Sotomayor Fails on Merit

During the confirmation hearings for judge Sonia Sotomayor, Senator Schumer gave a lovely speech about how America is a land where anyone can rise from poverty to the highest levels of success regardless of race, color, sex, or creed. His words were quite touching for me, as they very much echoed my own sentiments, and touched upon one of the reasons that I personally so love this great land. In this nation, neither one’s caste, one’s race, one’s class, nor one’s gender are certain determinants of their success, and—in theory, at least—all are given an equal chance to realize their potential. Not all succeed, but then again, not all people have the same levels of skill and intelligence necessary to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, or become supreme court justice. What matters is not the equality of results, which would be impossible unless every individual was exactly the same and raised in the exact same circumstances, but that each individual is the master of their own destiny, and, if they choose to do so, can realize the full extent of their potential.

Sonia Sotomayor, however, does not believe so. She has a chip on her shoulder, and believes that equality is equality of results. Her now-infamous “wise Latina” remarks, which she did utter more than once, Mr. President (let the record show yet another little lie on Mr. Obama’s record), were egregious, and even more so are the efforts of some in the media to defend Sotomayor for saying them. But the worst offender is Sotomayor herself, who, on the Senate floor, proved herself to be most adept at the lawyerly skills of deception, obfuscation, deceit, and good old fashioned lying. Contrary to her own words before the Senate, I personally am certain that she does believe that she, as a “wise Latina” with the “richness of her experience” would come to better decisions than a white judge. But an even more telling insight into her psyche is the sentence before the original “wise Latina” remark, in which she implied that no one has the same kind of wisdom, that wisdom is subjective, and, by implication, that some people are “more equal than others” when it comes to being wise. Such remarks conflict with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s statement about a wise old man and wise old woman reaching the same verdict, but the differences go much deeper. Justice O’Connor’s statement implies a basic equality between all people, male, female, black, white, Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Her statement appeals to an older type of thinking, one advocating true equality founded upon a respect for all human beings as equal in value before both their Creator and the law, and a belief that “wisdom” transcends culture, religion, race, and gender. Sotomayor’s remark, however, betrays a corrosive bitterness that worries me. It is a remark that emerges from the mentality that says, “The WASP male has ruled this country for the last two centuries, and now it’s our turn!”, as if more inequality were the antidote for past inequality.

Amazingly, despite such remarks, even most Republicans in the Congress admit that Sotomayor’s nomination is a foregone conclusion. The cause for this absolute lack of fortitude is supposedly out of fear that the Latino voters, who already put-off by the Republicans’ stance on immigration (i.e., actually enforcing our border and immigration regulations, and not letting a neighboring nation absorb our Southwest by osmosis). This bothers me as well. Why the big deal over whether a person is “the first black president”, or the “first Catholic president”? What happened to “will this person make a good president?” It’s a larger symptom of a cultural disease, wherein individuals cease to be individuals, and simply represent the groups to which they belong. So, not voting for Obama and not supporting his excessive spending is entirely because Obama is black and you are a racist, just like opposing Sotomayor is a sign that one is anti-Latino and anti-women. This is a dangerous way of thinking, as it destroys the individual, and turns life into a struggle between various interest groups. It is contrary to the spirit of equal rights, and does not foster a society in which one is judged not by the color of his or her skin, but by “the content of their character”. Let’s ditch the labels and focus on the individual, which, in Sotomayor’s case, reveals a judge with a chip on her shoulder, who, like Obama did by his repeatedly voting “present”, deliberately conceals her radical politics by clinging to precedent, and who has seen the lion’s share of her rulings overturned by higher courts (when they go there), including the Ricci case, which further demonstrated her racialist, if not racist, predisposition. Now, this person is being elevated to the highest court in the land, where, until she dies or retires, her rulings will not be able to be overturned.

While her addition in no way fundamentally alters the Court’s composition—she’s replacing Justice Souter, a liberal justice like herself—she’ll be on the bench for at least a decade, and probably more. Were McCain elected last fall, we’d most likely be getting a conservative justice, one who would hopefully be more faithful to both the letter and spirit of the constitution, not one who believes that the antidote for inequality is state-sanctioned discrimination.

If confirmed, Sotomayor will be yet another long-lasting wound inflicted upon this nation by the Obama administration. Let us hope that I am wrong, and that her words on the Senate floor were spoken from the heart and are not, as I fear they were, mere duplicity and dishonesty by yet another amoral, cunning and conniving politician.

11 Responses to “Sotomayor Fails on Merit”

1. Lunaire says:

   July 22, 2009 at 9:16 pm

   “Were McCain elected last fall, we’d most likely be getting a conservative justice, one who would hopefully be more faithful to both the letter and spirit of the constitution, not one who believes that the antidote for inequality is state-sanctioned discrimination.”
   Because McCain would have, of course, picked a justice on merit rather than for political purposes. He’s clearly immune to the influence of his party. Just look at Palin.

