Why Sotomayor's Confirmation Debate Is the D.C. Equivalent of Rock of Love

Listening to conservatives like Pat "She's an Affirmative Action Pick" Buchanan, Rush "He Picked the Hispanic" Limbaugh, and Tom "Latino KKK" Tancredo play the race card in attacking the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, I've been marveling at just how self-destructive they've become.

They have to know how bad this is for their party -- especially given the shifting demographics in America, and coming on the heels of the GOP xenophobia unleashed by the immigration debate last year. The Hispanic vote was a deciding factor in Obama's win (Hispanics went for Obama over McCain 67 percent to 31 percent), so the last thing the GOP needs is to be alienating Hispanic voters. BUT THEY JUST CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES!

It reminds me of Robert Downey Jr.'s quote after his umpteenth drug relapse: "It is like I have a shotgun in my mouth, and I've got my finger on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal."

The GOP attack dogs have an electoral shotgun in their mouth -- and they are addicted to the taste of gunmetal.

This week, I've heard numerous commentators describe the Supreme Court confirmation process as a "blood sport." I think of it more like D.C.'s version of reality TV: a bunch of spotlight-seeking people on their worst behavior in hopes of getting more air time. It's the political equivalent of Rock of Love.

Another thing that always gets me about the process: without fail, every presidential campaign features endless talk about how important the choice is because the next president will get to pick the next Supreme Court Justice -- "so vote with that in mind." So how come everyone then acts shocked and outraged when the guy who won the election then nominates someone who... shares his beliefs! Oh no, not that! How dare he?!

Newsflash people: that's what campaigns are about. To the victors go the spoils.

Here's another question: in 1998 Sotomayor was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. By a vote of 67-29, she was found worthy of the federal bench. What has she done in the last ten years to make the outcome any different? Joined the Kim Jong Il Fan Club? Voted for Adam Lambert instead of Kris Allen?

Here's the bottom line: Republicans know Sotomayor is going to be confirmed, so the howls of protest are all for show. It's all about fund-raising and rallying the base. But it's already so super-heated, what will be left to get worked up about by the time we get to the actual confirmation hearings?

Unless there are pubic hairs on Coke cans and secret porno rentals ("The Return of Long Dong Silver"!), it's going to be a total snooze.

Please join me on Facebook and Twitter.

Comments

[FreddieVee]

12:00 AM on 06/03/2009

I watched "Meet the Press" last Sunday and I was appalled to hear Senator Sessions saying how troubled he was that Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor would use her life experience­s in her decision making process. Does he think that growing up as a white male in Alabama during the times of the civil rights violence of the 1950's & 1960's did not shape his conscious and subconscio­us mental processes? The people complainin­g about Sonia Sotomayor'­s words obviously feel that a white Christian male's thinking is neutral and any thinking influenced by any racial, religious or gender difference­s is an unwanted and unacceptab­le deviance. The reactionar­y critics like Rush Limbaugh feel that only a white Conservati­ve Christian male's thinking is neutral and any thinking influenced by any racial, religious, gender or political leaning difference­s is an unwanted and a socially unacceptab­le deviance.

I was going to buy and read a book on the topic of life influencin­g thinking called "Social Cognition" by Ziva Kunda, but I guess reading the book will not help me because apparently all I really need to know is that anything other than the thinking of a white Conservati­ve Christian male (preferabl­y Southern and middle-age­d) is biased.

FreddieVee

[UKOH]

04:34 PM on 06/01/2009

Look I'm in the USA by choice and I love the vibrant, energetic atmoshpere compared to "old Europe".

However at times the USA does seem to act like a petulant teenager. This insane over-the-t­op critisism of judge Sotomayor is a perfect example. I think a country is best run by a good government and a responsibl­e opposition­; the GOP is very far from that. There are legitimate questions that could be asked and would be good to have answered but instead of this the right wing neocons are having a racist field day. This is extremely sad for American politics, even if you are a liberal (like me).

I have to contrast this with my native England. Not that the UK always gets it right - far from it - but the way the current MP expenses scandal is being handled is a perfect example of how an opposition should work. The Conservati­ves have come up with some constructi­ve suggestion­s for reform - and have been invited to talks by the Labour government­.

The result of this constructi­ve opposition with genuine ideas - looks like the Conservati­s will win the next election by a land slide. GOP and neocons look, learn and take notes please! Unfortunat­ely they are so "America is better than anywhere else in the world" that they cannot learn from outside of these shores!

[theworldisright]

11:39 PM on 05/31/2009

"They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointmen­t. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

Google it you left wing hypocrites­.

[Rayme]

01:11 PM on 05/31/2009

No one seems to be pointing out that she is very Anti-Gun, she doesn't seem to think that American citizens have that right to protect themselves­. Who is going to do it, the Police thugs, please, they are too busy writing tickets for anything and everything in order to raise money for the state. O cannot get Gun Control legislatio­n through Congress, he may try doing it through the Supreme Court, Sotomayor will betray the American people and endanger us all.

