I have no desire to see Sonia Sotomayor confirmed to the Supreme Court. Her judicial philosophy, as near as I can tell, is as unmoored as the spectacularly unmoored Anthony Kennedy’s. Even in a liberal justice I hope for, and expect, better. Still, I think on one point, there’s been a lot of overblown hysteria. Sonia Sotomayor may be a lunatic racist, but if she is, that “wise latina woman” quote is pretty flimsy evidence. Daniel Larison at Eunomia points to another part of the speech to illuminate this. He writes:
[She] acknowledg[es] that neutrality and objectivity do not exist. One should strive to minimize the role of bias, but it is ineradicable. More than that, it sometimes serves a valuable social function–surely, students of Burke can understand this. The people who actually find this shocking or dangerous reveal themselves as believers in pleasant fictions left over from the 18th and 19th centuries. Those who understand that everyone is from somewhere specific, that everyone is part of a particular tradition, heir to a certain background and shaped by the places where he has lived and the experiences in those places, and that universal Man does not exist anywhere in the world, are not troubled by this. For us, it is a simple restatement of the obvious. The idea that where we come from matters deeply and defines who we are is hardly one that conservatives should find outrageous.
This cuts to the point pretty neatly. But, if you’re still not convinced let’s try a little thought experiment. Imagine a Jewish person claimed to have a better appreciation of tyranny, because they grew up in a cultural millieu where the Holocaust was an ever-present memory. It would surely be wrong to call this person a racist; it would probably be wrong to call him wrong, unless lived experience counts for nothing. There’s nothing wrong, in the abstract, with admitting that background, even race, can alter perspective in meaningful ways.
The problem comes in when that notion is affirmatively applied to judging. Perspective should influence politics, values, etc; it shouldn’t influence justice. The legal system, especially the judiciary, is meant to impartially adjudicate disputes. It serves as a procedural backstop for the occasional wild pitcher in our more free-ranging political system. Larison is undoubtedly right that we can’t ever be entirely separated from our background; but if there’s any sphere of government where we simply must try, the judiciary is it. Sonia Sotamayor isn’t a racist. She simply doesn’t understand that she’s meant to be a bulwark against the tyranny of caprice, not an advocate for it. That is reason enough to oppose her confirmation without dredging up the racism charge. After all, to paraphrase John Adams, we ought to be a nation of laws and not of wise latina women.
-Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
May 28th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Do you seriously believe that John Roberts’ perspective as a privileged white male doesn’t influence his judicial philosophy?
Clarence Thomas’ life experience doesn’t merely influence his philosophy, it informs every last bit of it. It informs it in a way you happen to agree with, which in Conservative Land means that Thomas is rigorously objective. Which doesn’t make it so.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Everyone’s perspective influences judicial philosophy. Each of us is human. The idea is to strive for objectivity and the rule of law. This broad makes no bones about using race as a means to make policy. THAT is the difference.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
She said her decisions would be “better”, not “different”. This alone displays an arrogance that is unfit for the Supreme Court.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Her membership in La Raza should be troubling! One of their stated goals is for Mexico to regain all of their land they owned in the early eighteen hundreds.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
One of the things that the GOP could do with this nomination is to take on La Razza, not unlike many in the movement shined a light on Acorn and began opposing it.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I’d like to point out that in my article “It’s Not About the Law,” #5 addresses the point Larison is making.
It’s classic Marxist bullshit.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
As a U.S. Appellate Judge, she has been reversed either 60% or 80% of the time by the U.S. Supreme Court, meanwhile, the reversal rate on appeal is at most 8%. Good Judges get reversed less than 1-2% of the time.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Adam,
This post is just for you my man.
Operation Gringo: Can the Republicans Sacrifice the Hispanic Vote and Win the White House?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/operation-gringo-can-republicans.html
May 28th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Democrats take a hard left, but are they moving the country to the right?
By Gene Ulm
http://blog.pos.org/2009/05/democrats-take-a-hard-left-but-are-they-moving-the-country-to-the-right/
Our most recent national survey showed a majority of Americans willing to vote for a Republican as a hedge against complete Democratic control (A Compelling GOP Message). Independent-minded Americans get that. And so far, Republicans aren’t making conservatives but the Democrats are.
Need proof of America’s tack back from the Left? Despite a low-water mark of 22% GOP party ID, the same Mid-April Pew survey shows a plurality (44%) of Americans now believe free trade agreements like NAFTA have been a good thing. Only 35% say they’ve been a bad thing. This is a net 22 point shift since April 2008 according to the Pew researchers.
