomayor thinks that judges can often legitimately base decisions in part on their racial or ethnic backgrounds. I especially think that that interpretation is by far the most plausible reading of Sotomayor’s statement that she hopes 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.”

However, it would be foolish to overlook the fact that many people, including serious commentators such as University of Texas lawprof Frank Cross and Reason’s Kerry Howley believe that the relevant part of the speech is actually innocuous. I can’t ignore the possibility that the speech is unclear, or that I just got it wrong. At this point, however, I still think that my initial interpretation was largely correct, and in this post I will try to explain why. For convenience, here is the entirety of the paragraph where the “wise Latina woman” sentence occurs:

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.

I. Is Sotomayor’s Claim Limited to Discrimination Cases?

Some of my critics, including Cross, argue that this passage merely means that a Latina judge will, on average, do better than white males in deciding discrimination cases (perhaps because of her greater personal experience with discrimination). The first sentence of the next paragraph does in fact state that we should “not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.” However, it seems unlikely that Sotomayor’s claim really is limited to such cases. After all, she made it in explicit response to Justice O’Connor’s far more general statement that “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” If Sotomayor meant to say that O’Connor’s argument is correct the vast majority of the time with the exception of discrimination cases, it is strange that she gives no hint of that. Moreover, in an earlier part of the speech, Sotomayor denies that the goal of transcending one’s race in judicial decisionmaking “is possible in all or even in most cases.” That suggests that she believes her argument to have much broader application than merely to discrimination cases.

Even if Sotomayor’s claim really is limited to discrimination claims, it is still deeply problematic. It is wrong to assume that a judge belonging to a group that is often victimized by a particular type of injustice will be generally superior in deciding cases that address it. Are white male judges generally superior in hearing reverse discrimination cases such as the one Sotomayor decided in Ricci v. DeStefano ? Are judges who own real estate better qualified to hear takings claims? Perhaps judges who own businesses are the ones best qualified to hear claims asserting that an economic regulation is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. A judge belonging to a group victimized by a particular type of injustice might be less likely to reject similar claims that have merit. On the other hand, she might also be excessively prone to accept claims that should be rejected or to ignore important interests on the other side of the case. Which effect dominates the other will probably vary from judge to judge and from case to case. In any event, we will likely be better off if judges assess discrimination cases and other claims as objectively as possible, while seeking to minimize the impact of their own personal racial or ethnic backgrounds.

II. Did Sotomayor Merely intend to Recognize the Impact of Judges’ Racial Backgrounds on their Decisions, Without Embracing it?

Other critics, including Howley, argue that Sotomayor merely meant to recognize the commmon sense point that judges’ decisions are sometime affected by their racial backgrounds, without claiming that this is a good thing. In one part of the speech, Sotomayor does indeed state the following:

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.

However, in the very next sentence Sotomayor said that “I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” This suggests that it isn’t necessarily a good idea for judges to strive to “transcend . . . personal sympathies and prejudices.” In combination with the above-quoted statement about the supposed superiority of Latina judges over white male ones in deciding many cases, it seems that Sotomayor believes that judges not only take account of their racial background in making decisions, but are often justified in doing so. Perhaps Sotomayor also believes that judicial transcendance of personal sympathies and prejudices is a desirable goal; but since in her view it is probably impossible to achieve in a large number of cases, it will often be a “disservice” to pursue it at the expense of denying the special insights that might sometimes be had by relying on those “prejudices” after all. That doesn’t mean that Sotomayor believes that a judge’s race or gender is a useful resource in all cases or that impartiality is completely worthless. After all, she said that the “wise Latina” judge is likely to do better “more often than not,” not that she will have an advantage across the board. However, it’s clear that she does believe that race and gender are useful guides to judicial decisionmaking in at least a large number of situations.

In addition, if Sotomayor really did merely mean to say that judges sometimes wrongly take account of their personal background in deciding cases, there would have been no need to dwell on such an obvious point at great length – one that hardly any serious commentator disagrees with. The real question – the one she actually tried to address – is how we should react to this state of affairs. One approach – the one I think best – is to try to appoint judges who will ignore their own racial backgrounds as much as possible and to strive to promote that as a norm for all judges to follow. Sotomayor’s approach, by contrast, is to endorse reliance on personal background in at least some cases, and to urge minority judges to offset the “personal sympathies and prejudices” of their white colleagues with their own.

Finally, I think it’s telling that hardly any one would defend a similar statement made by a white male judge. As legal columnist Stuart Taylor puts it :

Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.

Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: “I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life”

huffenglish.com

Free rhetorical analysis unit.

I recently found myself in the position of having to teach AP English Language for about five weeks. I won’t get into why that happened. I have never taught AP Lang. I think I’ve taught just about everything else! I decided it would be a good opportunity to do a quick unit on rhetorical analysis, which I have at least taught in the past.

For context, my classes are 70 minutes long, and typically meet three times per week. What follows below is a day-by-day plan for my unit. Feel free to use any of this. I borrowed very heavily from others and acknowledge or link to their work where I was able to do so.

