She's a member of the "Latino KKK."
She's a "racist."
She's derisive of white culture for pronouncing her name the way it is pronounced (with emphasis on the -or).
She will perform poorly if "the key conferences are when she's menstruating."
She "was combative, opinionated, argumentative" while serving with judge Sam Alito on the 2nd Court of Appeals. Only, she never served with Sam Alito. She was on the 2nd, he was on the 3rd.
And regarding her statement about a "wise Latina woman" making better decisions than a white male? Read the entire speech here: nytimes.com
But here is an excerpt:
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.
This does not strike me as earth-shattering information. Who you are and the experiences of your life affect your perspective. I grew up eating government cheese and not having a ton of money. That absolutely affects how I see issues; it doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to judge a case on its merits. It simply means I would likely have different questions for the plaintiffs, a different type of BS meter than perhaps someone who grew up comfortably wealthy.
More importantly, note where she says clearly, "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."
There is not one controversial note in that speech, as far as I'm concerned. But if the GOP wants to take one sentence and make it the whole issue, then have at it. If the GOP wants to reduce a Supreme Court nominee to the basis of "woman, Latina" with "angry" thrown in there for stereotypical effect, then have at it. If the GOP wants to equate how a person pronounces her name with all manner of "reverse-racist" beliefs, have at it. I'm sure fans of Albert Pujols, Daisuke Matsuzaka, and Toni Kukoc assume similar nefarious beliefs about them.
I say the GOP should just keep on havin' at it. After all, I like a Democratic White House.