Thank You Senators Cornyn and Coburn for Solving a Critical Latina Problem!
Jul 15th, 2009 | 27 responses
I’m one of the leaders of a girl gang of Latinas. Many are heads of non-profits, executive directors of institutions, trustees of universities, holders of political office, change agents in education who saw school integration to fruition. Since we are a girl gang of elders who have many young students who are also movers and shakers in our culture now, we wanted a unifying group symbol and decided on black leather jackets bearing our La Señora de Guadalupe on the back– with “Las Marias”– our informal group name embroidered at the top… but what to say at the bottom?
(R) Senators Cornyn and Coburn have given us the perfect solution: ¡Muchisimas gracias!
It’s odd, at first the dustup over Judge Sotomayor’s ‘wise Latina woman’ remark, didnt rankle Latinos much. It just looked like politics as usual before and during the hearings over the last ten years or so.
But, in speaking with many Latinas yesterday and today, something changed in the midst of the hearings yesterday afternoon and deepened today… re Senators repeatedly pounding on this phrase “wise Latina woman” until it has gone from being a phrase of interest, to being an iconic ideal… as a result of the perseveration by various politicos about it all… and I wont go into detail about the ‘splaining’ remark by Senator Coburn today. It was a non-sequitur. And we’ve all heard the Ooooooo Rickie?! joke before.
Just this: When Latinos are silent, it doesnt mean they agree.
And also this: When Latinas refer to themselves as ‘wise women’ they are most often echoing a childhood of hearing over and over again something their grandmothers and mothers said to them… and most adults who had the treasure of living with immigrant grandparents or parents heard something like this too (besides, hush and eat your carrots or you’ll go blind)… “I may just be an old Italian woman, but I’m a wise Italian woman…” et al, fill in with heritage, ethnicity of one’s choice. It is the same. It is a figure of speech.
I know some made much of it. And perhaps they were right to question, especially if they didnt understand the nuance. But to most of the Latinas I know, and they are legion, there are far more important inquiries to be made about what a person will bring to an official appointment, not only what one or another hopes a person will not bring.
It’s a safe bet, that after watching and reading about the Sotomayor hearings and the repetitions and arch tone of certain questioners, even for the most acculturated Latinos who do not register like a seismograph whenever they are badgered by others, or others attempt to diminish them… that the Latino constituency of the Republican party will be, as they say, like hen’s teeth in coming days.
That’s too bad, there are some great young people, especially, in the Republican party who have refreshing minds, and are not just younger versions of the old predictable guard.
In the meantime, Las Marias, and all those who strive to be wise women–and wise men– each in his and her own ways, meaning souls from all groups here in the US– will keep an eye on who bullies whom, who seems fair and who seems not so, who has transparency of motive for witnessing, and who has cunning hidden agendas…
and from what we see, what we learn, what we know then… we will all, in our own ways… guide the young accordingly.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
27 Responses to “Thank You Senators Cornyn and Coburn for Solving a Critical Latina Problem!”
Thank you a million, dr. e, for so succintly and beautifully explaining the concept of a “wise Latina woman.”
The only thing I can add, is that it is more than just a nuance, it is a tradition, it's a fact of life, that Latinos consider their women (whether their mothers, their abuelas or their bisabuelas) to be truly wise women, even wiser than the abuelos or bisabuelos, whether these men are white or not.
Republicans may have made one of their biggest poltical mistakes by not understanding this cultural “nuance.”
Dorian de Wind
It is sad that a talented woman is being shamed for being wise. I would think a wise anyone is sorely needed in our society at this time since we need our best and brightest to solve the daunting problems before us. Unfortunately, the senate confirmation hearings are an archaic process that involves a lot of “Saber Rattling” to satisfy at outdated warrior mentality that has never solved anything. Maybe it is time to try the wisdom route as proposed by Sotomayor.
I have a problem with the hearings. On the one hand Repubs and sometime Dems declare publicly that they want a nominee that is somehow unblemished, untouched by birthright or life experience, someone who will administer the law word by word. Yet we all know if it is a republican nominee the Repubs expect that nominee to behave a certain way, make decisions along a certain arc, for example favor corporations and the religions right, to be against abortions, etc. AND Dems favor a nominee slightly left of center, perhaps a minority, who keeps the common man/woman in mind.