I used a lesson from Jennifer Fletcher’s book Teaching Arguments: Rhetorical Comprehension, Critique, and Response . For reference, it’s the Parlor Conversation Metaphor/Learning to Pay Attention lesson in which students examine a painting for ten minutes. I used the same painting as Jennifer and followed her lesson instructions exactly. Because her text is copyrighted, I cannot share the materials here, but I urge you to purchase her book.

I introduced students to rhetoric. First, we journaled on this topic: Think of a time someone talked you into doing something or believing something. How did they do it? What tactics did they use? Students may share out journals. I gave students a graphic organizer with a PAPA analysis (purpose, audience, persona, argument) and picked a speech. Frankly, the speech I picked, which was Samwise Gamgee’s speech to Frodo Baggins in The Two Towers , failed spectacularly since students had no frame of reference. Note: that movie is old now. I know . It makes me sad, too. So go cautiously if you use this, but maybe pick something else. You can find a massive list here .

To be honest, I didn’t have time to make my own, so I bought a bunch of graphic organizers from Teachers Pay Teachers . Students worked with a partner to fill out the PAPA graphic organizer. Then we shared out to the class.

For homework, I assigned students an article from Kelly Gallagher’s Article of the Week website . Pick one you like! I picked this one about food deserts because our school is located in one. I asked students to prepare to have a fishbowl-style discussion on the article using the questions on the article (see the end). Before we ended class, I set discussion norms with the students.

Students engaged in a fishbowl discussion of the article they read for homework. If you are new to fishbowl discussion, essentially, you divide the class into two groups. The first group is the “inner circle,” whose job is to begin the discussion. It should be student-centered, and the teacher should listen and take notes. I track discussions like this using an iPad app called Equity Maps . The second group is the “outer circle,” whose job is to listen to the first group and take notes. I set a timer for 15 minutes for the first group. Then the groups swap positions and the second group has a discussion while the first group listens and takes notes. After both groups discussed the text, we debriefed the discussion experience:

What did you observe during the discussion of the text?
What is one thing you heard that you agree with?
What is one thing you heard that you disagree with?
How did you feel while on the outside of the fishbowl?
How did you feel while on the inside of the fishbowl?

For homework, I assigned students to write a reflection on their learning. I have used the same template for seminar reflections for years. I stole it from Greece New York Public Schools well over 15 years ago. Unfortunately, it’s no longer available on their site, so I’m going to try to link it below.

Socratic Seminar Reflection

I introduced students to ethos, pathos, and logos. Because students had read Bryan Stevenson’s book Just Mercy over the summer, I returned to his work and shared his TED Talk with them.

As students watched, they took notes on a graphic organizer:

Speaker: Who is the speaker?
Audience: Who is the intended audience for this speech?
Subject: What is the speech mostly about?
Context: What was happening in history at the time this speech was given (Stevenson discusses some of this in the speech)?
Why do you think the speaker gave this speech?

I drew a triangle on the board and asked students to tell me which of the questions above related to who the speaker was and how he established his credibility. I wrote “ethos” next to the top corner of the triangle and defined it as an author or speaker’s credibility on the topic. Is the speaker or author reliable or credible? Is the speaker or author knowledgeable? Does Bryan Stevenson establish himself as credible? Why or how?

Next, I asked which of the questions above were related to how the audience feels when listening to the speech. I added “pathos” to the triangle on the board and defined it as an appeal to emotions. How does the text make the audience feel? What emotional appeals does Stevenson make? How does the speech make you feel?

Finally, I asked which of the questions above has to do with research, evidence, or facts (this might be a good time to point out that some areas overlap; context, purpose, and subject might appeal to both pathos and logos). I added “logos” to the triangle and defined it as an appeal to logic and reason. How do the facts and evidence support the claim? What appeals to facts, logic, and reason did Stevenson make?

Following this introduction, we discussed the speech using these questions as a guide:

What do you think would happen if these three different kinds of appeals were unbalanced? For example, what if the speech had no appeals to emotions? No facts, research, or evidence?
What if it were someone else besides Bryan Stevenson (feel free to play with different celebrities here; could Taylor Swift deliver this speech believably? Kanye West?
How well do you think this speech balances the three types of appeals?

For homework, students read Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail .

I shared the background context (but not the Call for Unity letter… yet) as seen in slide 1 below. Then I posted the questions on slide 2 and asked students to get in small groups to discuss.

We reconvened as a class, and groups shared out the highlights of their discussion. Then I shared the Call to Unity letter so students could check their speculation about question 3 on the slide deck.

I introduced a one-pager assignment on Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

I gave students this class period to work on their one-pagers. I supplied paper and colored pencils for students who wanted them.

For this lesson, I owe everything to the #TeachLivingPoets crowd. They created the whole lesson and shared it at NCTE in 2018. We read Clint Smith’s poem “Playground Elegy” from the collection Counting Descent . We discussed the following questions:

What do you notice?
What words and phrases stand out?
What patterns do you notice?
What is the argument?

