Sonia Sotomayor and the Real Meaning of Republican Talking Points

The problem with reading Republican talking points as your questions at confirmation hearings is that sometimes the racism comes through pretty strongly. Senator Jeff Sessions' (R-AL) comment to Sonia Sotomayor "You have suggested that a judge's background and experience will impact their decision, which goes against the American ideal that a judge will be fair to every party, and every day when they put on that robe they will put aside their personal prejudices," reveals the extent to which Sessions seems to believe that the real American backgrounds do not include those of people like Judge Sotomayor.

Comments by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) "You seem to be celebrating (experience and background)...You understand it will make a difference...And not only are you not saying anything negative about that. But you are embracing (that difference)," make this point even more strongly.

Asserting that a judge's background and experience influence their decision is not unlike asserting that the Pacific Ocean is wet. Of course background and experience influences judicial decision making. That is why we tend to prefer judges who have had the background of a good education and some experience advocating and adjudicating on a range of issues. Many of us also believe that life experience can also help judges understand complex legal questions.

Sessions wasn't really taking issue with Sotomayor's belief that background and experience matter. He was more concerned with the specifics of her background and Sotomayor's assertion that the views of a "wise Latina" are valuable on judicial decisions. This was perhaps an unfortunate thing for Sotomayor to have said, but only because sometimes stating the obvious can sometimes be unfortunate. Again, of course Sotomayor will be a valuable addition to the Supreme Court because of her education, experience and because she is wise and brings a different perspective than the other eight members of the court.

Implicit in Sessions' comments about Sotomayor is the idea that she brings experience and background due to her ethnicity, but the six white men on the court are the norm and therefore do not bring any kind of specific background and experience. There is a troubling and not so subtle, form of racism at play here, suggesting that the white male experience is the normal, American one against which all others are measured. Justices John Roberts and Antonin Scalia clearly have had their views influenced by their background and experience, but this does not seem to come up during confirmations. It would be valuable to have asked Roberts how he was able to understand the legal arguments of people who have not enjoyed a lifetime of the subtle privilege of race and gender that he has had or if he could really relate to the urgency of equal protection although nothing in his background suggests that he can.

Sessions' and Kyl's questions, and this line of questioning towards Judge Sotomayor in general, make it clear that that background and experience is only suspect, or relevant, when it is different from the norm. Or to phrase it more clearly, background is only a problem if you are not white or male because judges are expected to be those things.

Kyl's comments are less subtle than Sessions, if that is possible. His use of the word difference is very revealing because is relatively explicitly answers the question "different from what?" The answer of course is different from white people who, in Kyl's bigoted world are the base of normalcy against whom all Americans are measured. White people, in this view, and more specifically white men, in this scenario have the truth-everybody else has background, experience and difference.

Moreover, Kyl seems to be upset that Sotomayor is "celebrating" and "embracing" her "difference". This is a somewhat startling thing for somebody to say on the floor of the US Senate in the 21st Century. Kyl seems to be upset that Sotomayor is proud and aware of her background. His comments evince a preference for people like Sotomayor to keep quiet about who they are and keep their differences to themselves. Sadly for Kyl, but not for the rest of us, it is now 2009 and, at least in many respects, that is not how America works anymore.

What makes this Republican line of questioning so intriguing is that Sotomayor's confirmation is not really in doubt. While derailing a Supreme Court nominee is usually a significant defeat for the president's party, with sixty Democratic senators and a highly qualified noncontroversial nominee, it will almost be impossible for the Republicans to achieve that victory now.

That suggests that Sessions, Kyl and other Republican senators ask these questions either because they actually believe such simplistic, not to say offensive ideas, or because they think it is politically advantageous to once again frame their party as the voice of the disenfranchised white male. It is not at all clear which possibility is worse.

Comments

[onepotatotwopotato]

Questions for judge Sotomayor:

Do you believe that the Bill of Rights in its entirety, the first ten Amendments to our Constitution, is incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth or any other Amendment to the Constitution or by any other binding legal precedent?

Do you accept the finding of the Court in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the rights of all citizens of the United States include but are not limited to the following, as redacted from the decision of the Court:

"the right to enter every State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, AND TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT." [emphasis added]

The Court was of course enumerating rights it deemed could be denied to Black Americans. Today those and other rights must be applied equally to all citizens of the United States.

