Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten

As the cable news continues to try to chew up Judge Sonia Sotomayor before she becomes Justice Sotomayor, at Women's Voices for Change we have Diane Vacca, formerly of Talking Points Memo, to make sense of it all. Read below to get truly grounded amid all the madness.

I first learned about President Obama's choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court vacancy from my husband. "Everybody's saying she was chosen because she's both a woman and Hispanic," he said. "Nobody's mentioning that she went to Princeton, where she graduated Summa cum Laude, and that from there she went to Yale Law, where she made the Law Review."

Indeed.

Even before Obama announced his choice, some were circling the wagons, working out strategies of attack in order to defeat the nominee, whoever it might be. It's no surprise that Sotomayor is being assailed. What is surprising-- although at this point, I suppose it shouldn't be--is that criticism is levied without any regard for actual fact. How, for example, can a person who graduated first in her class in high school, then with highest honors from an ivy league college, and finally from an ivy league law school as an editor on the law review, also be "not the brainiest of people" or "maybe not the smartest ever," as dismissed by the anonymous sources in Jeffrey Rosen's indictment of Sotomayor in The New Republic?

It has been noted that Sotomayor's history and that of Justice Alito are occasionally tangential. Both went to Princeton, but only Sotomayor graduated with (highest) honors. She also won the Pyne Prize, Princeton's highest undergraduate honor. Both went to Yale Law, and both were editors of the Law Journal. Yet Alito's intellectual prowess was never called into question before his confirmation hearing.

When it became clear that Sotomayor's intellect couldn't be the basis for rejection, attention turned to her "temperament." The New York Times reported that "some lawyers describe her as 'difficult' and 'nasty,'" that she is "sharp-tongued" and "testy," a "terror on the bench" who "behaves in an out-of-control manner." (Interestingly, the original title of the article, "Sotomayor's Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament," has been revised. The "sharp tongue" is now a "blunt style.") In fairness, the Times also cited favorable opinions. Nevertheless, one can't help but notice how often a forceful woman who is outspoken and unafraid to speak her mind or advocate for a cause she believes in is characterized as "domineering" or "difficult," but a man with similar qualities is admired as "strong," "forthright," "commanding" and so forth.

Take Justice Scalia, whose aggressive questioning--some would say bullying--from the bench is admired in some quarters. Last February a student asked him why the proceedings of the Supreme Court may not be photographed or televised, given that the court publishes transcripts of its sessions, which are open to the public. "Read the next question," Scalia replied. "That's a nasty, impolite question." Scalia's rudeness hasn't disqualified him from doling out justice in the highest court.

Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, a City University of New York sociologist who specializes in gender, writes about an English study which showed that women were always seen as either "nice mice" or dragons. "That's exactly what I found in my study of women lawyers," Epstein told me, "that women who were assertive were seen as unduly aggressive, and women who were seen as quiet were seen as incompetent to be effective in a courtroom. It's a no-win situation. In a sense, that's what's happening to Sotomayor." Epstein thinks that since "she's not a flaming a liberal by any means, they can't go after her on that score. I think what they're trying to do is just diminish her, and they'll use whatever they can. There are some very handy things around in the culture which have to do with what's considered the proper demeanor of a woman. There are not too many norms for the proper demeanor of a woman on the court."

G. Gordon Liddy, known to some of us as the Watergate Plumber, evidently believes in the head-on Neanderthal assault. On his radio show Liddy said, "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then." That someone would say that today--never mind privately, but on the radio--is appalling. The gratuitous contempt is mind-boggling, and the ignorance of female sexuality (Sotomayor is 55) astounding.

Other critics are focusing on substantive issues which they consider germane to her appointment. Wendy Long, of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, speaks of "her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court." Let's look at the record: The Supreme Court reviewed five of the 232 opinions Sotomayor wrote in the 11 years she served on the Second Circuit; of those five, it reversed three, a 60 percent rate. To put that in context, the Supreme Court overturns three-quarters of the decisions it decides to review. Yet by the time Samuel Alito was nominated by George Bush in 2005, the National Law Journal points out, every one of Alito's decisions on the 3rd Circuit had been reversed, which was "barely noted and did not count against [Alito]."

Some attacks are just laughable. The Hill reports that Sotomayor's avowed enjoyment of typical Puerto Rican dishes "has prompted some Republicans to muse privately" that her ethnic culinary preferences "would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench." But others are being taken much more seriously.

Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative legal group Committee for Justice, has called Sotomayor a "wild-eyed judicial activist" because in 2005 at Duke University she said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." Yet Justice Antonin Scalia, the "patron saint of non-activist judges," as Rachel Maddow calls him, "baked" the same view into an opinion he wrote in 2002 (Republican Party of Minnesota v. White): "Not only do state-court judges possess the power to 'make' common law, but they have the immense power to shape the state constitutions as well." And he added, in a footnote to the same ruling: ".... judges of inferior courts often 'make law,' since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation."

Then there's the line that you may have heard echoed across the political spectrum, usually lifted from its context and cited as prima facie evidence of her bias and "reverse racism," notably by Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. "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."

While Sotomayor has apparently acknowledged to the President that she might have chosen her words more judiciously, the point she was making at Berkeley in 2001 was about the importance of diversity on the Supreme Court.

[O]ur experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.... The people who argued [seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination] cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women.

Conversely, Sotomayer argued, "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society."

From that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a "racist."

All this is only the beginning. Some groups are now demanding a filibuster, while Professor Adia Harvey notes that it may be time for a full-court women's muster along the lines of the 1990 campaign in support of Anita Hill--a campaign that sees the point where racism and sexism converge, and calls it out.

It's going to be an interesting summer.