Next, I asked students to work with a partner or group of 3 to create a rhetorical triangle analysis of the poem. It’s fun to use big sticky poster paper and markers, which I provided for students. You might want to display a rhetorical triangle for students as a reminder. Students should include the following:

Speaker/author
Thesis/purpose

Students put their large sticky posters up and did a gallery walk. I made them spend two minutes on each poster so they would really read it. I set a timer and everything! Then I asked them to share something interesting they noticed on another group’s poster.

The one-pagers were due for the next class, so I reminded students to finish them for homework.

This lesson was also stolen from the #TeachLivingPoets presentation from 2018. I displayed the slide deck below.

I went through slides 1 (with Fatimah Asghar’s biography) to 5. Then I posted slide 6 and handed out copies of Asghar’s poems “Microaggression Bingo” and “Partition” from their collection If They Come for Us: Poems . Students discussed these questions in relation to the two poems in groups. Then the groups shared with the class.

I wrote SOAPSTone on the board and gave students a SOAPSTone graphic organizer with a chart on both sides of the paper. They analyzed each of the poems using the graphic organizer as a class, but you could easily have them do it in small groups.

I introduced an out-of-class rhetorical analysis essay and gave students a list of speeches from which to choose. I said they might also pick another speech, and one student did. I also brought in some essay and poetry collections, but all my students opted for a speech. I asked them to fill out a SOAPSTone graphic organizer on their selected speech. Then, I suggested they examine appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos with examples of each, identify style choices and details and build an analysis:

What is the writer’s intention?
Who is the intended audience?
What is the writer’s strategy to make that argument? Why?
What appeals does the writer use to persuade the reader? Why
What kind of style does the writer use?
What effect does this work have on the audience?

Students had time in class to begin all this planning work.

I decided to introduce rhetorical analysis of a film by screening Ava Du Vernay’s 13th , which is available on Netflix or free on YouTube.

As students watched the film, I instructed them to take notes on the following aspects:

Appeals to ethos
Appeals to logos
Appeals to pathos

This film is over 1:40, so we didn’t finish in one period and carried the film over to the next class.

Students continued working on drafts of their rhetorical analysis for homework.

We finished the film and discussed it using the Thoughts, Questions, and Epiphanies method I described in this blog post . Credit for this strategy goes to Marisa Thompson. Here is what I posted for students to guide their discussion:

Students were in groups of 3 or 4, and I gave them 15-20 minutes to talk. Then they shared their top 2 thoughts, questions, or epiphanies on the board, and their ideas guided the rest of our class discussion of the film.

For homework, students finished a first draft of the rhetorical analysis.

Writing workshop. Conference with students on their drafts, give them time to read and edit each other’s work, or work on their drafts.

Ugh. The test. Most of our students take AP Lang exams, so I gave them the 2021 AP Lang rhetorical analysis (Sonia Sotomayor’s speech) as a timed writing practice. We debriefed the prompt after the timed writing. I gave them a copy of the AP rhetorical analysis rubric and went over it. Then I asked them to score themselves on the rubric and add a sentence to the end of the timed writing explaining how they scored themselves and why.

We examined the College Board’s sample essays on the rhetorical analysis for the 2021 prompt on Sonia Sotomayor’s speech and scored them. Then I revealed the scores the essays earned and explained the rationale for the score. My students nailed it. They scored each essay exactly as the College Board did! We also discussed how they feel about their timed writing from the previous class now that they’ve seen models, and most students indicated they feel pretty good. At this point, I was preparing to hand the class over to their new full-time teacher, so she took some time to get to know the students with some games.

We played rhetorical analysis Jenga. I decided to have them examine a short piece by Temple Grandin from This I Believe . I introduced students to Temple Grandin by showing this short video.

I owe Melissa Smith and Joel Garza for the idea for the Jenga game, which I adapted from literary analysis. Here is a list of questions I used .

Thanks to @MelAlterSmith for turning me onto this Jenga book club activity — worked SOOOO well with my freshmen reading groups Directions here 🧩🙂📚 https://t.co/CtCb8rVhia pic.twitter.com/PPEJF3cLSr — Joel /hō•ÉL/ Garza is cofounder of #THEBOOKCHAT 📓 (@JoelRGarza) March 30, 2022

You will need enough Jenga games for students in groups of 3-4. Number the blocks from 1-22. You will repeat numbers, and that is okay.

I also collected final drafts of the rhetorical analysis essay.

The graded assessments in this unit were the fishbowl reflection, the one-pager, and the rhetorical analysis essay. I do not believe in grading timed writing or participation. I think it puts too much pressure on students to grade timed writing when it is practice and should be a formative assessment. I have moved away from grading participation because it is difficult to assess what students are learning. Students may dominate discussion without really learning much to rack up participation grades, or they may be introverted and struggle to speak but still learn a lot, so I just don’t do it. I grade reflections on discussions instead.

That’s it! I hope it’s useful.

