I’m going to quote the whole thing, which I do not usually do, and endorse it beginning to end.
Read the whole thing before you throw about the word “racist” again, please (and if you still chose to do so, look up the word “racist” and study the remarks again and think long and hard about whether you even understand what the word means. I think you probably don’t).
I’ll cop to sharing some of Yglesias’ irritation at the treatment of Sonia Sotomayor, and if Republicans are managing to get a rise out of my pallid ass, I can only imagine the kind of damage they’re doing to their brand among, you know, real Latinos. For one, it is basically impossible for me to believe that anyone with two functioning brain cells could read the “wise Latina” speech in full and find the notion that it’s “racist” anything but laughable. It’s been done to death in a thousand other venues, but one more time for those who are just joining us now: Sotomayor is talking about different views of how identity affects judging, and in particular she’s focusing on cases the high courts have decided involving race or gender discrimination. She mentions a quotation attributed to Sandra Day O’Connor to the effect that a “wise old man” and a “wise old woman” will come to the same conclusion. And she wonder’s whether that’s true, because historically some very wise jurists handed down decisions that we now mostly recognize as bad ones. She’s suggesting that someone with the experience of living as a disfavored minority might not have fallen prey to some of their errors:
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.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
This isn’t racist, or even particularly controversial. It’s just obvious. Consider Justice Henry Brown’s opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson:
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.
Let me posit that basically any black man living in Louisiana in 1896 would have understood perfectly well why this is grotesque and misguided, and why “separate but equal” is a cruel fiction. He might not be a better judge on the whole, but he’d surely make a “better” decision in this kind of case. At this point in history, of course, we all understand this—though not in quite the same visceral way—and so a judge of any ethnicity or gender would make a better decision. But there are still cases that might involve somewhat more subtle dynamics—questions, for instance, about when a government policy exerts a “chilling effect” on speech—where a certain kind of experience might make it easier to see what’s going on. Similarly, a judge who had previously run a small business might understand the ways that economic regulation implicates other liberty interests in a more robust way than our current jurisprudence tends to—and in those types of cases a wise entrepreneur might be equipped to make a better decision. Not because entrepreneurs are better, but because there are facets of the situation they’ll more easily comprehend that might not be as obvious to someone with a different experience.
On a related note, I find the “what if a white man said that?” move incredibly grating about 99 percent of the time it’s used, because it’s almost always a way of blotting out all the reasons that it would, in fact, be different. In the instance, it would be weird for a white man to say it because it’s probably not true that the experience of growing up as a white male in the United States specifically enhances one’s understanding of what it means to be a disfavored minority. In other words, it just wouldn’t be true or reasonable in this case—though it might be for a white male who grew up as a religious or ethnic minority somewhere else in the world. So yes, sometimes formally gramatically equivalent statements will have different connotations depending on whether it’s a white person speaking about whites or a Latino speaking about Latinos, because history happened. I realize this is, like, the worst racial injustice ever, but Republicans should realize how insanely tone-deaf they come across when they assert that Sotomayor’s is a “story of privilege” because she was “blessed by Providence with the precisely correct right race-gender two-fer for the moment”—as opposed to poor schmucks saddled with surnames like Bush, I suppose, who had to claw their way into the Ivies on their own merits. Or how it sounds when Fred Barnes engages in bouts of Socratic reasoning like the following:
BARNES: I think you can make the case that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.
BENNETT: Yeah, well, maybe so. Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders.
BARNES: One wonders.
BENNETT: Summa Cum Laude, I don’t think you get on affirmative action. I don’t know what her major was, but Summa Cum Laude’s a pretty big deal.
BARNES: I guess it is, but you know, there’s some schools and maybe Princeton’s not one of them, where if you don’t get Summa Cum Laude then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you’re a D+ student.
I feel pretty confident that Fred Barnes has met a few people who attended Princeton, and does not, in fact, believe that they hand out Summas like party favors. So when he goes hunting for some way to cling to the belief that this woman must be a dunce who got some kind of special treatment, it’s hard not to wonder what his priors are. Or here’s Michael Goldfarb on reports that “Princeton allowed Sotomayor and two other students to initiate a seminar, for full credit and with the university’s blessings, on the Puerto Rican experience and its relation to contemporary America”:
I went to Princeton but somehow I never got to teach my own class, or grade my own work. One wonders how Sotomayor judged her work in that class, and whether the grade helped or hindered her efforts to graduate with honors.
