Sotomayor: Both A Racist And A Sexist

I know it makes lefty heads explode, but yes, non-white non-males can be racists and/or sexists.  Sotomayor is both--she has repeatedly said, using slightly different words, that a Latina woman should be a better judge than a white male because of her life experiences.  This is a wanton embrace of racism, sexism, and, more deeply, subjectivism.  But it should be no surprise that the left has leaped to the defense of this woman: subjectivism (and racism and sexism) are a-okay with leftists, so long, of course, as the subject (in this case, Sotomayor) subjectively prefers the right sorts of people (racial minorities, women, the powerless) to the wrong sorts of people (whites, men, the powerful).  Here is an example of a leftist proudly embracing the subjectivism David Brooks is so fond of--not only embracing it, but also expressing incredulity that anyone could think that objectivity is possible:

"Reading David Brooks' 'case for an emotional justice' (sure to draw sneers from 'purer' conservatives), it occurred [sic--should be a "to" here] me: What's troubling me about the Sotomayor critics rambling on with such arch intellectual piety about how a jurists' emotions and experiences shouldn't inform her interpretations of the law isn't that I suspect these grumblers are racist or sexist or hard-hearted; it's that they really seem to believe that certain people (themselves included, of course) operate largely free from such messy, imprecise, irrational influences.

"Not to state the obvious, but an upper-middle class white guy reared in the suburbs is shaped by his experiences, carries certain assumptions, and views the world through a particular prism as much as a working-glass Puerto Rican gal from the Bronx, or, for that matter, the half-black son of a single mom raised in Hawaii. The person belonging to the cultural/ethnic/religious/gender/racial demographic that has traditionally dominated a field (and thus whose perspective has long been the default) may not have given as much thought to his prism as a member of a non-dominant group. But that does not make his prism a neutral one. It aimply allows him to more freely indulge his delusions of pure rationality and objectivity.

"In his column, Brooks wonders if Sotomayor 'is aware of the murky, flawed, and semiprimitive nature of her own decision-making, and has she accounted for her own uncertainty.[sic--should be an end-quote here.] It's a sensible question--and one that many high-minded legal experts, politicians, and other members of the chattering class clearly could stand to ask themselves."

What's troubling me is the extent to which lefties think that they can get away with being racists and sexists because they feel "empathy"  for the "oppressed."  Maybe they can get away with it and get Sotomayor onto the court, given the rotten state of our culture, but I won't let it pass without comment.  Whether they know it or not, anyone who supports the moderately racist and sexist Sonia Sotomayor has no case against the moderately racist Lawrence Auster.  Of course, lefties don't think they need to make a case for their views since shouting "racist" at all of their opponents, racist or not--while nominating an actual racist to the Supreme Court--has proven so effective.

UPDATE: I've broken my pledge to stop mentioning Auster, but I do think his case and that of Sotomayor are analagous: I doubt very much that he ever dons a white hood or that she says "kill whitey!" when among her comrades, but both are racists nonetheless--hence my claim that they are both "moderately racist."  In a rare move for me, I'll solicit opinions from my readers: is my pledge appropriate?

UPDATE II: Bob Sanders has some thoughts in the comments.