Issues, ideas, and discussion in English Education and Technology

DOI: 10.1080/14791420.2023.2297975
Corpus ID: 266822671

A rhetorical praxis of rebellious knowledge production: Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s outsider jurisprudence in Utah v. Strieff

Katie L. Gibson
Published in Communication and Critical… 2 January 2024

33 References

Being brown: sonia sotomayor and the latino question, the women take over: oral argument, rhetorical skepticism, and the performance of feminist jurisprudence in whole women’s health v. hellerstedt, towards an insistent and transformative racial rhetorical criticism, containing sotomayor: rhetorics of personal restraint, judicial prudence, and diabetes management, ruth bader ginsburg’s legacy of dissent: feminist rhetoric and the law, setting aside the “wise latina”: postracial myths, paradoxes, and performing enculturation in the sotomayor confirmation hearings, whiteness: a strategic rhetoric, learning from the outsider within: the sociological significance of black feminist thought, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

“A Latina Judge’s Voice”

October 26, 2001

No related resources

Introduction

Sonia Maria Sotomayor was appointed an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by Barack Obama in May 2009 and confirmed in August of the same year. She is the first Latina justice to serve on the Court, and only the third woman. Although Sotomayor is considered to be a progressive, her views on the inherent differences between men and women, and thus the potential value of “identity politics” even in judicial appointments, is surprisingly reminiscent of the position taken by earlier women like Catharine Beecher .

Source: Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture, University of California, Berkeley School of Law Symposium “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation,” available online: https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml.

. . . I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.

Who am I? I am a “Newyorkrican.” For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican–born parents who came to the States during World War II.

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race- and color-blind way that ignores these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between “the melting pot and the salad bowl”—a recently popular metaphor used to described New York’s diversity—is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.

I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female U.S. attorney general, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the chief judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One supreme court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time. . . .

Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye’s initial appointment as an associate judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick’s appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still 2 out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth, and Federal Circuits each have only 1 female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only 2 were African American women and 2 Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only 12 were African American women and 11 Hispanic women. African American women comprise only 1.56 percent of the federal judiciary, and Hispanic American women comprise only 1 percent. No African American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal Circuit. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia, or Federal Circuit.

Sort of shocking, isn’t it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. . . .

This weekend’s conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women, and by direct inference people of color, on the bench was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench, and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate. . . .

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender- or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then “as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically” but instead of “acting intuitively.” I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes’ movement.

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. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School professor—I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area—Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee, will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power,” and because as another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position, but as a group, we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

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.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach? For all of us, how do we change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race have shaped their careers, from hiring, retention, to promotion, and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions, and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me require. 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.

Our Democratic Constitution

A latina judge’s voice, see our list of programs.

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Check out our collection of primary source readers

Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. Available in hard copy and for download.

Full Text: Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Speech

T hank you, Mr. President, for the most humbling honor of my life. You have nominated me to serve on the country’s highest court, and I am deeply moved.

I could not, in the few minutes I have today, mention the names of the many friends and family who have guided and supported me throughout my life, and who have been instrumental in helping me realize my dreams. ( See pictures of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. )

I see many of those faces in this room. Each of you, whom I love deeply, will know that my heart today is bursting with gratitude for all you have done for me.

The President has said to you that I bring my family. In the audience is my brother Juan Sotomayor — he’s a physician in Syracuse, New York; my sister-in-law, Tracy (ph); my niece Kiley — she looks like me.

My twin nephews, Conner and Corey.

I stand on the shoulders of countless people, yet there is one extraordinary person who is my life aspiration. That person is my mother, Celina Sotomayor.

My mother has devoted her life to my brother and me. And as the President mentioned, she worked often two jobs to help support us after dad died. I have often said that I am all I am because of her, and I am only half the woman she is.

Sitting next to her is Omar Lopez (ph), my mom’s husband and a man whom I have grown to adore. I thank you for all that you have given me and continue to give me. I love you.

I chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because I find endless challenge in the complexities of the law. I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.

For as long as I can remember, I have been inspired by the achievement of our founding fathers. They set forth principles that have endured for than more two centuries. Those principles are as meaningful and relevant in each generation as the generation before.

It would be a profound privilege for me to play a role in applying those principles to the questions and controversies we face today.

Although I grew up in very modest and challenging circumstances, I consider my life to be immeasurably rich. I was raised in a Bronx public housing project, but studied at two of the nation’s finest universities.

I did work as an assistant district attorney, prosecuting violent crimes that devastate our communities. But then I joined a private law firm and worked with international corporations doing business in the United States.

I have had the privilege of serving as a federal District Court trial judge, and am now serving as a federal Appellate Circuit Court judge.

This wealth of experiences, personal and professional, has helped me appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. It has helped me to understand, respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me as well as to the views of my colleagues on the bench.

I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government.

It is a daunting feeling to be here. Eleven years ago, during my confirmation process for appointment to the Second Circuit, I was given a private tour of the White House. It was an overwhelming experience for a kid from the South Bronx.

Yet never in my wildest childhood imaginings did I ever envision that moment, let alone did I ever dream that I would live this moment.

Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the honor you are giving me, and I look forward to working with the Senate in the confirmation process. I hope that as the Senate and American people learn more about me, they will see that I am an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences. Today is one of those experiences.

Thank you again, sir.

See the top 10 Supreme Court nomination battles.

See four myths about Supreme Court nominees.

Read “Smooth Sailing: Sotomayor Headed to Easy Confirmation.”