Now, Goldfarb can’t even have clicked through his own link to read the press release from the 70s about the course. He would have discovered that when the course was launched, all students had for six years been allowed to propose a seminar on material not covered by the curriculum, and that 132 such seminars had been created under those rules. He would have learned that the course was, in fact, taught by a historian and Latin America expert Prof. Peter Winn. And as you watch these gross distortions pile up, you start coming away with the clear impression that they’re not just the result of simple sloppiness, but a deep background conviction that the achievements of Hispanics are always presumptively attributable to special preferences—and that there’s no need to double-check and see whether that’s supported by the facts in this case. They just know she can’t have really earned it.
Look, it’s not racist to oppose a Latina judicial nominee, or to oppose affirmative action, or to point out genuine evidence of ethnic bias on the part of minorities. What we’re seeing here, though, is people clinging to the belief that Sotomayor has to be some mediocrity who struck the ethnic jackpot, that whatever benefit she got from affirmative action must be vastly more significant than her own qualities, that she’s got to be a harpy boiling with hatred for whitey, however overwhelming the evidence against all these propositions is. This is really profoundly ugly. Like Yglesias, I don’t think I’m especially sensitive to stuff like this, or particularly easily moved to anger, but I’m angry. I don’t think Republican pundits really appreciate the kind of damage they’re probably doing, for no reason I can discern given the slim odds of actually blocking the nomination. Which, perhaps, goes to Sotomayor’s point: They really have no idea how they sound to anyone else.
Good grief. If it takes that much explanation to defend the comment and put it into the proper context, then it is probably a comment that was ill advised and should not have been said. All I know is that if you reversed this, and it was a white person saying the same type of thing in comparison to a Latino, that white judicial nominee would be dead on arrival. And anyone truly honest and living in the real world most of us live in, knows this to be true. Other such candidates for judicial positions and political positions have been castigated in the past (many by democrats) for similar types of statements. If it is ok for Sotomayor, then why not for others? A true double standard is on full display here. And many of us are just as tired of hearing all these excuses for it, as those on the other side who are tired of being called out on it. The latter group better get used to it, as the masses are growing weary of the double standard and no longer are afraid to speak out about it.
And since when is it mean spirited to take to task a minority nominee for the Supreme Court or a federal judicial appointment — eg Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, etc? I thought all of this was just part of the process. Or does the minority candidate only get a free pass when that person is of the democrat persuasion?
My comments above are not really indicative of my particular objections to this candidate, but are made to point out the glaring hypocricy of many who are now attacking anyone who criticizes this nominee (after they did the same type of thing to previous nominees). As previously stated, her opinions on the second amendment are more than enough to warrant my personal objection and calls to my senators to request that they oppose this nominee. Sotomayor could not be more out of touch with the people and culture of the north MS hill country if she tried.
I don’t care what gender or color she is or if she came from Mars — it matters not. What does matter are her opinions and positions on key constitutional and legal issues, and ability to be fair and impartial. And in that regard, like most other nominees, she will be weighed, measured, and a determination made regarding her fitness. There is nothing that the minority party could do to stop her nomination from being confirmed by the Senate if the majority party provides her their full support. So, why all the indignation? Only the most vain desire to be loved by all.
AFOTL. So let me get this straight. I’m supposed to look at ONE sentence and be against this nominee? And call it racist to boot? Well I’m going to attempt to recreate what some are doing to Sotomayer’s comment and use the Bible, a favorite among some conservatives to prove a point. Which is crap, but that’s another issue. I’ll just take a couple of verses from the Bible and infer some outcome from those isolated sentences/verses OUT OF CONTEXT. Just like some are attempting to do to Sotomayer.
Acts Chapter 1 verse 8 states simply, “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.”
Luke Chapter 10 verse 37 “…Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”
Could someone possibly beleive that Jesus was advocating for someone to go get his guts spilled out for two mis-guided and misquoted sentences OUT OF CONTEXT? Gimme a break. One sentence, OUT OF CONTEXT is going to cause this nominee problems? This is bullshit. And the basis for a claim of racism? Sotomayer isn’t my first choice, but this is the same type of crap that people used against Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork and that too was crap.
