The New Republic

What I found most disturbing about Alito's speech was how many times he mentioned the state of New Jersey, I am not sure how this got past the Senate, but isn't being from New Jersey alone enough to disqualify anybody?

- blackton

June 8, 2009 at 2:55pm

Please, Zengerle, facts are meaningless.  You can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true! Facts, schmacts.

- FWright

June 8, 2009 at 3:09pm

A couple of points you've got to take into account when comparing the two speeches:

1. "Italian-American" isn't a race, it's an ethnicity, so mentioning one's Italian heritage is in no way comparable to saying the word "Latino" or its equivalents.

2. "Italian-American" has the word "American" in it, which again, makes it completely different from "Latino" or its equivalents and completely OK. You got a problem with the word "American"? Huh? Well, do you? As for Latino, well, Sotomayor doesn't even like like she coms from around here. Do we really need an immigrant on the Supreme Court?

3. Alito is white. So it's OK for him to say whatever he wants.

4. Alito is a man, so it's doubly OK for him to say whatever he wants.

5. VDH is an intellectually bankrupt shell of his younger self, a former scholar who made his name overturning the tired ideas of a century of classical scholastics who thought that war was a subject best studied from the comfort of a library chair. For more than a decade now, VDH has been exactly that armchair general, pronouncing his settled opinions as established fact from the comfort of a closed mind in a soft recliner. He's an embittered caricature of everything his career used to stand against, which makes him an object of pity, not scorn. However, the nearly total ruin of his abilities to produce worthwhile scholarship forces even his sympathetic readers, myself included, to question the validity of his groundbreaking early work. His most important insights into hoplite warfare were supposedly based on experimentation and observation, but nothing in VDH's writings since "The Other Greeks" (1995) shows the slightest evidence of a mind capable of applying the scientific method. So either VDH has suffered one of the greatest collapses of academic intellect in Western history, or his earlier work may have been based on falsified evidence created to flesh out a cynical intellectual pose that, having served its use, is now discarded.

- rhubarbs

June 8, 2009 at 3:27pm

Let's pretend: The Mexican president nominates a white American woman from Utah to the Mexican Supreme Court. (I know, I said it's pretend.) The Mexican media discovers a tape of her saying that a "gringa" can make wiser decisions than a Mexican man.  And she meets with Mexican senators who grovel before her and... Get i?

- jeanag

June 8, 2009 at 4:03pm

Victor Davis Hanson: keeping the world safe for the intellectually dishonest.  Why no Pulitzer yet?

- shaw-man

June 8, 2009 at 4:49pm

Jeanag:  No, I don't "get it."

For your analogy to work, you would need to say "from Mexico City" rather than "from Utah," since Sotomayor is from NYC.

You're also distorting what she said in her 2001 speech, but you knew that.

- agentzero

June 8, 2009 at 5:33pm

Rhub, your post is incoherent. Surely you understand that “Latino” isn’t “a race” either. It’s a term that some Hispanic-Americans have chosen to describe themselves. I respect that, and I attempt to use it appropriately. Here, though, in Colorado, it don’t fly. My “Latino” friends laugh and shake their heads when they hear the word. They’re not “Latino”, they’ve told me, rather: “Somos mexicanos”. And I respect that too. But then you get to your real point: the evil “white man”. Jesus, the Plank PC fallback position, the easy way out, or into, many discussions. You can do better, Rhub. You can do better.

- cvillekid

June 8, 2009 at 6:06pm

Republicans just look silly with all this faux outrage about a speech that they have distorted way out of context. Actually, reading the speech completely, one would realize she was saying the exact opposite of the Republican accusation against her. Why doesn't anyone read the whole speech instead of just the controversial quotes?

Better yet, why don't the Republicans look through her entire lifetime of judicial rulings and find us evidence that would back up their interpretation of that quote, which has been highlighted ad nauseam? I bet they can't. That's why they are reduced to playing the race card with false evidence.