More Must-Reads from TIME

How Joe Biden Leads
Lai Ching-te Is Standing His Ground
Do Less. It’s Good for You
There's Something Different About Will Smith
What Animal Studies Are Revealing About Their Minds—and Ours
What a Hospice Nurse Wants You to Know About Death
15 LGBTQ+ Books to Read for Pride
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Get the Reddit app

No matter what course you are taking, we are a community that helps students earn college credit!

Please grade my rhetorical analysis essay

Here is my rhetorical analysis essay responding to the 2022 AP Lang prompt (Sonia Sotomayor speech). I don’t have anyone to grade it and would appreciate any feedback. Thank you.

AP Language Rhetorical Analysis: Sonia Sotomayor Speech Excerpt-Quiz

rhetorical analysis of sonia sotomayor speech

Also included in

Description

Here are 12 MCQs based on the excerpt from "A Latina Judge's Voice" by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This excerpt was used as the Rhetorical Analysis Essay prompt on the 2022 AP Language Exam. Questions focus on author's purpose, claims, evidence, inference, juxtaposition, and parallelism.

Text of excerpt is free and available online at AP Central.

***If you love quality and price of this resource and want to help others find it, then please select My Purchases , choose Ratings , and leave Feedback . The more ratings you leave, the more free credits you earn to use on your next TPT purchase!

Questions & Answers

Living to read.

We're hiring
Help & FAQ
Privacy policy
Student privacy
Terms of service
Tell us what you think

Newsletters
Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Amy Coney Barrett Sounds Fed Up with Clarence Thomas’ Sloppy Originalism

A minor dispute over a trademark registration erupted into a heated battle over originalism at the Supreme Court last week, splintering the justices into warring camps over the value and practicality of history in constitutional analysis. No surprise there—as the term accelerates toward a contentious finale, the tensions roiling major cases are bound to spill over into littler ones. What’s remarkable is who seized on this squabble over intellectual property to launch a scathing salvo against the conservative majority’s “laser-like focus” on “supposed history and tradition”: Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative who presented as a true believer in originalism when joining the Supreme Court four years ago. Barrett’s latest opinion exudes disenchantment with the methodology, at least as it’s used by this court; it also suggests she has buyer’s remorse about signing on to Bruen , a significant expansion of the Second Amendment that’s arguably the most radical and unworkable “originalist” opinion she’s joined so far.

We will know soon enough. Last week’s squabble reads like shadowboxing over a much bigger decision to come: U.S. v. Rahimi , a follow-up to the Bruen decision. Rahimi gives the court an opportunity to walk back the most disastrous and lethal aspects of its Second Amendment extremism. Barrett now seems like she may be eager to take it.

Vidal v. Elster , last Thursday’s decision, is not the kind of case that usually makes headlines. Steve Elster is a labor lawyer who wanted to trademark the phrase “Trump too small,” inspired by Sen. Marco Rubio’s crude debate joke about Donald Trump’s hands in 2016. The Patent and Trademark Office, however, refused to register the trademark, citing a law that bars trademarks made up of a name “identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent.” (Needless to say, the former president did not give his consent.) Elster sued, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that two similar provisions of federal law violate free speech, one that bars disparaging trademarks and another that bars “ immoral or scandalous ” trademarks. So, he argued, the prohibition against trademarks that use other people’s names—the so-called names clause—should also be declared unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Elster, upholding the statute. But the justices fractured badly on the reason why, dividing more or less into a 5–4 split. Writing for the five men, Justice Clarence Thomas relied exclusively upon history (or his version of it) to resolve the case. Typically, he explained, laws that discriminate on the basis of content—that is, their “topic,” “idea,” or “message”—are subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. And by targeting trademarks that reference other people, the “names clause” is a “content-based regulation of speech.” But Thomas then declared that the law is not constitutionally suspect because it aligns with the “history and tradition” of the nation “since the founding.” Trademark restrictions “have always turned on a mark’s content” yet “have always coexisted with the First Amendment,” so they represent an exception to the usual constitutional limitations. Embarking upon a grand journey from the 1700s through today, Thomas presented a smattering of comparable laws from the past to demonstrate this “historical rule.” In short, he concluded, it has always been done, so it always may be done. Case closed.

In a separate opinion, Barrett agreed with Thomas’ bottom line but sharply disagreed with pretty much everything else. His history-only approach, she wrote, was “wrong twice over”: Thomas both botched the relevant history and failed to make a persuasive case for its use in the first place. Start with “the court’s evidence.” Thomas’ law-office history , Barrett explained, consists of “loosely related cases from the late-19th and early-20th centuries” that do not “establish a historical analogue for the names clause.” His analysis of these cases is shallow and often dubious; Barrett highlighted unfounded inferences in Thomas’ skim of the historical record, questioning his generalizations from a handful of archaic decisions. She also noted that Thomas declined to “fully grapple with countervailing evidence,” citing old decisions that cut against his conclusory assertions.

Clearly, Barrett is growing tired of her colleague’s bogus originalism: She also criticized his highly selective frolic through the archives in last term’s Samia v. U.S. , questioning his reliance on a somewhat random “snapshot” of history to cut back protections of the Sixth Amendment. “The court overclaims,” the justice wrote then, risking “undermining the force of historical arguments when they matter most.”

