On Sotomayor
I'm far too busy at the moment to write much of anything substantive, but I have to say that I'm somewhat shocked by the sheer brazenness of the Republican attacks on Sonia Sotomayor. I expected the standard "I oppose her because she's liberal, not because she's Hispanic" line, but instead nearly all the criticism seems to explicitly revolve around her ethnicity. She's a racist, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are telling us. She's an affirmative action mediocrity, says the Weekly Standard.
Putting aside for a moment the deeply offensive and counterfactual nature of these attacks, I'm led to wonder whether the GOP has completely lost its collective mind. If you want to have any hope of ever getting another Hispanic vote, here's a tip: at least pretend that your opposition to Sotomayor has nothing to do with her race.
More importantly, though, take a step back and look at how insane this "identity politics" criticism is. As far as credentials go, Sotomayor is virtually identical to the last Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. They went to the same undergraduate school, Princeton (where Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude). They both went to the nation's top law school. And they've had successful law careers that led to successful tenures as federal Appeals Court judges. But somehow because Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent as opposed to Italian descent, she is somehow less qualified. That's nonsensical and insulting on several levels. Moreover, these same conservatives bristle as the suggestion that Clarence Thomas was less qualified than others for the job of Supreme Court Justice. He went to Yale, after all.
As I wrote sarcastically on Twitter earlier, "apparently the only way to avoid 'identity politics' is to pick a white man for every job." There's an assumption in this "identity politics" canard that the only possible justification for choosing someone female or nonwhite is to appease various identity groups. It can't possibly be the case that this person is as well qualified as the various white males that could have been selected. But the reality is that Sonia Sotomayor is as qualified as anyone out there to be on the Supreme Court. She's an experienced and highly regarded federal appellate judge with impressive academic credentials. Whatever qualification threshold there should be for the Supreme Court, she has easily surpassed it. She's not Harriet Miers. Just because someone adds some diversity to the picture doesn't mean that it's coming at the expense of other qualifications.
Putting aside for a moment the deeply offensive and counterfactual nature of these attacks, I'm led to wonder whether the GOP has completely lost its collective mind. If you want to have any hope of ever getting another Hispanic vote, here's a tip: at least pretend that your opposition to Sotomayor has nothing to do with her race.
More importantly, though, take a step back and look at how insane this "identity politics" criticism is. As far as credentials go, Sotomayor is virtually identical to the last Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. They went to the same undergraduate school, Princeton (where Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude). They both went to the nation's top law school. And they've had successful law careers that led to successful tenures as federal Appeals Court judges. But somehow because Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent as opposed to Italian descent, she is somehow less qualified. That's nonsensical and insulting on several levels. Moreover, these same conservatives bristle as the suggestion that Clarence Thomas was less qualified than others for the job of Supreme Court Justice. He went to Yale, after all.
As I wrote sarcastically on Twitter earlier, "apparently the only way to avoid 'identity politics' is to pick a white man for every job." There's an assumption in this "identity politics" canard that the only possible justification for choosing someone female or nonwhite is to appease various identity groups. It can't possibly be the case that this person is as well qualified as the various white males that could have been selected. But the reality is that Sonia Sotomayor is as qualified as anyone out there to be on the Supreme Court. She's an experienced and highly regarded federal appellate judge with impressive academic credentials. Whatever qualification threshold there should be for the Supreme Court, she has easily surpassed it. She's not Harriet Miers. Just because someone adds some diversity to the picture doesn't mean that it's coming at the expense of other qualifications.
posted by A.L. at 1:40 PM
44 Comments:
Great post! I've been enjoying your blog immensely.
How is this not exactly what the GOP wants from poor Hispanics? Is not this an example of the "American Dream?"
A.L.
You also missed the point about how in repudiating Judge Sotomayor, Republicans are repudiating the pick of Bush 41, who appointed her to the Federal bench in the first place. If, as some suspected at the time, Bush 43 was run in 2000 as a way for the party to pay back Senior, one has to wonder why they are so heck bent on screwing him 8 years later.