Here's the text of the whole speech:www.nytimes.com/.../15judge.text.html

- scrubbyoak

June 8, 2009 at 6:20pm

As a white man, I am very, very grateful you've taken up the banner in my defense, cvillekid. When the fuck are we going to catch a break in this society?

jeanag, let's pretend that your saying "Let's pretend" does not, in fact, give you carte blanche to create an extremely poor analogy. So: Why would the president of Mexico want a foreigner on that nation's court? Are you under the impression that Sotomayor was not born in the United States? And which senators 'groveled' before Sotomayor, exactly? Thanks in advance for your response.

- WoodyBombay

June 8, 2009 at 6:45pm

agentzero, the scary thing is that many Mexicans believe that a gringa could do the job better, Calderon went to school in the United States.

- blackton

June 8, 2009 at 6:55pm

cville, first off there is no such thing as "race" as Americans use the term. It's a cultural fiction, not a biological fact. And yes, being a Spanish-speaking person with brown skin is in fact a "race" in the sense that this cultural fiction is used in the United States. I assume from your tone that you're a white man, and I find your ignorance of the realities of race in America on your part embarrassing, because too often all white men like me are tarred with the broad brush of your foolishness.

Second, I'm not the one calling Sotomayor a "racist." Conservatives are. And for this claim to be true, then it would also have to be true that the "Latino" identity of which she has spoken is a race. If it's not, then the charge of racism is as absurd is it would be to call me a "racist" if I claim that Miata owners are better drivers than Hummer owners. That may be a wrong claim, but the claim contains no racial content, and so cannot be "racist."

So if your claim is true that "Latino" is not a race, then it must also be true that pretty much the entire GOP establishment is full of crap. Which it is, but not in the precise way your claims require.

- rhubarbs

June 8, 2009 at 6:56pm

Actually, Cvillekid, I took Rhubarbs" comments to be ironic.  

Jeanag, as agentzero points out, your post joins the many commentators who have misconstrued Sotomayor's words.  In the context of a lengthy discussion about the extent to which a judge's personal life-experiences affect his or her decision-making, Judge Sotomayor acknowledged that "in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought."  She cited "studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases."  

She referred to the fact that "Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases."  

Judge Sotomayor was not so sure she agreed with that proposition: "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."  

Note that Judge Sotomayor had been talking about sex discrimination cases, about which there is indeed data that men and women judges have decided them differently.  Note also that she did not state that Latina women are INHERENTLY smarter or better decision-makers than white males.  She was talking about different LIFE EXPERIENCES.  She expected that a Latina woman, with the "richness of her experiences" would be more likely to make a good decision than a white man who has "not lived that life."  

Now, one can disagree about the extent to which a judge's life experiences do or should affect her decision-making, but the proposition that they do is not racist.  

Nor was Judge Sotomayor in any way positing that white male judges cannot make good decisions, stating that she "believe[s] 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 [v. Board of Education]."

She went on to say, "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. Others 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."  

To be sure, those who wish to deny that judges do or should import their humanity into their decision-making will chafe at Judge Sotomayor's words.  But they are honest words, and they are true.

- dhurtado

June 8, 2009 at 7:31pm

WoodyBombay said:

“As a white man, I am very, very grateful you've taken up the banner in my defense, cvillekid. When the fuck are we going to catch a break in this society?”

Woody, I appreciate the shoutout, but what’s this “banner in [your] defense” shit? Have you been drinking again? No offense, amigo. I’m just asking. I’m concerned. I care. Tranquilo.

Still, I’m thinking...What banner? What’s Woody talking about?...Maybe he means my t-shirt, the one with AC/DC Back in Black on the chest (present from my daughter, Amparo, five years ago), the one I’m wearing today. That must be it. Okay, Woody, whatever, I put it on today to defend you.

As to your other point, Woody, of course, you’re a white man, I know that. Everyone knows that. So what the fuck are you complaining about, you with all your fucking white male privilege. “Catch a break”? Sorry to be harsh, but you’ve had your breaks. Get some help, Woody.

- cvillekid

June 8, 2009 at 8:30pm

Rhubarbs said:

“cville, first off there is no such thing as "race" as Americans use the term. It's a cultural fiction, not a biological fact.”

Rhub, finally, coherence. You nailed it. And, if you were to reread my initial post, you would see that that was my point.

