Open Thread: On Sonia Sotomayor

by Latoya Peterson

null

Sonia Sotomayor is officially Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court.

Some scattered thoughts:

1. Damn, I hated this process. Adam knocked it out of the park over on Tapped deconstructing the worst of the foolishness.

Jeffrey Rosen admits that he hasn’t “read enough of Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of them,” and he adds that he hasn’t “talked to enough of Sonia Sotomayor’s detractors and supporters to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.” Still, he’s comfortable putting into print anonymous evaluations of her character and intelligence, concluding that she’s possibly “not that smart.” Matthew Yglesias notes that “you don’t see a lot of dumb kids growing up in the South Bronx and winding up at Princeton.” What Matt doesn’t understand is that Sotomayor’s journey from BX to Princeton proves that she’s not that smart, because everyone knows that minorities only get to the Ivy League by not being white.

2. Hating this fake controversy:

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, court counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, in a statement issued today. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.” [...]

In a speech at UC Berkeley in 2001, Sotomayor suggested that her background and heritage helped guide her decision-making. “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,” Sotomayor said.

That quote — and that speech — will be cited by opponents, who will charge that Sotomayor will not serve as the sort of neutral “umpire” that Chief Justice John Roberts claimed to be during his confirmation hearings in 2005. Instead, they will argue that Sotomayor will favor disadvantaged groups over others.

There is no such thing as neutral. Every justice brings their experiences with them and it approaches how they view and interpret the law.

And once again white does not translate into neutral or unbiased.

Now that’s off my chest, the floor is open.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Quick Hit: Sonia Sotomayor nominated for Supreme Court « The Gender Blender Blog on 26 May 2009 at 7:11 pm

    [...] From Racialicious: Open Thread: On Sonia Sotomayor [...]

  2. another angry woman of color reference, really? « Live. Laugh. Love. on 18 Jun 2009 at 3:26 am

    [...] Sotomayor Mean? This really doesn’t come as a surprise to me, especially not after the racist and sexist commentary that the right has been blasting out for the past couple of weeks. CNN reports question her [...]

Comments

  1. gatamala wrote:

    ***nor does it translate into “rational”

    You can’t make an educated decision on something when you know jack shit about it. (e.g., O’Connor in Casey)

    Common Sense.

    look forward to the hearings

  2. Celeste wrote:

    It’s only going to get worse but I hope she makes it.

  3. Evan wrote:

    Typical reaction from white conservative political wonks:

    “She’s a token minority pick”. Grumble, grumble.

    “She’s a token minority pick who doesn’t have the intellect for this position”. Grumble, Grumble.

    “She’s a token minority pick and an affirmative action supporter”. More grumbles and grrrrrs.

    She will have enough votes in the end though.

  4. Kandeezie wrote:

    ::burst into flames:: Seriously! They are so exhausting with their “minorities in power are soooo unfair and biased” bull.

    white = normal = fair = unbiased ? —> oh please!

  5. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Strap yourselves in nice and tight, folks. It’s going to be a very bumpy ride.

  6. Amused0472 wrote:

    Not that smart? She went to Yale, the top law school in the country. They wish they were as smart.

  7. ktrujillo wrote:

    “white = normal = fair = unbiased ? —> oh please!”

    White/male constitutes the standard from which she clearly deviates. As the article said, she’s not white, she’s not male thus she’s not qualified.

    I for one would love nothing more than to see a ‘wise Latina’ on the highest court but I am dreading the racism/sexism/fatism that will undoubtedly permeate this process.

  8. Georgia wrote:

    Whaaa?? White doesn’t equal unbiased and neutral? Who else is going to make sure that no one gets “favorable treatment”? [sarcasm]

    There is nothing worse than a bunch of white people whining about the accomplishments of people of color.

  9. allheavens wrote:

    This is going to be interesting. If the Republicans challenge her nomination they risk alienating Latino voters, if they don’t they risk alienating the Freepers.

    They have already developed their “talking point” which is she is not “intellectual” enough.

    Graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton, JD from Yale, was editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order.