Philip H,
I'm sure the argument would go like this: Bush 41 picked her because he "had to" in order to appease the Hispanic voters. Goodness knows nobody actually thought she was *qualified*. How silly of Obama to take that seriously!
While most of this nonsense will pass, I do think that Sotomayor has a tin ear regarding how she comes off. A judge should not say stuff like this:
And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK.She knows it's on tape! But she goes ahead to opine on judges making law. There are some things professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers) do not say when they aspire for politically sensitive positions. Do we want a Surgeon General to be caught on tape saying "Yes, sometimes you're worn out trying to cure a patient and it's a relief when he dies"? Might be true, but political positions - and that's what a SC seat is - have an important reassure-the-public aspect that cannot be ignored. So the right-wing shouting about her remarks are her just desserts.
I'm okay with her on the Supreme Court, but she makes me cringe when she adopts the posture of a prima donna (which is more evident when you watch the body language in that video.
I'm surprised that the breakdown in blog-land has been so binary: Sotomayer is racist. Sotomayer is pure as the driven snow. Can't we admit that she's a capable judge but has committed some gaffes?
she seems like a gifted litigator with a long, well rounded resume'. i doubt anyone is "pure as the driven snow", so i get that point, but she seems like a terrific pick.
-proudliberal
Just chiming in to say you're a great blogger and I appreciate the service you do. I hope it goes on indefinitely. You make my political rants look like playground stuff.
you state that nearly all republican criticism of sotomayor is based on her race. i've heard many republicans say they think she is unqualified, but i haven't heard any of them make a derogatory remark about her race. any examples?
Great post, AL, but do we really want to stop the Republicans shooting themselves in both feet with Hispanic voters?
Limbaugh and Tencredo calling her a racist is a clearly derogatory remark about her race in light of the fact that they have no evidence of her racism to offer other than she is not white and not male.
The tribal approach of radical right wingers like Limbaugh and Tancredo has become toxic but it is the only tool in their bag. I think everyone in America should listen carefully to them in their present feckless state so that we may all clearly understand how repellant they truly are.
Tancredo will be told to shut up but nobody puts Rush's ego in the corner. Let him rant.
She's left for my taste but proves to be an inspirational story. Anyone who rises from humble beginnings to a Supreme Court nomination should be commended.
AL
If you have time can you also address the "empathy" argument in another post? Yesterday Wendy Long went on Chris Matthews' HardBall show and the way I saw it, she made a very compelling case on why interpreting the law objectively is the thing Supreme Court justices should strive for. She even managed to catch Matthews flat-footed many times. A counter-argument from someone as knowledgeable as you might help.
Jon Turley has an excellent takedown on this topic:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/28/confirming-nonsense-both-liberals-and-conservatives-distort-debate-over-sotomayor/
While Sotomayor was appointed by Bush I, that is not the whole story.
According to Byron York of the Washington Examiner, the New York senators at that time (Moynihan and D’Amato) had an agreement that D’Amato allowed Moynihan to recommend one out of every four district court seats (I suppose this was because the President was Republican, but the Senate had a Democratic majority). Sotomayor was Moynihan’s choice and Bush went along with it.
Dilip,
Take a look at Greenwald's blog today to get an idea of how Sotomayor operates in a case where empathy would be expected to be a factor.
malcontent said...
Limbaugh and Tencredo calling her a racist is a clearly derogatory remark about her race in light of the fact that they have no evidence of her racism to offer other than she is not white and not male.
leaving aside her decision in the ricci case, which reeks of racism and will soon be over-turned by her future fellow justices, can you tell me what's not racist about the following quote?
"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."
in my original comment i asked for an example of a republican who opposes sotomayor because of her race. accusations are easy, supporting evidence, not so much.
Quiddity-
But is it a gaffe for her to say this? I think we yield the floor to those with a poor understanding of the way the law works and our common law heritage when we allow nonsense like "judges shouldn't make law" become conventional wisdom. At the time of the Founding, probably upwards of 90% of the law was judge made, and even today, I would venture to guess over half of all lawsuits are based on judge made, common law. She was talking to a law school, and said what is obviously true. She said it in a wink wink way, because if she would have actually stated the conventional wisdom as truth, the observers (and I) would have questioned her sanity.
