A few people have proposed the equation racism = power + prejudice

which I think is a bad use of mathematical symbols. If true, then it is equally true that:

racism - power = prejudice, which is perhaps defensible, but can you defend

power = racism - prejudice?

Making some sociological concept all "sciency" or "proofy" by using mathematical symbols generally leads to silly conclusions, and it is generally best just to keep to words.

For cases about how discriminatory policies of the Catholic Church affect people outside the Catholic Church, don't you think you would make a "better" judge than somebody who was born into the Catholic Church and never left?

I am not so hasty to disregard personal experience, that's all. And, as Sotomayor said "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 ...heritage."

Statistically, yes. White judges ARE better for white defendants. If you are only concerned about the defendant and not justice, then having a person of the same ethnic background will be "better".

For misguided souls like me (unlike enlightened beings like you) who think of racial and sexual discrimination as a bad thing, then I would think that someone who has firsthand experience with discrimination would, more often than not, come to a "better" conclusion than someone who had not.

The comment was, very specifically, in the context of cases of racial and sexual discrimination in a lecture about how personal experience affects a judges viewpoint. I "would hope" as well that someone with a lifetime of direct experience of racial and sexual discrimination would make a "better" judgment in discrimination cases than someone "who hasn't lived that life".

She didn't say she would be a "better" judge overall than a white man. She didn't say she was a "better" judge overall that Oliver Wendell Holmes. She said that she "hoped" that having personal experience of something should make her better capable of making a judgment on that something, which is why it is important to have people from a variety of backgrounds and experiences in the judiciary, despite the fact that all judges "aspire" to be impartial.

whether that armed force is the force of a state or the irregular forces of an armed group like al-Qaida.

What is an "an irregular force of an armed group like al-qaida"? That is the crux of the matter, is that he is extending the justification of wartime activity into an ill-defined arena of who and what it can be applied to. Who makes the decision of what an "irregular force" is? The presidency took unto itself the power to declare war against another state around the time of the Korean War (in flagrant violation of the Constitution). Bush had taken unto the presidency the power to initiate warlike activity against whatever group it damn well pleases. And the Obama administration has just issued a statement saying very clearly,"yep, I want to keep that 'right'".

Scary is as scary does.

There is considerable justice in the claim that criminal law is inadequate for what are referred to as terrorists - for example, ordinary criminals do not carry out suicide attacks.

Actually, I am always struck by how many of the criminals who go on shooting sprees end it by committing suicide. Or people who kill their families.

It is a criminal activity. Organized crime, but still crime. at least, Al qaeda type "terrorism" is (quotes because there is so little consistency in how that word is used anyway, I do think that "terrorists" such as this country's founding fathers and other revolutionaries are in a bit of a different class).

That's getting away from your false premise however. Anybody willing to kill is at some level willing to risk dying to do it. If you choose to create a kill or be killed situation, you must expect the person(s) you are trying to kill and those around them to do anything they can to prevent that, which means you are knowingly risking your own life as well. Truly dangerous criminals are generally people who don't care much about their own lives. Most expect to eventually be caught. Most don't expect to live long lives. There really is very little that makes a "terrorist" any different than the some 20,000 people who commit murder every year in this country. A worldwide police state isn't a good answer for murder, whether you call murder "terrorism" or not.