    Over a distinguished career that spans three decades as she has been a prosecutor, a partner in a a major law firm , presided over 450 cases as a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and as a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit participated in 3000 panel decisions, authoring roughly 400 published opinions on difficult issues ranging from constitutional law, complex procedural matters, and lawsuits involving complicated business organization.

    What else do they want? Oh! I know, a white male conservative.

  10. Chris Diaz wrote:

    white man after white man after white man after white man….nominated for and serving on the Supreme Court, making judicial decisions for everyone. That’s cool, apparently.

    I’m glad these things happen, it pressures those who espouse egalitarian values step up to the plate and exposes the fact that racism, sexism, and homophobia are sill rampant in America.

    Obama’s presidency is a golden opportunity for progressives to redeem themselves from the historic incidences where they went half-way but weren’t willing to go the whole way in fighting for justice for all.

  11. Lisa J wrote:

    Today on the Diane Rehm show some law professor said that not only is Judge Sotomayor not an “intellectual” jurist but that she is similar in that to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall. SOOOOOO RACIST. Yep lots of unintellectual graduate SUMA from Princeton and go to Yale Law with top honors. I mean in one sentence he punks her and Justice Marshall. These people make me want to puke.

  12. Lisa J wrote:

    meant to say “…lots of unitellectuals graduate…”

  13. Lisa J wrote:

    if “unintellectual” is a word. :-(

  14. CDF wrote:

    ROFL!

    Thanks for the heads-up, folks. I’ll know when to tune out these so-called pundits rabbling on about nothing concerning Sotomayor’s qualifications. She’ll be fine!

  15. Tracey wrote:

    Yeah, pretty much summed up. The only time a minority can be a good pick is when they have conservative ideology. Judicial activism apparently only exists when it can be spun as liberal. I am surprised to see the Right saying someone is not intellectual enough. I think I’m starting to understand though:
    Minorities tend to blame others too much for their personal failings, unless it is Palin blaming her loss on sexism or people saying blacks were racists against McCain.
    Anti-intellectualism is good, unless it’s not.
    When the Court rules to uphold sodomy laws, restrict access to reproductive health, allow guns close to schools, and allow prison guards to beat prisoners they are being strict constructionists and upholding the constitution.
    Taking into consideration that bench rulings will have an affect on the lives of real people is unacceptable, unless it benefits middle class white heteronormative males.
    I just hope this doesn’t turn into another judicial appointment circus (Myers).

    I also hate how this is another case in which you have people saying:
    “the only thing that should matter is qualification, not race or sex”, which implies that it is not possible to find a list of female minorities that are qualified. There is a dichotomy set up where a list of white males=picked on qualifications and a list of women/racial minorities=picked because of sex/race. I think that’s my biggest problem, b/c it is so annoying and people don’t listen when it is pointed out. They’ll argue the same applies to white males but that’s garbage. Being white and male is qualification in and of itself, after that the only thing that matters is interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. B/C goodness knows white men are never affected by their class, sex, race and background, unlike minorities and/or women.Of course, maybe I’m just being overly sensitive.

  16. Slush wrote:

    There’s going to be a lot of retching around here over this, no doubt, but nonetheless I am pretty optimistic.
    1. We’re finally going to have two women on the court again, at least for a bit, and one a woman of color, who has publicly acknowledged that personal experience is obviously relevant to being a judge. That is awesome.
    2. Notwithstanding Rosen’s utterly vapid twaddle, she’s clearly very smart and very well qualified – the only justice, if appointed, who will have trial court judge experience.
    3. I read rumors that Republicans are nervous about challenging her nomination too much for fear of alienating Latinos more than they already have. You can parse that down into stupid stereotyping however you want, but it’s their decision to make.
    4. Which leads me to my optimism that she will in fact be our next justice and will do a good job at it too. And in my dream world, she’ll teach that pompous oaf Scalia a couple of things.

    Although she is a former prosecutor and pretty unreceptive to criminal defense issues, I’ve noticed.

  17. inkst wrote:

    I am interested to know if other Racialicious readers feel like her nomination will be approved. I will certainly be following it closely and expect a lot of dumb shit to be said, but in the end, what do you all think will happen?

