Below is the speech that Sotomayor gave in 2001 at Berkeley, California. The "controversial" part is near the end. The below are the key paragraphs which provide the key context which is being left out by the media. Clearly Judge Sotomayor is referring to Discrimination Cases. The italicized sentence is the supposedly "controversial" one.
"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."
SO IF SOMEONE JUST DOESN'T GET IT, and still buys this right-wing talking point, here is my strategy:
Ask your (presumably) devout Christian friend what it would be like having 9 athiests on the Supreme Court and how that would affect the Court's rulings on religious expression; or, if rather, having a few religious persons on the Court might lead to better decisions? Or ask a NRA member whether having a gun owner on the Court would benefit its 2nd Amendment jurisprudence (assuming there is going to continue to be one). If they have any ounce of honesty, they will tell you it would make a positive difference. Ask a libertarian or republican whether a Supreme Court of Justices who rent would make equally good decisions in Takings Clause cases? You get the picture.
STATE BLOGS
