The New Republic

Geez Jason, a Hispanic nominee to the highest court in the land is coming up before the Senate for confirmation. This must mean, eo ipso, that she is unqualified.

- liberal reformer

May 27, 2009 at 11:13am

Diversity on the Court Finally, a justice from the Bronx! And the perils of looking at the court as a

- Anonymous

May 27, 2009 at 11:42am

I must admit that I'm impressed that she graduated from Princetown and that she got such a good job before being a senior at Yale Law School.

Did the Washington Post ever do any factchecking?

- bigm

May 27, 2009 at 12:10pm

"This must mean, eo ipso, that she is unqualified."

I think it means it is racist or sexist to oppose her nomination on any grounds.

- McDuffy

May 27, 2009 at 12:34pm

I don't doubt that everyone who encountered Sotomayor from high school on gave her a few bonus points for being a Hispanic woman - I know if I were recruiting for a law firm, I'd be thrilled to have someone of her obvious intellect and achievement, and Hispanic to boot, interview for a job. Is that perfectly fair? I have no idea, but perfect fairness is something that doesn't concern me all that much since it's impossible anyway. Is it mostly fair that members of groups that have suffered more than their share of discrimination and economic disadvantage, and who have demonstrated an ability to overcome it and achieve at the highest level, are given a slight leg up? Hell yes. Is it a good thing to put a Hispanic woman on the Court, assuming that she's extremely qualified in every way in addition to having a novel ethnic background? Hell yes. Would Goldfarb have bitched if Bush had nominated a conservative Hispanic to the Court and taken credit for increasing diversity? I guess we can't know for sure, but I know which way I'd bet.

- Geoff G

May 27, 2009 at 1:26pm

For God's sake we are talking about a native born New Yorker, not someone who grew up on a chicken farm in Tabasco state. At some point who the hell cares if she is hispanic, beyond a few young hispanic people taking some inspiration from her (which is fine and good).

Obviously, she is eminently well qualified, and I have no problem with Republicans being opposed to her because of her more liberal judicial viewpoints, but honestly, fuck these bozos beating her up because she is a woman and a hispanic. There are certainly a 100 people as qualified as her, but we have to pick someone, bash her views, fine, but her qualifications? Give me a break.  How much more stupid can the Republicans get?

Those questions were insulting, the guy deserves a serious beat down and kudos to her for turning that firm down, now that asshole Martin Krall is getting some measure of justice.

Would I have been admitted to the law school if I were not a Puerto Rican? Hey, Summa cum laude from Princeton asshole.

Was I culturally deprived? Really, what the hell kind of question is that. That is seriously, major league asshole.

- blackton

May 27, 2009 at 1:50pm

In America, affirmative action ["preferential treatment"] goes all the way back to pre-revolutionary times. It wasn't called that, of course. Instead it was simply taken as a matter of course that those who owned and operated the means of production....generally folks who were white, male, Protestant and landowners....would gorge on the choicest of morsels when the social, political and economic pie was being apportioned. In, among other places, the market.

In fact, it took a long and bloody civil war to end de jure affirmative action for white males in the South. But that was soon replaced by de facto affirmative action---Jim Crow. And in the North, such racial barriers were only a matter of degree not kind

You have to go well into the 20th century before the civil rights movement started demanding that affirmative action finally start going in the other direction. And when it did, boom! Suddenly the Republican Party [and Reagan Democrats] expressed outrage about "reverse discrimination". Not once did discrimination ever seem to bother them when it enabled their own kind to pluck the best jobs and the best schools and the best opportunities. No, only when folks of color and women started demanding equal opportunity did they note just how shocking and apalling it is to discriminate against someone because of skin color or gender.

The hypocrisy astonishes us still today.

george walton

- iambiguous

May 27, 2009 at 1:50pm

I think what's freaking out the right, white, male conservatives is this: It's ALL 'affirmative action.'

Here's some things for those who have a problem with Sotomayor to ponder:

-Going through life a white male also "colors" your experience, it doesn't make you "objective."

-Sam Alito is a STRIKINGLY stupid human.

-When white ethnic groups discuss their heritage, it's always with pride (good!). Irish-American, Italian-American, etc...

-The Supreme Court presently has what? 7 white guys, 1 black guy, and a 1 white woman? Hispanics make up something like what? 1/3rd of the electorate? Do you really think one of them isn't qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? Please, defend the (so-called) intellectualism of Sam Alito for me.

-Obsessions with the Ricci case say way more about you than they do about Sotomayer.

- mmathog

May 27, 2009 at 1:50pm

I agree Walton, I think I just said the same thing (although using less words).

I'm going to calm down now, and ask a serious question:

What's with this obsession with affirmative action? Seriously? I was literally a child during the 1970s growing up in a peaceful leafy suburb, what happened then to make the older white male establishment so insanely obsessed with this issue? It seems strangely disproportionate to me.

