by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
Blacks and progressives should prefer a "wise Latina" to the usual Supreme Court fare, any day. "The white male perspective has ruled unchallenged for centuries and has done great damage to human beings around the world." However, just because Sonia Sotomayor is under attack from raging racists, doesn't mean she should get a free pass from the Left. "Sotomayor should not be allowed to escape scrutiny because of race pride and meaningless swooning from white liberals."
Freedom Rider: The Sotomayor Hype
by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
“She is called a ‘centrist,’ a label which tells us little in an age when the political pendulum doesn’t ever swing back to the left.”
The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court should be an opportunity to assess her record, and to critically assess the Obama administration and develop strategic responses to his actions. Instead, most of the discussion post nomination has focused on one speech Sotomayor gave in 2001 and the person of color boot strap story so beloved by the corporate media and liberal whites.
Appeals Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has been considered a possible Supreme Court justice for some time. She was always at the top of the list of possible replacements for retiring Justice David Souter. The White House floated the Sotomayor trial balloon and when it wasn’t shot down, decided to move forward.
Sotomayor has impressive credentials, that is to say she attended the universities that ambitious people have to attend if they expect to be appointed to the federal judiciary or anything else of note. If confirmed by the Senate she will be only the third woman and the first Latina Supreme Court justice. The media love the story of a Puerto Rican whose widowed mother lived in a housing project while she worked two jobs to support her children.
The pulling up by the bootstraps story can be a very dangerous one. Inherent in the “she came from the projects” exultation is a racist, class conscious condemnation of people who happen to live in public housing. Many public housing residents are productive, honest people. Some end up leaving, some don’t and those who don’t shouldn’t be vilified if they don’t attend ivy league schools and sit on the federal bench.
“The media love the story of a Puerto Rican whose widowed mother lived in a housing project while she worked two jobs to support her children.”
Praise for the humble beginnings story is also dangerous because it provides an easy way out for white America. Like voting for Barack Obama, singing the praises of Sonia Sotomayor allows white people to let themselves off the hook when they ought to examine their nation’s continuing racism and their role in it.
Sotomayor’s nomination is historic, just as Obama’s elevation to the presidency is historic. However historic her rise, it should not be allowed to absolve her from acting on behalf of citizens and not on behalf of corporations and an oppressive government. Obama’s hyped up “historic” accomplishment has allowed him to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, spreading war and codifying the worse aspects of Bush era rules on indefinite detention. Sotomayor should not be allowed to escape scrutiny because of race pride and meaningless swooning from white liberals.
Lacking in the media is any substantive reports of her decisions on the federal bench. She was originally appointed by president George H.W. Bush 1991 and later to the court of appeals by Bill Clinton in 1997. She is called a “centrist,” a label which tells us little in an age when the political pendulum doesn’t ever swing back to the left. In the fifty most recent discrimination cases (*link scouts blog) on which she ruled, she and her colleagues accepted a finding of discrimination only three times.
“The white male perspective has ruled unchallenged for centuries and has done great damage to human beings around the world.”
Yet one statement she made is getting particular attention, and for all the wrong reasons, giving rightwing talking heads much to wring their hands over. In a 2001 speech she made the following statement:
“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 hasn't lived that life. Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.”
While her rulings in discrimination cases receive scant attention, this one comment is repeated over and over again. The statement rings true. The thoughts of white men have been deemed normative, the only thoughts worthy of consideration. White male jurists kept slavery in place, and segregation and sex discrimination. What is wrong with a Latina perspective determining the law? The white male perspective has ruled unchallenged for centuries and has done great damage to human beings around the world. The “wise Latina” argument should work just fine, but when Republicans attacked the president didn’t defend her very strongly. Instead, in typical Obama fashion he insisted that she would “restate” the remark. The fact Obama chose her means that she is probably not the second coming of Thurgood Marshall. He told us early on that he would not pick anyone who could be called a liberal jurist:
"I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.
As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum."(Emphasis mine.)
Republicans will make racist hay and compare Sotomayor to a KKK member, but that is no reason to dismiss accountability from her or from Obama. The rush to defend her from attacks by Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh should not be a reason to let her escape hard questioning. After all, the power to make lifetime judicial appointments is supposed to be a reason to put Democrats in the Oval Office. If Obama has to ask Republican permission before he makes a nomination, then we have one more argument against the importance of Democrats being in office.
Sotomayor is an unknown quantity whose long history of court rulings demand full examination. If that doesn’t happen, we will have another Obama, and one of those is quite enough.
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.Com.
In this week’s segment, we discuss the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe in World War II, and the disinformation that centers on the U.S.'s role and dismisses the pivotal Soviet role in that…
Roger McKenzie is the international editor of the UK-based Morning Star, the only English-language socialist daily newspaper in the world. He joins us from Oxford to discuss his new book, “The…
The late Bruce Dixon was a co-founder and managing editor of Black Agenda Report. In 2018, he provided this commentary entitled, "US Fake History of World War II Underlies Permanent Bipartisan…
Nadiah Alyafai is a member of the US Palestinian Community Network chapter in Chicago and she joins us to discuss why the public must be aware of the Nakba and the continuity of Palestinian…
Black people who are among the rich and famous garner praise and love, and so do those who are in distress. But concerns for the masses of people and their struggles are often missing.