   Interesting is that one of the judges who arguably followed the “letter and spirit of the constitution” to a ‘T’ was one of FDR’s (a raging liberal) picks, Hugo Black. That’s not to say that Black himself was a liberal—or, for that matter, a conservative—but merely to point out that the notion that conservatives appoint justices interested in preserving the constitution is, quite frankly, a misinformed and ignorant statement. To draw a contemporary parallel: I trust I don’t have to point out Justice Souter’s voting history to highlight the notion that a justice’s appointment under a conservative executive does not necessarily equate to a conservative justice.

   “just like opposing Sotomayor is a sign that one is anti-Latino and anti-women.”
   Come to think of it, I haven’t read anything penned by a credible individual which accused those not in favor of Sotomayor as racist. Neither has Sotomayor said that if individuals do not support her, they are racist. As such, your entire third paragraph is in response to an attack that does not exist. Are you responding to some sort of internal monologue? You don’t provide any sort of outside source or precedent here. It kind of comes out of left field.

   Keep palpating the logical fallacy that the reason why conservatives lost the most recent election was because “not voting for Obama” equates to “you are a racist,” and not because the previous GOP president had the lowest approval ratings in presidential history. You want to start with combating group mentality? Start with political parties. McCain, just like Obama, is a member of one. Criticizing group mentality, then going on to introduce the logic that had McCain introduced a conservative justice, they’d have upheld the constitution, whereas because Obama (a liberal) appointed a liberal, they’re concerned with “state-sanctioned discrimination.” Had you left out the part about McCain, this would have made a point. As it stands, it simply screams prejudice.

   You also fail to mention that Sotomayor herself acknowledged her statements as “inadvertent” and “inartful,” recognizing herself that her own statements did not convey the message she intended.

   Opinions are much more interesting when their factual basis incorporates arguments from both sides, not conveniently selected snippets from one side of an argument while conveniently forgetting the other. Really a shame, considering some of your other posts actually are logically and factually based, rather than screaming ideology without basis.
2. Chris Rodd says:

   July 23, 2009 at 12:14 am

   Several problems with this article:

   1) It is not that opposing her is racist or sexist, it is the things that people say about her that are sexist or racist. When people say that she’s unintelligent and bitchy, which is what many a mainstream Republican has either said or implied, when she graduated suma cum laude at Princeton,and don’t know her personally is bigoted.

   2) Geography lesson: Sonia Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, with all Puerto Ricans having full US citizenship. To say that solely due to her background, she will somehow usher in the absorption of the US into Mexico is ludicrous, when it was Puerto Rico that was the absorbed one in the first place.

   3) I can’t speak for all non-white people, but did you ever think that we might have legitimate reasons for not voting Republican? That maybe Republicans are talking at us and down on us instead of including us? And no, Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas don’t count. There are legitimate grievances that are too numerous to mention; maybe I’ll blog about it one day, who knows. But my point is, if Republicans actually listen to how we feel instead of dictating how we should feel, maybe some more of us would actually vote for u. Just saying.
3. Siegfried says:

   July 23, 2009 at 1:03 pm

   …had McCain introduced a conservative justice, they’d have upheld the constitution, whereas because Obama (a liberal) appointed a liberal, they’re concerned with “state-sanctioned discrimination.”

   Lunaire, Blaise is simply stating the very real tendency these days for finding strong constitutionalists vs. free intrepretationists falling along a right/left divide. A Republican would therefore be more likely to appoint a strong constitutionalist justice. I see nothing controversial about that.
4. Siegfried says:

   July 23, 2009 at 1:44 pm

   When people say that she’s unintelligent and bitchy, which is what many a mainstream Republican has either said or implied, when she graduated suma cum laude at Princeton,and don’t know her personally is bigoted.

   Chris, they are simply repeating exaggerated versions of comments made by people who *do* know her, and her own statements about benefitting from affirmative action. Those original observations and their current interpretation may well be unfair or false, but repeating them is hardly bigotry. The crass rhetorical opportunism typical in politics, yes; bigotry, no.

   To say that solely due to her background, she will somehow usher in the absorption of the US into Mexico…

   Where does Blaise say anything *close* to that?

   but did you ever think that we might have legitimate reasons for not voting Republican? That maybe Republicans are talking at us and down on us instead of including us? … if Republicans actually listen to how we feel instead of dictating how we should feel…

   You claim to have “legitimate reasons”, but all I see here is complaints about *feelings*.
5. Lunaire says:

   July 23, 2009 at 1:45 pm

   I didn’t misunderstand him. I disagreed.
6. Siegfried says:

   July 23, 2009 at 1:50 pm

   Lunaire, do you think a Democrat/liberal would be more, or even equally, likely to appoint someone like, say, Scalia? Sure, it could happen, but how *likely* is it?
7. Blaise says:

   July 23, 2009 at 2:37 pm

   Hey folks, thanks for the comments. I always appreciate praise and constructive criticism. And, like an abused puppy, I appreciate any kind of attention, positive or negative.