- mmathog

May 27, 2009 at 2:50pm

The Repugs believe that Sotomayor's success is due more to racial preference than to her merit, because that's the way they operate.  See Thomas, Clarence.

- abrod

May 27, 2009 at 2:56pm

Oh, crap.  Her qualifications are not in doubt - nobody goes summa at Princeton and Yale Law without being smart.  She will be a fitting liberal replacement for liberal Souter.  She's the pick because Obama wanted a two-fer and who could blame him?

Hog, why is Alito STRIKiNGLY stupid?

My only problem with Sotomayor, aside from the fact that she will rule the other way than I would on many cases, is that she seems to believe this "a wise Latina will make a better decision than a white male" manure. She seems to buy into the "diversity" "empathy" nonsense that passes for analysis these days.  Just as all white men are not alike (surprise!), all Latina women are not wise.

- butchie b

May 27, 2009 at 3:18pm

Maybe it's that horrified realization that THEIR success is also perhaps largely due to racial/gender preference is what's freaking so many conservative white men out.

I mean, if your self-worth hinged on a 50+ year belief that your entire success was attributed to some pure personal vacuum meritocracy, and you were suddenly confronted with the notion that ummm.... maybe it wasn't altogether, that could really freak you out.

If you don't admit it and confront it, you might just go muttering to your grave.

- mmathog

May 27, 2009 at 3:23pm

"She seems to buy into the "diversity" "empathy" nonsense that passes for analysis these days."

I think what passes for analysis is this notion that you're deluded if you think that white men can be purely objective, also that quote is a bit out of context, and by the way, Sam Alito said the exact same thing.

- mmathog

May 27, 2009 at 3:46pm

...to him for saying, "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female who hasn’t lived that life."

- ChanRobt

May 27, 2009 at 3:52pm

I shouldn't have called Alito 'strikingly stupid,' I regret that. I don't think he's particularly impressive though (unlike roberts or alito), but whatever.

I think I'm just sooooo sick of this shit. Things I'm sick of:

-The racial/gender catch-22 the other side puts us in. I mean, good for Sotomayer, but frankly it's rather a shameful testament to the history of this great nation that she's FIRST. But someone has to be first so we can get to the situation where this shit doesn't matter anymore, but the first person has to come under 'extra scrutiny' because 'she might be a race/gender' pick. You can't win.

-The complaints, without even a HINT of irony or self-awareness, by white men about 'racism' and 'sexism' in selecting someone who's not a white man for a prominent position.

Someone tell me, what year will it be that when someone runs for and/or gets appointed to something major, we just worry about their qualifications, temperament, character, etc... Tell me what year that'll happen and I'll STFU until then.

- mmathog

May 27, 2009 at 4:03pm

I agree Chan.

Are you arguing that the perspective of the wise white man is underrepresented institutionally in America?

- mmathog

May 27, 2009 at 4:04pm

No one can be purely objective, but so what.  When we worry about the left-handed green-eyed midget seat on the SCOTUS, then I'll take this stuff seriously.

Again, Sotomayor is qualified, and it is a sign of our times that she was chosen (as opposed to many other qualified candidates) because of her ethnicity and gender.

A major problem with our "diversity" culture is tha diversity assumes from the jump that all white men are alike, and that all white people are alike when compared to other races.  This is clearly nonsense.

- butchie b

May 27, 2009 at 4:09pm

"A major problem with our "diversity" culture is tha diversity assumes from the jump that all white men are alike, and that all white people are alike when compared to other races.  This is clearly nonsense."

I don't think that's assumed, I mean, it's assumed by some stupid people, there's this very narrow super 'politically correct' tiny minority of idiots who think this (I was victimized by this in college, I was a 'white man,' although I'm Jewish, which is obviously more complicated), but in general, I think the size of these idiots (and certainly their influence) is WAY overblown.

- mmathog

May 27, 2009 at 4:21pm

"Just as all white men are not alike (surprise!), all Latina women are not wise."

You're right, but a wise one is. (She did, after all, qualify that.)

Channy: as usual - typical for you, by the way - you miss the point.  I've lived through a revolution, a civil war and a war; I was a religious minority in my old country and an ethnic one in my new one; I have lived and worked on three continents and half a dozen countries - in most of which I was working in a language other than my own.  You know what?  *All things equal*, any judgement I make about the world around me is bound to be more rounded in perspective than an equally qualified but privileged white person who has not had the same experiences.  

This - the essence of a man's  or a woman's experience and the impact it has on his or her character - is precisely why a rich man's chances of getting into Heaven are equal to those of a camel going through the eye of a needle: it is not that wealth disqualifies one from eternal bliss, but that - as Jesus recognised - our condition in life affects and shapes our judgement, our Christian empathy to our fellow human, and our sense of our relationship to God.

In your example, I would ask about the context, about the nature of the experience of the white man and that of the black woman.  *In the US context*, Sotomayor's statement, though poorly worded, makes sense; yours does not.