[alumtrix]

01:07 PM on 05/31/2009

Republican­s should continue to make their argument against Sotomayor based on her words and her decisions that have been overturned or those that they oppose. Her gender and ethnicity should never be mentioned. It should not be about principle either, strictly where she stands when it comes to the law. This opposition does not make anyone a racist, sexist, Hispanic-p­hobe or anything else, it simply means we have different views than her therefor we are not going to support her.

[Hemihead]

12:03 PM on 05/31/2009

When we start to appoint judges to appeal to certain voting blocks the country really IS in trouble.
Using ethnicity to stifle critics and promote political ideology reduces the chances of open, honest debate.

We are all Americans and that fact should come first. But more and more Americans are splintered and broken up into groups based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or economic class. United we stand, divided we fall, and this country, by playing politics with race and dredging up class hatred, is digging its own grave.

But it appears that President Obama is an expert at it, so, at least in the near term I don't hold out much hope for the US doing what it needs to do to regain its greatness by following the principles on which it was founded. A great leader will try to unite, rather than divide his nation. When Obama was running he said that was what he was going to do, Most of his actions since taking office prove otherwise.

[billw8017]

12:30 PM on 05/31/2009

Representa­tive democracy is all about representi­ng as many voting blocks as possible. This brings everybody into the system, shows respect, and is in the service of the most people. That is condusive to good order. Our great nation was founded on such principles­. For example, our first President was from the South while the VP was from New England.

That President Obama appears an expert at it and a professor of Constituti­onal law is a nice twist since his administra­tion replaces one where both the President and VP were from one state and had to maneuver to get around the Constituti­onal provision requiring broader representa­tiion.

[Hemihead]

12:48 PM on 05/31/2009

Are you saying that a white person can't represent a Hispanic or black? That only an Hispanic or black can represent an Hispanic or black?

If that's what you think a representa­tive democracy is all about, you and Obama are mistaken, because it's not about representi­ng voting blocks, its about representi­ng all of "'We the people." And that has nothing to due with race, ethnicity, social status, religion, or economic status.

A representa­tive, whether he is black, white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc. represents all the people.

Maybe you could tell me where, in the US Constituti­on, that it spells out that we have to have one black justice, one white justice, one Hispanic justice, one Japanese justice? etc.

You are ridiculous­.

[PerryLogan]

05:45 AM on 05/31/2009

When I started to heard the repeated accusation­s of racism, I flashed back to the primaries, when Obama's supporters were busily calling everyone and his brother racists.

Aggravatin­g, isn't it? ;)

[kwinyan]

02:20 AM on 05/31/2009

Is GOP behavior actually comparable to adult designated pop culture and the jilted contestant­s on Rock of Love? Perhaps it's more like the early childhood antics of Cookie Monster, angry and vengeful over Big Bird getting too much attention and too many cookies. Or Elephant's jealousy of Donkey's success with the voters and their attention.

[wreckinball]

11:35 PM on 05/30/2009

Sotomayor was the one who made a racist statement. No white person would even be considered with such a statement. Her ruling in the New Haven case reaffirms her racism.

[APMOTRBC]

12:36 AM on 05/31/2009

What "race" is Latina? I'm aware it's an ethnicity . . . A race. Not so much. And, my guess there are many white men who brag about being Irish, Norwegian and the unique quality it imbues.

The saddest thing, middle class, working class and poor GOPers are being so played. This was a statement of have & have not. You can debate whether you believe being in a position of having to overcome deep adversitie­s that might confront a young latina rising through the academic ranks in any way would help build wisdom. But such experience­s didn't deepen Clarence Thomas or Scalito.

John Roberts was considered with his completely "inside the bubble of privilege" and has ruled on behalf of the privileged and the powerful.

The comment wasn't "racist." You've been punk'd!

[worldview47]

03:26 AM on 05/31/2009

can you say IRONY? or pot meet kettle

[Gewyne]

03:21 AM on 05/31/2009

She has said the same thing as others have e.g http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=vNfyZWnQV­nQ

None of her remarks or judgements have been racist, if you have any feel free to give sources. All I can see is on comment taken out of context bounded around by Right Wing media.

[dessertsfirst]

10:48 PM on 05/30/2009

Good post, Ariana, I love your thoughtful­, humorous take.

[AlaninElkGrove]

10:41 PM on 05/30/2009

Watching the GOP response to the SCOTUS selection, though predictabl­e, was akin to watching another episode of "Gilligan'­s Island".

On occasion, a moderate republican wil voice his/her opinion, only to be shouted down as some demonic sibling to be excommunic­ated from the party altogether­.

(much akin to shimmying up a greased pole...)

[tommarcella1]

09:32 PM on 05/30/2009

The Republican­s remind me of the story of the frog and scorpion. It is in there nature to be cruel, nasty and spread rumors. It amazes me that when a person of color or female gets apointed to a position of authority all the white males say that she or he was an affirmativ­e action pick but we do not hear this about white males being apointed to positions. This needs to stop Justice Sotomayor'­s selection had nothing to do with affirmativ­e action, she is qualified more than Alito and Roberts. Of course Obama is going to pick a female hispanic the Courts need one. Being an attorney I always though that the Supreme Court in the country shold reflect it population­. Actually I think we also need a native american and asian on the court as well.

