Sotomayor is legitimately stupid and unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. She's an intellectual lightweight similar to, but not as bad as, Kamala Harris.
At oral argument, Sotomayor confused the difference between "de jure" [mandated by law] and "de facto" [existing in fact irrespective of the law] segregation.
She said "we certainly have de jure segregation. Races are treated very differently in our society in terms of their access to opportunity."
So she's wrong in two ways there. First, she means discrimination, not segregation. Second, she described de facto discrimination - which does exist and is called affirmative action - not de jure, as it isn't imposed by law. Though we all know she doesn't see affirmative action as discrimination, so she must have meant this nebulous and fictional "systemic racism" the libs always claim exists without ever being able to prove with evidence apart from "well black people do worse so that must be because of racism", when the true cause is inferior black choices and priorities.
Alito then asked "Are you aware of de jure segregation today?" knowing the lawyer would answer "I am not" because it's obvious to everyone except Sotomayor.
Rather than realize her error and take the L, Sotomayor immediately responded by doubling down: she claimed that "large swaths" of the US has "residential segregation" [nope], and that "large numbers" of schools or school districts only have one race [again, no and that would be illegal, with a handful of exceptions for black-only schools]. She then claimed "De jure to me means places are segregated. The causes may be different, but places are segregated in our country."
This is the classic "I'm not wrong, I just define the words in my own way" tactic redditors often use to transform any argument into an "unwinnable" semantic argument. In other words, it's a retard tactic. De jure literally means imposed by law. She argued [wrongly] de facto, and then called it de jure.
There is no actual law for affirmative action, that’s the difference between dejure and defacto. A practice that is legally allowed/or currently unchallenged is defacto, a practice that is explicitly allowed under law is dejure.
Same as there is no law for DACA, government funding for something still doesn’t constitute “law”.
There's also the farm loans only given to black farmers, but I really doubt anti-white government racism is what she meant.
These people believe that racism is a cause, so any time there is disparity it means government didn't prevent racism from causing the disparity, and they think government didn't prevent it on purpose because of white people. So in her warped head she really means the law and this is where dekachin is dumb to try to fit her words into actual reality; you have to fit her words into her reality to understand in what way she's wrong.
In actual reality racism is the effect. People see that neighborhoods get worse when blacks move in, the 5x violence, and so on and that makes them segregate and avoid blacks. If Thanos snapped his fingers and only peaceful, law abiding blacks were left then racism would fade out immediately and be gone in just years because even hard core racists would go into black Wendy's and see it's actually clean, with pleasant staff, and the food is prepared well and every time that would knock it down a notch.
This. I don't believe that most cops join the police hating blacks, but after years of answering calls disproportionately involving blacks, they're bound to form an opinion. That's the so-called "institutional racism"- a shift in behavior based on the reality they've encountered.
Racism: "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities"
Blacks would literally stop being black, their hair would uncurl, and their facial features would become human-like?