If someone doesn’t agree with their application of the law, that’s okay, but they don’t need to attempt to cover it up in a claim of racism, reverse racism or some other politicalese or politically correct speech claim. Call it what it is, pure and simple. That’s just bullshit to call it racist and I would to God that people using that term could hear just how petty and tinny it rings to common everyday people. I don’t think she’s a great candidate by any means, but at the end of the day, I think she can be able to determine what is right and what is wrong and what was legal and what the precedents are. She’s ONE vote and replacing someone who voted primarily liberal. Why all the handwringing? On both sides. It’s a done deal. NEXT ISSUE ! ! !
AFOTL: There is nothing that the minority party could do to stop her nomination from being confirmed by the Senate if the majority party provides her their full support. So, why all the indignation? Only the most vain desire to be loved by all.
Dead on. There is only one reason for the D’s to tolerate this fuss-to bargain later. These non-issues lead me to believe that anyone still buying “change” without any reservation is so far in the bag as to not be rational. D.C. is such a different place now,
the closest regulator of the banks that set the world afire is placed as Sec. of Treasury(oops we were not supposed to think about that), these kind of games, and oil up ~80% this year (summer demand my arse).My $.02, disregard at will.
AFOTL “Only the most vain desire to be loved by all.”
I would point out that she was speaking to her “people” in what could be considered a friendly forum. Not unlike others invited to speak in front of their “people”, (See Citizen’s Council or birthday parties for old white guys) and couldn’t or wouldn’t resist the urge to play to the crowd in order to be “loved by all”. And if memory serves me correctly there have been numerous cases where that didn’t work out for them.
“I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
Would these be the words of a racist? To me it sounds more like someone, very aware of themselves and others in the crowd listening, stating she will actively attempt to work through any bias and background issues for the benefit of the people being on the receiving end of her decisions.
Of course then those prickly things like facts keep popping up. If past history is to be any indicator at all of future performance a review of her decisions related to race is in order. From the SCOTUS blog, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/ Would all of these decisions be the actions of a racist?
“Sotomayor could not be more out of touch with the people and culture of the north MS hill country… I think that is the point of Obama wanting someone of different ethnicity and gender. Everyone the law is supposed to affect doesn’t look like us nor believe what we believe. It’s called diversity.
Why has not one democrat pointed out that the wingnuts appointed by the bushes have used their life experiences and prejudices to implement the republican party platform? They have been the most blatant judicial activists in history, disregarding precedent and interpreting the Constitution according to their objectives. Sotomayor’s opinions and decisions have been middle of the road to a large extent and that is the appropriate basis to judge her qualifications, not some speech which only acknowledged what is axiomatic – one’s life experiences influence one’s behavior, thinking and yes, decisions.
Razor, apparently you are so emotional about this issue that it is clouding your ability to read what I posted —either that or you purposedly used me as your straw man for these rants. I did not say that I thought she was a “racist”, but I am indeed pointing out that others have been branded as such by the dems in the past in similar circumstances.
We have had at least two white male nominees from Mississippi for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals go down in flames due to democrat opponents apparently reading tea leaves and reading between the lines to come up with strained and tortured determinations that these men were racists and did not belong on the court. And in the process, the reputations of these nominees were tarnished to some degree.
So, how does it feel? Makes you a bit fiesty and angry doesn’t it when perceived unfair character attacks occur. We reap what we sow.
My objections to this candidate, as I plainly and clearly stated above, are with her faulty interpretation of the second amendment that could potentially eliminate my right to bear arms (my hunting shotguns, hunting rifles, home protection weapons, etc.). To me, that is no insignificant matter.
So, while I understand the criticisms Sotomayer has received for her previous comments that could be perceived as racist, I am not fixated on that, nor do I think it compelling enough to derail her nomination. But, I do think she should be compelled to explain herself during the confirmation hearing —- she should have plenty of ideas of how to do just that with so many offering such lengthy explanations of what she might have meant, as opposed what she actually said. As a Supreme Court nominee, she needs to put on her big girl britches and defend herself.