  18. Thom wrote:

    “What Matt doesn’t understand is that Sotomayor’s journey from BX to Princeton proves that she’s not that smart, because everyone knows that minorities only get to the Ivy League by not being white. ”

    She was top of her class, wasn’t she? You just know she took that away from a more deserving white guy. Right?

    (seriously…top of her class-do we really need to question intelligence here????)

  19. Lisa J wrote:

    @ Tracey, I sent an e-mail with a similar sentiment about it being judicial “activism” when progressives shape the application of the law from the bench but it is “strict constitutionalism” when right wingers do it. The comment didn’t make it on the air. :-/

  20. Moni21 wrote:

    Aside from all the conservative and racist garbage being spouted about Ms. Sotomayor, I was also really angry to see her dismissed on some more liberal blogs, websites for having an Ivy League education. The critique was even though she is a WoC, whose grew up in the South Bronx, and whose mother worked two jobs to provide for her and her brother, because she went to a Catholic High School and then Ivy Leagues that she is so privileged that she cannot be considered to be able to provide a voice for minorities, or that her possible appointment to the Supreme Court wouldn’t be substantial, or even evidence of diversity on the bench. It is like she cannot win, she isn’t ’smart’ enough for the conservatives, in spite of her education, or her education in some way disqualifies her from being a WoC, or her ability to bring a diverse perspective to the bench.

  21. gwangung wrote:

    “What Matt doesn’t understand is that Sotomayor’s journey from BX to Princeton proves that she’s not that smart, because everyone knows that minorities only get to the Ivy League by not being white. ”

    Except at the time she attended Princeton, VERY few females got in–because they were restricted by QUOTAS. She had to be SMARTER than the other Princeton students because that was the only type of female they’d let in during the 60s and early 70s.

  22. Aishtamid wrote:

    It’s just funny to me that people can criticize others while opening with phrases that all but admit they have no clue what they’re talking about.

    The typical conservative silliness will eventually die down.

  23. Fiqah wrote:

    “Graduated summa cum laude from Princeton” = smart enough. Affirmative action can only get your foot in the door. She excelled, because that is what the fuck excellent people do. SIGH.

    Why is it that things are only “unfair” if White people lose out?

  24. Elton wrote:

    Excuse me for asking a stupid question, but what is this “affirmative action” thing people are always whining about? As a person of color, I can name lots of ways that fact has led to discrimination, alienation, and depression, but can’t name one where it has led to an unfair advantage or a handout. So where is this PoC Privilege? How do I get in on it?

  25. Whitney wrote:

    I don’t think her gender nor her race should matter. What should matter is that she is fair, as unbiased as one can be, and interprets the law, not legislates.

    Yes, it is a major first. But she should only be appointed to the Supreme Court because of her abilities (and partly credentials, which are way up there), not because of her gender or race. I felt the same way about Obama when he secured the nomination, and the same way about Clinton when she first entered the race: they should get the nomination because of their qualifications. I am not saying to ignore gender or race, but it’s should be a very minor part in consideration. Her record needs to be focused on. Her record will indicate if she will make a good Supreme Court Justice.

    If she is the right person for the job (this is the first I’ve heard about her), more power to her.

    But I can understand why the GOP would feel like they’re in a bind. If they genuinely feel that she is not right for the job and block the nomination, I have a feeling people would cite the reason being that she is female and Latina, and at the same time, they don’t want to alienate voters, but once again, at the same time, they shouldn’t approve her nomination simply because of her gender and race, to appeal to voters. Does that make sense?

  26. Phrone wrote:

    Yeah, I was reading the comments on a Fox News poll. NEVER A GOOD IDEA. Apparently she and Obama going to use her evil socialist “reverse racism” to take away everyone’s guns AND FREEDOM.

    I think only a really good pick would get Republicans so riled up. :D I look forward to the confirmation process….and possibly yelling a lot at my computer if someone else says she’s not “intelligent” enough without actually knowing anything about her.

  27. Erica wrote:

    Some conservative wank guest on NPR this afternoon proclaimed that the quote about a Latina woman vs. a white man meant she’d apply justice differently to different defendents, e.g. they’d get different sentences for the same crime or something. It was the most baffling misinterpretation of the out-of-context quote I’d yet heard, and I am rather inspired to not listen to the radio, read any blogs, or even wander out my front door until this is over.