Allowing for those who accepted their post and did not behave according to expectations, is it correct that we try to nominate judges who favor our causes? Does a Repub nominee look that different from a Dem nominee? I think so. They would say so, but couch it in some opaque legalise politico language. He's our guy/gal is that not all that really matters? We have our guy/gal in the highest court in the land! The assumption is that the Supreme will do our bidding, no? yea, not to the letter, but…….. Look at how Bush won his first election and the role a Repub-loaded supreme court played in that. To reiterate, I don't quite get the reason for all the myth making, the ritual and the reality………..that if it is a Democratic Pres. doing the nominating then in all liklihood a Roberts or Alito, for instance, despite all their qualifications, would likely not make it to the top ten list.
That said, long live the history and contribution of wise latino women!
A last thought, if not a wise latina woman, then what, duh……..an unwise one, a dumb one. Someone should tell the southern senators that they are getting three for one: A woman, a latina, and a wise one at that……….no doubt among other hats she can rightfully claim to wear.
Dear Dr cpe,
thank you so much for your very wise comentary regarding the few bullies who are tring to “beat down” a national role model (Dr. Sotomayor)….
This type of behavior has now revealed the strength of a very intelligent and wise Latina woman who will not allow herself to be bullied!
We are proud of her and we are proud of you as well for the creativity to transcend the “gutter politics” of some!
Thank you!
Mariposa
One thing…
I don't think that “Our lady of Guadalupe” would be appropriate for judge Sotomayor. Even though she says is catholic, she is pro-choice and subject to excommunication, i.e.. rejection of the sacrament at the communion rail. I'm afraid she needs much reconciliation with her church.
Or conversion!
It's all posturing by the Republicans. Bush got Roberts, now it's Obama's turn. I wonder if the questioning would have been as vicious if Sotomayor were a man? Of course not! Women are still second class citizens in this country, and the good old boys want to keep it that way.
Thanks Dr. E. What's obvious is that there are no wise white men in the GOP, as they foolishly alienate any remaining supportive Latina/Latino voters. And for what? They know they won't prevail, so oddly enough they are playing to their dwindling base and scuttling their future chances with moderates and especially, Hispanics. How can they not know about YouTube and the delicious sound bites their CSPAN covered remarks will make for Democratic candidates? For rich white men to be whining about “racism” is just too stupid for words.
Having struggled a lifetime to attain a level of measured mediocrity, I lack the qualifications to comment on wisdom. Nor is it possible to understand the various senators obsession with the subject. Do they have the wisdom to recognize wisdom in their presence? To my undisciplined logic it seems that a wise person, even a senator, would be loathe to quesion the wisdom of another.
Yes, as commented upon previously, I initially supported Judge Sotomayor's nomination, then changed my view based on the belief that her legal thinking was too process driven.
But, whether one supports or opposes Judge Sotomayor should be based on her qualifications and judicial philosophy. To querie into a comment about her wisdom, and thereby deny by implication that Latina wisdom would add a valuable perspective to the Court is, at best, unenlightened and, at worst, cullturally discriminatory.
This is a double bind: allowing her religion to influence her decisions is truly subjective and therefore would disquality her from the Supreme Court appointment. She is Latina, she is wise, she is Catholic. What will be the next reason to disqualify her?
What we're seeing here is Republicans mainly presenting logical, valid concerns, especially about judicial activism as well as hints at other misconduct that Sotomayor's controversial remarks have obviously raised, while the Dems are blatantly political as well as continuing to defend illegitimate judicial conduct (which substitutes for what they can't achieve legislatively or by winning enough elections, or to augment whatever the Dems can do legislatively and in elections).
Sotomayor raises eyebrows among the intelligent and moral, but isn't really that bad (and is presenting herself deliberately in these hearings as a “born-again jurist” repenting any activist leanings just to be safe).
It's lesson time — [sigh] –
It's beyond what most lefties can grasp, but Sotomayor can defend expressing her feelings and her “identity” (a word currently abused by lefties fashionably) and appeal to those of us with IQs above room temperature, simply by stating that she is different than other people, and in fact that all people, and all _judges_ as people, are different. People do different things for the same reason, and people do the same thing for different reasons. This is completely separate from judicial activism (illegimate arrogation of legislative power by the judiciary, notably through creative and worse rulings — making law themselves and substituting their wishes and views for what the law really is, and having the gall to state what the law _should_be_) and is simply arising from the fact that people are not identical — they are not clones. Again, people do different things for the same reason, or the same thing for different reasons, because they all are different, they are not identical. Judges will rule the same way (to affirm or to reverse a lower court's decision) for different reason, or rule differently, at times for the same reason, as reported by them. There almost is never a unanimous verdict by the Supreme Court. PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. Even Ivy League Supreme Court Justices are not all the same. Multiple opinions are issued, sometimes joined, but even then not always fully (additional divergent remarks are often provided by individual Justices). Even with normal verdicts, there can be more than one opinion on each side (affirmation, reversal). People are different. Judges are different. People's individual natures make them different.
