Alito and Sotomayor, Then and Now
During his January 2006 Senate confirmation, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made the following remarks:
Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
[...]
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.
I may be wrong, but I don’t remember that these remarks by Judge Alito, on how his own and his family’s background, ethnicity and life experiences would enter into his thinking process or would be taken “into account,” caused a furor at the time.
Now, let’s step back a few more years, to 2001 when Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in a speech at the University of California at Berkeley, also suggested that her background, life experience and heritage help 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.
Again, I could be wrong, but I don’t remember Sotomayor’s words causing a firestorm at the time. And yet, by then she was already a Court of Appeals Judge.
Today, Judge Alito’s words do not raise any eyebrows.
Sotomayor’s words, on the contrary, have been the center of the vilest attacks on the Judge, on her character, on her gender and on her race.
It is interesting that the following words, part of the same 2001 speech by Sotomayor, are hardly mentioned:
“…judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.”
Nationally-syndicated columnist, and 2004 Pulitzer Prize winner, Leonard Pitts Jr., who should know a thing or two about race and culture—having been the victim of racial attacks himself—had an interesting column yesterday, on how varied life experiences can only enhance the rulings of those on our nation’s highest Court
I intend no endorsement of Sotomayor. Let’s wait and see how she does before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I’m particularly interested in hearing how she explains her quoted remark that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience” will usually have better judgment than “a white man who hasn’t lived that life.” Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich have thundered with simulated indignation that the comment makes her a racist. It sounds more like attempted irreverence fallen flat, but she needs to address it.
Assuming she ascends to the court, Sotomayor will be the 113th person to do so. Of her 112 predecessors, 108 have been white men. Folks who profess concern about identity politics would do well to keep those numbers in mind, illustrating as they do that race and gender have never previously been absent from decisions about who sits on the court.
[...]
Contrary to what some would argue, it is a net good when the panel whose decisions shape the nation “looks” something like the nation. Contrary to what they’d have us believe, legal judgment is not simply a matter of quoting precedent and applying logic. It is also a matter of “interpretation” and interpretation is shaped by who you are and what you’ve known.
If precedent and logic alone were definitive, the court could not have decided, for instance, to endorse segregation in 1896 in clear violation of the 14th Amendment. But because of who they were and what they had known, that panel of white men somehow interpreted the amendment as allowing Jim Crow — a tragic travesty that stood for 58 years.
Would the court have been well-served in 1896 had someone likely to be impacted by the ruling been there to offer a counterbalancing interpretation? If the court is debating an issue of importance to women, is not the quality of its deliberation improved if someone in the room is in possession of a uterus?
Yes, emphatically, to both.
Ensuring the presence of diverse people in the deliberation chamber betrays no American principles. Rather, it affirms a core American promise: Liberty and justice.
For all.
Well said, Mr. Pitts.
For the entire column by Leonard Pitts, please go here
13 Responses to “Alito and Sotomayor, Then and Now”
But he was accused of being a racist and a sexist by the Left, during his confirmation hearings, due to his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, tried to filibuster him, and confirmed him with the second lowest vote total after Justice Thomas, the poster child of the hate the Left feels towards minorities that do not toe their line.
I don't know where you think you are going with this line Dorian, but you cannot defend the Left as reasonable on race, racism and sexism charges are compared to the Right when it comes to SCOTUS nominees. The Left's record or simply atrocious and shameful.
All that said, I will repeat yet again that what she said is not indicative of a racist, it was just one comment, she is qualified, it is the President's prerogative to nominate any qualified candidate who he feels represents the direction on the Court he wishes to go, and simply because the Left made complete asses out of themselves over Thomas, Alito and Roberts, and tried to destroy those men personally, politically and professionally, that does not mean the Right should do the same.
What's your point? Those are not the same statements and they do not mean the same things. Not to mention the uproar that the left had toward Alito was so much worse that what is going on now it's absurd to equate the two events. Mind you it's just starting (the conformation process) so it may get bad, but it's minor right now. How soon they forget how those that cry foul foamed at the mouth so recently when it was a conservitive appointment.