    I think (and hope!) she’ll get it, but there will be a nasty, mean, vitriolic publicity campaign by conservative opponents to her appointment before that happens.

  28. chris chambers wrote:

    funny how the wingnuts rail, but, um…wasn’t it Daddy Bush who appointed her a federal judge in the first place? Hmmm…

    http://natturnersrevenge.blogspot.com/2009/05/judge-sonia-sotomayor.html

  29. Milagros Villamil wrote:

    Get over it. There is nothing that can be done. We have the power to fight all of your irrastional crap. Grow up and get an education and compete so that maybe one day you can make your family proud.
    I am Cuban and Puerto Rican..and i just loe it!! lol get a life! i loe it because i am also from a poor family and none of us have to worry about where we will get the next job, (we all are self employed) nor do we have to mow your lawn..lol

  30. Clara wrote:

    I like how the right said that Obama was “too intellectual/smart” during the election, and now they’re saying that Sotomayer is “not intellectual enough.” Gosh, their judgment is so sound!

    Anyway, I can tell it’s going to be a frustrating process, but I’m still going to be confident that she’ll be confirmed.

  31. David Cone wrote:

    I don’t know what all these white right-wingers are upset about. Didn’t Ms. Sotamayor keep Maurice Clarett from going into the NFL early? Weren’t conservative white folks happy about that?

    First the Fat Boys break up, now THIS! There’s nothing to believe in anymore.

  32. Vgirl wrote:

    White male lack of bias and judicial umpiremanship (is that even a word?) is how we got the Dred Scott Decision and Plessy v. Ferguson.

    Paying attention to the past is important for SC justices, be it their own personal past or the Nation’s. Of course Sotomayor’s experience has shaped her. Considering what she must have experienced at Princeton and then Yale when the mostly white and male student body probably launched many of the same criticisms at her, she’s probably right that she’s actually more qualified than some of her white male competitors…she did, after all, have to rise above all of them to receive her first job…let alone this current job offer.

  33. Miles Ellison wrote:

    @ Elton

    It’s simple. Become a white woman. They’ve benefited from affirmative action more than any other group.

  34. CScarlet wrote:

    The best thing about the GOP bull that she’s not “intellectual” enough is…how can they EVER say that? These are the most anti-intellectual people on the planet! They’re such hypocrites- any argument if it suits!

  35. Mia wrote:

    The double standards people are applying to Sotomayor are annoying. Her academic past (Princeton undergrad, Yale Law) is the same as Samuel Alito’s (except that he gained a reputation for wanting to keep people like Sotomayor from having the same opportunities.) Princeton had only become co-ed in 1970, so being a woman (of any race) who was admitted and who made it through, was particularly impressive. (I’ve spoken to women who have talked about how harshly they were judged then.)
    In order to graduate, all Princeton students who are not engineering students, must write a senior thesis. This is a piece of original first-hand research. I just looked it up, Sotomayor’s was 178 pages long. No wonder she got honors.

    I’m pretty sure she’s smart enough.

  36. Afro-chan wrote:

    Here is a good place to start:

    The UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT website. Look at her profile.

    http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/

    Remember folks, “public record”. After work I am hoping I have time this evening to look at cases she has presided over and how she ruled. I found this today(with no listed sources):

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_excerpts_1

    I George W. Bush did consider her as a Supreme Court pick. I think she had Republican support as well. I wonder if that will be addressed.

  37. Whitney wrote:

    @Clara #29: lol, i know, right? First they say that he’s out of touch because of his education and his rhetoric, and that he’s just too smart, and not enough like a “regular Joe Six-Pack.” Now they’re saying that Sotomyer isn’t smart enough. Which is it?

    Reminds me of this clip from The

    @David Cone:

    I don’t know, apparently she’s “too liberal.” I think many GOPers will find anything to complain about now. They’ve become too uber-conservative.

  38. Michelle wrote:

    @ Whitney

    You are right, her race nor gender shouldn’t matter, ideally.

