The GOP's Mischaracterization of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Day #2 of the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor have literally just begun and I thought I'd take a moment to reflect on yesterday's opening salvo from my party's ranking leadership (the Republicans).
My concern, as I pointed out in an op-ed yesterday that I penned for theROOT.com, is that I watched a party of middle-aged and older all-white and all-male senators lament against this extremely well qualified, poised, and dignified judge.
According to the ABA, analysts and many judicial observers, Judge Sotomayor is the most qualified judge to approach the Senate for Supreme Court confirmation in at least 70 years. This in and of itself should cause the GOP to take a long "reflective pause" and frankly back off.
Instead, the party that preaches about "colorblind justice" -- and rails against so-called "racial preferences" is going after a woman who, as she so eloquently stated yesterday, "studied every night at the table with my mom and brother" and worked "hard" for every educational and professional accolade she has received in her life. She is the classic "up by your boot straps" American story. One that the majority of my party loves to talk about as how we as Americans should build our lives without the intervention of government.
What I find most troubling is that Sessions (who is asking Sotomayor questions now at the Hearing), et al. have made a political decision to once again use the issue of race to divide our country. Sonia Sotomayor is being wrongly characterized as this affirmative action baby gone wild. She has been called by Rush Limbaugh and others a "racist" -- a "reverse racist" who is "angry" (I love that word because it is what they call us black women all the time) and who is out to repay white males for their advantages in life. Thus, they say her flawed legal decision in the Ricci case.
This is flat-out wrong, inappropriate and just not an accurate depiction of the judge's judicial philosophy or her incredible life story. Any objective observer of the facts would have to agree that what Sotomayor said in a moment of candor (e.g., her white male vs. wise Latina woman comment) was that diversity matters. That one's life experience shapes one's world view in life and in providing justice under the law. To say that Jeff Sessions or Orin Hatch or others as white men have not been shaped by their experiences and thus dealt with people, places, and life accordingly is silly at best.
I will be watching the hearings as they unfold this week and next, and I will be watching to see if the Republicans provide Judge Sotomayor with the same basic fairness that the Republicans rightly demanded of others when they brought forth nominees for the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court.
Follow Sophia A. Nelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/http://twitter.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Most qualified in 70 years"? Where do you get your information and how can you claim such an outrageous undocumented allegation? You should be a copy writer for an advertising agency where everything is "good to the last drop".
It's been all over online media, this was probably the 3rd time I've read it, if you don't believe something you read, simply check it for yourself, it could not be easier when you are already online reading, then you won't feel so frustrated.
um, greyhound check the ABA rating, check every respected newsagency in America that wrote those exact words and then some--the truth hurts don't it. . .
I am sure that personal beliefs and preferences will always influence a justice's decisions, whoever they are.
Otherwise, why do the four SCOTUS judges (allegedly) connected to the secretive extremist right wing Catholic cult Opus Dei nearly always vote as a bloc?
Perhaps the influence of Opus Dei, and the Catholic heirarchy in Rome, on Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Roberts should be a matter of concern...... Hmmm.
now that was cleaver:)
Listening to Jeff Sessions rail against "empathy, bias, and sympathy" and asserting that race, ethnicity, background, etc. have no place in "the law," I have to wonder about Republicans' call for "conservative justices and judges?!?!" If the law, according to Jeff Sessions, can be considered in a vacuum with only one correct outcome, how can any judge be conservative or liberal? Or, is the GOP position that ideology can shape judges' rulings but nothing else?
Ms. Nelson, you are so correct in your essay of what has turned out to be just another display of innate ha tred and bi gotry by those at the top of the republican game. Sessions, Graham and Hatch have lived in the void of ra(ism for as long as they have been on the planet. Every decision they have come to in elected office has been influenced by their ha tred of people of color, or better yet, their loyalty to the southern strategy. I was somewhat taken aback when Graham admitted that "short of a melt down, you will be confirmed!" The reasoning behind his retort is open to many interpretations, however, I conclude that he was visibly lost in the knowledge that this is all show for the republican base, which dines daily on the hatred emanating from Fox News, the Limbaughs and conveniently planted right wing pundits on MSM. Having said that, I also believe that was has occurred and will no doubt continue, is a pathetic display of how insensitive the GOP is to the over whelming projections that within 30-40 years, Latinos will represent the majority population in this country. This is further proof that they place party over country. Thus, the eminent demise of the GOP is a given!
