Sonia Sotomayor: The Answer Rhymes with "Fender"

The question: Why is the media talking about Sonia Sotomayor's tongue or temperament?

In a recent New York Times article, "Sotomayor's Blunt Style Raises Issue of Temperament," journalists Jo Becker and Adam Liptak write that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee "has a blunt and even testy side." Evidence includes the following:

•She's interrupted lawyers arguing before her bench
•She's been known to "pepper" attorneys with "skeptical questions"
•She's grilled lawyers
•She's been called "difficult" and is known for running a "hot bench"

So what?

This gets media play -- in the formidable New York Times, at that -- because Sonia Sotomayor is female. And so easily sex becomes gender.

By attaching human qualities to male and female biological bodies we end up with a gender formula that goes like this:

Gentle, nurturing, emotional = feminine.
Bold, fearless, rational = masculine.

That's gender. And beware to those who dare cross the line. The stakes are high. In this instance at stake is a seat on the highest court in the land.

The thing is, emotion and reason are both qualities we want in a Supreme Court justice. When honed by education, intelligence, and broad experience, these are among the qualities that point to an engaged, thoughtful legal expert capable of performing their duties at the utmost level of competence.

Look at it this way: If Sotomayor were a highly trained surgeon would she be called "too exacting," "picky," or "a clean freak"? We want surgeons who are focused, precise, and hygienic. We want Supreme Court justices who are forceful, assertive, and lucid. We also want surgeons and judges who care. These are not mutually exclusive qualities.

In any case, as Becker and Liptak report, complaints that Sotomayor has been unduly caustic are unfounded. For a time, Judge and former Yale Law School Dean, Guido Calabresi tracked the questions posed by Sotomayor and the 11 other judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. "Her behavior was identical," he said. "Some lawyers just don't like to be questioned by a woman," Judge Calabresi added. "It was sexist, plain and simple."

But here's the trick. The failed sleight of hand, if you will. Some detractors oppose Sotomayor's nomination because of her overly direct style, while others like Karl Rove object to her empathy. That Catch-22 has the hallmarks of an ideological battle that can't be won -- because it makes no sense. They might think they have all their bases covered, but conservatives who argue that Sotomayor is too quick, too rational, too emotional, and too empathetic need to check it. This flailing about is logically bizarre and politically undignified.

Critics like Heritage Foundation fellow Robert Alt who freak out that Sotomayor brings her personal experience to the bench are exposing their own selective prejudice. Which part of Sotomayor's history bothers them the most -- her time at Princeton or at Yale? Judge Sotomayor is a graduate of both.

Sotomayor also grew up in the South Bronx, the daughter of a single mother. She was the youngest Manhattan federal judge and she is the first Latina nominee to the Supreme Court. What a rich and variegated life. Like many of us, Sonia Sotomayor has walked in many worlds. Like all of us, Sotomayor is a complex blend of reason and emotion, empathy and detachment. None of us are automatons, detached from our inner landscape and external impacts. We bring these qualities to the table regardless our pursuits. It's just that some of us cop to it, while others take a stance of pretend neutrality.

In a 2001 lecture at Berkeley, Judge Sotomayor now famously said, "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." Sotomayor will be accountable to this statement, with its own brand of ethnic hierarchy. Nobody is above scrutiny. Yet it is crucial that we can both critically question statements such as this and also understand the politics of empathy and individual insight.

Life experience and personal attributes come into question only when they challenge rigid assumptions about gender -- and race, or class, or ethnicity. That's how stereotypes work. It's a tired old story. In 2009, it's surprising to see politicians still promoting it and the mainstream media still falling for it.

Comments

[Jane King]

Very insightful. I've spent a significant amount of time contemplating the depth of resistance to the idea of female competence because I grew up in a household without this prejudice and was surprised upon emerging into adult world. The idea that women are both stupid and dangerous is strong and implacable. I believe even the obsession with female slenderness has a root in gender politics. If you want to oppress a group and yet have a member of that group sleep next to you, what could be more brilliant than to convince the group they must weaken themselves every day through lack of fuel. I rejoice only that there are women who are allowed to speak out - which means hope for the future. The fact that Sotomayer is standing in a place where this discussion becomes relevant is great.

As I say to my friends, if they call you a bitch at work, it's a compliment.

[Freesia2]

Judge Sotomayor is the victim of not one but two sterotypes. This has never been done before and as usual the critics are behaving in the nasty way dreaded - only this time they get to do it in stereo. Lucky Sonia. Lucky us. Like spoiled kids with too many toys they just don't know which to go for first. Her gender or her ethnicity.