In short, maybe it is time we change the contours of the debate to accurately reflect the role of judges, instead of paying lip service to politically loaded claptrap about the ban on legislating from the bench.
Anonymous,
Taking a comment made outside the courtroom and out of context as indication of racism is dishonest. Read the entire speech before you claim any racism.
A real racist would display racism in their judicial findings. Come back when you find some. Ricci reeks of racism? Baloney.
In your original comment, you claimed conservatives opposed her because of lack of qualifications, yet you provided no links to those.
Yet we're supposed to find and display links for you? Speaking only for myself, I am not inclined to bother.
It seems to me that most of the right-wing objection to Sotomayor is simply knee-jerk opposition looking for excuses.
Anonymous,
Racism is as racism does. Your inconsistent ability to observe reality is due to your over-inflated ego no doubt.
This is beyond my pay grade to adequately address, but I do sense your fear of racism. That is, the fear of becoming the oppressed offspring of the former oppressors.
Don't worry though, Rush will tell you what to do and what to think every afternoon. Assuage the fear with more rage in his service, just try not to injure yourself or others along the way.
Anon - That was an off the cuff comment made to a Latino audinece, where she was speaking by invitation, several years ago. Taking it out of context as you and the righies do is profoundly dishonest. At least read the relevant paragraph if the complete speech is too much for you. Tom Tancredo made this same argument on TV the other night and revealed himself as a complete idiot.
This is nothing more than blatant obstructionism.
C2H50H,
i never asked for links, just an example of a republican who opposes sotomayor because of her race. just one. the statement that nearly all republican opposition to her is race based is so malignantly bold as to merit some support. and if the accusation is true, one example should be easy to produce.
her claim that wise latina women are judicially superior to white men is racist on its face. maybe she misspoke or has refined her thinking in the intervening years. but if a white male republican had said his life experience made him more likely to come to a better conclusion than a latina woman he would be forced into political exile, and justifiably so.
my statement that I’ve heard many republicans say she is unqualified was simply an acknowledgement of agreement with AL. whether those republicans are correct has never been my point. again, all I’m asking for is a single example of republican opposition based on race. admittedly, I will be waiting a long time because the accusation is false.
malcontent,
instead of even attempting to use logic and reason to address the issue, you go straight to name calling. typical. my guess is you made an A in ad hominem 101.
It's probably not worth the bother, but: here is a discussion of the quote in context.
For Republican opposition based on race, what is it when Sonia Sotomayor gets referred to as "Maria" by Mike Huckabee? And how does Pat Buchanan manage to equate a summa cum laude Princeton grad who went through Yale Law at the top of her class and a dozen years of judicial expertise with Harriet Miers, except on the basis of racism?
Perhaps you don't see racism in these examples, because they didn't refer to Sotomayor in openly racial terms, but there's that smell of racism in both examples. Of course, the clearest demonstration of racism is the fact that a highly-qualified person, with ample experience (more than most of the SCOTUS had when they were appointed, in fact) and impeccable academic credentials draws this type of opposition, based on quote-mining, taking things out of context, and anonymous smears.
It's obvious the opposition was foregone, based on something other than the candidate's qualifications, and the opposition is now scraping for something, anything with which to provide a reason for it.
The political landscape is changing dramatically, becoming more ethnically diverse. Moreover, liberal bloggers like AL and Greenwald are exposing the shallowness and dishonesty of the respected intellectual establishment (see Mankiw's critique of Sotomayor's savings). Instead of adjusting, the republicans are imploding. But lets not kid ourselves--neither party has the right to cast the identity-politics stone. Both parties will pounce on any particular decision that has the optics of political posturing rather than principled judgment. Claims of indignation ought to be disregarded entirely; identity politics is the norm, not some morally depraved aberration.
What is frightening is that the Republican's identity politics are becoming increasingly odious. I have very real fears for this country: will our veritable challenges reduce us to xenophobia and racism? The Republicans seemed to of answered that question.
