Quote of the Day: Conservative Republicans’ Double Standard On Sotomayor
Our political Quote of the Day comes from a long must-read column by Dick Polman who details how there is a double standard in conservative Republicans’ criticism of Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor — one that does indeed involve “race,” but not in the way conservatives have in mind:
Conservative activists are in a lather over Sonia Sotomayor’s frank acknowledgment that her thought process as a high court judge would be influenced by her life as an Hispanic woman. They cite such remarks as proof that she would pursue a “liberal activist” or even “racist” agenda with scant regard for the rule of law or judicial impartiality.
All of which prompts me to pose a few questions:
Are we supposed to believe that white male judges have never been influenced by their lives as white males? How come “life experience” is trumpeted as a scary concept only when the life in question belongs to an Hispanic female nominee? How come, whenever a white male is successfully tapped for the U.S. Supreme Court (thus far, 106 out of 110 seats), nobody voices concern about the potential jurisprudential impact of the white male life experience? Apparently, she just has the wrong kind.
Polman details the controversy over Sotomayor’s remarks and then concludes:
For instance, check out these remarks: “My background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point…When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
That’s gotta be Sotomayor, right? Vowing to tap into her family’s Hispanic immigrant experience? Getting all empathetic and emotional, just as the conservatives predict? Vowing to behave like a scary “Hispanic supremacist” (the label affixed to her last week by an anti-immigration group)?
Wrong. Those remarks was uttered by Bush nominee Samuel Alito, while testifying at his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005. He was vowing to tap into his family’s Italian immigrant experience as part of his deliberative process. Somehow I don’t recall hearing any conservative outcry about Alito and his life experience.
So, to review: When a white guy vows to factor in his life experience, the Republican right says zip. When an Hispanic woman vows to do the same, a southern GOP senator like Jeff Sessions asserts that such a thing violates “the great American heritage.” There’s a big reason why the Republicans are in serious danger of losing the Hispanic vote for at least a generation, and we’re seeing it play out now.
Oliver Wendell Holmes once stated the obvious as well: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” Maybe what’s needed most, in our most rarified be-robed priesthood, is a bit more life diversity, to reflect our 21st-century pluralism. Sotomayer’s conservative critics might be wise to view that diversity not as a threat, but as a celebration.’
Read it in its entirety.
And there are no signs that conservative GOPers are relenting. The Washington Post has an editorial in which is says that Sotomayor has the very qualities conservatives insisted were missing in ill-fated Bush nominee Harriet Miers, then writes:
Because it is difficult to dismiss her academic credentials and her professional experience, some on the right have resorted to the politics of personal destruction. Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice said in a radio interview that Judge Sotomayor was picked because “she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified.” Former congressman Tom Tancredo sank to even greater depths when he called Judge Sotomayor a “racist” for her past affiliation with the Hispanic advocacy group, the National Council of La Raza; Mr. Tancredo called La Raza “a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.” Former Bush adviser Karl Rove implicitly questioned Judge Sotomayor’s intelligence, saying in an interview with PBS host Charlie Rose that “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools.” No doubt, but would Mr. Rove have said the same thing in connection with Justice Alito?
There are plenty of lines of inquiry that should be explored to better discern Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications and judicial philosophy. We look forward to a vigorous debate about Judge Sotomayor’s more controversial and consequential cases. We would like to hear more from Judge Sotomayor on how gender and ethnicity might help — as she put it — a “wise Latina” judge come to a “better” conclusion in some cases than a white, male jurist. (The president recently said Judge Sotomayor regretted her choice of words.) Above all, we’d welcome a confirmation process that sets aside rancid stereotypes and sexist assumptions in order to explore the record and philosophy of a woman whose work could affect the country for some time to come.
Meanwhile, The Politico reports that conservatives are pressing GOPers in Congress to be rougher on Sotomayor – and one of those doing the pressing has a reputation as a mega-partisan:
Conservatives are demanding that Senate Republicans take a harder line on Sonia Sotomayor, with new signs of tension between the Hill GOP and elements of the Republican base over the direction the opposition should move in the Supreme Court fight.
In a letter to be delivered to Senate Republicans Tuesday, more than 145 conservatives – including Grover Norquist, Richard Viguerie and Gary Bauer — call for a filibuster of Sotomayor’s nomination if that’s what it takes to force a “great debate” over judicial philosophy.
But in an interview with POLITICO, Manuel Miranda – who orchestrated the letter – went much farther, saying that Mitch McConnell should “consider resigning” as Senate minority leader if he can’t take a harder line on President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.
Miranda accused McConnell of being “limp-wristed” and “a little bit tone deaf” when it comes to judicial nominees.
Miranda, now the chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference, served as counsel to McConnell’s predecessor, then-Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist. He left that job in 2004 amid allegations that he improperly accessed thousands of memos and emails from Democratic staffers – circumstances McConnell’s supporters recalled as they pushed back hard against Miranda’s arguments Monday.
