Friday, May 29, 2009

It's Sotomayor's Ethnic Authenticity, and Shut Up About It!

Here's Kimberley Strassel on Sonia Sotomayor:

President Barack Obama has laid down his ground rules for the debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The big question now is whether Republicans agree to play by rules that neither Mr. Obama nor his party have themselves followed.

Ground Rule No. 1, as decreed by the president, is that this is to be a discussion primarily about Judge Sotomayor's biography, not her qualifications. The media gurus complied, with inspiring stories of how she was born to Puerto Rican immigrants, how she was raised by a single mom in a Bronx housing project, how she went on to Princeton and then Yale. In the years that followed she presumably issued a judicial opinion here or there, but whatever.

The president, after all, had taken great pains to explain that this is more than an American success story. Rather, it is Judge Sotomayor's biography that uniquely qualifies her to sit on the nation's highest bench -- that gives her the "empathy" to rule wisely. Judge Sotomayor agrees: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said in 2001.

If so, perhaps we can expect her to join in opinions with the wise and richly experienced Clarence Thomas. That would be the same Justice Thomas who lost his father, and was raised by his mother in a rural Georgia town, in a shack without running water, until he was sent to his grandfather. The same Justice Thomas who had to work every day after school, though he was not allowed to study at the Savannah Public Library because he was black. The same Justice Thomas who became the first in his family to go to college and receive a law degree from Yale.

By the president's measure, the nation couldn't find a more empathetic referee than Justice Thomas. And yet here's what Mr. Obama had to say last year when Pastor Rick Warren asked him about the Supreme Court: "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation."

In other words, nine months ago Mr. Obama thought that the primary qualification for the High Court was the soundness of a nominee's legal thinking, or at least that's what Democrats have always stressed when working against a conservative judge. Throughout the Bush years, it was standard Democratic senatorial practice to comb through every last opinion, memo, job application and college term paper, all with an aim of creating a nominee "too extreme" or "unqualified" to sit on the federal bench.

Mr. Obama knows this, as he took part in it, joining a Senate minority who voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. Mr. Obama also understands a discussion of Judge Sotomayor's legal thinking means a discussion about "judicial activism" -- a political loser. In a day when voters routinely rise up to rebuke their activist courts on issues ranging from gay marriage to property rights, few red-state Democrats want to go there. Moreover, a number of Judge Sotomayor's specific legal opinions -- whether on racial preferences, or gun restrictions -- put her to the left of most Americans.
Keep reading, here, for Ground Rule No. 2 (Hint: What, you're criticizing Sotomayor? You racist!).

Cartoon Credit:
Michael Ramirez.

7 comments:

Tom the Redhunter said...

Well, those two ground rules pretty much end the debate, don't they? But then, that is the intention.

It's kind of like global warming. The typical argument from the left you get is "there is a consensus on the subject so shut up"

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks Tom ...

Reaganite Republican Resistance said...

Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who advocate a "Re Conquista" of the SW United States and who's motto is "For our race everything- for others, nothing".

Clearly Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda too... as does Obama, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British... and he's the one who nominated all these kooks.

What happened to the idea of a colorblind society? These three define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know.

I wouldn't want to be judged by any of them after what I've heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.

If Obama is going to go on with his "justice" agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop, and NOW.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

rbosque said...

She is a racist. The problem is no one has the courage to label an Hispanic woman as such and the left knows it. She's somewhat shielded by popular opinion and by the MSM. As an Hispanic, I have no problem calling her and La Raza what they are, radical leftists and racist scum, I wish the Republicans will grow a pair and call her out on it.

Rich Casebolt said...

Feelings ...

... nothing more than ...

... feelings.

More (albeit indirect) evidence that this Administration is not about "change" ... but change BACK.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Wow, Donald. It's bad enough that you're just thinking lockstep with the rest of the rightwing zombies on this, but you're really pushing it on the outsourcing of your posts. Geez, fair-use has its limits, ya know.

And thanks for letting us know that your college education is meaningless, Donald. I mean, part of her "bio" is that she graduated valedictorian from her high school, won the prestigious Pyne Prize while graduating Summa Cum Laude at Princeton, and got a law degree from Yale. If those don't count as "qualifications" then I suppose the doctorate you "earned" isn't worth the paper it was printed on.

But I don't believe that. Getting a doctorate is a qualification, just as the Summa I graduated with was a qualification. And no, nobody is limiting the discussion to Sotomayor's biography. You guys are perfectly free to discuss her work as an Assistant DA, or the private law firm that she became a partner at, or her seventeen years as a federal judge. No one is stopping you. Her judicial decisions are public record. But instead, you guys are obsessed with proving that she's a racist and making other personal attacks which only make you look like hateful jerks. And that's the thing, for as much as you pretend that Obama limited this to her bio, it's obvious that you guys are the ones wanting to make this personal.

But it doesn't have to be this way, Donald. Rather than outsourcing your posts to others, you can finally step up to the plate and expose her legal opinions as being wrong. Not based upon what you read elsewhere, but really getting in there and researching it. You can be that guy, Donald. I only came here tonight in the hopes that you might finally have adopted the intellectual stance you imagine you have; and was sorely disappointed. Instead, it's more conspiracy theories and attacks against liberal "racists." But it doesn't have to be that way. I have faith in you, Donald. Otherwise, I wouldn't even bother. Be that guy, Donald. Be that guy.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who advocate a "Re Conquista" of the SW United States and who's motto is "For our race everything- for others, nothing".Reaganite - Everything you just wrote was laughably wrong. La Raza does NOT advocate "Re Conquista," but rather openly rejects the idea. And they don't have a motto, let alone that imagined motto that all the wingnuts keep ranting about. The "motto" you quoted was apparently from a group of 1960's Latino radicals that doesn't exist anymore. La Raza has explictly rejected that "motto."

And that's the thing, if the facts you guys were using were right, I'd be with you on this. I would never ever NEVER support ANYONE who suggested that we give back any land that belongs to us. But La Raza also denounces that idea. You guys keep working yourselves into a lather about nothing. While I'm sure there are Latinos who support the more hardcore approach, this isn't La Raza's stance. Nor do we have any evidence suggesting that Sotomayor does either.

Oh, and let's not forget about the folks who want Texas and other Southern states to secede. And then there's the political party that Todd Palin pals around with, many of whom want Alaska to secede. There are freaks on your side and my side, and there's not a lot we can do about it. But one thing we can do is to learn what we're talking about, rather than repeating myths that are unfounded in reality. You're free to hate La Raza all you want, but just understand that the reasons you cited are entirely fictional.