C2H50H,
i appreciate the link, but i have read the speech. context, it seems to me, only serves to remove any doubt that the quote is racist. to be clear, i'm not saying she is a racist. she will likely serve on the supreme court for 20 or 30 years so if she is it will come out in the wash. but as her words indicate she is quite capable of making a racist comment.
your are correct, i don't see or smell racism in the examples you offered. huckabee misspoke and while i didn't hear buchanan's remarks, it shouldn't surprise anyone that he would oppose her. he's a hard right social conservative and she's not.
believe it or not, republicans can strongly oppose a member of a minority group without the least consideration to race.
Huckabee "misspoke"? He was so eager to get out his statement blasting Sotomayor that he didn't even bother to actually LEARN HER NAME? Leaving aside the awkward congruence of Huck's misspeaking with the lead character from West Side Story, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he deliberately didn't get her name wrong. It's an increasingly predictable GOP move to show contempt for something by deliberately mangling the name.
It's interesting that not a single conservative has stood up to condemn the NRO writer who complained about the goddamn pronunciation of Sotomayor's name.
Anonymous,
The vast majority of readers of those comments do not find any racism there.
It's not racism to think that you, via your race or ethnicity, bring something special and unique to the table. It's racism to imagine that people of another race do not.
If you see racism in Sotomayor's comments, perhaps that's because that's what you wanted to find.
You might ask yourself why.
c2h50h,
on the one hand you can "smell" racism when a republican misspeaks or makes an unfavorable and maybe unfair comparison. but on the other, when a latina woman says that her race and gender make her judicially superior to a white male you neither see nor smell even a hint of racism. you might ask yourself why.
Anonymous,
As I said earlier, I read the entire speech. Twice. I don't see any way to twist what she said to make it resemble what you think.
Frankly, the accusation of Sotomayor being racist is merely an instance of projection. They assume, in her place, that the remarks would indicate racism, and so they see it.
I've scored the highest possible marks on every reading and comprehension test I've ever taken, which leads me to believe I've correctly interpreted the remarks.
Given the history of the GOP, they are not entitled to be presumed free of racism. By the way, take a look at Tancredo's remarks yesterday for more blatant racism by a GOP flake.
c2h50h,
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life."
say what you will, but if chief justice john roberts had spoken those racially insensitive words we would never had heard of him.
tom tancrazy's remarks are the closest thing to racist i've heard from a republican in connection to sotomayor. although i think stupid is a better word.
when you say that because of it's history the gop should be presumed racist, do you mean the gop which was founded by anti-slavery activists and soon thereafter ended slavery in america, or do you mean the gop that ronald reagan was a member of when he signed the largest amnesty bill in the history of our country?
Anonymous,
So now you're pretending to be ignorant of history as well as reading-impaired? I'm sure that'll convince some people of ... something.
I notice that you only ever extract a few words from the entire speech. The part that destroys your false equivalence seems to have escaped your notice. Here's a suggestion: read for understanding, not merely to quote-mine.
WRT the GOP: ever hear of the "southern strategy"? Ronald Reagan's exploitation of race in the south is well documented. Both parties were racist to a greater or lesser degree for most of the 20th century. The difference is that the GOP embraced racism as an electoral strategy, attracting racists like Strom Thurmond and David Duke while the Democrats have (mostly) purged their racists and tried to embrace diversity.
c2h50h,
this has been fun but now has grown tiresome. even though "nearly all" republican criticism of sotomayor has been racist, i have yet to see any evidence. perhaps this is due to my inability to smell between the lines.
one thing we can agree on is that neither party is sinless when is comes to race.
however, by attaching david duke to the mainstream of the republican party is dishonest at best. he was a pathetic one term la. congressmen who was always shunned by the national ticket. he never wielded the power and influence of, say, democrat george wallace who served 4 terms as alabama governer and who was famously quoted saying "...segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
yes, strom thurmond had his flaws, but unlike current democratic senator robert byrd, he never served as Exhalted Cylcops in the KKK.