I keep thinking of Ann Richardson describing what it was like to be a woman being judged. The famous line that Ginger had to do everything Fred did, only backwards, and in high heels. Add to that now that Sonia has to prove she can do it backwards, in high heels and also convince them that she's capable of serving up justice, not just Puerto Rican food.

Disgraceful. It really is. It's just a sad old day in America.

[Benny Huang-lemaster]

"None of us are automatons, detached from our inner landscape and external impacts. We bring these qualities to the table regardless our pursuits. It's just that some of us cop to it, while others take a stance of pretend neutrality." Fantastic point Shira!

I see neutrality as one of many foundational pitfalls that we must address and negate. One of the forms that neutrality is taking in the current conversation about Sotomayor is colorblind racism (laissez-faire too, might I suggest). This morning i was reading an article in the New York Times by David Kirkpatrick that blatantly focused on the necessity of looking past Sotomayor's race (and gender and class by proxy).

It just sickens me to see politicians and media framing Sotoymayor in such a way that her life experiences are somehow less important to the position of Supreme Court. As you put so eloquently, "emotion and reason are both qualities we want in a Supreme Court justice." Indeed, I do not want (and I imagine most Americans would agree) to see a judge that is informed by one or the other only.

What I am seeing now:

Justice = Rationality over Emotion
Injustice = Emotion over Rationality

What we should embrace and encourage in our justice selection:

Ideal Justice = Rationality/Emotion AND Emotion/Rationality

I suppose that is all for now.

[Shira Tarrant - Huffpost Blogger]

Wow. Benny! Thanks for this comment.

[chriss0114]

It seems many are OK with what Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and even Rehnquist had to say (and do like blocking minorities from voting based on the color of their skin and supporting separate but equal)

Sotomayer's statement was an innocent statement

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life"

The statement in or alone is hardly racist but more hopeful -- if an Irish man said the same to an Irish group implying that he or she would hope that the Irish experience compared to any other might help grant some wisdom to help make BETTER decisions, they wouldn’t have their proverbial panties in a wad

[Shira Tarrant - Huffpost Blogger]

And how quickly some (selectively) forget Justice Alito's comments during his Senate confirmation hearings. He said (and I paraphrase) that he would take into consideration his own family's ethnic and gender experiences in deciding discrimination cases.

[Horus45]

"In 2009, it's surprising to see politicians still promoting it and the mainstream media still falling for it."

But the public is not falling for it anymore!

[Shira Tarrant - Huffpost Blogger]

Horus45 -- I'm with you! I think most people aren't fooled. But it also seems like there are a few (G. Gordon Liddy, anyone?!) who are huffing and puffing as loudly as they can, even while they're so out of sync with the 21st century.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

The much quoted statement does not invoke an ethnic hierarchy. Racism has invoked an ethnic hierarchy and hence created a particular range of experiences. The statement refers to those experiences, not to an ethnic hierarchy due to being Latino.

To clarify the point - and hopefully it helps some people to relax about this:

As Michael Steele knows full well, there are certain kinds of music that were invented by Black people, and they have a tradition lasting a long time. These kinds of music could not possibly have been invented by white people, even though later on, some white people did manage to copy the idea.

This phenomenon is as basic as anything can get in cultural history. To take the much-quoted statement as making up an ethnic hierarchy is confused already.

Of course I agree with your post, I was just trying to point out that there is even less danger in the criticisms than you fear. They make no sense at all.

[Shira Tarrant - Huffpost Blogger]

DofA -- Thanks for your nuanced comments. Cultural conversations about ethnicity, identity, power, and politics can be difficult. All the more reason for us to keep talking! It's interesting, too, that *this* is the quote getting so much attention when there's lots more to say about Sotomayor's expertise and professional experience.

[thinkagain2]

This post makes some excellent posts. There is an unfortunate blur between racism and racial identity. The former is ignorant and hate filled, the latter an important component of our collective humanity.

[Abby L. Ferber - Huffpost Blogger]

Well put; I couldn't agree more. This is a very tired old story but at least there are many, many voices out here speaking up and refusing to accept this stereotypical framing. Keep up the great work!

I blogged on some of these issues as well and welcome comments and feedback!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-ferber/sotomayor-racist_b_208639.html

[Shira Tarrant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, Abby. Appreciate this link to your post. You raise important issues, as always!