Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings Will Be a Trial of the GOP

As she faces what is already expected to be a host of hostile questions from the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in her confirmation hearings, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court, should remember one thing: that it is not she who will be on trial, but the Republican Party.

Rather than allow herself to be put at the center of another racism and sexism-laden political circus around the qualifications of a candidate who brings more real-life prosecutorial and actual judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years, Sotomayor should consider another strategy. She -- and we -- should instead view those hearings as nothing less than a trial to determine whether the GOP is ready to make restitution for its role in a number of judicial and political wrongdoings perpetrated in the Bush era. Those wrongdoings include unleashing unprecedented and dangerous political attacks on Latinos, and breaching the political and electoral contract the "new GOP" said it wanted with Latinos, one of the country's most important voting blocs.

The Sotomayor hearings will determine whether members of the Republican Party are ready to renew fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law.

Consider the case of U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Cornyn supported the nomination of the last Latino to be considered for a high office dealing with matters of justice -- disgraced former Attorney General and Republican Alberto Gonzales. Even after Gonzales's role in crafting the now infamous "torture memos" became apparent, Cornyn raised none of the "red flags" and "lots of questions" he now says he has about Sotomayor.

During the Senate Judiciary hearings around the Gonzales nomination, Cornyn declared that the candidate would be vindicated by history:

The growing consensus behind the president's decision that al Qaeda terrorists are morally entitled to humane treatment but not legally entitled to the special privileges afforded to prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 provides compelling vindication to supporters of Judge Alberto R. Gonzales' nomination to be our nation's 80th attorney general.

Even when Atty. Gen. Gonzales came under fire for his role in the firings of a group of United States attorneys in late 2006, Cornyn and other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary defended Gonzales as an "honorable and decent man" who "finds himself in a bad situation."

Though Gonzales will likely turn into the invisible brown GOP man, or go on a long vacation during the Sotomayor confirmation, millions of Latinos will watch what for them is a historical event of the utmost political and intimate importance. Many of these Latinos will be watching to see any signs of the racism and xenophobia many Latinos blame the GOP for and voted overwhelmingly against in the last election. Latino voters will, for example, be vigilant about what GOP Senate Judiciary members like Jeff Sessions say before and during the hearings.

Earlier this month, reports linking Sessions, the ranking Republican
on the committee, to anti-immigrant groups filled Spanish-language
media. According to the Washington-based America's Voice, the Alabama
senator has appeared at several events organized by the Center for
Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, as well as the Federation for
American Immigration Reform, which was designated by the Southern
Poverty Law Center and other organizations as a "hate group."

Anything in this must-see Latino political event resembling the anti-immigrant rhetoric that has been Sessions' trademark will cost his party for years to come. Such concerns about GOP leaders among Latinos, who are only beginning to realize their enormous political potential, pose a gigantic dilemma to a Republican Party that must make inroads among Latino voters if it is to have a political future.

Whatever they say in the hearings, Republicans will be at a great disadvantage when it comes time to counting votes in a Democrat-controlled Senate that will be at, or very close to, the filibuster-proof 60-vote majority needed to confirm Sotomayor.

So it will be the GOP and not Sotomayor that will be on trial in this high-stakes judicial confirmation of the post-Bush era of Republican dominance. Latinos will watch to see if GOP leaders will use the Sotomayor hearings to distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others many Latinos consider to be anti-immigrant extremists.

And we should all be watching to see if Republicans are prepared to use the Sotomayor confirmation as a way to communicate a willingness to redeem themselves for the great injustices of our recent past.

Comments

[realpolitic]

Such luminaries as Pat Buchanon, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich say Sotomayor is a racist and they are experts on the subject of bigotry. They have been practicing it for years. They cry racism in those rare and make believe instances when it is supposed to be leveled at white males, which is a common occurence only in their universes.

[Bigheart521]

Realpolitic you spoke the truth.

[Pablo175]

Chill out. She will pass easily.

[Abby L. Ferber - Huffpost Blogger]

Excellent point by this author, and we all need to work to shift the focus and not allow the Republicans to set the terms of the debate.
See my recent Post on the subject:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-ferber/sotomayor-racist_b_208639.html

[mh01]

Newsflash, the focus on the right is her ability, her past decisions, her temperment, her previous statements, and whether or not she is the best possible nominee for the position.

Incidentally, that's exactly what the focus is supposed to be, according to the long history of senate review of judicial appointees.

The focus of the left is to, as you say, "shift the focus" to her race and sex and her compelling personal story in order to pre-brand the right as racist sexists and therefore avoid a fair and diligent review of her qualifications. Identity politics at is absolute worse.

You can twist yourself into knots trying to parse her comment to take it out of the category of racial superiority "more often than not", but the fact is, on its face, its a racist comment, if we are to believe websters definition of racism...."a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

I can make better decisions than a white man most of the time because I am a latina woman with a richness of experiences he doesn't have.

Your comment of shifting the debate is tragic, but typical, to those who seem to value form (or identity group) over substance.

