Sotomayor: Her race to the top

There's a deluge of analysis out there on Obama's affirmative-action Supreme Court pick. Below, a few good ones (if you're not already sick to death of the subject).

But first let me note that Liz Torres was born to play the lead in The Sonia Sotomayor Story: The Rich Life Experience of a Wise Latina.


Commentary (but not on the biopic, which will air on Lifetime: Television for Wymmyns):

From Michelle Malkin [acidic Asian-American columnist - in the Obama-time, we must never lose sight of ethnicity and sex]:

The selective elevation of hardship-as-primary qualification demeans the entire judiciary. If personal turmoil makes one “incredibly qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country,” let’s put reality-show couple Jon and Kate Gosselin on the bench. Millions of viewers tune in to watch their “compelling personal story” of life with eight children on television. It’s a “richly, uniquely American experience” of facing obstacles and overcoming the odds. Get them robes and gavels, stat.

Read the rest. Sotomayor is being held up as a token and neither she nor her supporters find it the least bit demeaning.

Now for a word from [Asian-American male, I guess] John Yoo (just trying to balance things out!):

The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race. Obama may say he wants to put someone on the Court with a rags-to-riches background, but locking in the political support of Hispanics must sit higher in his priorities.

Jonah Goldberg [white male - sorry] on putting empathy in its place:

President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job.

[. . .]

When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts’s confirmation, he said that Roberts didn’t have the “heart” to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, “we need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.” Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.

The reasoning here is a riot of dubious assumptions. Obama and Sotomayor both assume that a firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or the African-American or the gay or the old will automatically result in justices voting a certain (liberal) way. “I would hope,” Sotomayor said in 2001, “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 hasn’t lived that life.” This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense on stilts. Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How’s that working out for liberals?

Of course, liberals say that if you don’t agree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas or abortion, it’s because you don’t care as much as they do about minorities or women. Which is why they’ve demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor. This, too, is aggressively stupid. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Judges aren’t supposed to have policy preferences, despite Ms. Sotomayor’s insistence that the courts are “where policy is made.”

Read the rest.

Slublog [ethnicity unknown -- please report in so we can pigeonhole you] in the Green Room on the selective importance of "life experience." He quotes the NYT's dismissal of Clarence Thomas's [see above] "life experience" as well as his talent:

As the nation waits to learn more about Clarence Thomas, the questions will concern not so much his talent but his character. Even his rise from poverty and racial isolation will be less interesting than how that experience has affected his regard for other Americans and whether he understands how their lives and rights are affected by law and official action.

Read the rest.

Meanwhile, Gingrich [well, we all know about Newt: white male and a Southerner to boot!] thinks her racist tendencies disqualify her, and calls for her to go (figures):

On Wednesday, Gingrich tweeted: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.' new racism is no better than old racism."

Moments later, he followed up with the message: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

(How's "Gingrich tweeted" for cognitive dissonance?)

Donald Douglas [male, probably white] discusses whether to Bork [white male] or not to Bork the wise Latina.

Wake Up America [again, no data. sigh] has a Sotomayor linkabration.

Tons more at Memeorandum, here and here.

Anecdote: Pundit once worked at a university that requested he fill in his ethnicity on a form. He refused and had several telephone discussions with the human resources rep, who couldn't for the life of her understand his objections. He told her if she wanted to know his race she'd have to come over to his office and look at him. I don't think she ever did.

Cross-posted in the Green Room, with racial/ethnic clarifications in the comments.

Linked by Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)

Most recent posts here.