by Mark Silva
The counter-attack on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court centers on some of the same material which makes her a strong candidate, in the eyes of the president who nominated her and those who support her:
The uniqueness of perspective that comes from the life of a child of Puerto Ricans raised in a Bronx housing project and educated at Princeton and Yale Law.
It's part of what recommends her for the Supreme Court, according to President Barack Obama, offering his first nominee for the court. But what Sotomayor has had to say about the impact of her heritage and upbringing on her appraoch to the bench is part -- actually the central part -- of what works against her, according to some opponents.
The Judicial Confirmation Network has prepared a Web-video challenging the appointment of the federal judge from New York. "America deserves better,'' the narrator warns, in a video quoting some of Sotomayor's own words:
"Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions... 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 hasnt lived that life... Whether born from experience, or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may, and will, make a difference in our judging... Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.''
The interesting thing about this: The first statement is true, on the face of it. The second certainly lends itself to some debate. The third would seem true as well. The fourth invites some fairly robust discussion. But the question is whether any of these snippets, lifted from the context of a life's work and nearly two decades on federal benches, are meaningful in the debate over Sotomayor's confirmation for a seat on the nation's highest court.
We tend to steer away from Web ads here, for the limited impact that Internet-only messages have -- though the sponsors say this one will reach more than 6 million conservative activists nationally on their Web-sites -- and we did take note of the president's own email video message on Sotomayor. And in the interest of airing the other side of the debate on a day when supporters of Sotomayor have launched a broacast and cable network TV ad , we're playing the Judicial Confirmation Network's video above.
And, as always, we invite you to weigh in.
Comments
I don't see attacking the statement makes much sense. It is the same as saying perception is reality, which one can't really deny.
Posted by: bill r. | May 27, 2009 12:18 PM
If all they have to attack her is one sentence from one speech in her long and distinquished career, that's pretty telling in and of itself, isn't?
Posted by: Mary | May 27, 2009 12:33 PM
Justice Alito at his confirmation said a lot about 'empathy' including this:
"And that goes down the line. 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. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them."
Posted by: Flo | May 27, 2009 12:43 PM
Swamp "journalist" Mark Silva writes his own rebuttal of the anti-Sotomayor ad, whereas with the pro-Sotomayor ad he featured yesterday, Silva presented the text without rebuttal.
Doubtless this and hundreds of other similar instances of reporting bias are all amazing coincidences, totally unrelated to Mark Silva's own political leanings,
Posted by: Bruce | May 27, 2009 1:57 PM
Let's also look at the full context of what she said on the issue of court of appeals and policy:The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.
Posted by: bill r. | May 27, 2009 2:07 PM
It's not bias, Bruce; the woman is qualified, are you suggesting Mark should fabricate something the way Limbaugh does?
Posted by: rupert | May 27, 2009 2:11 PM
It's not bias, Bruce; the woman is qualified, are you suggesting Mark should fabricate something the way Limbaugh does?
Posted by: rupert | May 27, 2009 2:11 PM
How is she qualified? What specifically shows that she will judge on the merits of the law - regardless of the personal circumstances or people in front of her? In fact- when there is documented evidence of her philosophy that would indicate how she thinks about the law- it is completely contrary to what the role of the justice would be...maybe we have seen and heard everything, and perhaps she will be a good justice.. but there is nothing so far that prooves this.
While at the same time there are some compelling things that she is on record saying that are contrary to the oath that she will be required to take...andif true should disqulaify her.
Posted by: heartburn | May 27, 2009 3:13 PM
Let's get this confirmation over fast, before too much right wing hate can be ginned up.
Posted by: ornery | May 27, 2009 3:31 PM
She has a lengthy judicial record, heartburn, completely contrary to what you say. But this is why they have juciciary committee hearings to air it all out; I see all the Republicans on the committee are white boys, so I guess they will learn something.
Posted by: rupert | May 27, 2009 4:52 PM
Mark Silva, as Bruce pointed out, you chose to editorialize this reports by attempting to explain Sotomayor's comments, so I think it is fair to ask you to back it up. You characterize her second statement as one that lends itself to debate. What debate is that? That her gender and race have something to do with her ability to be a judge? Make that argument for me because I'm just not seeing it. Additionally, if a white male made a similar statement, do you think the reaction would be the same? Would yours be?
Posted by: Herbie H. | May 27, 2009 11:04 PM
I wonder when the "she's not a citizen" or "she's a socialist" or "she's not hispanic enough", and we've already seen "she's too hispanic" crapola start. We've let the neocons drive us into the ditch over and over again and all they do is whine and complain when the majority of Americans try to fix their screwups. Clarence Thomas just fills a spot, doesn't ask questions, and votes like Roberts tells him. It will be nice to have someone who asks, thinks, and expresses what THEY think, you know something that is against the neocons rules.
Posted by: Bopper | May 29, 2009 11:58 AM