From my limited understanding these quotes are taken out of context. Apparently the main focus of the original quote was the overriding need to work within the law and not from a preconceived opinion or to be an activist judge.
However STANDPOINT THEORY places great importance on where you come from and what life experiences you have had.
Whilst many wise white men may sympathize with a poor non-white women they will NEVER know what it is actually like to a member of a minority.

Foxy, Fractelle, beefyboy,
The mind boggles!
Where to start?
The logical outcome of your “reasoning” is a quota-filled Supreme Court:
Male, female, black, white, Hispanic, Jew, Muslim, homosexual, lesbian, rich, poor, etc on a proportional basis according to demographics.
Hang on, better scrap white males.
Would white females be OK? They're a victim group.
Then with each case only those who know what it’s like to be F/B/W/H/J/M/H/L/R/P/etc should sit in judgement.
They must be sure to show appropriate sympathy for their own type.
So long as they declare that they “struggle constantly with remaining impartial and letting reason rule” they should not be judged on their judgements, no matter how absurd.
But is it enough?
How can somebody who has never murdered somebody in the heat of passion really know the murderer’s struggle?
Surely only a murderer can judge a murderer?
Foxy,
<<'The Supreme Court…was uniformly white and male, when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination.' Did anyone bother to question their impartiality? Or Their 'opinions, sympathies, and prejudices?' I doubt it. No one would dare!>>
This statement is logically flawed (although I'm sure your "no one would dare" statement is impeccably researched and supported by evidence).
If they “delivered historic rulings AGAINST racial and sexual discrimination” on what basis would you then “question their impartiality, opinions, sympathies and prejudices?”
You people think that objections to Sotomayor are based on the fact that she’s not white and male. Scalia is a Latino (in the true sense and not the racialised sense) and Ginsberg is female. So what?
Sotomayor’s previous decisions demonstrate that she’s not fit.
The Supreme Court vacancy should be filled based on merit not racial quotas.
I suppose you couldn't expect anything else from an affirmative action president than affirmative action Supreme Court judges.
By the way beefyboy, white males are a minority in the USA.
Maybe you should have used the term oppressed minority or victim.

Dear KMB,

I've finally figured it out...

And seeing as you so like my quotes
here's another one for you:

"The rich man in his castle.
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high and lowly,
And ordered their estate."

Societies are rarely homogeneous, although often
one particular group assumes power. In Australia,
Britain and the United States because of historical
circumstances, this has been the Anglo-Celtic
group.

So, of course some people are going to get upset
when less powerful groups demand a larger share
of the place in the sun, or a more equitable
system (in the case of Sonia Sotomayor) of the Law.

I understand where you're coming from KMB - and
you're not alone, but you do have to try to remember
that the only constant in life is change so the
sooner you get used to it, the easier it will be for
you. Because like it or not - it's going to happen
anyway.

Cheers.

"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."

I for one am struggling to understand why so many think this is a racist/sexist statement. If we remove the racial/gender references, the statement is clearly true:

I would hope that a wise X with the richness of experiences would more oftent than not reach a better conclusion than a Y who hasn't lived that life.

Consider:

A The statement is always true provided you believe X = Y

B It would also be true if you believed that X>Y (racist/sexist belief).

C It might be false if you believed that Y>X (racists/sexist belief)

It follows that the nominee's belief in the statement is entirely consistent with a belief in either A or B.

Although I haven't studdied any of her judgments in detail, a more common sense interpretation of why she included a reference to race and gender, was to acknowledge them as issues and make the point to those with racist/sexist beliefs, that a wise/experienced person from either/both of those demographics would still make a better decision than an unwise/less experienced person from any other demographic (including a white male). Whilst it would have been prudent for a judicial officer to avoid acknowledging the existence of racist/sexist attitudes in the context of a judgement, the statement is plainly consistent with a non racist/sexist belief system. Without more, the critics of the nominee ought to be a little slower to judge her.

As to the comments on judicial activisim, some of the posters seem obsessed with the idea that it is wrong for judges to use their own judgment on a case by case basis. However, there is no alternative to judges using their own fallible human discretion because:

1) Whilst precedents are used to establish consistency in the rulings of judges, the value of precedents is profoundly limited because facts in all cases vary. A lower court will not be bound by a precedent if it can be convinced that the logic behind the ruling in the earlier precedent would have been different if made in the context of the facts in the later case. In every case a fallible human judge has to consider: "Would I have ruled differently in the previous case if the facts before me were those before me today?"

2) Judges regularly have rule on legislation which is poorly drafted and/or open to alternate interpretations and there is no viable alternative for them but to 'interpret' the law. When they do so, they are unaviodably making law, and to the extent the law has to be 'created' it inevitably reflects the background and prejudices of the judge in question (who can only create a 'just' law in the context of what he/she believes is just). Such judges are often labelled 'activists' by those who do not like their decisions, but the dissatisfaction of critics just as plainly reflects the critic's own prejudices and background.

Ultimately then, whilst it is inevitiable (and appropriate) that elected representatives want to know about the underlying political beliefs of the judges they appoint, a degree of activism in judges is inevitable no matter what their political persuasion.

Kalin1,
Your XY argument boils down to:
Sotomayor said that wise people make better decisions than not-wise people which is true so what's wrong with that.
Trouble is that she cast herself as wise and white males as not wise.
(This is the "If we remove the racial/gender references" part which we are conveniently meant to ignore).
If any white male had made the opposite case they would of course be hounded out of office but every progressive is twisting themselves in knots trying to justify Sotomayor saying it.
It's embarrassing to watch and would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high.
<<Without more, the critics of the nominee ought to be a little slower to judge her.>>
Here's more...
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2396
I hope you can read the above article, unlike the woman who failed her law exam because she couldn't read.
Never mind, Sotomayor declared her illiteracy to be a disability and so she was passed anyway.
Then there was the blind man who failed his pilot's exam...just kidding,
but this is where you end up when you follow Sotomayor down her yellow brick road to the relativist swamp.
But I can see you've already taken up residence there.
Summing up the progressive's "argument"...
Diversity is good.
If Sotomayor is on the Supreme Court it will be more diverse.
Therefore it is good that Obama nominated her.
If she makes decisions that increase diversity, even gooder.
Anything else doesn't enter into it, let alone reason or logic.