Anonymous,
When and why did Wallace leave the Democrats? Byrd is a blight on the Democratic party, but he's supposedly reformed. Thurmond never recanted his racism, yet remained a high-ranking GOP member until 2003! Had his faults? Like being an open and avowed racist hypocrite, you mean?
I didn't say the GOP welcomed Duke. I said they attracted him, which I notice you didn't bother to try and deny.
Are you that old that you don't remember when the Democratic party changed, driving out the southern Democrats (including Thurmond), who were eagerly courted by the GOP? I doubt it. I suspect you were just out to try and score rhetorical points. Sorry, few of us are that ignorant of history.
I'm sorry if it's not fun for you to defend racists and racism. That in itself is progress, of a sort. I'm old enough to remember when racism was open and unapologetic.
c2h50h said...
"I've scored the highest possible marks on every reading and comprehension test I've ever taken..."
pardon me for questioning your intellectual bona fides, but...
i did not say that you said the gop welcomed duke. what i said was that you, c2h50h, attached him to the party and that it was dishonest to do so. period. the man is a mentally diseased, insignificant political parasite. only his warped mind knows why he would pick one party over another. louis farrakhan is attracted to the democratic party through President Obama, once referring to him as "The Messiah". should republicans hold that against the democrats? no, because he too is a racist nut.
you also wrote...
"I'm sorry if it's not fun for you to defend racists and racism."
this is small-minded slime throwing, projection, and devoid of truth. i have not once defended racism, yet you have done so in each of your comments. you can smell racism when a republican misspeaks, but you can't see it when a democrat puts it in writing. nor can you admit that if justice roberts or any other white republican made a converse statement that you would without question deem it racist.
so when i ask for one example out of the many mythical republican racist jabs directed at sotomayor, i get none. instead i am subjected to brilliant and typical liberal argument which can be boiled down to..."oh yeah, you're the racist!"
Anonymous,
Much as you may enjoy repeating your lame and already discredited bullshit, I don't feel a need to repeat the refutations. Have a good evening.
There are quite a few pieces of nonsense in the post itself, and it's time someone mentioned them.
I expected the standard "I oppose her because she's liberal, not because she's Hispanic" line, but instead nearly all the criticism seems to explicitly revolve around her ethnicity. She's a racist, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are telling us. She's an affirmative action mediocrity, says the Weekly Standard.
A.L. seems to think that when Gingrich and Limbaugh are actually discussing what Sotomayor said in that 2001 paper and talk, the "Latina woman" portion, it is Gingrich and Limbaugh who are injecting race. How is that so? It wasn't either of those two gentleman who made a comment like the one Sotomayor made, but Sotomayor herself. Yet, A.L. wants people to believe that it is Gingrich, Limbaugh, and the GOP who are injecting race into the debate.
The same goes for how A.L. wants to show how conservatives are making comparisons based on race:
As far as credentials go, Sotomayor is virtually identical to the last Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito...But somehow because Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent as opposed to Italian descent, she is somehow less qualified.
Which conservative has done or said this? I actually read what real conservatives write and say, and I haven't heard any of those say this. The only people who thrive on indentity politics are those on the left and Democrats. Some members of the GOP may try to inject some identity politics (especially those that say that the GOP will lose Hispanic votes), and do it badly, but those aren't real conservatives either.
I don't know if Sotomayor would be a good Justice or not. Her 2001 comments and her lack of jurisprudence in Ricci are troubling, especially if Ricci gets overturned (I don't know if the SC will overturn it, although I believe it should). Both need to be examined by all those who are going to question her during the confirmation hearings. But I'm not going to sit by and watch the left project how they look at things (identity politics) on to conservatives when it simply isn't true.
While the the last several comments represent an impressive volume of off topic masturbation, Anonymous' challenge is still unmet. Can anyone provide a single example? Anybody? It's a simple yes or no question. If yes provide the example, if no retract the statement. Intellectual honesty demands it.