But this time, Barrett’s critique cuts much deeper: Thomas, she wrote, “never explains why hunting for historical forebears on a restriction-by-restriction basis is the right way to analyze the constitutional question.” The majority “presents tradition itself as the constitutional argument,” as though it is “dispositive of the First Amendment issue,” without any “theoretical justification.” In a passage that must have made the liberal justices proud, Barrett continued: “Relying exclusively on history and tradition may seem like a way of avoiding judge-made tests. But a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test. And I do not see a good reason to resolve this case using that approach rather than by adopting a generally applicable principle.” Plucking out historical anecdotes, ad libbing some connective tissue, then presenting the result as a constitutional principle “misses the forest for the trees.” When applying “broadly worded” constitutional text, “courts must inevitably articulate principles to resolve individual cases.” This approach brings sorely needed “clarity to the law.”

Barrett sketched out a better path: assessing the “names clause” within a framework “grounded in both trademark law and First Amendment precedent.” When the government “opens its property to speech,” she wrote, restrictions are permissible so long as they aren’t cover for the “official suppression of ideas.” Thus, courts should uphold trademark laws if they “are reasonable in light of the trademark system’s purpose.”

Why did Barrett spill so much ink repudiating Thomas’ opinion when the two justices landed in the same place? Her opinion reads like a rebuttal of Bruen , Thomas’ 2022 decision establishing a novel right to carry guns in public—which Barrett joined in full. Bruen marked a sea change because it upended the way courts looked at firearm restrictions. Previously, the courts of appeals applied heightened scrutiny to gun laws, asking whether the regulation was carefully drawn to further public safety. SCOTUS applies this test in countless other contexts, including the First Amendment and equal protection. It requires judges to balance the interests on both sides, a well-worn tool of judicial review. Yet Thomas spurned this “means-ends scrutiny,” demanding that courts rely exclusively on the nation’s “history and tradition”: A gun restriction, he wrote, is only constitutional if it has a sufficient number of “historical analogues” from the distant past.

This brand-new test has flummoxed the lower courts and led to ludicrous outcomes —partly because judges are not historians and have no reliable way to produce a complete historical record, and also because American society has evolved to the point that a great deal of “tradition” now looks barbaric . This term, the Supreme Court has been confronted with the fallout from Bruen in a follow-up called Rahimi , which asks whether domestic abusers have a right to bear arms . During oral arguments in Rahimi , Barrett sounded deeply uncomfortable with what her court had wrought. Rahimi has not yet been decided. But Barrett’s concurrence in Elster reads like a preview of her opinion in that case. The justice seems to have second thoughts about pinning constitutional interpretation entirely on a court’s amateur historical analysis; she now seems to see the immense value in “adopting a generally applicable principle” that courts can apply across cases.

The liberal justices were right there alongside Barrett in Elster , gladly signing on to her more sensible approach to the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a separate concurrence raising many of Barrett’s objections, taking more explicit aim at Bruen and the “confusion” it has caused. And some of Barrett’s Elster concurrence echoes a recent opinion by Justice Elena Kagan—which Barrett notably joined—that offered an alternative to Thomas’ rigid focus on founding-era history in a case upholding the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This shadowboxing foreshadows a bitter split in Rahimi , though with Barrett and the liberals appear poised to wind up on the winning side. There’s no doubt that Barrett is still a Second Amendment enthusiast , but with one more vote, this bloc is well positioned to walk back the excesses of Bruen . What’s certain right now is that the justice, at a minimum, has serious doubts about the legitimacy and workability of this Supreme Court’s sloppy, results-oriented originalism . That doesn’t mean Barrett has abandoned her broader commitment to the conservative legal movement’s cause. But it does signal a disillusionment with conservative orthodoxies that could put her vote up for grabs in cases much more important than a trademark dispute.

This is part of Opinionpalooza , Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. Alongside Amicus , we kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law . The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus . (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch !)

'You have to shed the tears': Justice shares that she cries after some Supreme Court cases

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor revealed last week that there are days on the nation’s highest court that take an emotional toll.

“There are days that I’ve come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried,” Sotomayor said Friday at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, where she was receiving an award. “There have been those days. And there are likely to be more.”

Sotomayor, who is the most senior liberal-leaning justice on the court, didn't cite any specific cases or arguments that have moved her to tears.

“There are moments when I’m deeply, deeply sad,” she said. “And there are moments when, yes, even I feel desperation. We all do. But you have to own it. You have to accept it. You have to shed the tears, and then you have to wipe them and get up and fight some more.”

Sotomayor’s comments come as the Supreme Court is expected to rule on contentious cases in the coming weeks, handing down decisions on issues ranging from abortion rights to guns and free speech . The court is also expected to rule on former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity as he faces sweeping criminal charges alleging he tried to steal the 2020 election.

But Friday didn’t mark the first time Sotomayor opened up about some of the personal impacts of serving on the court. The justice, 69, told students at the University of California, Berkley, School of Law earlier this year that she is “working harder than I ever have,” offering a rare glimpse of life on a bench dominated by conservatives.