Did you see what Pat Buchanan suggested--he said that the "GOP should forget the Hispanic vote and go after Sotomayor on race" WOW!
I submitted a comment in response:
What does Pat care? He won't be around much longer anyway! He go with a smile on his face knowing that he held true to the southern strategy until the end. Being ra(ist isn't a feeling, it's a way of life which is founded on the premise that this is what their Christian God would have them be...
Smart Latinas are scary people for guys like Sessions. They want Carmen Miranda, not someone who knows about miranda rights. The ugly face of bigotry was revealed by Sessions in his relentless questionings - not meant to elicit honest answers from Sotomayor but to browbeat the person before him whom he saw as the cleaning woman with a college degree. An ordinary looking man, Sessions turned ugly as the hearing progressed, and one waited for someone on that panel to go after him for the level of his questioning. He introduced the remark that she was hot-headed - emotional - empathetic - creating a cliche portrait of the complex Hispanic woman in front of him. This hearing will define him forever as the bigot he is - and a leading representative of the GOP's thinking.
See my op-ed today in theroot.com titled, "Now I'mPissed" it is on the front page views section.
Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, ... and the Republicans will as well.
She will be confirmed as an Associate Justice in the Supreme Court.
Republicans will be confirmed, once again, as petty, vindictive, bigoted, small minded.
Had the GOP chosen its battles more carefully, it would be about the quiet business of politics, ... but the breed of men that populate that side of the aisle seem hell-bent to rant and rave at every turn. No statesmanship, ... no reasoning, ...
It is no coincidence that the week after the Young Republicans vote a racist to lead their ranks, we are given the chance to compare that example, with Sotomayor's grace and wisdom under fire.
There is divine justice in seeing the GOP decompose before our very eyes!
sadly, as a lifelong republican I agree.
And a few months ago you were on here defending the GOP and your affiliation with them because they were attacking Obama and his family with race innuendo. Maybe it's time you rethought that.
Hey Robx or whateverfyour name is--what hole did you crawl out of? You can't read--I HAVE NEVER ANYWHERE DEFENDED TO GOP AGAINST ANY FORMS OF RACISM--QUITE THE CONTRARY AND I LOVE THE OBAMA FAMILY--VOTED FOR POTUS & HONORED FLOTUS LAST YEAR AT MY ORGANIZATION'S ANNUAL AWARDS TEA--BEFORE SHE WAS FLOTUS--YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE $#@ YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SO STOP SPREADING YOUR MISINFORMATION ON MY BLOG.
LOL!!! The blog in question was about Jeanine Garafolo's comments. Keep ranting. Your inconsistency is entertaining. And BTW, this "blog" isn't your personal property. Such notions help you fit the Republicans you emulate quite well.
Sorry Sophia, but this is what you get (comments from Robx) by attempting to be fair and balanced then try to discuss things rationally with a progressive democrat. However, when confirmation hearings were ongoing for Alito, he was lambasted by the dems for just belonging to an organization, whereas Sotomayor was on the board of the organization she represented.....The democrats always have a double-standard when it comes to matters such as these confirmation hearings
why does every liberal pundit and media venue scream back off and free ride for Justice Sotomayor?.....Yes , she is extremely qualified . Her judicial experience and her education are upper echelon....Would it be that our Presidents governing experience were such... but those are not the issues..Why was it ok for Obama to want to filibuster Roberts without questioning him while Republicans have gone so far that she will most assuredly be confirmed....Asking her tough questions is what is imperative ,, Asking what criteria she will use is imperative, especially in light of her having 8 of 10 rulings overturned
I don't think that is true--I think what folks see is the hyprocrisy of Sessions & others who go after her on race and try to make her someone she has never been and will never be.