[gorideabike]

Judge Sotomayor is about as American as it gets. She was raised in the culture that our government strongly influences and educated in American schools. That a non-male, hispanic-white, non-protestant prole somehow was able to overcome all the obstacles and succeed, is exactly what is giving republicans heartburn.

[valkyrie607]

Everybody has biases. Only those who are consciously aware of their bias are really equipped to rise above that bias. Those who, like Kyl and Session, are in denial and think that they have no biases, are the most likely to allow those biases to influence their actions.

[Budokan]

I live in the Deep South. I know EXACTLY what is behind RepubliKan "talking points" as they jin up the fear and hatred that is endemic within their Base.

http://kennethmarkhoover.com

[islandchris]

It's painfully obvious now when watching Fox News, any current Republican politician, or even CNN curmudgeons like Lou Dobbs, that these white males do not understand how much the ground has shifted. What they do seem to understand well enough though is that they no longer need or care to "play nice", and so the latent racism is leaking out all over the place. This recent New Scientist article descibes the "sting in the tail" from the Obama effect.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227112.400-obamas-success-isnt-all-good-news-for-black-americans.html

One more observation - the American elephant in the room - I think Sonia Sotomayor will be the 6th Catholic on a Supreme Court, alongside 2 Jewish and 1 Protestant member. It's time to get an atheist on the count - after all cultural background isn't supposed to matter, or are we creating an Iranian style Guardians Council?

[NWGuy]

Senator Jeff Sessions' (R-AL) comment to Sonia Sotomayor "You have suggested that a judge's background and experience will impact their decision, which goes against the American ideal that a judge will be fair to every party, and every day when they put on that robe they will put aside their personal prejudices,"

But hasn't Chief Justice Roberts come down on the same side of the fence every time since taking the bench? Doesn't that show a prejudice?

Isn't the reality that all judges, SCOTUS or not, base decisions on their background and experience? Isn't that why there is the battle each time a judge gets nominated and the ongoing drive to get certain judges in that pass certain litmus tests? Isn't that why they bring up issues like abortion during the confirmation process? To deny that choosing judges with biases is not SOP is ridiculous. Having completely impartial judges may the "American ideal", but it sure isn't the reality. And the Congress actively keeps the selection of obviously biased judges alive and well.

[Edwin Badulis]

What makes this Republican line of questioning so intriguing. . (and IRRITATING). . is that Sotomayor's confirmation is not really in doubt.

[Checquoline]

I am convienced that most of our senators are as dumb as a box of rocks. It must be difficult for this woman to sit there and pretend she is answering intelligent questions from intelligent people. The American people must start electing public servants who are capable of doing the job. Our future as a country depends on it. I am specificlly referring to Southern fools.

[booksnmoreforyou]

The speech was a scholarly talk to students. Most of the GOP base does not speak or understand that language. So elite GOPers exploit their ignorance. Simple as that.

My question is when are we going to stop considering this sort of behavior dirty politics and start calling it what it is: treason.

[nicole44]

Talk about boy who cried wolf. With hyperbolic language like "treason" spewing out of your mouth when someone says something you dont like you will never be taken seriously. But keep on going because hopefully one day people who exaggerate like that will fade into simple backround noise and your attempts to silence opposing view points will become meaningless.

[booksnmoreforyou]

They are subverting the government of the U.S. from within. They are bad faith actors from the get go. They have no interest in authenticity but exploiting and manipulating to get power and damage the government once they get it to create a self fulfilling prophecy of "see I told you government did not work." Treason.

[Grazor]

I've actually read the address to the "Raising the Bar" symposium, unlike a few right wingers I've heard talking. The speech contains subtlety, something Jeff Sessions will never understand. One of my favorite parts is this --

"While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

Of course she works to be fair on the bench, but she also believes that the quality of rulings overall would probably improve if more women and minorities were judges. That's what I got out of it anyway.

[vreeseque]

Politically I thought this would have been the perfect time for Republicans to reach out to Hispanics and Moderates. They should have not beat her up much because she is going to get appointed with 60 dems and her experience. So they could have gained a lot of good will with indies, moderates, ad hispanics. They could let S Palin come around and do a few speeches to riles the base up. But right now they are putting on a show for their base that is turning everyone off. I wont right the republicans off but I will say if they don't figure out a way to please their base without turning off 60-70% of America we maybe looking at the end of a party.

[jcwtts1]

The would have to be more in touch with the country than they are, and more self aware than they can be.