''I live in frustration," she said in January. “Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart."

Sotomayor, appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2009, is one of three current Supreme Court justices who have been appointed by Democrats. They often offer pointed and sometimes emotional dissents on controversial decisions, like the one in 2022 on abortion that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Sotomayor, along with former Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan, called the decision overturning Roe v. Wade "catastrophic" in a heated dissent at the time.

Contributing: Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY

IMAGES

rhetorical analysis draft
Rhetorical Analysis Presentation: "A Latina Judge's Voice" by Sonia Sotomayor
Rhetorical Analysis of Sonia Sotomayor's Speech on Cultural
AP Language Rhetorical Analysis: Sonia Sotomayor Speech Excerpt-Quiz
Analyzing the Rhetorical Choices of Sonia Sotomayor: A
Sonia Sotomayor, A Latina Justice’s Voice: Practice with Rhetorical

VIDEO

Should Justice Sotomayor Retire To Protect Seat?
Debate Over Sonia Sotomayor
Judge Sonia Sotomayor "Wise Latina" Speech, Part 2
Writing Rhetorical Analysis was HARD Until I Did THIS!
Sotomayor Floor Speech
Sonia Sotomayor: A Judge Grows in the Bronx

COMMENTS

PDF AP English Language and Composition
Rhetorical Analysis 6 points . Born in New York City to Puerto Rican parents, Sonia Sotomayor was appointed a United States Supreme Court Justice in 2009, becoming the first Latina justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. She delivered the speech "A Latina Judge's Voice" at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in
Lecture: 'A Latina Judge's Voice'
The following is a text of a 2001 lecture delivered by appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor. It was published in a 2002 issue of the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal and it is reproduced here with ...
A Latina Judge's Voice
In this 2001 lecture, Sonia Sotomayor (1954-), then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, addressed the status of women and minorities on the bench. The speech attracted little attention at the time, but it became a source of controversy after President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court in 2009.
Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor's Speech at ...
Sotomayor talked about her Latina identity and how it affects her work on the bench. Today, President Obama nominated Sotomayor as his first appointment to the Supreme Court. This speech was originally published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002.] "A Latina Judge's Voice". By Sonia Sotomayor.
Sotomayor's "Latina Judge's Voice" Speech Revisited:
After some consideration, I have decided that Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 speech, "A Latina Judge's Voice" deserves more extensive analysis than I gave it in a previous post. I still believe that the speech shows that Sotomayor thinks that judges can often legitimately base decisions in part on their racial or ethnic backgrounds. I especially think […]
Rhetorical Analysis Presentation: "A Latina Judge's Voice" by Sonia
About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features NFL Sunday Ticket Press Copyright ...
Rhetorical Analysis of Sotomayor's "A Latina Judges Voice"
Rhetorical Analysis of Sotomayor's "A Latina Judges Voice" - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 speech "A Latina Judge's Voice" explores her cultural identity as a daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants. She shares personal anecdotes of family traditions, tastes, and sounds that fostered her identity.
Containing Sotomayor: Rhetorics of personal restraint, judicial
Latino Heterogeneity and Geographic Variation in Web Searches for Judge Sonia Sotomayor," Political Communication 30, no. 1 (2013): 81-99; Guy- Uriel Charles, Daniel L. Chen, and Mitu Gulati, "Sonia Sotomayor and the Construction of Merit," Emory Law Journal 61, no. 4 (2012): 801-61.
PDF Question 2 Suggested time—40 minutes
She delivered the speech "A Latina Judge's Voice" at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2001 when she was an appeals-court judge. The following passage is an excerpt from that speech. Read the passage carefully. Write an essay that analyzes the rhetorical choices Sotomayor makes to convey her message about her identity.
Free Rhetorical Analysis Unit
I decided to introduce rhetorical analysis of a film by screening Ava Du Vernay's 13th, which is available on Netflix or free on YouTube. ... The test. Most of our students take AP Lang exams, so I gave them the 2021 AP Lang rhetorical analysis (Sonia Sotomayor's speech) as a timed writing practice. We debriefed the prompt after the timed ...
A rhetorical praxis of rebellious knowledge production: Justice Sonia
ABSTRACT In 2016, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a stunning legal opinion that challenged the Supreme Court's ruling in Utah v. Strieff and marked a watershed moment for her voice of dissent. In this essay, I argue that Justice Sotomayor's Strieff dissent was animated by a praxis of rebellious knowledge production - disruptive moves of legal opinion writing that rework interpretive ...
PDF AP English Language and Composition
Rhetorical Analysis 6 points . Born in New York City to Puerto Rican parents, Sonia Sotomayor was appointed a United States Supreme Court Justice in 2009, becoming the first ... She delivered the speech "A Latina Judge's Voice" at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2001 when she was an appeals-court judge. The ...
PDF An Analysis of the Rhetorical Choices in Sotomayor's Speech
An Analysis of the Rhetorical Choices in Sotomayor's Speech Born in New York City to Puerto Rican parents, Sonia Sotomayor made history in 2009 when she became the first Latina justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Her speech, 'A Latina Judge's Voice,' delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in