And my comment about the vanity of wanting to be loved by all (insisting may be a better word) was applicable mainly to the Obama administration and all those in a defensive uproar over any criticism of this Supreme Court nominee — not the nominee herself. I thought that was clear, but apparently not.
Sorry, AFOTL, but regardless of what your NRA fundraising missives keep pushing, ain’t nobody coming to get your or anybody else’s guns..just step back a minute and think what an undertaking that would be…ain’t gonna happen, talk about a bunch of handwringin’…please get hold of yourselves and move on to somethin’ worth worrying about. And, yes I’m an owner, collector, and ahunter…chill…
“And, yes I’m an owner, collector, and ahunter…chill…”
If you want to legally do these things in the future, then perhaps you need to be better informed: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/sotomayors-gun-control-positions-prompt-conservative-backlash/
And here:
http://www.zimbio.com/Sonia+Sotomayor+Nomination/articles/7/Sotomayor+Will+Eviscerate+Second+Amendment
And here:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/sotomayor_gun_rights/2009/05/27/218441.html
I too have collected many guns, some for hunting, some for pleasure shooting and a few just cuz I wanted them. But somehow I don’t feel threatened by this one particular nominee’s view on the 2nd Amendment. She’s not tipping the balance either way. At least not in reading the first two links you provided.
AFOTL. I apologize if I offended you personally. I’m a lot of things, however, being emotional typically is not something I have ever being accused of. I was responding and questioning what I perceived to be the premise behind your use of the argument, “…if it was a white person saying the same thing…” and what I viewed as the primary point in the comment.
That being said, I wasn’t attempting to make you a straw man, as I understand the premise behind straw men. Of course one man’s rant is another man’s reasoned rebuttal. And I don’t want to be your straw man either, as evidenced by your rhetorical question asked, “So, how does it feel?”
Once again, I apologize if I misread the first paragraph of your 1034pm post. However, I’d ask what the definition of the “it” you were referring to if “it” wasn’t a claim of reverse racism. And I’d question the logic in the 1029AM post where you appear, at least to me, to be offering that it is somewhat fair to use this type mud-slinging race-baiting to justify similar tactics since prior candidates for the 5th COA had it done to them by the Dems.
BTW, I wasn’t blending your argument against her, I thought you were. I thought I was separating out the part of your position and comment that I disagreed with. And I don’t prefer her stance on the 2nd Amendment either, on that point, you and I will agree every time.
“here is nothing that the minority party could do to stop her nomination from being confirmed by the Senate if the majority party provides her their full support. So, why all the indignation?”
Because it is wrong, deeply wrong. And given this country’s long, ugly history of racism, decent people should not be silent about this kind of dishonesty.
So, those arguing that somehow she must be a good pick because the negatives brought up about her must make her so, do you not pause with the fact that in her per curium opinion about the 2nd Amendment it was opined that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states?
She said “the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal
government seeks to impose on this right” and completely ignored incorporation.
Dr. X, can we get this on record here that this type of character attack is “deeply wrong”, even if used by dems against conservative nominees? IF so, and every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the President/Executive branch, Congress, the media, groups like the PAW, etc. would take such an oath and follow the example, then I’m buying. But, its just as dishonest to now claim righteous indignation when many of the persons expressing such have been engaged in the same exact past behavior and will do so again at the first opportunity. If this nomination and confirmation process brings this hypocritical double standard to the forefront as “deeply wrong”, then that will be a positive development. At least in this case, Sotomayer actually said what she is alleged to have said —its the context that is being argued. I’m willing to listen to HER explanation with an open mind.
Her misguided positions re the second amendment, on the other hand, are crystal clear. She is one of only three or so federal circuit court justices who have ever held that the second amendment was not an individual right and that it did not apply to the states (as all of our constitutional rights contained in the bill of rights were thought to do). That clearly puts her in the “radical” category.
OOooooo, a Fox news report..that really makes me scared. Sorry, my main point is that it’s never gonna happen..way too big and difficult an undertaking. All these scare tatics ain’t doin’ nuthin’ but makin’ all the guns and ammo way more expensive and hard to find than it should be.
Trying to argue with a liberal accused of making a racist comment is a waste of time. Can anyone recall the last time a liberal politico apologized for making a racist comment?
