Message to Republicans: Attacking Sotomayor is Another Nail in Your Coffin
It's been utterly fascinating to witness the speed and consistency of the vitriol heaped on Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's choice to replace David Souter on the United States Supreme Court. Since Obama made his nomination public last week, the right wing attack machine's kicked into high gear, acting like a collective bunch of rapacious vultures circling above Sotomayor like she's some fly-infested roadkill.
Sotomayor's critics are waging a multi-front war, consisting mainly of charges of racism and judicial activism, despite the fact that nothing in the jurist's record of roughly 400 decisions supports either claim.
At the core of the controversy is a statement Judge Sotomayor made during a 2001 lecture at the UC Berkeley School of Law:
"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."
Probably not the best choice of words, as Sotomayor herself has now admitted, but hardly the basis for the unconscionable label of racist being slapped on her by the right. Leading that charge is former House Speaker, liar, philanderer and scandal-plagued book author Newt Gingrich:
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old," Gingrich said, adding, "A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."
But there's no "there" there. Both Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito have made similar comments about their ethnicity and how it's shaped and influenced them, as it should. Can someone tell me the difference between Sotomayor's comment and a statement Alito made during his 2006 confirmation hearing?: "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account." Funny how we didn't get charges of racism levied at Alito from our hypocritical Republican pals. The notion that a liberal Puerto Rican woman from a poor New York City upbringing is racist is an absurd and reprehensible accusation. And it shows not only how desperate Republicans are to undermine the Obama administration, but the shameful levels they'll stoop to in doing so.
Obama himself kicked up the dust earlier in the month when he stated the virtues he believes which are important in a potential SCOTUS justice:
"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."
Conservatives were quick to raise the red flag on the president's "empathy" comment, claiming it demonstrated a radical view of the role of one who sits on the High Court's bench. First of all, the word "empathy" is not a pejorative term to be feared, but rather a human emotion/virtue to be appreciated and admired, especially in the context of making critical decisions which profoundly impact the lives of individuals as well as businesses and governments. We saw what eight years of cowboy arrogance did for the country. Besides, empathy is not a term that only President Obama has introduced into America's judicial lexicon. George H. W. Bush Sr. used it in the same vein when explaining his choice of Clarence "Sexual Harassment" Thomas back in 1991.
Sotomayor's detractors argue, albeit in shameless partisan fashion, that she's not just racist, but one who'll serve the court as a liberal activist not a strict constructionist who will interpret law and not make it. It is truly ridiculous, naive and unrealistic to think that there's some black and white road map that all justices typically follow when hearing and deciding cases. If that were true, there'd never be dissension, never be split votes. The SCOTUS judges would always see things through the same lens and vote unanimously. As we know, that's not what happens. Obviously, the law is gray. And often very gray. With much of it open to the injection of one's personal views and life experiences. Therefore, it's a bit disingenuous, yet not terribly surprising, that "empathy" is at the heart of the Sotomayor controversy.
Then there's the attempt to impugn Sotomayor's qualifications. One media wingnut groaned that "there's got to be more of a reason for her getting the appointment than that she's Hispanic and came from a poor family." What a nitwit. Sotomayor brings more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Funny how our sore-losing bigoted friends on the right overlook this little factoid when attempting to minimize Sotomayor's credentials and overall merit.
Let's face it: what's really at issue here is that rich white men are pissed off at the thought that her appointment was the result of her being Puerto Rican and because she grew up poor. Pretty ironic coming from a segment of the population that holds most of the power in the business, financial, entertainment, political and judicial sectors. They're pissed because this sort of entitlement is usually reserved for them. If a top job's gonna go to someone because of their race, doggonnit it's gonna be them! In case you haven't noticed, rich white men don't like it when their privilege and power is usurped.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"but hardly the basis for the unconscionable label of racist "
Apparently it is unconscionable to call a statement made by liberal racist but ok for huffpo posters to call and assume that white men are all rich evil racists.
"The notion therefore that a liberal Puerto Rican woman from a poor New York City upbringing is racist is an absurd and reprehensible accusation."
The author has obviously never spent any time in a working class neighborhood. Many of the most racist people are the poor minorities (and whites) who think they have to fight with each other for a slice of the pie. That is why her statement is so troubling and offensive. The elites who are saying how dare you question her don't experience the damage that communities divided by race creates. They live in neighborhoods where the only minorities are doctors and lawyers and nobody is struggling. She seems to be giving credence to dangerous and divisive identity politics. If she did not mean what the text of her statement implies then she should clarify instead of giving cover to all the racists who see a potential supreme court justice who shares their racist viewpoint.
See Andy Ostroy's Profile
Sorry to shatter your fantasy of me bro, but I'm the son of a NYC taxi driver and spent the first 20 years of my life in the very racially mixed, blue-collar town of Far Rockaway in Queens County NY where I shared a bedroom with 2 other brothers, went straight through the public school system, was bussed into the minority neighborhood of Arverne NY for JHS (where I was in the 5% white minority student population), and whose grandparents lived in the Redfern Housing Projects.