“It’s unfortunate that one disgraced former employee of previous Senate leadership has decided to air out his grievances rather than join the conservative effort to examine Judge Sotomayor’s record,” said a senior GOP Senate aide. “Not only did this guy steal the Democrats’ playbook, he seems to be implementing it.”
And, indeed, this is what the battle has come down to.
Are Republicans going to give the Democrats a nice, advance Christmas gift, all wrapped up with a beautiful bow? Will they alienate Latino voters by indulging in a demonization campaign versus indulging in vigorous debate over policies? (For those who insist they just simply cannot understand what the word “demonize” means versus “vigorous debate,” a phrase we use often on this site, apart from the fact that “demonize” is a word whose first syllable explains itself, re-read the Washington Post excerpts above about what is being said about Sotomayor by some and then what the Post hopes will happen in actual debate. If that doesn’t do it, just do an internet search which should make it understandable).
The SMART approach would be for Republicans to use the hearings to show through solid, respectful questions what kind of justice they would like to have on the court, the party’s values on specifics and on broader issues — and to see if Sotomayor measures up to it. And, if not, respectfully make the case for why a justice needs to share their approach. Showing some thoughtful lawmakers asking tough questions on policy and philosophy could impress some voters who don’t have a political axe to grind in her confirmation — or her defeat. If it’s personal, with questions loaded with defining, talk radio style attack adjectives or game-playing wording, it won’t play well with Latino voters…and some other voters.
The SMART broader strategy for Republicans would be to start putting aside the tactic of defining opponents (calling people “limp wristed” might have worked in the 50s but it is not going to persuade some Americans to vote for your party since it says more about the mentality of the person who uses that phrase than the intended recipient).
The bottom line is that if you view all of this together it still comes down to whether Republicans want to expand the GOP tent — or carefully check the credentials of all who try to get into it and station ideological bouncers with “I LOVE RUSH” buttons throwing out some of those who try to get in
If they’re thrown out or can’t get in — Hispanic and non-Hispanic voters alike –just guess where they will go instead?
Share This
Related Posts
-
The White House Looks for Serious Cuts
Posted on Apr 10, 2013
-
Perceptions of America’s Political Parties
Posted on Apr 9, 2013
-
The Politics behind the Killing of Americans
Posted on Apr 5, 2013
-
It’s Jim Carrey Versus Fox News
Posted on Apr 3, 2013
“…a “wise Latina” judge come to a “better” conclusion in some cases than a white, male jurist. (The president recently said Judge Sotomayor regretted her choice of words.)”
Oh, she simply used the wrong words.
Of course, we shouldn’t hold her to her actual statement, we should defer to the interpretation of her handlers and apologists.
We would do the same for a Republican who said something differently than how they meant it to come out.
Right?
Do you think Dick Polman understands the meaning of the word “hypocrisy”?
Polman is really trying to re-frame the debate. Alito did not say one race and gender makes better decisions than another, which is what Sotomayor said. That was a dumb thing for her to say.
Still I agree that the GOP should be respectful, not filibuster, and approve Sotomayor.
Yes, Joe, yes. I think the answer to Polman's question “How come nobody voices concern about the potential jurisprudential impact of the white male life experience?” is something I tried to touch on maybe a week ago talking about Sotomayor. That is, it is assumed, effectively, that white men have no gender and no race; what I mean when I say that is that the white male experience is “normal”, and everything else is “other”. Like Polman says, Sotomayor just hasn't had the right “kind” of life for her experiences to count. The white male experience is the right kind of life, and all other experiences must be compared to this touchstone. Of course, the only reason that this would be the case is the power structure that's been in place since the birth of this country.
Countdown to jwest calling me a racist in 3…2…
Wait a minute. Sotomayor quoted Ginsberg, “A wise old man and a wise old woman should come to the same conclusion” (setting up, now pay attention, jwest, a theme for her comments). She then said she didn't necessarily agree, and cited Oliver Holmes, who as a SCOTUS justice, ruled repeatedly in favor of slavery. Then she said a wise Latina woman (ps, folks, she wasn't 'OLD' but was keeping to Ginsberg's theme) would make a better decision than Holmes, an old white man.
Doesn't matter. The right will continue to fume, which I fully support. By the time Sotomayor is approved, the GOP will have alienated Hispanics for a generation. Absolutely go for it. Pull out all the stops and let your rhetoric soar to fuming, sputtering and bigoted heights.
Listen I think the whole thing is overblown and won't end up being a big issue. But she did not say she would figure in her life experience and that is not the problem with the statement that some conservatives are worked up over. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. She said something that probably sounded different to her before she said it, would of phrased it different now. Fine I can understand that. Pretending it's about “life experience” is transparent and keeps us here arguing about this crap and puts you on the wrong side of a spin attempt. It's stupid, so knock it off.
