« MICHAEL JACKSON… | Home | CNN’s BLACK IN AMERICA 2… »
THE RIGHT OF RIGHT…
By Anthony | July 21, 2009
Greetings,
The recently completed confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor proved several things in my opinion.
First, the 55-year old Bronx native is highly intelligent as she skillfully check mated the queries from many of the senators that had some level of opposition to her becoming the first person of Latin heritage appointed to this nation’s high court.
Secondly, Lindsey Graham, the republican from South Carolina, loves to hear his own voice and reeks of the kind of patronizing behavior that causes many persons of color or marginalized citizens to avoid the whole process altogether, therefore she, and many others who see the larger picture, should be commended.
Thirdly, and for the purposes of this presentation, the ability of the conservative segment to couch arguments on their terms is quite interesting, and proves time and time again that the center of political thought starts towards the right and leans in that direction accordingly.
Yet, there’s some sleight of hand involved to create the appearance of radical liberalism (in this climate the counter viewpoint is always viewed as “radical’) when at best a centrist stance is what progressives are left with.
For example, to placate the conservative base New York Senator Charles Shumer, considered one of the Judiciary Committee’s liberal voices, boasted of Sotomayor’s conservative rulings:
She has agreed with Republican colleagues 95 percent of the time. She has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases, against the immigration plaintiff. She has ruled for the government in 92 percent of criminal cases. She has denied race claims in 83 percent of the cases and has split evenly on employment cases between employer and employee.
Regrettably, all the attention was focused on the “wise Latina” comment, and that was viewed more with paranoia than context.
Surely, one could argue that the statistics cited by Shumer also need to be given context, so perhaps the most substantive piece of information about Judge Sotomayor is the case of Jeffrey Deskovic as reported in the internet outlets AlterNet and Mother Jones.
Deskovic was wrongly accused of rape and murder at age 17, and spent 16 years in prison for a crime that DNA evidence proved otherwise.
After several appeals his case was brought before New York’s Federal Second Circuit, where Sotomayor, and her colleague, refused to reverse the ruling based on erroneous advice from a court clerk that prompted Mr. Deskovic’s lawyer to file a writ of habeas corpus four days late. and subsequently he stayed in prison six more years until the DNA evidence.
Unfortunately, the argument presented to the majority of the public, and the Judiciary Committee, to challenge an actual Sotomayor ruling was the case of the New Haven firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano – a hot button reverse discrimination case just in time for the Affirmative Action argument to be placed in a conservative context.
Now, perhaps Sotomayor will do a David Souter – the man she’s replacing in the Supreme Court – and make more liberal rulings should she be confirmed, but pay close attention to how the machine moves all of its apparatus to dictate the argument.
PEACE
Topics: Videos |
July 27th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Sotomayor nomination
1 Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:39
Aghast
Was not Benjamin Cardozo hispanic? His parents were from Spain. Will you ignore history in an attempt to add to the list of Obama “firsts”? Bush the younger ALSO nominated an hispanic (male) to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is in actuality only the first hispanic to be nominated that the left likes. Be honest.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Sotomayor hearings
2 Wednesday, 22 July 2009 08:49
ADH
Thank You, for your response. The facts tell us that Benjamin Cardozo ran away from any Latin heritage he had.
Cardozo-biographer Andrew L. Kaufman questioned the usage of the term “Hispanic” in the justice’s lifetime, stating: “Well, I think he regarded himself as a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors came from the Iberian Peninsula.”
And the term “Hispanic” speaks more to those who indeed come from Spain, as you pointed out, and has no tangible relation to those from the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, etc… It was a form of confusion created by former President Richard Nixon to placate those threatened by balancing the playing field with Affirmative Action. This little known fact has recently been brought to the fore.
As for your statement on former president George W. Bush’s ALSO nominating a Hispanic (again term you used and one I never chose in my article based on above paragraph) male to the Supreme Court, this is the list of high court nominations from his administration:
John Roberts, Harriet Miers and Samuel Alito.
None of these people have Latin heritage, or even Hispanic for that matter.