    But respectfully, I think that you are forgetting that there are many, many people out there that Pres. Obama could pick from, some of them White males. When you look at a Supreme Court that is almost all White and male, don’t you think it is important to have a different voice, outlook and perspective on the Supreme Court? I think it is entirely appropriate for Pres.Obama to look past White males, and look at their equally qualified female and/or non White colleagues. This court will make decisions on abortion, Affirmative Action, gay marriage and a host of other things that effect us all. I think that it is very important to have a diverse group of men and women, who come from all walks of life and who have different experiences. So yes, her race, ethnicity and gender are very important and I think they should have been factored in the decision making process.

  39. stella wrote:

    “not intellectual enough” from the geniuses that brought us Sarah Palin. I suppose Micheal Steele was hired on sound principle.

  40. Whitney wrote:

    haha I forgot to finish my thought. It reminds me of this Daily Show clip where these Fox News people decry the sexism Palin encountered during the election, and then shows how many sexist remarks they made towards Clinton. Hello hypocrisy!

  41. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Whaaa? The Fat Boys broke up??? ;-)

  42. somebody wrote:

    @CScarlet: You just nailed it. How can the GOP whine about someone not being intellectual enough? It’s like they completely forgot everything they’ve been saying for the past 8 years! Wasn’t it only a few months ago that they were boosting Palin and her “you betcha!” mock-folksy fake populism? Have they completely forgotten that the last president they supported liked to parade around in a cowboy hat, chopping wood and generally enacting an absurd parody of “plain folks?”

  43. The Kid wrote:

    A couple of points here
    1) I don’t know why everyone is worrying, barring a scandal, this is a slam dunk case. Democrats control the senate 59-40, Senator Snowe (R-ME) basically endorsed her, Graham (R-SC) is 50/50 right now, McCain would be crazy to alienate the Latino population in Arizona, and Franken could by the time of the hearings. This is a lock.
    2) Clarence Thomas is Black, and is on the supreme court. Even though some people don’t consider him black because they disagree with his ideology, he is black. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a woman so it would be incorrect for some of the people here saying that the Supreme Court is all white males, but seven out of nine is a pretty big majority so moving on.
    3) Only in a Right to Center-Right Supreme Court would a women who held up a ban against funding abortion in other countries through foreign organizations receiving federal funding be considered a liberal activist.
    4) There really isn’t a question here whether she’s is qualified or, I don’t want to repeat what everyone else has said but look at her qualifications second in her class at Princeton, Yale Law School, and then the years of experience, she is clearly qualified.
    5) I believe that the questioning of her intellect or whether she is “smart”or not is not the same way they would question whether you or I are smart. The questioning of her intellect has more to do with the way she that she writes her opinions on cases and the consequences that they have on future precedence. I don’t know whether these accusations are true or not, since I don’t have a JD , but it really doesn’t matter since really very few people get to decide whether she should be a justice or not, and I am not one of them. Also the same criticism was levied against Justice John Paul Stevens, and clearly that hasn’t been the case.
    6) In the quote where she says “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,” I first cringed upon hearing this. The use of the word better has shade of white equals unbiased just uttered through the words of someone else. The idea that one can be more unbiased than another is a dangerous idea, for various reason. But as a Latino male who has a mother for whom English is not a first language, I can see how this may have come out a way in which she didn’t mean for to come out as, or maybe I’m just giving her the benefit of the doubt. Either way it is not as if one opinion of who can come up with more conclusions is going affect much in Supreme Court which revolves more around the idea of group thinking and group conclusions.

  44. Winn wrote:

    @ Michelle,

    Amen! All this railing against “empathy”, “race” and “gender” by the conservative peanut gallery is a disingenous smokescreen. They finally got the court they wanted with the departure of O’Connor and the appointment of Roberts, and the current SCOTUS has wasted no time in rolling back advancements in employment law, labor relations, school desegregation, and affirmative action. Sotomayor’s appointment will not substantially change the rightist leanings of the court, but she will hopefully bring trial and judicial experience, prodigious intelligence, and a more nuanced and broader perspective regarding the real-world implications of judicial rulings. You know, the fact that communities, businesses, local governments, families, gasp, even…people(!) are affected by the rulings of the SCOTUS. The idea that unbiased and intellectually rigorous white men make judicial rulings from some lofty place unimpeded by nasty irrational things like “feelings” or “personal experience” is as insulting as it is ludicrous. As if it is possible for a human being to even form a judicial philosophy WITHOUT “feelings” and “personal experiences”, but apparently only women and POC are influenced by them.

