I was listening to the first day of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Suddenly, without warning, I experienced one of those moments that made me say, "hmm!"
One of the senators expressed concern that Sotomayor's views as a potential member of the Supreme Court might be outside the mainstream.
I am not here to defend Judge Sotomayor; I seldom write about Supreme Court confirmation hearings. With a few notable exceptions, I find the pre-fight hype usually trumps the actual event. I agree with South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham's astute political observation that Sotomayor will be confirmed barring any unforeseen meltdown on her part.
Moreover, I believe the results of the most recent presidential election should afford the victor some measure of deference to his judicial appointments. I felt that way when President George W. Bush nominated Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and I feel that way now that President Barack Obama has nominated Sotomayor.
The obvious exception being when the president nominates an individual, as the senator suggested to Sotomayor, outside the amorphous mainstream. But what does that mean?
How does one become part of mainstream orthodoxy? Is it a moving target?
I can only assume, based on the number of e-mails and creative ways some of you have chosen to inform me, I am definitely not part of the mainstream. How can something that is portrayed so definitively in the public conversation be so subjective?
Is being part of the mainstream merely subscribing to current thinking or beliefs? Does reaching a different conclusion from the majority necessitate revoking one's mainstream membership? Well that's stupid. What if the thinking changes?
I was not part of the mainstream when the Iraq invasion began, but suddenly without warning, my position became very much a part of mainstream thinking, though I never wavered.
I am old enough to remember when The Beatles were outside the mainstream; now they are elevator music. I suspect when Snoop Dogg appeared in a commercial along with Wayne Newton it signaled to the public that rap/hip-hop had been promoted to the mainstream.
Wow, Bob Dylan was right: "Times they are a-changin'."
It just feels as if the mainstream is merely a straw man, and if you are not like this mythical figure then there is something wrong with you.
It also feels being mainstream is based on repetition. If I say it enough, I can lay claim to the mainstream without having to explore any real definition -- allowing each individual to define it as they see fit.
Hasn't the mainstream historically been among the slowest to adapt to the winds of change? It has traditionally been the staunchest proponent of the status quo, even when the status quo was blatantly on the wrong side of history.
The mainstream was slow to recognize that women should have the right to vote, and it continues to struggle with whether this nation's civil rights should be extended to all Americans without exception.
I also get confused because I'm not certain if there is more than one mainstream. Is mainstream regional? Is there an East Coast mainstream versus a Midwestern version; and do those differ entirely from the West Coast variety? If so, then the mainstream in, say, Berkeley would differ from that of Tuscaloosa, Ala.
On cultural matters there does not seem to be a conclusive answer to what constitutes mainstream. Paradoxically, many of the athletes and entertainers on whom we bestow the title of greatness tend to be outside the vaunted mainstream. Muhammad Ali was vilified for being outside the mainstream in 1967, but today he's lauded for it.
I'm still not sure what it means to be outside the mainstream politically. Is this some type of code language? Is it simply the pabulum fed to unsuspecting masses, whose fear of difference -- the very thing that makes this country great -- is used as the opening to infiltrate the public conversation with divisive wedge issues?
Or maybe, just maybe, calls for mainstream thinking today is nothing more than the remnant of a stale political ideology that has yet to discover its elixir of rejuvenation.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or visit his website: byronspeaks.com
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.
Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.
In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
Thank you Sir.