OC… care to point out the last time a conservative made a real apology for a racist comment?…and I don’t want to hear about any of those ” I’m sorry if anyone was offended” pseudo-apologies
pr1954, is it your position to just ignore it then, using this Hope you have that constant infringements won’t lead to something more under the misconception that it’s “too big and difficult” as your basis?
I’m glad some didn’t take that same position on racial and gender equity issues.
JDB, that’s just backasswards thinking …your examples are things that were wrong that needed fixin’, not things that people are trying to scare you into thinking are going to be needlessly changed. it’s called a realistic thought process to what’s likely, not some scarey scenarios that are not realistic…sort of on par that Prez O is gonna lead us into a Muslim theocracy
In other words… defending being wronged is backasswards of trying to fix something that is wrong?
not only is it not backasswards, it’s not even non-linear thinking. If the truth “scares” people then so-be-it.
Change of this sort isn’t usually a night/day event. It’s chipped at over time…. but just ignore the actuality of whether the facts support it because it appears too big and scary.
Dude, re-read the post. My point is in this case there’s nothing that needs fixing…just a bunch of scarey hollerin’ about possibilities that realistically ain’t gonna happen. As they say…if you’re skeered…..
There’s really no need to re-read. It’s not that conceptually challenging of a comment.
The point that seems elusive here is that defending Sotomayor’s position on the subject with the idea that her beliefs are just too difficult a task to implement, is rather obtuse. It doesn’t matter whether you believe such action can take place or not, for this argument’s sake. It matters whether the person being appointed is worthy of the seat because they believe a right afforded by the Constitution does not protect the People from the States…. only the Federal Government. Can you think of a few other rights afforded by the amendments that would be scary if you were only protected from the Federal Government under her interpretation?
Sorry, my point you seem to be missing ain’t no damn concept. It’s reality that I’m trying to get across here.
Find something, anything that’s a real possibility. Otherwise, and this is my main point, you’re wasting your time making arguments about stuff that ain’t gonna happen.
I ain’t no lawyer and I’m not here to argue for arguments sake…besides my ribs in the smoker are ready and you’re gettin’ tiresome….buh bye
As a yellow dog Democrat, my fondest wish is that the most conservative Republican Senators will get high on Leader Limbaugh’s rhetoric and accuse this woman of being a racist. I can’t think of anything better for the next round of elections. I hope they won’t ramble, though, because we need some sound bites to fit into 30-second spots on television and radio.
NZS, it is time that we all hope some statesmen arise from both sides of the aisle, but given what is going on right now, that is equivalent of hoping I will make a career jump into the NBA. Ideology (to stir the masses) and expediency (for the profit of those in power and their friends) are the primary priorities today-just like in the last administration.
If we do not have statesmen from all sides, we are screwed.
Here’s the crux of the 2nd amendment issue as it exists for me. The current SC in the Heller decision, footnoted that the Cruikshank decision is the basis for not applying incorporation to the 2nd amendment. They also note that Cruikshank states that incorporation doesn’t apply to the 1st amendment either… although they acknowledge that later SC decisions affirm that the 1st is covered by incorporation. They finish their footnote by stating that later SC decisions affirm that the 2nd is NOT incorporated.
I’m honestly dumbfounded at how we can arbitrarily choose what portions of the Bill of Rights we choose to apply incorporation to. The reason why this SC nominee is “frightening” is that the current SC seems to agree with her that a portion of the Bill of Rights is not applicable against individual states and only against the Federal Government. This isn’t about the Federal Government coming and taking people’s firearms. This is about an individual’s right to bear arms afforded by the Constitution being selectively removed by the states because the highest Court says that incorporation doesn’t apply evenly across the Bill of Rights.
Even though we have Nordyke v. King that might help…. it was only a 9th Circuit Appeals Court decision.
JDBerry– the some-not-all view of Incorporation Doctrine isn’t new to this issue– there’s no “federal” right imposed on the states to jury trials in civil cases, although that’s in the bill of rights. Read my more recent post on this. This issue has been much debated for decades.
Let’s see. The defense of a liberal failing to apologize for a racist view/comment is to say that the apologies of conservatives for doing so are not sincere. That’s an indefensible point, assuming it to be true? Weren’t we talking about the prospective justice. Let’s just agree that she goofed at a minimum, shall we? Others can argue the good judge’s motives.