This is happening because the Republicans (or more accurately, primarily their base which is pressuring the Senators) is trying to do two things which have nothing to do with Sotomayor. First, they want to make Obama nominate someone less liberal should he get another opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Second, there's a segment of the Republican party which will oppose ANYTHING Obama proposes.
With these two objectives, any facts about Sotomayor are irrelevant. Personally, I think the odds are that she will be no more liberal than Souter was, and possibly a bit less so based on her record to date. In which case, I'd think the Republicans would be better served to essentially tell Obama that they'll accept nominees who are similar to her and just oppose anyone significantly more liberal. By fighting so hard on a moderate, they risk Obama deciding to just ignore them since they won't accept a reasonable compromise.
Interesting analysis George. I think that the GOP needs to understand that this pick is actually moderate as to where Obama could have gone--and he arguably has the votes to get any nominee he wants through. This is a good pick--she may end up being anothe Sandra Day O'Connor in the other direction on 2nd amendment issues for example--which would give the conservatives 6 votes on some issue. The Senate's role is to advise and consent--not throw bombs, and lecture qualified nominees on why they are "empathetic". It has driven me batty all day. Thanks for your comments.
I find it amazing that with the wealth of cases to study and opinions to critique (remember Sen. Sessions was bemoaning the fact that he wasn't given enough time to go through all of Judge Sotomayor's opinions and writings) they have to keep harping on two phrases given in a speech and on a decision just barely overturned. I'm forced to ask myself, "what if..."
What if a Republican President had nominated Judge Sotomayor? Oh, wait, one did. Pres. Bush nominated her for her last bench and she passed the Senate with no real problems.
What if a white President had nominated her? See the answer above.
What if, with her wealth of experience, and the recommendations she has recieved from the Bar Association and other, she had been a white male? Now, there's a question.
What if Sen.Sessions had not been passed over by the Judiciary committee? Would he still be going after her so strongly? Maybe we're seeing a case of sour grapes coupled with party (not national) loyalty.
This comment was too deep for me--laughing--I think I get your point but. . .
As a scientist of human behavior, I have to say that the republican approach to doubting Sotomayor’s impartiality is based on ignoring a systematic approach to scientific inquiry. Specifically, they focus on a few speeches Sotomayor has made rather than the more systematic evidence here, namely, her history of judgments that she has made on the bench. I should also add that focusing on a few speeches she has made as a way to question her impartiality also represents a cognitive error called the fundamental attribution error, which wrongly assumes that behavior is almost entirely guided by one’s attitudes rather than by situations, rules, and scripts. In general though, people (especially in Western-individualist cultures) tend to consistently ignore contextual information and overestimate the role of individual attitudes in explaining individual behaviors. However, due to an ideology of attributing everything to individual internal attributes, this tendency of ignoring the individual’s social and situational context in explaining specific behaviors is magnified manifold on the republican/conservative side. Add to that basic cognitive style the MOTIVATIONAL processes of powerful, insulated white males to protect their special status in society and distance themselves from different others, and you have a tendency to further ignore behavioral evidence (e.g., Sotomayor graduated Suma Cum Laude) and be dominated by stereotypical thinking (e.g., “She’s an affirmative action baby”). More on the conservative mindset: http://www.awitness.org/journal/political_conservatism_as_motivated_social_cognition_summary.html
Interesting....I would also add that many of these men simply do not know how to think critically. I think this is a common side effect of being an evangelical Christian...
Yes. Fundamentalist religious thinking tend to be black and white thinking, which necessarily means a lack of cognitive complexity (i.e., appreciating thinking in shades of gray) and critical thinking requires cognitive complexity.
Right-wingers now roundly deplore
The "activist" Sotomayor;
But the next time they screech
About court overreach
Just remind them of Bush vs. Gore.
News Short n' Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