   One point to Lunaire and Chris: I’m not a “Republican”. I have no loyalty to the GOP. I have no loyalty to conservatism. Personally, I think that Newt Gingrich, Cheney, Rove, Rush, and Michael Steele are as bad for this country as Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and company. I’m just attacking them because they are the ones in power.

   The problem with American politics is that you have only two options. Now, because the GOP is the only thing big enough to stop the Democrats from destroying what was left of this country when Bush left office, I’m taking it easy on them. But, when they get in power, they’ll become just as destructive. Neither liberalism nor conservatism are the answers.

   That said, I agree with more typically conservative stances than liberal ones, so, by most litmus tests (taxes, abortion, guns, government size), I’m conservative. But I ask those unfamiliar with my beliefs and writing to remember this: just because I hold some “conservative” positions on some issues does not mean that I am solidly conservative on all issues. What’s more, I am a “paleo-conservative”, not a neo-con, and, as such, I was opposed to the war in Iraq, and I oppose interventionist foreign policy, militarism, and globalization.
8. Lunaire says:

   July 23, 2009 at 4:32 pm

   I’ve read most of the things you’ve written, so I’m familiar with that most of the things you write make logical sense. I’m not attacking your politics, I’m attacking your factual backing–or lack thereof.
9. Blaise says:

   July 23, 2009 at 11:54 pm

   The evidence that Obama’s health care plan is a bad one, the “factual backing”, is incontrovertible. I wonder at times if those who support it are simply blind to, or perhaps willfully ignore the results of universal health care in Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and nearly every other country with universal health care.

   First off, the United states really carries the weight for the world, militarily. Japan doesn’t have much of a military-they can’t, constitutionally, although some want to change that-but they don’t have to, not with all the military bases we have there. Same with South Korea, most of Western Europe…We’re one of the only nations that has overseas military bases, and we spend such a huge amount of our federal budget on military expenses. If all those other nations had to provide for their defense by themselves, they’d find that they’d have to make some sacrifices, or else greatly raise taxes.

   Second point: those other nations have smaller countries, and don’t face some of the issues (immigration, persistent poverty among minorities) that trouble the United States.

   Third point: We currently have a 10% unemployment rate. Now, even in a boom time, there’s some degree of unemployment. Some people just can’t cut it, others are just between jobs, all sorts of reasons. But, subtract the unemployed, and then subtract the (at least) 10 million illegal immigrants in the nation, and all the people who could afford health care but choose not to have it (or are just irresponsible), and you have a lot fewer uninsured.

   Fourth point: People are living too dang long, with too many ailments, that were formerly death sentences, that are now treatable, but expensive to to treat.

   Fifth: Smoking, drinking, drug abuse, and obesity. If we tackled these issues, rather than wasting trillions making our health care system worse, we’d take a HUGE cut out of costs.

   Sixth: Tort reform to lower costs

   Seventh: It’d be better to give people back their tax money and say “go buy some insurance with it”.

   Eighth: I admit that the insurance companies are crooks. My dad’s a lawyer, and he has to do a Robin Hood and make the rich insurance companies pay for what they said they’d pay for (but decided they don’t want to pay for) all the time. They need to be better regulated, made to pay for what they say they’ll pay for, forbidden from denying treatment because of pre-existing conditions, and should change their model of business from one that turns a profit by increasing premiums and denying people, to one that earns money by signing up as many people as possible, and by competing for people’s money by offering the best deal.

   And finally: Medicaid is broke, Medicare too, Social Security is going to be broke, the Postal System sucks compared to UPS and FedEx, our schools are the laughing stock of the civilized world (LAUSD has a 50% dropout rate; California some of the lowest test scores in the nation; half our country can’t even find Canada on a map); and, whoever is in office, they lie to us and waste our money. You want to give them more money and more power over you? If anything, we should ban every person currently holding office-and anyone still alive who has held elected office-from politics for the remainder of their lives (and ditto for spouses and sons-I’m talking to you, families Bush and Clinton).

   I’ll probably put all that in another editorial on health care soon. And with that, good night.
10. Siegfried says:

    July 24, 2009 at 9:57 am

    Blaise buddy, great reply but it’s in the wrong blog entry…
11. Miles says:

    July 26, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    The idea that any supreme court justice would follow a strict construction of the constitution in this climate is a farce. Since the 1930s justices both conservative and liberal have been, for lack of a better word, “activist” judges.

    To say that Sotomayor is any worse than any other candidate is a conservative put-on in my humble opinion.

    She is beyond qualified for the position and will serve her country well.