    My only comfort is that in spite of all the stupidity and accusations of “reverse racism” and “legislating from the bench” due to come our way, there’s little chance of Sotomayor’s nomination not getting through. The Repubs just don’t have enough support, and her judicial record is far more moderate and independent than it is liberal. A true examination of her record and qualifications rather than focusing on some out-of-context statements will make it hard for her opponents to sustain their arguments. Especially if the debacle in Minnesota finally comes to an end and Franken takes his seat, she’s as good as in.

  45. Sean wrote:

    First, as a fellow South Bronx native, I gotta give a warm shout out to a homegirl from around-the-way:

    SOUTH BRONX (ALMOST) IN DA HOUSE!!!!!!!HOLLA!!!!!!!

    Sorry, had to do it. :^)

    It’s amazing how the acomplishments of minorities are often belittled or seen as some type of handout in instances like these.
    Witness President Obama’s tenure at Harvard and subsequent community activism being dismissed as insignificant/inexperienced during the election, yet Sarah Palin was considered by the right, ready to assume the Presidency in a heartbeat.

    …let’s not even get started with speculation on how George W. Bush got into Yale.

    I’m sure there was some type of affirmative action in place for the rich, connected, and inept.

  46. Whitney wrote:

    @Michelle:

    Absolutely it’s time that we have some diversity on the bench of SCOTUS. And judging by her past and her credentials and academics, I am confident that Obama chose her first based on that, and that she is Latina is a bonus. I read somewhere he thoroughly vetted her, which made me happy. She really does seem to be a really good choice, from what I’ve been reading yesterday and today. I just didn’t want to see another Sarah Palin episode, who McCain clearly chose as his VP because she’s female, to get the Clinton voters, and it obviously didn’t work.

    I guess the problem is is that we’ve had white males running our government for so long, and I as well as many others want diversity in our system, but I do get a little skeptical that these people are chosen mostly to fulfill that diversity, if that makes sense.

    @somebody:

    I guess the GOP doesn’t know what it wants: a “foksly” anti-intellectual who is clearly not that bright, or someone like Sotomayor who IS that bright, yet they accuse her of not being that bright.

    Once again, contradictions all around with them. and the conservative pundits are the worst.

  47. cb3n wrote:

    @The Kid

    I personally am not worried about whether or not she will end up serving on the Supreme Court. I agree with you that she is a virtual lock. My high stress level about all of this has to do with the inevitably disgusting discourse that we have to look forward to over the summer as her qualifications are argued. It’s already started in the form of people describing her as loud, obnoxious, stupid, domineering and whatever other stereotypes about Puerto Rican women they feel like pulling out.

    I think your observation that some commentators may be referring to their view that her decisions are sometimes poorly thought out is well made. But the fact of the matter is that the word “stupid” has been used multiple times to describe her in the past few days, in addition to the more ambiguous phrasing you describe.

    In addition we’ve already got more easily countered bits of stereotype like Politico.com’s baffling statement recently about how she’s a “Latina single mother” (she apparently has no children but I guess they figured that all Latina women have kids or something) and Mike Huckabee’s press release where she is inexplicably referred to as Maria. It seems almost like his office couldn’t remember her name and were like, “Oh, she’s Latina? She’s probably a Maria, just write Maria.” Maybe they thought that the Chilean first lady from the 1800s, Maria del Carmen Sotomayor, came back from the dead and secured a Supreme Court nomination, I don’t know.

    The point is, we’ve already got these ridiculous attacks and statements popping up, many of them, intentionally or not, based on stereotypes about Latina women, and I’m personally kind of anxious about what is going to be said and done in the months to come.