Doesn't matter. The right will continue to fume, which I fully support.
“The right” didn't start this thread, GD.
Hasn't her life experience been as a Latina?
“The right” started this entire controversy, DaGoat. I'm glad to see it continue. Here's Sotomayor's entire speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/1…
I imagine Hispanics will read it with pride. I think it makes its points very well, it's articulate and thoroughly referenced to history and to legal authorities; and I do not disagree with what she said. If you haven't read it, you should.
“The right” is characterizing it as “racist” and even “KKK”. Read it. Imagine a proud Hispanic, on finally seeing the first Hispanic to be selected, not by a white man, of course. But then she is reviled by the other party; this very distinguished, learned and accomplished Latina, fully praiseworthy, scorned instead, by Republicans, who condemn even the most accomplished of them.
The GOP has lost its PR sense completely and is showing its true colors.
Keep it up. Please.
She made a statement that was ripe for misinterpretation (at best) and got called on it. The only way that would not happen for a nominee of the highest court in the land is if she got an automatic pass because of her status as a minority.
“who condemn even the most accomplished of them”
I assume “them” means minorities. Lets look though the most recent GOP administration which had a much more diverse makeup than any other ever. Of course since they didn't stick to the “party” line they were not real minorities. Guess what she is not being attacked because she's a Latina, but because she's a dem. Pushing the race issue is bad on both sides and you GD definitely are not on any moral high ground when you do it.
The hypocrisy of the Right? Hmm.
How come I haven't see any articles about the hypocrisy of the Left, inventors and practitioners extraordinaire of attacks on Supreme Court nominees from Republican Presidents?
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
This is all a classic case of “less is more” reasoning. No one wants to take the time to understand Sotomayor's full body of work, because that's a pain in the neck, and so we just look for the key quote that will reveal all. We grab that quote and then spend hours debating about what she could or could not mean by it. If only we understand this quote, then we will truly understand this woman's true beliefs. Of course, our biases will be used to select that quote and used to interpret it. But in the end, and this is something AR has said before, there's no reason we should judge a person by one line.
I wrote a guest post about this sort of issue last October, which makes the point with several cases. Unfortunately, it seems to have disappeared from TMV, so here's a link to a cross-posting on my personal blog.
Commenters on the right can feel it's hypocrisy or unfair or whatever they please. I am sincerely encouraging you to continue your attacks on Sotomayor. Really.
As for moral high ground, Mr. torture defender, I'm there. With respect to this issue, I never accused any SCOTUS pick of Bush's of racism. Look it up. I never scoured their every word or article for a “gotcha” statement that could be twisted into a false charge. Did you read the article I linked to? Do you disagree? With what in her speech do you disagree? Do you really think “racism” or “KKK” is an appropriate charge?
I don't have to defend Sotomayor. She's a brilliant and accomplished woman. You want to attack her? Please do. Again, I encourage it.
GD – you are off your meds again, I see.
Please, go find one comment of mine attacker her. You know what? You cannot. Why? Because I have continually defended her against charges of racism, and have continually said she is supremely qualified and should be confirmed without a fight.
You, as usual, are simply lashing out in an ignorant, ill-informed manner, rude and condescending manner, making assumptions without having the facts straight.
You are an idiot.
AR, you made clear days ago that you thought the GOP should let this go, and I respect you for that. They should, but they won't and can't. Too bad for them.
Not so with EEllis, jwest, CO or others who have continued to fan the flames. I should have specifically excluded you, but as I've noted before, your positions are often moderate. I'll likewise assume you're excluding me from your charge of hypocrisy on this matter, as I didn't make any such allegations about Bush's SC picks, much as I dislike their politics.
What! Read my posts! Where did I attack her? I said she made one bad remark but if that's it then she would be in. I said here I thought the whole thing was overblown. How is that attacking her? What I did say is that it is BS to equate what she said with what others have said and I stand by that. She may have meant the same thing but she didn't say the same thing and pretending she did is false and extends this BS even further. There have been no post attacking her just BS excuses and false comparisons from those who support her. At least here her supporters are keeping this crap going. I don't even know what I think about the woman I'm waiting for the committee hearings. I will include you in making up facts to fit their own agenda GD, you seem to care little about what is said just how you “feel” about it.
GD – as your comment was right after mine, I assumed it was direct at me. As we have had a thaw lately in our online blogging relationship, I was taken aback, and reacted strongly (as is obvious).
Sorry for my jumping to conclusions, and for the personal attack.
GD,
My comment focused on the rampant hypocrisy of the leftist concerning treatment of Supreme Court nominees.
It is inarguable. There can be no intelligent discussion to the contrary.
If conservatives operated from theory of do what is “fair”, we would call Sotomayor a Nazi, porno loving deviate who hates blacks, children and old people. We don’t do things like that.
Conservatives don’t care what is “fair”, we care about what is “right”.
I heard she hates puppies!