[freedomthrutruth]

I think you misinterpreted Sotomayor's comment regarding differences between her decisions and those of white men. As a Latina growing up amidst poverty in the Bronx, Sotomayor simply sees the world from a perspective quite distinct from that of a white male who has lived in de facto, "whites only" communities for the duration of his existence on this earth. Sotomayor's encounters with racism have likely been countless, while no white male is required to experience it. And if you were required to experience it in the same ways blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans do, you'd change your tune in a heart beat.

[realpolitic]

The focus of the right is to say that she is a racist which is indicative of their typical hysteria and their inability to seee racism except where it is supposedly and fictionally confronted by white males.

[Decades9]

Judge Sotomayor may put Republicans on trial during her confirmation hearings, but both Democrat & Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have a clear duty to analyze her significantly unclear positions on the First Amendment's "establishment clause" & the separation of church & state. Past nominees to the Supreme Court, notoriously Roberts & Alito, were deceitful re: "stare decisis" & the Roe v. Wade
precedent. Whether religion should or should not enter confirmation hearings is debatable, since it clearly has influenced decisions of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Kennedy and it should not be disregarded in analyzing Sotomayor's position(s) on democracy's most commendable traits -- freedom of conscience and the separation of religion from the legal machinery of the state.

[realpolitic]

Newt Gingrich has already called her a racist and others on the right say she is an affirmative action baby, although graduating first in her class at Princeton. Man, these guys are still living in an America of fifty years ago.

[mh01]

What part of saying “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." isn't racist or sexist?

Try it this way " I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life."

Racist and sexist, no?

[rjmiller]

If the decision was about where to put the new practice green at the country club it would be legit.

Seriously though, your argument doesn't hold. The person making that statement could very well be considered racist/sexist IF race/sex have nothing to do with decision-making (hint: they do) and the group the judge is joining wasn't almost entirely white, while making decisions for a country that is NOT entirely white.

[realpolitic]

She said....

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases...I am...not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."

"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. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. 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."


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/27/judicial-confirmation-network/Sotomayor-comment-Latina-women-versus-white-men/

[paixa3]

I read your headline and have to state: I think that the press and the dimocrats are too dumbed down to make it a trial of the GOP, although, that certainly should be.

[mh01]

Huh? GOP on trial in the latino community for....supporting a latino AG?

What about dems being on trial for their fillibuster of Miguel Estrada, a bush nominee, and latino judge?

The main criticism from the right is that Sotomayor has had some pretty awful reversals of her decisions, that she effectively punted on the quota case of the New Haven Firefighters resulting in harsh criticism from her colleague and clinton appointee Jose Cabranes, and that she has openly advocated policy making from the bench.

The truth is that the only people making a big deal out of her ethnicity and her sex are people on the left, who insist on imputing sexism and racism to the right before it even happens.

Do you believe that justice is blind (which is the constitutional requirement) or do you believe that a justice should follow their heart if they feel bad for one of the parties?

Here is the oath of office for SCOTUS, which part of this talks about identity politics and empathy?

"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."

It doesn't. Obama's empathy philosophy runs counter to american constitutional law, that philosophy is the only thing on trial.

[patwal]

In that case Alito's must be too, right?

[mh01]

in what respect?

[daddysboy]

"...equal right to the poor and to the rich...". It is hardly possible to do equal right to the rich and the poor unless you understand something about the rich and the poor, just as it is hardly possible to understand racism unless you understand something about the white and the not-white people in this country and the differences in what can be achieved simply by accident of birth. Privileged, white men that have NEVER personally lived any of these disparities will be severely handicapped from understanding how to administer the kind of justice that a diverse country like America has needed almost since it's inception. Any mention of background in reference to future judgement isn't intended to illustrate a bias, just an awareness and understanding of a larger truth about this country that has been somewhat ignored on our Federal Supreme Court.

[1088]

I'm not worried about this women being on trial by the GOP'S. I know she can take care of herself. You are not dealing with a amateur here, for she knows how to frame her answers well. You'll see!

[tweedledeedumb]

I don't care if she is from Mars, from what I hear she is way too friendly to big business. I don't think the GOP will have any problem...they'll jusst put on a show. This is all just more Clinton style act Liberal but be conservative in all of your actions.

[pubear]

What about the people who don't care a about party, gender, race or abortion? Could someone do an honest assessment of judge Sotomayor for us? She sided with an opinion stating the second amendment doesn't apply to state and local laws. The constitution always applies. I have found very little information on her rulings. I have agreed with her most of the time ,but this case really frightens me. What other amendments wouldn't apply to state law?

[lj9283]

This link contains unbiased summaries of several of the 150 Civil Opinions she has written there is much more detail than is contained in your brief (and somewhat misleading) statements , the group is compiling Criminal Opinions and will post them at a later time:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

[lj9283]

The Second Amendment issue that you discuss is relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”

[pubear]

Thank you for the link. My comment was not misleading. The constitution is always settled law. Neither state nor local governments have the authority to override the constitution. Presser v Illinois had with german socialists marching through downtown chicago carrying rifles. The court said not allowing armed paramilitary organizations to hold a parade without a permit did not violate the second amendment.

