In high school you may have joined the Inter-School Christian Fellowship because the group reflected your Christ-centered values. If you left Jamaica for a college state side you may have joined a social or advocate group representing Caribbean students to get you a sense of home. Who ever thought seeking interaction with those who share common beliefs, race or heritage could be thought of as prejudiced?
Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor is being harangued by Republicans Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Tom Tancredo for being proud of her Puerto Rican heritage and for her membership in Hispanic civic and professional organizations. Gingrich and Limbaugh have called Judge Sotomayor racist. Tancredo has taken it a step further and likened La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group of which she is a member, to the Klu Klux Klan.
These rants from the right have been revolting, offensive and just plain dumb. Students and professionals everywhere belong to organizations that represent their sex, country of origin and race. The suggestion that all those people are racist or sexist because they self identify as women, Black, Hispanic, Native American - or whatever - is ridiculous. The arguments are so ludicrous as to make me think that Tancredo and the others could not possibly believe it themselves.
Unfortunately for the Republican Party - which I have to be sure has some level heads - these are the voices that are getting the air time. (Likely because their bizarre suggestions make sensational television.) Today, they are voices and faces of the GOP. As the party's face, they are alienating, not only Hispanics (who, ironically, they need to win elections), but every other group that can recognize true racism.
To oppose Sotomayor's nomination based on disagreement with her judicial philosophy is one thing. To unfairly label her a racist, to attack the reputation of a venerable civil rights group, is desperate. It is cowardly. It is, clearly, the old rusty kettle calling the new shiny pot black.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Justice by the law
Federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated by President Obama to the United States Supreme Court. If confirmed, the highly qualified New Yorker of Puerto Rican descent will be the first Hispanic and only the third woman to sit on the federal bench.
The president had declared that he would be searching for an 'empathetic' justice. He seems to have found that with Sotomayor, who has contended publicly that she believes judges' life experiences should color their legal views.
Not surprisingly, conservative Republicans have taken up arms in criticism of this nominee and her view of her judicial role. Their argument: the law is to applied according to the letter; not interpreted through personal frames of reference.
At the risk of having my party card revoked, I agree with the conservatives on this one. The outcomes of cases before the Supreme Court should not depend on whether the justices can personally relate to the plaintiffs or the defendants arguing before them. The High Court's rulings affect Americans across the country of every hue, racial background and socioeconomic status. To make personal perspectives fair for all, the Supreme Court would need to represent every ethnicity, income level and psychology. It is only in the strictest application of the law that we can be assured that all of our interests are protected. The only issue of interest to the justices - and to every judge - should be which of the arguing parties meets its burden of proof or presents the best argument according to the law. I feel safer when only those factors are at play. I suppose though, that if even that (the very letter of the law) were not debatable there would be need for only one Supreme Justice, not nine.
Going by the word of the pundits and talking heads that have come out to babble since Tuesday morning, Sotomayor is all but confirmed to be Supreme Justice Sotomayor. I hope she serves with distinction and wears the robe without consideration for from whence she came, because "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences" does not necessarily "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." (Paraphrase from Judge Sonia Sotomayor) That is why we all rely on the colorless, unempathetic and blind law.
The president had declared that he would be searching for an 'empathetic' justice. He seems to have found that with Sotomayor, who has contended publicly that she believes judges' life experiences should color their legal views.
Not surprisingly, conservative Republicans have taken up arms in criticism of this nominee and her view of her judicial role. Their argument: the law is to applied according to the letter; not interpreted through personal frames of reference.
At the risk of having my party card revoked, I agree with the conservatives on this one. The outcomes of cases before the Supreme Court should not depend on whether the justices can personally relate to the plaintiffs or the defendants arguing before them. The High Court's rulings affect Americans across the country of every hue, racial background and socioeconomic status. To make personal perspectives fair for all, the Supreme Court would need to represent every ethnicity, income level and psychology. It is only in the strictest application of the law that we can be assured that all of our interests are protected. The only issue of interest to the justices - and to every judge - should be which of the arguing parties meets its burden of proof or presents the best argument according to the law. I feel safer when only those factors are at play. I suppose though, that if even that (the very letter of the law) were not debatable there would be need for only one Supreme Justice, not nine.
Going by the word of the pundits and talking heads that have come out to babble since Tuesday morning, Sotomayor is all but confirmed to be Supreme Justice Sotomayor. I hope she serves with distinction and wears the robe without consideration for from whence she came, because "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences" does not necessarily "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." (Paraphrase from Judge Sonia Sotomayor) That is why we all rely on the colorless, unempathetic and blind law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)