  48. JJ Deboner wrote:

    Wouldn’t it be nice if this (and every other damned thing) was not dripping in partisan politics. We the people deserve the most qualified and the most honorable persons available to us on the Supreme Court. Man, woman, black, white, yellow, Latin, Native American, gay, straight, whatever. None of that shit matters. What we want and need is a Supreme Court upholds the Constitution and in doing so favors no one and discriminates against no one. Equal justice. Wouldn’t we all love it if we TRUSTED our officials again?

  49. Nin wrote:

    @cb3n

    Your comment is painfully right ON. The *funniest* thing about all this is that because she’s: 1) a woman 2) Latina, some in the GOP jumped go conclusions about her that are absolutely wrong.

    For example, she’s liberal. Actually, her record is quite moderate-conservative. Her name is Maria (oh, Huckabee), her name is Sonia. She’s a single parent, no she isn’t.

    I can’t wait to hear the biased and mistaken nonsense they will come up with next. It’s going to be embarrassing and hilarious at the same time.

  50. kate wrote:

    I’m as happy as most people here about this and I think she is awesome.

    Food for thought: What does everyone think about elevating the schools she attended as evidence of her qualifications? If she had attended a state school instead of Princeton, no doubt people would be cutting her down for that, and many of the commenters here would probably be coming to her defense because the school you attend doesn’t necessarily say anything about your intellect. I have no doubt WHATSOEVER that this woman is more than qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, but let’s not forget that continuing to elevate Harvard, Princeton and Yale as the only schools that demonstrate intellect continues to undermine the achievements of people who attend ‘lesser’ schools for financial and other important reasons. :)

    Anyway, I also think it’s disgusting how everyone just says that she’s an AA pick, whatever that means. White people need to understand that achievement is not a zero-sum game.

  51. Lxy wrote:

    More on the Surpeme Court nomination of Sotomayor and its real significance:

    “The Sotomayor nomination is being hailed by liberals and damned by the ultra-right in equal measure, but it confirms Obama’s predilection for the predictable, conservative choice. It demonstrates the essence of Democratic Party liberalism, personified by Obama himself: the defense of corporate America and the capitalist state, slightly flavored with identity politics.”

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/soto-m27.shtml

  52. Michelle wrote:

    @47

    ROTFL! “Maybe they thought that the Chilean first lady from the 1800s, Maria del Carmen Sotomayor, came back from the dead and secured a Supreme Court nomination, I don’t know.”

    And the rest of your post is right on!

    @ Whitney

    I feel you. I just think that it is very, very rare that an unqualified person of color, in this day and age, gets a pass just because they are a minority. Especially not when we are talking about Presidencies, Supreme Court Justices, CEOs, Generals and the like. So while I totally get why you bring that up, it is very reminiscent of the largely flawed anti-AA rhetoric.

  53. BlueSteel wrote:

    @ Sean

    “…let’s not even get started with speculation on how George W. Bush got into Yale.

    I’m sure there was some type of affirmative action in place for the rich, connected, and inept.”

    It’s called “legacy admits”. That population FAR outnumbers any amount of “AA” candidates on ivy league campuses, or any campus for that matter. Funny how legacy programs never get brought up in AA debates when it essentially AA for priviledged white males…

  54. ktrujillo wrote:

    “Oh, she’s Latina? She’s probably a Maria, just write Maria.” Maybe they thought that the Chilean first lady from the 1800s, Maria del Carmen Sotomayor…

    More likely the character from “West Side Story”. All Puerto Rican girls are called Maria!

  55. Queen B wrote:

    One of the reasons why Sonia Sotomayor is such a great candidate for the Supreme Court is because she does have those degrees from Princeston and especially Yale which is considered the most prestigious law school in the courty. Not only did she get into those great schools but she did exceptionally well once there.

    I do not know if anyone remembers that GW Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Her candidacy went nowhere in part because the schools that she went to were not prestigious enough.

    There is a belief among many that the US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country and only the best and the brightest should be able to sit on that court and many believe that the best and the brightest come from Yale and Harvard. As a graduate from a law school ranked in the 20s, I have no doubt that I am just as smart as a graduate from Harvard, but when people see Harvard or Yale on someone’s resume, they are impressed without even knowing the person’s class rank.