A single example? Have you been in coma? Gingrich, Tancredo, Liddy, Limbaugh. All of their criticism has revolved around race, ethnicity, gender. Numerous other conservative commentators, including the folks at the National Review and Weekly Standard have repeatedly implied that Sotomayor is some kind of affirmative-action mediocrity, a claim that is not only untrue but deeply raced-based and insulting. Here resume is nearly identical to Sam Alito's and he was never accused of not being qualified.
And by the way, my claim was never that Republicans are criticizing Sotomayor because she's hispanic (though some are), it's that all of their criticism revolves around the issue of race. She's a "reverse racist". She's an affirmative action recipient. She's an identity pick, etc. Everything is about race. If they were smart they would be going out of their way to make it clear that their opposition has nothing to do with race. But they're doing the opposite.
Actually I was in a coma but I came out of it about 7am and am feeling much better now, thanks for asking. You stated in your original post that the GOP should at least pretend that their opposition to Sotomayor is not based on her race. The example I'm looking for would be in the form of a quote from one of the men you mentioned and would go something like this. "We oppose her because she is Hispanic." If you've got one of those, I'm all ears. If you don't then your whole post is just another example of factless Liberal chin music and as a regular reader of your blog I expected better from you. Her race and gender are only an issue because she made it so. Her assertion that a Latina will make better legal decisions than a white man, simply because she is female and hispanic, is so idiotic and offensive that to ignore it would be foolish.
I wasn't going to comment further, but I've got some time.
If she's a racist, where is the result of her racism in her rulings (see here)?
But I suppose you are going to claim that, although it doesn't show in her judicial record, her comment, 8 years ago, is sufficient, but -- if you are going to claim someone is a racist, shouldn't you have more than one comment, taken out of context and parsed through the lens of your ideology, to rely on as evidence?
As for examples of the GOP making it about race, what else is it when we can point to this?
For those who don't wish to click, the suggestion is made that Sotomayor (who was the valedictorian of her high school class and went to Princeton on a scholarship) got into college on affirmative action. That's a racist comment, there's no way to spin it any other way, and it was made by Fred Barnes who is closer to the heart of the GOP than any of the commenters here. That's the end of the story, for those who claim there's no example.
Maybe you can't see it in Limbaugh and the rest -- although it's there, if only in the "false baseline" and "double standard" they set up for comparison of Sotomayor with other nominees. I defy anyone to claim Barnes' comment isn't blatantly racist.
I personally don't know if she's a racist or not, but her comment was and would be screeched about had it been made by a caucasian. There is STILL no example of a well known conservative saying anything resembling, "We oppose her because she is not white." All of the Conservatives mentioned here fully support Clarence Thomas, if they can support that black man why not this hispanic woman? I'll tell you why, because he's a strict constuctionist and she's not. Period. As far as I'm concerned the racism of her comment bothers me less than it's sheer stupidity. I don't care what her educational background is, anyone whose mind works like hers has no place on the Supreme Court. According to leftist logic I guess that makes me a racist.
That grating sound you hear is the goalposts being moved. So now we have to have someone actually say, verbatim, that they oppose Sotomayor because she's not a white male?
Really?
I don't know if some idiot who goes by the nom "archduke of arrogance" is racist or not. Seems to me, if you admit to being an asshole, whether you are a racist in addition is not a very important question.
c2h50h, to be honest I never really expected you to understand that whole "evidence to back up a statement thing" because I know that most liberals draw their conclusions based on glandular secretions instead of logical thought. When you're having a debate like this face to face are you this quick to start calling people names? The only reason I ask is because where I come from, if you play that card you might spend the next day digging through your own excrement trying to find the rest of your teeth. No need to answer, I've met many like you and I'm confident that you are MUCH more polite when there's a grown man standing in front of you. Oh well, your childish floundering, and name calling has given me a headache so I'll bow out of this hopeless endeavor, still without the one example that was asked for.
AA,
How charming. Given multiple examples you asked for, with proof, you resort to threats of violence.
Actually, if you introduced yourself to me in person as the "archduke of arrogance", I would probably be trying to keep from laughing too hard to point out that you were an asshole, so we're both pretty safe.
Since I avoid places where idiots congregate, it's highly unlikely we'll ever meet.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home