J

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

Catch 22 for them. If they develope awareness and compassion, they'll rejuvinate their part and become a true loyal opposition. But at the same time they'll lose their core values: (christians are better, whites are better and men are better) Basically they'd cease to exist as we know them.

[visionary7]

The reason the republicans usually sound like racists is because they WANT TO. They are telling the base " no matter what i'am like you, i will protect you from all the non whites who threaten you." this is the only reason they get as many votes as they do. If they stopped using race they would only get about 5-10% of the vote. Reagans' welfare queens driving up to get their checks in cadillacs, G.H.W. Bushs' willie horton ads, McCains' refusing to vote for a Martin Luther King holiday, Sarah Pailins' " He's not like us" This stuff has been working for them, expect more of the same.

[jcwtts1]

They think that white independents believe the way they do. They don't. Which is why we wont two cycles. The Harold Ford ad that cost him Tennessee won us Missouri and Virginia. The reality is that fiscal conservatives 20 years ago lived their lives in isolation, they never really spent any time with blacks or any other minority. They were a part of the early MTV generation which was all white. They weren't a product of the 60s they were a product of the 70s and early 80s and they were isolationists. Now they are fifty something and 60 something and their kids have black friends, black roommates in college, black music, movies, books. The people who had to be convinced to give Obama a try but when they did they listened to him and liked him. So people like that hear the race baiting and the condescension and the derision and they are turned off. They vote dem now because the GOP seems to be stuck in a time loop. This is probably our last cycle of the madness from the GOP so we need to take advantage of it.

[IssuesInFocus]

But the base evetually shrinks, if new voters are not joining in. How will that base be replenished? The formula for winning elections, remains the same --numbers. And the more the merrier. Are we then seeing the final 'sighs' from the GOP? With all the political theater, over these last few months, that could just be the case. Not to mention, they have 'eaten' their own political capital.

[booksnmoreforyou]

Cultures can be reproduced forever.

[tess01]

So what if she thinks that a "wise Latina" might come to "better" conclusions than a white man? She's a wise Latina who has come to some interesting conclusions that belie the implication that she meant she'd promote a race or gender-driven agenda. The decisions she's made include voting in favor of a a fired employee who wrote a racist rant and ruling immigrants seeking to reverse deportation orders. Bringing different life experience and cultural identification to the bench might very well lead to some better conclusions than those made by a demographically homogeneous group. We aren't vetting nine female Hispanics for the job. She'll be the one Latina and one of two women. Hopefully, she will add something new to the conversation in case conferences. If everyone on the court is supposed to look at every fact pattern the same way and come to the same conclusion, we'd only need one justice, not nine.

Recently, Justice Ginsberg noted in the "teenage girl strip search" case that none of the other justices had the experience of being a teenage girl and thus failed to appreciate the anguish visited about a young girl forced to stand naked in front of school administrators. She's right.

Blind justice doesn't mean we want justice in a vacuum. Judicial officers are invested with discretion. As Sotomayor says, they are not robots and all bring their preferences and biases to with them to work every day.

[DoTheMath]

"Implicit in Sessions' comments about Sotomayor is the idea that she brings experience and background due to her ethnicity, but the six white men on the court are the norm and therefore do not bring any kind of specific background and experience. There is a troubling and not so subtle, form of racism at play here, suggesting that the white male experience is the normal, American one against which all others are measured."

Exactly. Her perspective is suspect. The white men in the senate aren't even acknowledging that the white men on the supreme court HAVE a perspective, let alone one that could influence their opinions.

[Shellly]

the fact that out of over 100 supreme court justices only 4 have been non-white males, is telling.

[gallimaufry03]

Well I'll open a can of worms. I like that she's a woman, I like that she's latina but I do worry about her being catholic. I wonder what the chances are of her divorcing herself from the papacy and going anglican.

[hunt49]

Seriously? Are you nervous 'bout them dern papists??

Reference the speech by John F. Kennedy (Catholic) on the subject.

[gallimaufry03]

She's not Kennedy, right? If you don't know anything about how the catholic church operates in latin america (and all over the world) then you're missing out on quite a tale of social irresponsibility and moral ineptitude. Organized religion of just about any stripe is more than worthy of deep circumspection ... but the catholics have been doing it longer than many.

[PunKinPai]

I don't so much worry about Sotomayor being Catholic per se, but she'll be the sixth Catholic on the bench.

[Weirdwriter]

I didn't know any of 'em were Catholic. Isn't that the point?

[TheAntiNixon]

hmm. Catholics passing judgement. does this surprise anyone?