    Sotomayor is a really good example of why it is so important that minorities get into schools like Princeston and Yale. There are certain jobs and positions in government and in the private sector that are only available to individuals who attend those institutions.

    I live in CA and we lost AA more than 10 years ago. Students who would have attended UCLA or UC Berkeley are relegated to UC Riverside or UC Irvine. The big problem with that is the college you go can determines sometime what grad school you go to which determines what kind of job you get. Attending Princeton makes it easier for someone to attend Yale.

  56. Michelle_2 wrote:

    I think Sotomayor is more than qualified and I hope that it turns out to be a lock. But like others have said, I truly dread the ugly rhetoric that we will all have to wade through between now and then. It’s typical of the modern media style of flash over substance that everyone is parsing a few out-of-context statements to death instead of looking at her record and the overall slant of the decisions she’s made over the course of her career.

    The fact is, no matter who Obama chose for this, the Right would strenuously object, simply because of the (as jjdeboner noted) partisan politics that are poisoning everything in Washington. IIRC republicans have been vowing to fight any nominee put forth, simply because it’s coming from a democratic president. The only potential upside I can see is that the hate-fueled rantings of the right WILL cost them support in the Latin@ community (and, I hope, among lots of other communities who don’t like that shit). (Whatever support they have left in light of their hateful, xenophobic stances on immigration, that is.)

  57. Slush wrote:

    “Sotomayor is a really good example of why it is so important that minorities get into schools like Princeton and Yale. ”

    Great point, all of it.

    At the same time, I advocate reducing social dependency on name-prestige recognition, wherever possible. People turn into incredible thinkers and leaders from all kinds of schools, and the less time we spend gawping about old boys’ club schools, the more we can look to the future. Like you said, getting into one of those is your ticket to the rest of them, which is just one example of the perpetuation scheme they have established to support themselves. (That and some serious real estate games.)

  58. Sean wrote:

    BlueSteel wrote:

    It’s called “legacy admits”. That population FAR outnumbers any amount of “AA” candidates on ivy league campuses, or any campus for that matter. Funny how legacy programs never get brought up in AA debates when it essentially AA for priviledged white males…

    Thanks, BlueSteel. I guess we can now define legacy admits as affirmative action for unqualified wealthy people. It’s interesting to note that AA was established -at least partly- to provide counter-balance to legacy admits.

    Hypothetically speaking, I can only imagine what certain conservative pundits will gripe after Sasha and Malia Obama graduate from a prestigious university: “Legacy admits are unfair and is a mockery of students who qualify on their individual merits….”

  59. dani wrote:

    why must a minority’s accomplishment get reduced to AA? It’s like some people complain about minorities not pulling themselves by the bootstrap to get ahead, but once they do they undermine their accomplishments by using the AA argument.

  60. carm_b wrote:

    Glenn Greenwald has some really great and detailed posts on the hypocrisy behind a lot of the criticism and some more enlightening information on Sotomayor, based on his own interactions with her in court. I’m truly disgusted not just by the prevalence truly offensive commentary on her nomination (pronunciation of her name??? Her diet? How much she contributes to her retirement fund? Whether she’s combative?), but by the glaring double standards. No one objected to Justice Alito’s references to “empathy”.

    P.S. Unless the Dems in the Senate really screw this up, I think she has the nomination in the bag.

  61. Quixotess wrote:

    I don’t follow Feministe or Feministing, but I do read Shakesville. I also read blackamazon. Today ba posted (briefly) on what she’s seen in the white feminist coverage of Sontamayor.

    I thought the second paragraph really captured what I thought of Shakesville’s coverage. Then on the other hand, Racialicious has only one thread for her, da, and I don’t even know what Feministe or Feministing are doing. I’m trying to differentiate between shakesville and feministe/feministing, but it’s getting harder. What obligations do those blogs have to Sontomayor when Racialicious has only one thread? How do the major white blogs differ from one another in their coverage? thinking…

  62. Jordan wrote:

    I love all of these comments! I think she’ll get confirmed though. Not as relevant, but my dad dated her while at Princeton!! Small world. :)