Why is it that it's always Republicans who lecture on what it means to be poor and of the working class?
You want a little cheese with that whine? For your information everyone has struggled at some point in their life, during childhood or adulthood. So why does Ms Sotomayor seem to think she has the corner on the market for personal difficulty, or you either, for that matter, The only reason she is where she is at this time in her life is because she was able to access and capitalize on the resouces to acheive the American dream. Trust me, no doubt it was a stuggle and she deserves coodos for her determination, but her racial comments where and are heart felt. That is obvious to me and many, many others as well. White racism in this Country is a fact that cannot be disputed.
And all these so called Liberal intelligent people, seem to have one way out of any substantive arguement and that is to slam Bush, or Rush, or Hannity, etc. It makes no difference. To me that is not intelligence, but a serious lack of it. It makes the Liberals look petty and intellectually handicapped.
good point.
So what's the author's message here? Speak out against a candidate that they feel is wrong for the court and the punishment is that they cease to exist?! So the GOP has to "go along with" all of obama's mistakes, bad picks and horrible policies? What if they are actually right (as I believe they are) aout sotomayor? obama gets to implement all of his extreme leftist policies that are destroying everything that made this country great, and he gets a "pass" because he's the "first...," or the "chosen" one? I'm glad the GOP in speaking up in defense of taxpayers and against obama's economy destroying, socialistic policies. It's too bad that members of the democratic party are apparently too gutless to stand against the "popular" guy. They say "everyone rises to the level of his incompetence." That is so true about the current administration.
Isn't her husband in the Bloomberg administration?
There is no husband, pablo.
Republican "Con"-servatives: privately against everything they appear to champion publicly. As distinguished from authentic conservatives, who are, like authentic progressives, guided by sound principles in their policy-making. In fact, the side-show snake oil salesmen and -women purveying their false brand of wash-and-wear morality give the rest of us pause for a very good reason: we know, deep down, we can't trust them. Profoundly self-contradictory policy stances are the best argument for keeping them as far from power as possible. After all, who in their right mind would tolerate philosophical sociopaths (Gingrich, Jeb Bush) in any position of profound responsibility, such as, oh, I don't know, THE PRESIDENCY AND VICE PRESIDENCY OF THE US??
These guys like Buchanan, Gingrich, and other "pissed off white men" are watching their unopposed reign of power come to an end. They already can't stand it that an intelligent, family-values, good-looking black man is the most powerful person on the planet, but a Latino WOMAN is going to assume another position of power that is one of the highest in the land? Oh heck no!
You're right, they feel entitled to these positions and wake up in a cold sweat & enraged every morning knowing that the formerly disenfranchised are rising to SHARE power.
It's getting to be soooo hard to be a white Christian these-ah days. Whatever are we to do?
Poor little rich white men! They're being swamped by a tidal wave of women, Hispanics, African-Americans, atheists, and --horror di tutti horrors-- fairies!
What's an obsolete bigot to do??
~WolfLady~
Wolflady, yours is the best comment I have read in a long time.
signed,
a middle-aged, southern, liberal Episcopalian...
Great Post!!!
Every once in a while, I ask hardcore conservatives to explain what they mean by core values. They never really have a clear reply. As far as I can tell, their core values are intolerance, fear, and fanatical devotion to tribal identity. Party first, in all cases. They seem to believe that life is a zero sum game, and if some "lower class" (dark skinned) person achieves success it has to be balanced out by a loss in standing to some "good" (white) person. Bringing a background of life experience to the Court is bad unless that life experience is all about private schools and ivy league colleges. If the outrage were real, it would be expressed everytime someone crosses over the imaginary line they have drawn in the sand. Instead, they reserve their outrage only for transgressions by brown people.
Please stop trying to warn them.
Let the R's keep digging their grave.
It may not be fun to listen to, but the result will be fabulous!
The same thing was being said of the Dems a few years ago. The Republican's shot themselves in the foot and the Dems will do the same eventually. Politics have always been power cyclical. It's the nature of the beast.
Except the change in demographics majorly decreases any chance of that cycle going right for quite some time.
This is not the '80s, or the '90s.
The GOP has forgotten how to husband their strength and pick their battles. They throw everything they have at each issue. This must be very tiring.
The GOP are so crazy. Do they want to definitively label themselves as anti-diversity, any diversity?
The woman has been on the 2nd circuit court of appeals for 10 years, and was originally appointed a judge by Daddy Bush.
To me, it's a no brainer appointment.
It concerns me to know that any court in America can be labeled right- or left-leaning. I thought American courts were impartial and adherent only to the law, as written in the Constitution, not to any political ideology.
Well that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about what the top court in the land (any land) does.
When will racists ever grow up? My guess.....NEVER!
"And of course, it's easy to be "objective" when your objective world is so damned pretty and your lawns are so well manicured, metaphorically speaking."
I call that the Alito effect. That's who the righties feel is the appropriate person for the high court.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