But, how  do you extrapolate from my rather elementary comment on ethnic terminology and the basic respect that I said that I try to observe in that regard and then arrive at: “I assume from your tone that you're a white man, and I find your ignorance of the realities of race in America on your part embarrassing, because too often all white men like me are tarred with the broad brush of your foolishness”.

That’s a lotta shit to assume and find, none of which could be logically assumed or found in my comment.

And, that last part of your post, Rhub--“embarrassing, because too often all white men like me are tarred with the broad brush of your foolishness”--again, incoherent, and this time, yes, embarrassing.

Still, in the spirit of universal sister-(and brother) hood, I'm willing to hear dhurtado: it was irony from the start.

- cvillekid

June 8, 2009 at 9:01pm

I just heard Eugene Robinson say on the Rachel Maddow show, in defense of Judge Sotomayor, that her statement in the 2001 speech was something she "did not mean."  I don't claim to know whether she meant what she said, but I hope that she will not try to walk away from it.  Let me rephrase her statement in less polite terms:  In the context of deciding civil rights cases, a judge who has experienced oppression will more likely than not come to a better conclusion than a judge who has not experienced oppression.  Put that way, it's an understatement.

- dhurtado

June 8, 2009 at 9:52pm

cvillekid

It's all irony. Rhubarb and Woody both.

- miceelf

June 8, 2009 at 10:12pm

She "did not mean" what? The content of the speech or just the badly worded phrase? I'm confused because the essence of the speech is something most Americans would not disagree with. Not even Republicans if partisanship is put aside, which I know is naive to even consider.

- scrubbyoak

June 8, 2009 at 10:23pm

And me too, miceelf, nothing but irony.  Everything is less than zero.  

- cvillekid

June 8, 2009 at 10:51pm

Jeanag: Let's pretend that you are a rational, sane, level-headed, educated human being. (As I said, let's pretend.)

Brain ... hurts ... have to ... disconnect ...

Sorry, mate - too much imagination required.  Don't forget the little yellow pills on your way out.

==========

cville - not quite sure about your shit-and-run posts, but you seem to have a particular beef with AA.  I mean, not just a rational opposition to it - I'm against Affirmative Action, but in particular against the usual type - honky selecting honky college roommate for jobs for which the said roommate is manifestly unsuited.  Rather, you are visceral about it.  Reminds me a lot like Kirchick. I mean, "Jesus, the Plank PC fallback position, the easy way out, or into, many discussions." is not irony - given that this is a point you keep making at the drop of any mention of melanin.  It's not even perceptive.  The one thing - if there is one thing - that draws me to this magazine - is that no one here is, even remotely, PC.  Progressive/liberal/socialist, perhaps; PC, nope.  So, man, give the PC shit a rest and find some other hobbyhorse.

- icarusr

June 8, 2009 at 11:23pm

Scubby, I assume Robinson was referring to the isolated phrase that has caused all the feigned uproar.  I do not think it was badly worded, and I think Sotomayor should not concede that it was badly worded.  (I suppose it might have been badly worded from a political pespective, but from the standpoint of accuracy, it was not.)

- dhurtado

June 8, 2009 at 11:38pm

Bless you, brother Ick.  I know I've hit the mark when you offer your sage counsel, if not your imprimatur.  And once again--bonus!--you illustrate my point, however unwittingly.  Keep banging that drum, baby.

- cvillekid

June 9, 2009 at 8:18am

For groveling, see Sen. Reid & Sotomayor on youtube.

For being born in NYC, true, but in a Latin enclave, welfare housing in the Spanish-speaking South Bronx. Latin or USA? (Liv Ullmann, a Norwegian--no, not Swedish-- actress in Ingmar Bergman's films, had a diplomat father & was born in Japan. Does that make her Japanese?) Sotomayor is a member of La Raza. Before we played let's pretend. Can we pretend it doesn't mean The Race? And for privileging Spanish, note her obnoxious insistence on the Spanish pronunciation of her name. Why should English speakers knot up their tongues for an invading culture? Did Antonin Scalia insist on an accurately Italian pronunciation of his name?  