[mergina]

Actually, her confirmation is GOING TO PUT OBAMA ON TRIAL. Whether he realizes it or not, he is losing many who voted for him. With this nomination, he will be put on trial for his lack of action on gay rights, don't ask don't tell, A WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOOSE, His increasing MARRIAGE TO SIDING WITH BIG BUSINESS, and the continuing erosion of each and every Americans civil liberties and rights that he allows to continue.

[xlntcat]

What exactly does a Supreme Court confirmation have to do with DADT. etc. Do you have some inside information that Judge Sotomayor is against equal rights for gays, supports DADT, would violate or overturn Roe vs Wade, or would be bias to Big Business. Her prior rulings support none of your accusations. Is your point that she has for all these years been in the closet waiting for her chance to revoke civil rights and liberties? Read for yourself all of her decisions and make a rational argument for your conclusions.

[simplify]

HUH?!

[ProfessorDuh]

She will be confirmed, and everyone knows it. All this GOP caterwauling and posturing is just a way for the failed, disastrous Republican Party to raise money from the racist loons -- the last solid base it has left.

[dwright]

love the word caterwauling - haven't seen it used in years !!

[dwright]

who are you kidding "he is losing many who voted for him"?? I think you need to look at the number of days that he has been in office and the number of things that he has already done and reversed (from the Bush Admin.)

People were telling him to slow down - you are doing too much. Then we have you saying hurry up you are not doing enough.

Frankly, both extremes are making me sick. He will deal with the military issue when he gets all the information that he needs to make a workable plan.

If he is codling up to business, then why is big business mad at him?

[patwal]

mergina, we all know you were on Obama's back from way back in the primary... every day you shouted the sky is falling for Obama; every 1/2 point slip in the polls you were predicting an irreversible slide... nothing new to see here.... so let's move along

[joebiz]

"Those wrongdoings include unleashing unprecedented and dangerous political attacks on Latinos, and breaching the political and electoral contract the "new GOP" said it wanted with Latinos . . ." What does this mean and what attacks? If there is ever a conclusory statement, this is it. Victim mentality?

SCOTUS is political organ. It decides cases on the basis of politics. Paradoxically, consitutional law is more about federal power (read political power) and the interpretation of the Constitution, than "constitution law." As Latinos/Hi­spanos/Car­ibenos/Mes­o-American­os, et al, mature as cultural groups and assimilate­/aculturat­e into higher levels of government and society, there will be more expected scrutiny from competing groups. Look at some of the skewering Alberto Gonzales will receive from Democrats.

[dwright]

please Alberto Gonzales was NOT competent at all to be our AG.

[FairTalk]

While I would agree with you that the GOP will be on trial at the Sotomayor hearings, I don't agree with your reasons. I sure hope this does not degenerate into harping on the Gonzalas appointment, nor other inept GOP relationships to other latina latino issues.

Instead, I would hope we could focus on the US Constitution, and what she believe her role as a USSC justice should be.

[entropygal]

I think it is so sad that abortion is such a top issue, high priority in picking a supreme court justice (or deciding can a president deliver a commencement speach at a college campus...). If you asked what are the top issues today, most people wouldn't even think of abortion. Look at how much press time is given to this issue.

[marilyn1227]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am Catholic and am not pro-abortion, but I am not against it either. I think that is a decision to be made by a woman and her God. It is a moral issue. There would be less unwanted pregnancies if insurance companies would cover birth control. The insurance companies for Catholics do not cover birth control. However, I think they cover viagra!

There are do many problems facing our country and the world today. Abortion is legal and just let anyone try to overturn it! They will have a real fight on their hands. The silent majority of women will come forth with vengence.

[mamagordo]

What is so wrong with asking Sotomayor (or any other candidate for the Supreme Court) what their position is on a woman's right to choose? Every time we have a confirmation hearing looming, folks get all skittish about taking a stand, or asking about someone else's stand. I am very worried that Roe vs Wade may get overturned. For me, this issue IS a litmus test. I have three daughters, all of childbearing age. I very much want to protect their right to reproductive choice. I do not see early-term abortion as murder, but rather as the termination of a POSSIBLE life. I accept that other Americans don't see it the same way, and that's fine. That's why we have CHOICE. Sotomayor's upholding of GW Bush's "Mexico City policy" is troubling, and to me it seems unconstitutional. So, yes, I want to hear from her own lips, exactly what her feeling is about Roe vs Wade.

[farseer]

Has anyone noticed the contrast of Palin and Sotomayor? Palin was unqualified, and was clearly picked because McCain wanted a woman to help his ticket. Yet no one on the right wing complained that she was unqualified or that her choice was the result of gender politics. Now, Sotomayor is truly qualified, and look what the same right wingers are saying about her!! It's ironic.