The blindly egocentric petticoat of racism and sexism is poking out from under the skirt of Republicanism in connection with President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is a woman of Latino ethnicity. Frankly, it's an ugly sight.
I don't know what astounds and confounds me more: the racist and sexist words spoken by certain conservatives without a shred of shame about their sentiments, or the people and press who don't call them out for their offensive double-standards.
To illustrate, I offer you a story from my own experience:
When traveling alone in the mid-1980s on a British train headed north in Scotland, I ventured back a car to buy a snack. After chatting a few moments with a young Scotsman tending the food counter, he smilingly proclaimed, "I can tell from your accent what part of the U.S. you're from!"
Startled, I hesitated... then blurted, "But I don't have an accent. I talk exactly like everyone on American television!"
He laughed good-naturedly, then hilariously mimed surfer-dude and valley-girl Southern California speech patterns.
He was correct, of course. I was born in greater Los Angeles, attended UCLA as an undergraduate, and remained (and still am) a proud resident of Southern California. I suppose I sounded a smidge like his stereotypes.
White Males Regard Judge Sotomayor with "Great Concern"
Like my self-absorbed assumption that my speech rhythms were "the norm" and anything else was a deviation from the base norm, some conservative opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination have loudly voiced that judicial departures from their white male personal norm are apparently to be regarded with "great concern."
Believe it or not, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said in all seriousness yesterday about Judge Sotomayor, "In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences."
Likewise, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) "said Tuesday he's concerned Sotomayor has shown 'personal bias based on ethnicity and gender'" per Fox News.
Can you ever, EVER imagine these same conservative lawmakers worrying that a white male nominee to the bench would make judicial decisions "without undue influence" from their "personal race, gender, or political preferences"?
Of course not. To them, that's "the norm." And any deviation from their base norm is to be examined with "great concern."
Commented Dana Goldstein at The American Prospect in response to Inhofe's exceedingly self-absorbed comment:
"Because the worldviews of John Roberts, Sam Alito, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia are not impacted at all by their white male identities. White men are raceless and genderless, haven't you heard?"
Identity Politics and U.S. Courts
I'm generally not a big supporter of so-called identity politics. I don't believe that all women should have necessarily voted for Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. And I don't believe that all African-Americans should have felt bound to vote for Barack Obama.
But the more I hear ignorant conservative remarks that the life experiences of a non-white, non-male Supreme Court candidate are to be regarded with "great concern" for fear that they may "influence" her judicial opinions, the more I am certain that the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, and all U.S. court systems, should mirror the ethnic composition of the United States.
As the Washington Post observed yesterday, "As a Hispanic woman with such a diversity of legal experience, she would bring a welcome fresh perspective to the bench."
Indeed! A very welcome, desperately needed fresh perspective...
Related Reading
The 'Racist' Uproar Over Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" Comment by Linda Lowen, About.com Guide to Women's Issues
(Photo of Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Stacey Ilyse Photography/The White House via Getty Images)
Comments
You left out the fact that Sotomayor has made race an issue. Just check her 2001 Berkeley statements.
Jimmy, be sure to read this, then, written today by Rod Dreher, famed conservative author on politics and religion:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/05/i-was-wrong-about-sotomayor-sp.html
“without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.”
oh, god, no he didn’t. that’s knee-slappingly rich.
As I white male married to a Latina, I can tell you first hand that Justice Sotomayor was right on the money when she indicated that her experiences as a Latina would make her wiser than white male counterparts. My wife is way, way wiser than I am! What’s the big deal? I am enriched by her wisdom, just as the US Supreme Court will be enriched by Justice Sotomayor’s wisdom!
She is a racist, plain and simple
Given what Sotomayor has said about ethnicity and judicial wisdom, about background and impact on persons influencing her judicial decisions, Inhofe rightly expresses concern. However, if she means “impact on the unborn,” I’m all for such common sense.
You democrats are playing the race card as you always do whenever it serves your pro-abortion purposes. We didn’t say racism was the Democrats’ reason for opposing Clarence Thomas.
(That was about abortion with Anita Hill’s disappointment-fueled accusations used as a smokescreen. There is evidence she was sweet on Thomas when he up and married a white woman. So it wasn’t too hard to enlist her to badmouth Thomas in the Senate hearings. Thanks to Prof. Chillicothe at ORU for clarifying after midnight in those hearings,the personal interest in and enjoyment of Thomas exhibited by Hill in the professor’s home.)
Is your blog moderated? Just wondering what happened to my comment.
Barb, the entirety of your comments are here, to my knowledge.
Had a white male said, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” he would have never been nominated in the first place, much less confirmed.
All of you who are getting so upset about her comments, trust me; she’s right!
Why can I no longer see your forum?
This nomination has political richness all over it. Republican criticisms aired against this totally excellent candidate are shots in their feet. Smart people generally and Latinos in particular are making mental notes for the next election cycle. How do ya think these criticisms sound to those voters?
Understand, I don’t think the president would do that on purpose.
Nah. Surely not.
Hoot, I made that point to several About.com guides: even if the nomination failed, conservatives would have offended so many Latinos and women in the process as to still make it worthwhile politically.
She will be seated on the Supreme Court, though. Congressional Republicans have already said no filibuster. And I believe she will be a wonderfully fresh addition to the Court.
John, thanks again!
dpb09, please email me at usliberals.guide@about.com.
usliberals…per your request I have emailed you.
What astounds ME more is that the there is no public outcry against the REAL reason why conservatives dislike her nomination: Her blatant espousal of activist (read ‘judicial law-making) activity.
Just because she is a woman and Latina doesn’t mean that is what the conservative pundits are railing against – but you’d like to pose it that way, of course.
Have liberal policies EVER worked? And how conveniently you forget the character assassination of Republican nominees in the past – “a only good black is a liberal black”, right?
It’s high time real Americans take our country back from the mud races.
Like it or not, America was settled by WHITE men for WHITE men.
Sotomayor’s comments were clearly taken out of context; unfortunately to understand the context requires some reading and thought. They aren’t qualities most RNC supporters have, although their manipulators certainly possess them in spades.
Nope, most Republicans like old TFR are simply stuck in the dark ages, and don’t like the winds of change..
…so the ‘winds of change” include interpreting the Constitution with your hearts with your judicial mind. Right? Liberals love to ‘think’ with their hearts, not their minds. Name ONE thing that liberals have imposed on us that has WORKED. Just one. While you’re at it, YOU explain the context in which her statement was take out of. She said, “Judges should interpret the law with an eye toward changing it, when it suits them.’ She SAID that. Then, when she realized she was being taped, she made a joke out of it (winked).
I don’t like her, I feel she is too racist.
I think we need to get away from racism and into a bigot-free supreme court. I really would have prefered Janet Napolitano as a justice.
an analogy
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him. “Excuse me, can you help me?
I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied. “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
“She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a republican.” “I am,” replied the man. “How did you know? “Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be an Obama Democrat!”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know”?
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow now it’s my fault.