I’m not sure why the broader context of Sotomayor’s Latina Lecture is any better than the “wise Latina” line everyone quotes. My friend Rod Dreher pronounces himself much relieved by this passage below, but then leaves out two key sentences that follow. I’ve italicized those two sentences and bolded phrases that indicate Sotomayor thinks that it might not be possible to be objective in most cases, that putting aside personal predilections based on race and gender might be positively harmful, and that people might have “basic differences in logic and reasoning” based on their race and gender. The passage:

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