Thanks for the dialogue
July 27th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Sotomayor nomination
3 Wednesday, 22 July 2009 09:36
ADH
Additionally,
For more info on the creation of the term Hispanic:
http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com/2005/09/how-richard-nixon-invented-hispanics.html
“Hispanic” is a derivative of the word Hispana. which is “Spain”
Spain, Europe is called “Hispana” in Europe
Hispanics (people from Spain) are White Europeans. Most of those called hispanics in the Americas have no direct association to Europe
. except for through colonialism
Thank You, for your response
July 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Hispanicism
4 Wednesday, 22 July 2009 23:02
Aghast
I stand corrected and I truly appreciate your research. Of course I was referring to the pop culture definition of “Hispanic” which is non-white. Thank you for your attention.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Sotomayor
5 Thursday, 23 July 2009 07:56
John Q Public
“But pay close attention to how the machine moves all of its apparatus to dictate the argument.”
Isn’t it the same machine the same one that replaced prioritizing competence with the politics of physical identity?
Didn’t this intelligent woman say, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”
Isn’t that statement the words of a bigot? What if it were said as follows, “I would hope that a wise White (Caucasian) man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
Is there a double standard for intolerance? Are we witnessing institutional prejudice?
There are nine people on the supreme court. Over the decades these nine people have usurped much of the power that is meant to be vested in our republic by means of the will of the people. Frankly, physical identity and “life experiences” should not be a serious consideration for nomination of judges.
If you still insist, then let’s distribute race, gender, hair color, sexual orientation, short people, tall people, etc. among the nine justices since they all have different “life experiences.”
As for the nominations of other hispanics (Cardozo, etc) it is the shallowness of the same individuals that promotoe the politics of physical identity and are blinded by their own agenda that does not allow them to recognize the fact about former nominations.
Wrap the issue of Sotomayor’s nomination in whatever packaging you like - but it’s still the gift of bigotry and the politics of physical identity. The gift that keeps giving.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Sotomayor
2 Thursday, 23 July 2009 17:05
ADH
Greetings and Thank You for the dialogue.
Forgive me, but I fail to see your point in the statement, “Isn’t it the same machine the same one that replaced prioritizing competence with the politics of physical identity?”
Assuming we are talking about the same issue, the Sotomayor nomination, how is it possible that the likely confirmation of one person of Latin heritage to the high court indicates an affront to competency as you see it?
That statement in itself reveals a lot.
I’m sure you are aware that 108 of the 110 Supreme Court justice’s in this nation’s history have been White people, and just a quick glance at Sotomayor’s credentials prove she’s competent - especially when compared to the last woman, Harriet Miers, nominated to the Supreme Court.
My premise in the article was that there was not a thorough, balanced and robust debate on the issues.
The examples I gave spoke of how narrow the discussion was.
One such example provided, the Jeffrey Deskovic case, which denied a man justice, is an affront to all of us, and the failure to see him testify during the hearings was disappointing based on Judge Sotomayor’s denying one of his appeals.
As for the “wise Latina” comment and if you were to state it. I would ask you, and Sotomayor, to “define the richness of your experience” in detail to see what that really means. I do however believe that balance and a diverse background is beneficial in all situations, and we may just have to agree to disagree on that one.
So, no I wouldn’t consider you a bigot I would just ask for more clarity.
Lastly, politics is always being played, but “physical identity” is the least of our concerns when the debate is steered in a particular direction.
Thanks much for the dialogue.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Your dilusional
6 Friday, 24 July 2009 12:30
Mikeyt
YOUR PREMISE: She is “highly intelligent”; TRUTH: She has been overruled numerous times by the USSC. Her latest debacle, Ricci v. Connecticut, was universally denounced by every member of the USSC. She mispronounced numerous words in the hearings and a NY Senator admitted she never learned the “Classics”.
YOUR PREMISE: She “skillfully check mated the queries “; TRUTH: She backtracked and lied about every position she took previously. She says she never meant that Judges legislate from the bench and that…oh no… a wise latina is no smarter than a wise white man.
So if your premise is fallacious, then your argument is likewise.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Sotomayor…
1 Friday, 24 July 2009 13:05
ADH
Greetings, and Thanks much for the dialogue.
I find it very interesting how most of the comments in response to the article fail to address the prevailing thesis of lack of thorough debate on all of the issues - most notably the wrongful imprisonment of one Jeffrey Deskovic who appeard before Judge Sotomayor among others justices.
Remember, the title of the article was based on how the argument got steered in a particular direction?
Thanks much for the dialogue