- icarusr

May 27, 2009 at 4:27pm

butchie: you'd be right if that were the assumption, but that is not the assumption at all.  It is not that all white men are alike - clearly Brennan and Rehnquist were not, and neither are Stevens and Roberts.  Nor are all black men alike - to wit, Thomas and Obama.

BUT, it is equally false to say that the nature of our judicial and legal analysis and judgement is not affected by totality of our experiences, and that this totality cannot be and is not, to some extent at any rate, shaped by social and demographic issues.  Frankly, no white man - and though I am "ethnic", I am white so I include myself in that - can fully understand either racism or sexism - we can intellectualise it, but there it stands.  It means that in discussions on the scope and meaning of constitutional rights, a critical ingredient in the shaping of our legal and judicial perspectives is missing.  The emphasis on diversity not as an objective in itself but as a social, moral and political good arises out of this important consideration - expanded to the totality of human experience, sometimes directly, sometimes by proxy.

It is, of course, possible to overdo it, but really - 7 white guys, most of then old, on a Supreme Court that until 1981 did not even have a single woman on it (and the appointment of that woman was fought tooth and claw by conservatives) is kinda already overdoing it the other way.  All things equal, a candidate's ethnicity and sex are no different from that candidate's regional, educational and religious background, all of which have been and are routinely considered in making judicial appointments.

- icarusr

May 27, 2009 at 4:39pm

butchie - 2 points.

You do realise that "diversity" culture *doesn't* assume that all white men are alike;  it works on the wild presumption that white men may not be the only and default choice for positions of power?

As for considering Souter a "liberal" - if he was, then the word has no meaning anymore.  He was, if anything, a genuine conservative, i.e. one that had respect for precedent as expressed through a deference to Stare Decisis.  He was also a strong supporter of privacy and civil rights (although I'll concede the eminent domain decision weakens that a little).  However I guess that pretty much sums up "Conservative" hypocrisy here - anyone who does not vote the way they would like is a "liberal judicial activist".

- Nari224

May 27, 2009 at 4:53pm

Butchie B said: “A major problem with our "diversity" culture is that diversity assumes from the jump that all white men are alike, and that all white people are alike when compared to other races. This is clearly nonsense.’

Amen, Butchie, more or less. Recently, I’ve seen a pattern (in a number of comments on different posts) where anyone who offers any dissent (regarding Sotomayor, for example,), where anyone who offers an opinion that seemingly deviates from moribund 1980’s liberal orthodoxy, is immediately labelled, “white male”, often with that so creative modifier “old” thrown in.

Plankton (some of you), is this the best you can do? When you include these code words, are you making your best argument? When you’re accusing others, who you don’t know at all, of sexism and racism? Or are you revealing your own ugly predjudices? The ad hominem shit is tedious, and your argument suffers as a result.

PS. Barca 2, Man U nil: Amazing header by Lionel (NOT pronounced like the trains I had as a kid) Messi. It’s ALL about mutual respect, sports fans.

- cvillekid

May 27, 2009 at 5:12pm

"Recently, I’ve seen a pattern (in a number of comments on different posts) where anyone who offers any dissent (regarding Sotomayor, for example,), where anyone who offers an opinion that seemingly deviates from moribund 1980’s liberal orthodoxy, is immediately labelled, “white male”, often with that so creative modifier “old” thrown in."

Really?

You know what pattern I've seen?

I've seen a pattern of some dude throwing up straw men arguments like pointing to a vanishing small group of hyper-political correct jackasses and blowing up their numbers and influence beyond all proportion (I'm sure during the 1970s, 1 or 2 'welfare queens' did in fact, exist) or bullshit charges about how 'any criticism of sotomayer' inspires accusations of 'sexism' and 'racism.'

To repeat: The problem with Rosen's original piece WASN'T that he criticized Sotomayer. The problem was that it was anonymous gossip and innuendo  by a guy who ADMITTED he hadn't read her opinions that contained at least two serious factual errors.

- mmathog

May 27, 2009 at 5:26pm

The first half sentence of what I posted got cut off:

Who said and what were the consequences to him for saying, "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female who hasn’t lived that life."

- ChanRobt

May 27, 2009 at 5:49pm

Yes, hog, really, I meant what I said. Calm down, tranquilo...that’s all I was suggesting in my post to the Plankton: to be calm, express one’s ideas, and not throw facile accusations at a another commenter, when one really doesn’t know anything about the person you’re throwing them at. It doesn’t add much to the discussion; it makes the thrower look like a dick. That’s all I meant. Nothing more, nothing else, spaketh the (old) wahoo.

- cvillekid

May 27, 2009 at 5:59pm

More preferential treatment for Sotomayor: She broke her ankle today and was in and out of the GW emergency

- Anonymous

June 8, 2009 at 1:34pm