That's all Sotomayor or anyone else, rather than babble stupidly about “diversity,” has to say about this.
Sotomayor has discussed her differences (and perhaps admitted her fallibility simply because she's human) because we're _all_ different. Even the almost exclusively Ivy League lawyers that form the Supreme Court are all different, and the Court (with multiple Justices on it) almost never reaches a unanimous verdict, much less always so. Sotoyamor is simply another (Ivy League) lawyer who is not a clone of the other (Ivy League) lawyers who are candidate Justices of the Supreme Court.
That's today's lesson, kids.
My favorite part of your lesson is the fact that we are not clones much less robots…we are human beings and bring all of what we are to the table. Isn't that how democracy works? Good job at explaining this logically and reasonably.
You all area a sad bunch… criticizing the repbublicans and the judicial committee for doing their job… claiming intellectual prowess that you obviously don't have…. criticizing the US for its history… did you all go to school at Montecito High where it is en vogue to be a latin burner of the American flag? Dumb white males have been paying for your staggering number of children's education for decades, and all we ever hear is how bad you have been treated. News flash, slavery was not introduced by white males… that distinction belongs to the Egyptians…. and mexicans (except in today's state in Mexico, not America)have never been slaves.
Now for those Mexican-Americans who can't read English… cierra la boca.
You all area a sad bunch… criticizing the repbublicans and the judicial committee for doing their job… claiming intellectual prowess that you obviously don't have…. criticizing the US for its history… did you all go to school at Montecito High where it is en vogue to be a latin burner of the American flag? Dumb white males have been paying for your staggering number of children's education for decades, and all we ever hear is how bad you have been treated. News flash, slavery was not introduced by white males… that distinction belongs to the Egyptians…. and mexicans (except in today's state in Mexico, not America)have never been slaves.
Now for those Mexican-Americans who can't read English… cierra la boca.
Thanks for the lesson DLS…. us uneducated “kids” can really use and need your insight. Ivy league education is not what it is cracked up to be… it is as much about politics as it it anything else… how the hell do you think Obama got his ivy league education paid for? Viva la affirmative action…pffft.
There are a lot of voices out there calling for change in the American society… many whom do not belong in the American society to begin with… and when an elected representative (Obama often forgets that), starts playing politics in the American judicial system, there will be an erosion of the morals and values in our society. Some people mistake the white demography as an appropriate target, and somehow responsible for their challenged existence in life. The melting pot is melting down, and eventually there will be more takers than givers, and all the parasites will be on to next foolish nation to open its doors to immigrants in the name of freedom.
Remember the Alamo is a typical Texas comment. Enough said.
Sadly, the legacy of decades of liberal judicial activism (that the Dems even now defend) hasn't left us. I view this as the continuing serious problem with Court appointments and related Senatorial circuses (first made famous by the vile mistreatment of Bork, applauded by the scum in our society, which included misconduct by Kennedy against Bork that should have merited censure, if not better, expulsion). Judge Sotoyamor is somewhat concerning but not alarmingly so — though her posture in these hearings as a “born-again jurist” (presenting an appearance of visceral proper aversion to activism by the courts) is, because of the lib-Dem decades-long heritage, unavoidably remarkable. (Is she flirting with overdoing it?)
Sotomayor's qualifications seem better than any candidate for years, and I can have a laugh and paraphrase Biden — she's not only a fellow Ivy Leaguer, but she's clean, she speaks English, and acts like one of the guys, so we should vote for her without hesitation — an honorary Older White [Anglo] Male.
As someone with an IQ above room temperature, I won't be among the low tail of the bell curve who will instinctively classify any opposition or reluctance the Republicans may profess to be “racist” [sic]. But then again, I'm not among the exploitable people the Dems are appealing to and expecting to exploit, not with the “racism” lies about the Republicans any more than the occasional hyper-idiocy extremism about “diversity” that even made the late hard-core Dem New Deal Dinosaur Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., disparage “multiculturalism” (and wrote about it — “The Disuniting of America,” not a melting pot that the extremists want but a “tossed salad”).
* * *
“we are not clones (much less robots)…we are human beings and we bring all of who we are to the table”
That applies to the various (and normally multiple) opinions that are issued by the Justices, as well as related notes and dissenting opinions, all of which often bear reading. (Often you'll find the dissenters may have been or you may believe they truly are correct, incidentally.)
“a typical Texas comment”
Not totally-Texas, for have you ever been to Austin? [grin]
But if it makes you feel vindicated, Texas is one place where the Religious Right (often over-hyped by its opponents) really does have a disproportionate influence, as I read yesterday while on travel.
