The News Journal had some local reaction to President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I find it very disappointing that they seemed to find her ethnicity more important than her brilliance. Here are the quotes from four of them:
“a historic moment for the nation,” in that, if confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic to serve on the nation’s highest court.”Of course, her confirmation would add to the court’s diversity, but she would also bring experience and a long list of accomplishments — regardless of her status as a Latina — that would be an asset to the Supreme Court”
… praising Obama’s choice as bringing greater ethnic and gender diversity to the high court.
“I’m so excited,” she said, “I’m jumping for joy. I can’t believe it is happening.”She added that Latino groups, on the national level, have been, “trying to push Sonia for a long time.”
“Everyone had been hopeful to have a Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court,” he said, but it was still a happy surprise that it came this quickly and as Obama’s first nominee.”
A couple commented on the brilliant politics. They warned that she is inoculated against any criticism due to her hispanic-ness. Sort of an IED for any politician who takes the bait and examines her credentials and temperament rather her birthplace.
There was one who seemed to be pleased that she might be a good nominee for her legal expertise at least as far as the quote goes:
“an experienced judge with a brilliant legal mind…
Very sad that the response to the reporter’s questions from the rest of those quoted was not that her ethnic background is unimportant and then proceed to discuss her experience and legal background as why she is the best choice (remember that “content of their character” thing). But they probably knew as well as I do that the President’s primary consideration was demographics. We can be sure of this because he had said the day before that he was not concerned about demographics.
The News Journal makes the race case in its headlines. “First Latino Nominated To Supreme Court”. The nominee’s race and gender seem to be of primary interest to the News Journal. Far more appropriate would have been “Sotomayor Nominated to Supreme Court” or “Experienced Appeals Court Judge Nominated to Supreme Court”.
Chuck Shummer of (D NY) made it clear that he and his fellow liberals will consider any questioning of the nominee to be racist.
It will be difficult to get by the issue of race here in the US as long as we have race baiting liberals in full bloviating mode. The election of J F Kennedy essentially put the Catholic question out to pasture. Why can’t we do the same with race now that Barack Obama has been elected to the office of President.
Conservatives should never accept leftist terms of debate.
In Sotomayor’s case, the attempt is already being made to stifle true debate and to shield her from legitimate questions about her judicial philosophy by suggesting objections to her statements and record are racist or misogynist. Conservatives shouldn’t abide by those nonsensical restrictions. Talk about red herrings and smoke screens. She does not require protection from any questioner–regardless of Michael Steele’s indication she should be handled with kid gloves.
Nor should conservatives decide her ethnicity and gender make her attack free because conservatives don’t want to lose more of the Hispanic/women votes.
On the contrary, conservatives should take this opportunity to make the basic philosophical differences between the parties concerning the law crystal clear. Left wing Democrats believe that impartial treatment of all persons before the law–regardless of ethnicity or gender–must yield to preferential treatment of certain ethnic minorities and other groups in order to expunge the perceived sins of the majority, past and present, and to bring into balance a society they perceive as badly imbalanced. On the other hand, conservatives believe, as did Martin Luther King Jr., that no group, gender or race deserves preferential treatment but should be afforded equal opportunity for fair, impartial treatment before the law.
Early indicators, such as Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case and her own comments about a “wise Latina woman” being able to render better decisions than a white male, plus her comment that policy is made from the bench, more than suggest she is not an impartial adjudicator. She deserves to be questioned closely and her record made clear to the public.
Further, if conservatives believe her views are not what are required for the impartial dispensing of the law from the bench of the Supreme Court, they should not accept her nomination.
Anyone who recalls the Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas hearings will know leftists’ attacks were unbelievably vicious. While I’m certainly not suggesting Sotomayor be treated with disrespect or disdain, I suggest conservatives not hold back.
Think universal principles, conservatives; not political expediency.
Fay Voshell