Thought your lists would appreciate this thoughtful op-ed by this year's
Pulitzer Prize recipient for commentary :
Whose Identity Politics?
By Eugene Robinson
Washington Post: Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The only real suspense in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court
nominee Sonia Sotomayor is whether the Republican Party will persist in
tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism
and privilege.
Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about
how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is
based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves
facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a
neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black,
brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly
"objective" standard.
Thus it is irrelevant if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talks about the impact
of his background as the son of Italian immigrants on his rulings -- as he
did at his confirmation hearings -- but unforgivable for Sotomayor to
mention that her Puerto Rican family history might be relevant to her work.
Thus it is possible for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to say with a straight
face that heritage and experience can have no bearing on a judge's work, as
he posited in his opening remarks yesterday, apparently believing that the
white male justices he has voted to confirm were somehow devoid of heritage
and bereft of experience.
The whole point of Sotomayor's much-maligned "wise Latina" speech was that
everyone has a unique personal history -- and that this history has to be
acknowledged before it can be overcome. Denying the fact of identity makes
us vulnerable to its most pernicious effects. This seems self-evident. I
don't see how a political party that refuses to accept this basic principle
of diversity can hope to prosper, given that soon there will be no racial or
ethnic majority in this country.
Yet the Republican Party line assumes a white male neutrality against which
Sotomayor's "difference" will be judged. Sessions was accusatory in quoting
Sotomayor as saying, in a speech years ago, that "I willingly accept that we
who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and
heritage, but attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions,
sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
This is supposed to be a controversial statement? Only, I suppose, if you
assume that there are judges who have no opinions, sympathies or
prejudices -- or, perhaps, that the opinions, sympathies and prejudices of
the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court are somehow especially
problematic.
There is, after all, a context in which these confirmation hearings take
place: The nation continues to take major steps toward fulfilling the
promise of its noblest ideals. Barack Obama is our first African American
president. Sonia Sotomayor would be only the third woman, and the third
member of a minority group, to serve on the nation's highest court.
Aside from these exceptions, the White House and the Supreme Court have been
exclusively occupied by white men -- who, come to think of it, are also
members of a minority group, though they certainly haven't seen themselves
that way.
Judging from Monday's hearing, some Republican senators are beginning to
notice this minority status -- and seem a bit touchy about it. Sen. Lindsey
O. Graham (R-S.C.) was more temperate in his remarks than most of his
colleagues, noting that Obama's election victory ought to have consequences
and hinting that he might vote to confirm Sotomayor.
But when he brought up the "wise Latina" remark, as the GOP playbook
apparently required, Graham said that "if I had said anything remotely like
that, my career would have been over."
That's true. But if Latinas had run the world for the last millennium,
Sotomayor's career would be over, too. Pretending that the historical
context doesn't exist -- pretending that white men haven't enjoyed a
privileged position in this society -- doesn't make that context go away.
Yes, justice is supposed to be blind. But for most of our nation's history,
it hasn't been -- and women and minorities are acutely aware of how our view
of justice has evolved, or been forced to evolve. Women and minorities are
also key Democratic Party constituencies, and if the Republican Party is
going to be competitive, it can't be seen as the party of white male
grievance -- especially in what is almost certainly a lost cause. Democrats,
after all, have the votes to confirm Sotomayor.
"Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed," Graham
told the nominee. He was right -- Republicans probably can't damage her.
They can only damage themselves.
***
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/opinion/16collins.html?th&emc=th
3 Days of the Sotomayor
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: July 15, 2009
DAY 1
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN PATRICK LEAHY: Judge Sotomayor, welcome to you
and your large and lovely family, including your mother, who I believe saved
up to buy your first encyclopedia when she was a hard-working widow. Let me
begin the opening statements by noting that you have more federal court
judicial experience than any nominee to the United States Supreme Court in
nearly a hundred years. And the Constitution - is that a great document or
what? And now, the ranking Republican from Alabama.
SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: Thank you, Chairman. Judge Sotomayor, let's talk
about empathy. I find it shocking that President Obama said that judges
should have empathy. I hate empathy. My Republican colleagues hate empathy.
In fact, I am proud to say that we've reached an all-time low in the
"understands the problems of ordinary people" category.
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, you will join the
Supreme Court with more federal judicial experience than any justice in the
past 100 years. And, therefore, I will devote my time to complaining about
the way the Bush administration pummeled our civil liberties.
SENATOR ORRIN HATCH: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to point
out that we once had a Hispanic nominee for something, and the Democrats
filibustered him.
SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND: Mr. Chairman, as the newly appointed junior
senator from New York, I want to thank you for the opportunity to introduce
Judge Sotomayor. Normally I speak really, really fast, but due to the
importance of this occasion I am going to go really, really slow. Which will
mean that my five minutes will be over before I get anywhere near ...
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you, committee members. In recent weeks, I have had
the pleasure and privilege of meeting with 89 senators. Thank God Senator
Inhofe said he didn't need to talk to me because he'd already made up his
mind to vote No.
DAY 2
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: We're now going to start with the question period. I would
like to begin by asking how it feels to have more federal court judicial
experience than any nominee to the United States Supreme Court in nearly a
hundred years.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you for that interesting question. What my 17-year
record on two courts has taught me is the importance of keeping an open
mind. And following precedent. And not answering any hypothetical questions
about abortion or gun control.
SENATOR SESSIONS: Judge, to get back to that "wise Latina" speech, I want to
know if you think judges should allow their prejudices to impact
decision-making. For instance, if I were a plaintiff before your court,
would you be less inclined to rule in my favor because my middle name is
Beauregard?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Senator, I do not permit my sympathies, personal views or
prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases. But thank you for sharing.
SENATOR HERB KOHL: I believe I heard somewhere that you would join the
Supreme Court with more federal judicial experience than any justice in the
past 100 years. Doesn't your very, very low reversal rate show how
exceptionally well you have performed?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Senator, thank you for that softball question. Which
reminds me to point out that in 1995 I ended the baseball strike.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Judge, before I read a string of anonymous comments
about your temperament problem, I'd like to make you repeat that wise Latina
remark again just for the heck of it.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to revisit that
matter. I appreciate that the man who once said he'd drown himself if North
Carolina went for Obama has a special contribution to make when it comes to
the importance of thinking before you speak.
DAY 3
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER: Before we get to my questions, I would like to tell
you several anecdotes about my own interesting history. Did I mention that I
used to be chairman of this committee?
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: I have here a newspaper story quoting a corporate
lawyer who worked with you 17 years ago as saying that you would vote for
abortion rights. What does he know that we don't?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: That was sometime between my graduating summa cum laude
from Princeton and the year I ended the baseball strike. While I can't
answer your question, perhaps it would help if I said that I am bound by
precedent and my mind is always open.
SENATOR TOM COBURN: Judge, I'd like to ask you a number of hypothetical
questions about abortion and gun control. A lot of Americans are watching
these hearings.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Hardly likely at this point, Senator.
No comments:
Post a Comment