[Here. I am not making this stuff up!]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753078523935…
Also, in risking a political firestorm (rightly these days) because Sotomayor expresses her susceptibility to have her perceptions and perhaps decisions colored by who she is and by her life experiences, that, again, is true for all judges, and something they are obliged to struggle with constantly. This is separate from and doesn't necessarily connote in any way a willingness to consider or to pursue judicial activism.
“I initially supported Judge Sotomayor's nomination, then changed my view based on the belief that her legal thinking was too process driven”
Please note that as a judge, she is preoccupied with procedural matters and details, almost exclusively in the case of an appelate court, which approaches always 100% of what the Supreme Court is in the law and in real life. Judging is about “due process.” It's the activists, who have discredited the judiciary, who go beyond that wrongly to sustitute what they want (liberal views and goals or at least wishes) for what is the law itself (and what its creators and ratifiers wanted, which is what counts for definition and construction — that is what the law is intended to express). The judges' role is to review “due process,” not “due substance,” to look at the laws as they are, and to check that legal processes were followed (no errors were made, a subject of appelate court review), never what they believe the law “_should_be_.”
It's _all_ about the “verb,” should _never_ be about the “noun.”
Having been a graduate student at Lubbock's Texas Tech, I know you are not making this up. I lived the reality for one whole year. I still applaud your reasoned approach to Sotomayor's qualifications…but I think you could leave out the “clean and speaks English” part of her assets. Being bilingual is an advantage (as in most other countries except our own) and “clean” is a little condescending. You're on the right track again. Thanks.
To DLS and Alamo:
Thanks for bringing the tablets down from the mountain. Until then I was totally in the dark.
I'm sure you agree as well that Texas should secede from the union. You got my vote.
Thanks Dr. E. I love the idea of reclaiming the term “Wise Latina”, bringing it back to what it actually means, not some weird Republican code-word for “Scary Brown Reverse Racist”.
DLS, occasionally you make a lot of sense. This might be that thread. The arrogance, though? Ugly! And you drip with it…
Make that two votes for Texas secession.
“I think you could leave out the 'clean and speaks English' part of her assets”
I was poking fun at Joe Biden.
“DLS, occasionally you make a lot of sense. This might be that thread. The arrogance, though? Ugly! And you drip with it…”
I'm willing to defend myself as well as contribute to a forum with other than fluff. Sorry if you misinterpret that.
“I know you are not making this up.”
I've been to Texas. (Waco, Jerusalem on the Brazos, plus the whole route from Oklahoma City in the Bible Belt down through Dallas to Austin was my main travel route from St. Louis and the Ozarks and Tulsa, also Bible Belt.) This is some real, rare, right-wing activism and extremism, even, in government.
(Note that the liberals in that Journal story included someone wishing more minority and Latino credit.)
“Being bilingual is an advantage “
It's something to be treasured, in fact. I was taught Spanish beginning in fourth grade and have read from linguists like Mario Pei, and while he insisted on assimilation and learning of English (“the country where you have gone and which provides you an opportunity to earn a living”), he never said people should not speak other languages if they can, and he thought for a child ideally it would be to only speak the “old” language inside the home and only English outside it (so the child learns both in the best way possible).
I'm also not racist or “ethnicist.” Neither Alamo nor another critic of ethnicist activism, Superdestroyer, would necessarily be at ease if they met the Hispanic girlfriend I had when I lived in Phoenix (though they would no doubt admire her looks and demeanor).
Well stated DLS (apart from usual librul bashing).
” usual librul bashing”
Actually, in this case, as usual, the lib'r'ls are bashing themselves — at least the lib Dems like Franken are, in the hearings.
I've enjoyed the writeup about Sotomayor (who's far from a militant flaming activist, just has made a few statements that raise the specter of activism, and is very highly qualified, maybe the best in ages, with her record as a judge) here, which addresses Sotomayor's presenting herself not only as a non-activist but an anti-activist and even possibly more anti-activist than her Republican critiques. It also puts Obama's tee-ball choice (guaranteed to be a hit, approved, in multiple ways in her case) into perspective:
“Under normal circumstances, a judge who says the things Sonia Sotomayor has said during her confirmation hearings would not be able to win confirmation in a Senate with a solid Democratic majority. … She's practically a new Robert Bork! How is it that someone with such extreme-right-wing-out-of-the-mainstream views seems set to win every Democratic vote in the Senate? Simple. She was nominated by a Democratic president, and everyone assumes–correctly, in all likelihood–that this is a better predictor of how she will vote than the pieties she utters during her confirmation hearings.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124775868855652…