Comments

[constitutional 1]

She may not actually be a racist, but she has made rascist comments (on more that one occasion) that would force most to withdraw. America is so hypocritical when it comes to race and gender.

[wonketteRAWKS]

Don't be surprised it's still going on in 2009! Especially after a year like 2008, sexism is alive and well...sadly!

[BPearTree]

Surely someone else has already pointed this out. Forget taking the quote out of context, just read it for what it says: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
"I would HOPE" ! What is wrong with "hoping" that might be true? Completely different from saying I "think". And the irony is, the same loud-mouth pundits who disparaged Obama's message of "hope" just ignore that very important word in this context... I haven't even heard this crucial difference pointed out by the "left-leaning" media...maybe because I've cut down on my listening....

[ljrabq]

I used to think it was the hypocrisy of the right that was maddening. Now I realize they are simply plumbing the depths of their stupidity.

"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure of the former." A. Einstein

[LMPE]

In trying to make Sotomayor look bad, the right wing makes itself look bad.

[ThomasPain7752]

Is she the one who ruled black people are not good test takers. This is racist. Are there not black lawyers(there are on TV) did they not pass tests? Our President is black(so they say). Did the white part of him pass his tests?

[valkyrie607]

"'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

[ThomasPain7752]

Did she not say her experiences as a female latina would make her more likely to reach a just decision than a white male. She is sexist and racist in a single sentence. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[foxbat]

Hopefully, all of us will never have our entire life's work boil down to a single quote taken from a multi-page paper/speech.

You asked to be corrected, but instead I'll just offer the following from the same speech:

"I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."

Doesn't sound sexist or racist to me when you read the WHOLE speech or look at her WHOLE record.

By the way, just a question to ponder ... if all judges would be expected to reach the same conclusions regardless of background, education, etc., then why are there nine justices on the Supreme Court and why do they almost never end up in a 9-0 verdict in all of the crucial cases?

[kathy001]

Great answer. It's completely wasted on ThomasPain7752, who will hold to his false facts to the very end, but I appreciated it.

[Polgara]

It hurts me and makes me really angry to see the way they are going after her. I just cannot understand how in 2009 we as women are facing blatant destruction character. Where is the question of her credentials and abilities? Peurto Rican food is going to make her biased? Who comes up with this stuff? And with a straight face? Its insulting not only to Sonya Sotomayor but to all women who are breaking glass ceilings. I come from South Africa where we have only been a democracy for 15 years and always look to America as a beacon of hope and possibility. But this just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

[LindaCat]

One can find a single statement by a single person and distort it's meaning and context to attack that person. One can take that statement by that single person who is a member of a group and wrongly extend that statement to the entire group. One can also invent a non-existent person of a target group and attribute completely absurd statements to that non-entity and hence to the group. The culinary preferences statement is an example of the latter.
This is neither politics nor journalism. Somehow it has found a place and application in political journalism. Substandard political journalism that is.
The hearings are what is important.

[Grunty1]

They are questioning her intellect becuase, to the white superiority crowd, there is no way a minority woman could be smarter than a white male!

[workingliberal]

Or get anywhere in life without affirmative action.

[ThomasPain7752]

Did she put a lot of thought into saying she would make better decisions than a white guy.
I mean, even if she believes this, is it a smart thing to say it out loud, if your in the business of judging other people?

[PatA]

I learned it by buying and selling cattle and then becoming a very good photographer...(I am a female)

If a man does well, he is a great businessman..or whatever.

If a woman succeeds, she is a b i t c h.

[ThomasPain7752]

how awful for you.

[timm0]

I'm continuously disappointed when I read posts like this. Not because of what is said, but because the baseline assumption is that the "media" is a baseline against which a reflection of the nation's mindset is shone.

Since that assumption is such a spectacular falsehood, the balance of the post is called into question.

The media cares ONLY ABOUT SELLING ADVERTISING. They do that by producing "stories" out of "news." They CREATE conflict where none exists. They pick fights and then parse reactions. It is what sells. Soon enough, their sexism will enter the "story," too. But only to continue to pimp the spectacle. The author plays right into the media's repugnant modus operandi.

[ThomasPain7752]

timmo, you are fairly correct about seeling advertising but some media is also seriously into rendering political change or social engineering. Do you agree?

[Pleneras]

I never thought I'd see the day (again) tv invites hate, racism and sexism for dialogue without rejecting it for what it is. The media has lots to blame for this promotion against a woman just because she is puerto rican. How dare one of "them" be smarter, crime free, etc.! From Newt to the despicable felon Liddy not one person stood up and declared them racist and sexist. They are the cancer in our society.

[JessieDaniels]

Yes, it should be an interesting summer indeed, and I thank you for writing this.

I'm happy to see the work of some of my colleagues - like Epstein (a CUNY colleague) and Adia Harvey (a blogging colleague) mentioned here. However, the links that you have for Professor Harvey's comments on Sotomayor are not working properly.

Her post, "Gloria Steinem: Where Are You Now?" is here:
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/05/30/gloria-steinem-where-are-you/

For her faculty page, is here: http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwsoc/4313.html

[llisa]

Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, a City University of New York sociologist who specializes in gender said, "I think what they're trying to do is just diminish her, and they'll use whatever they can."

In this country, it is not hard to diminish her. She becomes diminished in the minds of many when her detractors just use the word "woman" when referring to her.

When they add the word "Latina", they feel they have finished her off and nothing else matters.

[foxbat]

Where the heck are Carly Fiorina and Nancy Pfotenhauer? Recall how much they, and a lot of the GOP, claimed sexism over the pushback on Palin? And that was at the height of her "I can see Russia from my house" stuff when it was obvious that she was unqualified to be second-in-command. The silence from these "feminist champions" is deafening.