- jeanag

June 9, 2009 at 9:17am

Jeanag, your last post reflects pure chauvenism.  The South Bronx, whether you like it or not, is an integral part of the United States, and its residents, Spanish-speaking or not, are Americans.  The USA is largely a bilingual country (or probably more accurately, a multi-lingual country).  Puerto Rico is a part of the USA and its residents are US citizens.  If you do not like the fact that Hispanic language and culture is a part of American culture, then you don't like America.  I am not aware of Sotomayor insisting that others pronounce her name correctly, but certainly she is entitled to determine how she should pronounce her own name.  To insist that she should "anglicize" her own name is just another manifestation of ethnic chauvenism.  (By the way, both Scalia and Alito do pronounce their names as an Italian would.  In fact, Scalia's colleagues on the Court call him "Nino," a clearly Italian derivative of Antonin.)

- dhurtado

June 9, 2009 at 10:12am

jeanag: "And for privileging Spanish, note her obnoxious insistence on the Spanish pronunciation of her name"

Yeah, because it is sooooo obnoxious to expect that people will make an effort to pronounce your name correctly..... 'MacEachern', for example, a good 'white' name. Any idea how it's pronounced? Do you think I'm going to correct you (politely, in most cases) if you mispronounce it? You bet your ass.... ?

How about my students,  Chmielewski and Pfizer. They're fairly high-albedo folks - do they get more consideration?

Man, this is about the stupidest yet - the refusal to learn how to pronounce names correctly as, what, an expression of American patriotism? That's idiotic.

- SMacEachern2

June 9, 2009 at 10:19am

Come on, jeanag, your stripes are showing. Should we then declare South Bronx a foreign country?

You ask "Can we pretend [La Raza] doesn't mean The Race?"

Yes! Because in Spanish it also means  "the people" or "the community", which I suspect you know very well because that's how the organization uses the term -- "the community". It's an organization whose stated goals are "Capacity-building assistance to support and strengthen Hispanic community-based organizations." They build charter schools, health clinics, etc.

The organization, though, strictly Hispanic is multi-racial. You know, or should know, there are white, black, Indian, and assorted mix of mixed race within Hispanics. So "the race" doesn't apply, it's "the community".

Here's their website: http://www.nclr.org/

- scrubbyoak

June 9, 2009 at 11:01am

I don't want to say that the conservative movement is in trouble, but they seem to have been reduced to arguing that Yankee Stadium isn't really located in the United States.

- FWright

June 9, 2009 at 11:44am

"Did Antonin Scalia insist on an accurately Italian pronunciation of his name?"

I'm beginning to think we have a master parodist on the Plank.  If you are really writing parody, forgive me.

If not, are you fucking kidding me?  In English, "Scalia" would be pronounced "sKAY-lee-ah" not "ska-LEE-ah", which is the correct Italian pronunciation.  And what the fuck is up with "Antonin"?  Fucking wop.  Why not just plain "Anthony"?

"Why should English speakers knot up their tongues for an invading culture?"

res ipsa loquitur.

===============

cville - you're too cryptic for me - and evidently too subtle for all other Plankton.  At some point, if everyone misunderstands you, perhaps you are the problem.

- icarusr

June 9, 2009 at 11:54am

Mac: Pace Jeanabigot, I guess you pronounce your name MACY-churn?

- icarusr

June 9, 2009 at 11:57am

SHE ISN'T THE ONE WHO'S 'OBSESSED'.... The National Review's Victor Davis Hanson took a closer look at Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 speech at Berkeley, and reached the conclusion that the judge is "obsessed" with issues regarding race. A disinterested observer

- Anonymous

June 9, 2009 at 1:12pm

icaruser: Usually when people try it out, it comes out first as mac-EACH-urn, but it's really mac-eck-urn.

We shoulda left it in its original form: Maceachthighearna - that would've really blown jeanag's mind.

- SMacEachern2

June 9, 2009 at 1:28pm

How many members of La Raza can pronounce Zbgniew Brzezinski's name with a Polish accent? None, but they want to impose their pronunciation on English speakers. Ever been to Tokyo? The Japanese don't pronounce it "Tokyo" but they don't have the snarling grievances of La Raza. All together, TNR Sandinista supporters from the 1980s: We love Nicarrrraaaaagua."

- jeanag

June 9, 2009 at 4:04pm