"A Latina Judge's Voice"
Introduction. Sonia Maria Sotomayor was appointed an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by Barack Obama in May 2009 and confirmed in August of the same year. She is the first Latina justice to serve on the Court, and only the third woman. Although Sotomayor is considered to be a progressive, her views on the inherent differences ...
A Latina Judge's Voice by Tara Fort on Prezi
In the following video, Sonia faces the allegations and attempts to clear the air by dubbing her infamous quote a "rhetorical flourish" meaning it was an expression used solely for the rhetorical effect. Sotomayor's speech, written in 2001, called "A Latina Judge's Voice" was published in 2002 in the Spring issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.
Full Text: Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Speech
TIME. May 26, 2009 12:00 AM EDT. T hank you, Mr. President, for the most humbling honor of my life. You have nominated me to serve on the country's highest court, and I am deeply moved. I could ...
RA Essay (Sotomayor Prompt)
Rhetorical Analysis FRQ on Sonia Sotomayor prompt. Subject. AP English Language & Composition. 999+ Documents. Students shared 1331 documents in this course. Level AP. School Fresno High School (CA) - Fresno. Academic year: 2023/2024. ... Sonia Sotomayor argues, in her 2001 speech, 'A La 9 na Judge's Truth,' that people's differences ...
Sonia Sotomayor, A Latina Justice's Voice: Practice with Rhetorical
The entire lessons act as a building of context for a rhetorical analysis on Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's speech, "A Latina Justice's Voice," at the University of California Law School in Berkeley in 2001. There is a Project Based Learning involving a visual essay with 3 samples.
Please grade my rhetorical analysis essay : r/APStudents
Here is my rhetorical analysis essay responding to the 2022 AP Lang prompt (Sonia Sotomayor speech). I don't have anyone to grade it and would appreciate any feedback. Thank you. Pretty good, definitely 1 3 0 at least. That's what I'd go with but I could see someone else giving it a 1 4 0. Basically you talk a lot about the evidence and what ...
AP Language Rhetorical Analysis: Sonia Sotomayor Speech Excerpt-Quiz
Here are 12 MCQs based on the excerpt from "A Latina Judge's Voice" by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This excerpt was used as the Rhetorical Analysis Essay prompt on the 2022 AP Language Exam. Questions focus on author's purpose, claims, evidence, inference, juxtaposition, and parallelism. Text of excerpt is free and available online ...
Analyzing the Rhetorical Choices of Sonia Sotomayor: A
Born in New York City to Puerto Rican parents, Sonia Sotomayor was appointed a United States Supreme Court Justice in 2009, becoming the first Latina justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. She delivered the speech "A Latina Judge's Voice" at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2001 when she was an appeals-court judge. The following passage is an excerpt from that speech.
Analyzing Sonia Sotomayor's Rhetorical Choices: AP English
View ap22-apc-english-language-q2.pdf from ENGLISH 1890/1990 at Sacred Heart Academy. 2022 AP English Language and Composition ® Sample Student Responses and Scoring Commentary Inside: Free-Response
A Rhetorical Analysis Of Sonia Sotomayor's Speech
A Rhetorical Analysis Of Sonia Sotomayor's Speech. U.S Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, a former professor at NYU School of law was honored to receive the Doctors of Law degree, and there she delivered the NYU's 180th Commencement to all the graduates and faculty at the Yankee Stadium on May 16, 2012. In this Commencement Sotomayor was greatly ...
Rhetorical Analysis of Sonia Sotomayor's Speech on Cultural
Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 speech at the University of California, Berkeley highlights her experiences and the cultural significance of her life as a Latina woman. 8. Highlight the thesis statement in the introduction (above). 9. Then underline the rhetorical choices the student includes in the thesis statement.
Amy Coney Barrett fed up with Clarence Thomas' sloppy originalism?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a separate concurrence raising many of Barrett's objections, taking more explicit aim at Bruen and the "confusion" it has caused.
Sonia Sotomayor shares that she cries after some Supreme Court cases
Sotomayor's comments come as the Supreme Court is expected to rule on contentious cases in the coming weeks, handing down decisions on issues ranging from abortion rights to guns and free speech ...

Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’

Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s Speech at Berkeley Law in 2001

Sotomayor’s “Latina Judge’s Voice” Speech Revisited:

huffenglish.com

Share this:

Issues, ideas, and discussion in English Education and Technology

A rhetorical praxis of rebellious knowledge production: Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s outsider jurisprudence in Utah v. Strieff

33 References

“A Latina Judge’s Voice”

Introduction

Our Democratic Constitution

Check out our collection of primary source readers

Full Text: Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Speech

More Must-Reads from TIME

Get the Reddit app

Please grade my rhetorical analysis essay

AP Language Rhetorical Analysis: Sonia Sotomayor Speech Excerpt-Quiz

Also included in

Description

Questions & Answers

Amy Coney Barrett Sounds Fed Up with Clarence Thomas’ Sloppy Originalism

'You have to shed the tears': Justice shares that she cries after some Supreme Court cases

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS