The Republicans and the Supremes
June 15, 2009 by Deborah Battle ©2010
Weeks before President Obama had even made a long list (let alone a short list) of Supreme Court nominations, the Republican party was poised to oppose his choice. Whomever he chose, they theorized, would be a liberal, activist judge who would be unfit to serve on the highest court in the land.
Almost as if to bate his critics, the President quickly chose a federal judge for the U.S Court of appeals, Sonia Sotomayor, a brilliant Princeton grad (the President seems to like women from Princeton – see: Michelle) whose personal triumph of rising from a housing project in the South Bronx is as intriquing as her legal career.
On cue, the “Party of No” began to criticize just about every aspect of the nominee’s credentials. The first round of the GOP salvo was to label her as too liberal. That tactic proved to be immediately problematic when it was discovered that Sotomayor was nominated for the U.S District Court in 1991 by Geroge H. W. Bush…a Republican. (oops!)
Then they decided to question her intellect. Karl Rove (of all people) even suggested that she may not be “intellectually strong” enough for the position. That accusation also had a short lifespan once it was discovered that Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and was an editor of the Yale Law Journal where she received her law degree. (Seriously, do the Republicans even bother to do research before they launch their smear campaigns? Do they not realize that Americans are now quite skilled at accessing Google and Wikipedia?)
Since the Republicans are never ones to quit while they’re behind they decided to label Sotomayor a racist, a rather interesting charge to make of a Latina. This rather sad and pathetic accusation was based on statements that Sotomayor made in 2001 which read, in part:
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.
Personally I don’t see anything wrong with this statement as is. But the Republicans have used it to suggest that Sotomayor believes some average White guy could not possibly have the insight that her Latin roots have blessed her with….or some such nonsense. Of course, the Republicans have experience in taking part of a statement out of context and twisting it to label someone of color a racist (see: Jeremiah Wright). In fact, the entirety of Sotomayor’s statement seems to suggest that she believes that a person of one race/culture CAN be undestanding of the needs of another:
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 (vs Board of Education of Topeka). Sotomayor’s entire speech can be found here: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
So much for their attempts at throwing the reverse-race card.
There is one criticism of Sotomayor, however, that disturbs me to the core. Pat Buchanon voiced this sickening excuse to oppose the Supreme Court nominee on the MSNBC show “Hardball” by calling her an affiermative action pick. Aside from the fact that this charge has absolutely NO basis in fact, this line of reasoning suggests that, even though we are well into the twenty-first century, there are still people who view minorities as second-class citizens. Is it so hard to believe that a Latina would be the nominee of choice in a short list that included three White women (Janet Napolitano, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood)? Was there nothing in Sotomayor’s resume’ that suggested she would be just as qualified to be a Supreme Court justice as any other candidate? How many Black/Hispanic/female/etc. “firsts” do we have to have before a person’s achievements are not relegated to being just an affirmative action hire? Had President Obama chosen a White male, no one would have assumed that the candidate was chosen just because he’s a White guy. But as offensive as I find this line of thinking, I guess I have to be fair; the Republicans don’t think ALL people of color are chosen based solely on race (see: Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Clarence Thomas), just those who are (or are appointed by) Democrats.
When all else fails the Party of No will cater to the lowest, slimiest, most reprehensible ideals of their dwindling base. They have now managed to lose the support of Blacks, Hispanics, young voters, women, and now probably Princeton grads, just to name a few demographics. Soon they will be a party consisting solely of rich, White, Republican men…..over 50.
Sonia Sotomayor should not face senate confirmation hearings without being vetted. If there are reasons not to confirm her those issues should be debated on their merits. The Republicans, as the minority party , have a duty to keep the majority party from having too much power. But if this current attempt to flex their political muscle is the best they can come up with – if all they can muster in the way of opposition is to hurl baseless insults at a qualified candidate – then it will be a very cold day in one of the few remaining Southern red states (which no longer includes Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, by the way) before the Republicans taste power again.
At the rate they are going, that can only be a good thing.
Comments
Feel free to leave a comment...
If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!