Answer: Nada.
Well, almost nothing. To watch the coverage on mainstream news and in the conservative blogosphere one might think exactly the opposite, however.
In “First thoughts: It's Sotomayor,” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro announce today’s historic nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, a Yale Law School graduate and Princeton undergrad who the President notes, has more experience ‘than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court had when they were appointed.” Impressive stuff.
None of these credentials seem to top the fact that Sotomayor is a Latina woman, however. The piece— as well as many, many like it— begins:
At 10:15 am ET from the White House’s East Room, President Obama will again make history by nominating the first Hispanic to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit.
The commentators do not linger long on Sotomayor’s extensive qualifications or unique background before diving into the politics allegedly lurking behind the pick. They speculate that the nomination clearly signals the Administration’s desire to “check the box” when it comes to quote-unquote “Latino issues” in order to dodge a pesky immigration reform bill:
As we’ve mentioned before, Latino groups have been grumbling somewhat about their representation (or lack thereof) in the Obama administration, as well as the fact that immigration reform doesn’t appear to be on the White House’s front-burner. But this pick buys Obama A LOT of time with Hispanics -- a demographic he won last year, 67%-31% -- on immigration and other issues. Is it a coincidence that Obama this week heads out West to Nevada and California, two states with large Latino populations? [Emphasis ours].
It’s not just MSNBC making the claim that Obama can “buy time with Hispanics” on pressing national issues like immigration reform. Mark Krikorian, part of John Tanton’s anti-immigrant network, writes gleefully on the National Review today:
I predicted three weeks ago that Sotomayor was guaranteed to get the nod — as a consolation prize for Hispanic pressure groups, since there isn’t going to be an amnesty.
And while I love Chuck Todd (can't say the same of Mark Krikorian), here’s a little reality check-list for both, from yours truly.
Those who think Sotomayor’s nomination means no on comprehensive immigration reform (for those new to this whole world, “amnesty” is what Tanton’s clan call any plan to fix our immigration mess) should consider these four points:
On point #1: the 2008 election produced a mandate for real immigration reform by Hispanic voters, who helped flip 4 states from red to blue and whose influence and clout are growing fast. New polling shows that roughly 72 percent of Latinos think that President Obama will keep his campaign promise and move a comprehensive immigration reform bill forward before the end of his first year in office. To simplify: Democrats in Congress, it's time to lean into this issue and get it done. Republicans, change course and help get this issue solved if you want to stop bleeding Latino voters.
On point #2: swing voters see inaction on the immigration issue as a major failure of Washington to solve tough problems. They don’t think deporting 12 million people is the right way to go, but they also think doing nothing is no longer an option (to them, therein lies the real amnesty— letting unscrupulous employers who undercut American workers and taxpayers off scot-free, while doing nothing to reform the broken system). They overwhelmingly want to see comprehensive solutions enacted, and soon.
On point #3, well, enough said.
And finally, on point #4, we all know that actions speak louder than words. In “Obama sets WH immigration reform meeting for June 8,” the Politico reports:
President Barack Obama is inviting members of Congress to the White House for a June 8 meeting to highlight immigration reform, an administration official confirmed to Politico Wednesday.
"The meeting will be an opportunity to launch a policy conversation that we hope will be able to start a debate that will take place in Congress later in the year," the official, who asked not to be named, said.
In the lead up to the White House kick-off meeting on June 8th, we're sure to see plenty more speculation about whether or not the Administration intends to take up reform. Even after Obama makes it clear, from the White House, that reform is part of his agenda for this year, I'm guessing most of the commentariat will continue to predict he won't do it, that his plate is too full, that it's too controversial, and on, and on, and on.
What they don't get is what President Obama understands: the American people voted for a change from business as usual in Washington. They hunger for leaders who address multiple challenges at the same time, who tackle— instead of cowering before— the controversial issues of our day.
Note: Cross-posted at www.AmericasVoiceOnline.org/Blog.
We also cannot have two sets of laws, one for American citizens and another for illegal aliens. We have approx Two Million Americans in jail and/ or prison for crimes ranging from violations to felons. We're told there is NEVER any reason to break the law. So why would anyone believe the American people will accept giving amnesty to those who willingly and knowingly broke our laws. That's unfair, wrong and frankly it's Un-American. We were lied to in 1986, why would anyone believe it would be different in 2009. Enforce the law, those who are here should take steps to make themselves legal even if it means leaving and applying to enter as those who legally enter America. We do not need another group of self- made victims.
Clearly, his insinuation that the public supports amnesty is absurd.
And as unemployment goes up, a greater majority of Americans support strict enforcement of the immigration laws.
However, my impression is that the public does not consider immigration an important issue, presumably because there is not a widespread recognition of the major role that illegal immigration has had in creating our economic depression.
However, if Sharry's data shows otherwise, all the better.
Furthermore, the election of Obama is not a mandate for amnesty. In fact, one of the primary reasons I voted for Obama is that it makes "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" far less likely than it would have been under a life-long obsessive amnesty advocate, John McCain, who, unlike Obama, could have strongarmed some Republicans into supporting that noxious legislation.
Furthermore, Obama is far too intelligent to be willing to put the Democratic Party in a noose for a policy that is not at the top of his agenda.
The one thing that I do miss is the fact that I wasn't given a choice to become an american citizenship and I'm unable to claim my Puerto Rican citizenship.
I taught the children of migrant workers, and was a paralegal to help immigrants fight deportation. Time to re-examine your "expertise" on "ordinary Democratic Latino voters", and time to quit over-simplifying and calling it "amnesty".
And actions can be illegal, but people can only commit illegal acts. Stop butchering the English language, please.
Latinas are concerned with a whole host of issues. The recession falls more heavily on Blacks and Latinos. Unemployment falls more heavily on these groups. The lack of health care reform falls heavily on Blacks and Latinos. The poor quality education falls very heavily on Blacks and Latinos. The lack of energy depends affects Blacks and Latinos.
Latinas are interested in all types of issues. Glad there is a Latinos justice nominee. Even better that she is crazy qualified. Even better we have a qualified President who is dealing with all of the above issues and more.
With "Free" Trade, the U.S. is being Latin Americanized. No family farms, no industrial jobs, pretty soon, no service jobs either. Next, it'll be us sneaking across the Canadian border in search of jobs to feed our families, if we don't act like the members of the most powerful democracy and get busy taking our country back from multinational corporations with more rights than we're being left with.