Unless one is delusional, Sotomayer is a racist, pure & simple, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza by definition- since their motto is “For our race everything- for others, nothing”.
Her record is nothing to shout about either, and frankly -if you’ve heard her speak- she’s not what you’d call a towering intellectual.
Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda too, calling us “cowards” regarding racial issues and letting-off Black Panthers who stood in front of a polling place with nightsticks.
And Obama himself has shown us a puzzling pro-Kenyan grudge against the British and has said some pretty odd things, even regarding his own grandmother… plus he’s the one who nominated all these kooks in the first place.
Whatever happened to the idea of a colorblind society? Team Obama define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know. I wouldn’t want to be judged by any of them after what I’ve heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.
If Obama is going to go on with his “justice” agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop… and NOW
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
“I don't know where you think you are going with this line Dorian,”
Just pointing out some inconsiencies, AR. And, yes, they happen and are used by both sides. But there has to come a point when we stop saying, “they did it, too,.” and we stop making outlandish accusations such as “Sotomayer is a racist, pure & simple,”
Perhaps now is not the time?
“Sotomayer is a racist, pure & simple,”
The only thing simple is the person making a statment like that. Defining an individual because of one statement is absurd.
Dorian – it just seems to me the time is always when it is to the advantage of the Left for it to stop. I have NOT called for it to happen with Sotomeyer, quite the opposite.
I just hate the 'look how evil the Republicans are' line of comments about this issue, with little to no acknowledgment that it was the hateful, and I mean truly hateful, actions of the Left against Alito, Thomas and Roberts that have led us to where we are now.
AR — I've commented to this several times as well. It's not just this issue, its every issue. Repubs who are critical of spending now are questioned because they weren't critical of it when Bush did it. Dems defend it now even though they were critical of it when Bush did it. Dems wanted the troops out of Iraq immediately when Bush was in office but aren't hitting the streets to protest our involvement there anymore. We could go on and on, citing examples of both sides doing this. But in the end, all it does is continue to feed this perpetual motion machine. Its the consistent “two wrongs make it right” justification for almost anything that happens anymore.
As to the post at hand, Sotomayer should be confirmed as quickly as possible, and the Repubs need to stop criticizing her in ways that they once abhorred. There are valid questions to be asked of her, but the line of reasoning that many of her critics are taking isn't really helping to understand who she really is any better.
AR and Jchem, you both have good points.
I'd be the first to admit, as I have done it myself, that we use too much the “they did it, too” rheoric, when it comes to pointing out how the other side also did something bad or unethical, whatever.
However, in this case I am specifically pointing out something that , in my opinion, is good that the other side did or said.
Specifically, Judge Alito's references to his personal life experiences, background, ethnicity, etc..
Now whether such references by a Supreme Court Justice, or candidate, are “good” or “bad” are strictly in the eye of the beholder.
in my eye, they are good..
That's all…
Dorian – I wasn't trying to be critical of you personally; I was just making a general observation in line with AR's comment. My apologies if it came out that way.
Everyone has a compelling life story. It shouldn't surprise any of us that a nominee to the court would be shaped in some way by those prior experiences, whether it be Sotomayer, Alito, Thomas, or whoever gets the nod. I believe when the hearings begin, we all will get a better understanding of Sotomayer's judicial philosophy and perhaps many of her critics may begin to think how silly and petulant they were to be criticizing her in this manner.
No personal criticism taken, jchem.
I thought you made some good points.
Dorian
jchecm – I don't even agree with the concept of finding out what a nominee's viewpoints are prior to supporting them (at least as far as voting Senators are concerned). That is borderline un-Constitutional. I have always believed that as long as the nominee is basically qualified, even if they are not a lawyer, which hasn't happened for some time, then unless they are corrupt or other 'for cuase' actions can be identified, it is incumbent on the Senate to confirm. Even if I severely disagree with the jurisprudence philosophies.
AR, did you argue that notion as the original GW's White House counsel?
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/02/supreme-court-…
Thanks CO. I was unaware of that specific episode, or the 80% track record. Food for thought for sure.