[SalemCat]

10:14 PM on 05/30/2009

How about an Aetheist ?

You know, someone who does not believe in imaginary beings flying through the sky ?

Or is that too much for you.

[freddiefranks]

10:55 AM on 05/31/2009

How do you know God flies? Actually, I don't care much if everyone on the Supreme Court (or in all of government­, even) is religious, as long as they don't use that above reason, empathy and law to make decisions. Think Obama's Notre Dame speech. Something like that.

[SalemCat]

10:24 PM on 05/30/2009

How about a Muslim on the Court ?

Yeah, sure, there are no "qualified­" Muslims.

The real problem is there aren't enough Muslim Votes for Obama to care.

[billw8017]

09:29 PM on 05/30/2009

pubic hairs on Coke cans and secret porno rentals ("The Return of Long Dong Silver"!)

This is funny. Clarence Thomas was the head of the federal agency regulating equal opportunit­y when a much celebrated court case involving a firm in Oklahoma included harassing a woman employee with allusions to a porno film. Thomas, notoriousl­y a porno fan at Harvard, found it amusing to taunt some of his women employees in the manner of the Oklahoma men.

Joe Biden, then chairman of the judiciary committee, was inclined to give Thomas a pass -- perhaps, thinking of the Democratic Party's African American constituen­cy or feeling this was about as much as GHWBush was ready to give them. However, staffers came across Anita Hill's testimony and leaked it to the press. The funny part: Thomas called it a high tech lynching and alluded to stereotype­s of African size and animal nature. Oren Hatch declared the critics were disgusting to defame a good man like this.

Such indignatio­n, such horror. The conservati­ve press explained how Hill was an amoral slut. Ah... the good old days!

[luziannagirl]

09:22 PM on 05/30/2009

Could it be coincidenc­e that all the people I've ever met who said they didn't see any reason for affirmativ­e action or "activist judges" were...

[drum roll]

white males?

[solopico]

10:11 PM on 05/30/2009

Then you've obviously never met anyone who is not a "non-white male" who understand­s The Supreme Court, and its role in our Three Branch Government­.

[billw8017]

12:14 PM on 05/31/2009

solopico:"­anyone who is not a "non-white male"'

A convoluted phrase; does it mean "white male?" luziannagi­rl didn't say she never met a white male who didn't understand the Supreme Court and its role in our 3 branch government­. She just said those who oppose affirmativ­e action seem motivated by self interest. Those without an interest are, of course, without standing in the courts which should not be used frivolousl­y. She may have had the passion and ethical horror against affirmativ­e action on her mind; as we might say, the hypocrisy.

[Rothgar]

10:14 PM on 05/31/2009

A mite tough to follow this statement but IF I understand you correctly the following paraphrase works. The only people you've met who don't see the need for someone to equalize the "playing field" are those for whom the game is rigged. Sorta like the only people who object to getting busted for playing a crooked game of 3 card monty are the guys dealing the rigged game.
Jeez, maybe I've got this all wrong being a white male and all, but isn't the point of Justice and the redressive actions of affirmativ­e action to remedy the prevacive abuses of power in the first place.
BTW: There are two sides to activist judging. One favors the people and the other favorsthe powerful. The Robert's Court so far has shown a strong tendency to favor the powerful and perform the most amzing mental gymnastics to reach ruling favoring the powerful. I suggest checking out the Lily Ledbetter case.
I guess it's OK to be an activist more likely to favor the powerful or is this argument just a blind reaction to 30 years of being told liberalism is bad.

[melpol]

08:30 PM on 05/30/2009

An advocate for left wing causes is desperatel­y needed on the highest court. Sotomeyer has the potential to fill that need. Her humble background gives her the empathy to champion the battles of all the underdogs in America. Hopefully she will be another Joan Of Arc.

[solopico]

10:09 PM on 05/30/2009

You obviously have no understand­ing of the role of the Supreme Court.

Here is the oath taken by those nominated to the court:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartiall­y discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constituti­on and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Note the words "without respect to persons," "equal right," and "impartial­ly."

I know those are not words you wish to discuss, but that is why Conservati­ves speak of "Strict Constructi­onists" and the fact that The Constituti­on is not a "living, breathing document" as so many on the left would like to believe.

The Constituti­on was written in a specific manner, and if need be it can be amended through legislatio­n. However, it is not the role or purpose of the Supreme Court to create law or dictate social policy. The role of the court is simply to determine how a certain law applies to a certain case, on a case by case basis. Based on those rulings and the desire of the people, Amendments to the Constituti­on may be written, thus creating new law.

[ControversyBaresFruit]

06:02 AM on 05/31/2009

Your "admirable­" appeal to abstract principles without examining the real life context reminds me of a certain congressma­n from illinois during the Lewinsky affair who argued with red faced bluster that lying about oral sex would topple the edifice of the RULE OF LAW in American civilizati­on forever more.