Need more? Americans are now much more split when it comes to gun control: 45% are against it and 49% are for it for a net 17 point shift in favor of protecting the rights of gun owners when compared to Pew’s April ‘08 survey. Attitudes on abortion have taken a net eleven point shift toward the pro-life position since October ‘08. American attitudes toward gay marriage have taken a similar rightward shift, albeit by a smaller single-digit margin over the past year.
Repeat: If issues matter, America has been growing more arguably more conservative but undeniably less liberal since election day. A result that has also been replicated by Gallup.
But none of this blanching at the unchecked power of those in charge matters unless Independents place the blame for their economic woes firmly on the Democrat’s doorstep. Fully half of the Pew respondents ranked the economy as their most important concern. Please excuse me for quoting myself to add spice to my conversation, if there are doubts about economic impact on midterm elections, please see my previous post, More Misery Index.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
While Americans are moving to the right on Social Issues, It is the Economy Stupid
http://www.w-r-s.com/blog/2009/05/28/while-americans-are-moving-to-the-right-on-social-issues-it-is-the-economy-stupid/
“Two recent surveys by Gallup show that Americans are trending to the right on abortion and gay marriage. A survey conducted May 15th shows that 51 % of Americans consider themselves pro-life as opposed to 42% who call themselves pro-choice.
A more recent survey by Gallup on gay marriages shows that 57 % of Americans oppose same sex marriage while 40% of Americans support legalizing gay marriages.
Moreover the trend shows that Americans are moving to the right on both these issues.
Does this mean Republicans can go back to the days of running primarily on wedge social issues? The short answer is no. While the data suggests that Americans are moving to the right on gay marriage and abortion, the economy is far and away the number one issue in the minds of American voters. In order to be successful Republicans will have to talk about the economy and how they intend to help get it back on track.”
May 28th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
FILIBUSTER NOW!!!!!
May 28th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Tommy,
Haha. Good stuff. There IS a way to win. Republicans should absolutely not intentionally throw away the Hispanic vote as Silver so colorfully implies that the GOP would – but it shows that the Republicans have room to oppose this woman and speak clearly about why they do so. We may lose some Hispanics – but if we are right on principle (and I believe we are) then we’ll be able to make up those votes and then some, elsewhere.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I was just watching this video over at POLITICO in which Obama was speaking at a fundraiser in Los Angeles, and, though this should no longer faze me, I found myself once again astounded by the president’s brazenness, shamelessly boasting, not the 1974 BTO hit as POLITICO headlines, but how he can’t wait to rip the blindfold off Lady Justice.
Checking to see if any other media source noted this disturbing admission, only one person picked it up. Props to Rush.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Tom, did I just read your post correctly?
“The reversal rate on appeal is at most 8%. Good Judges get reversed less than 1-2% of the time.”
Are you kidding me? According to mediamatters.org, the average reversal rate by the Supreme Court is 73% for all reviewed cases from the Appellate Courts. Sotomayor’s reversal rate is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Next time, try looking up your facts.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Sotomayor no fan of campaign cash
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=898A7692-18FE-70B2-A8E76D7CB8F120AE
Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach
by Sonia Sotomayor, Suffolk University Law Review (1996)
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM118_090528_suffolk_law_review.html
May 28th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Looks like Kos is sending his far-left minions over (#1, #14). We may have to resume banning these kooks if they resort to cussing, lewd comments and lying like last time.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Doug,
I noticed that too. I think some of them are getting worried that this racial discrimination issue is getting traction even in the MSM.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7691708&page=1
May 28th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I think it’s a sign they’re fresh off Kos that they’d think a far left-wing propaganda outfit like mediamatters.org would have credibility with conservatives.
Perhaps we rank low on the priority list since the leftist are sending their shrillest dimmest bulbs.
May 30th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Of course Sotomayer will bring a unique perspective to the court. What’s troubling is that, she didn’t say that her judgement would reflect her perspective as a Latina woman. Instead, what she said was that, as a Latina woman, her judgement would be better than that of a white male.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:09 am
[...] Matthew Miller at Race For 2012 notes the conversation: But, if you’re still not convinced let’s try a little thought experiment. Imagine a Jewish person claimed to have a better appreciation of tyranny, because they grew up in a cultural millieu where the Holocaust was an ever-present memory. It would surely be wrong to call this person a racist; it would probably be wrong to call him wrong, unless lived experience counts for nothing. There’s nothing wrong, in the abstract, with admitting that background, even race, can alter perspective in meaningful ways. [...]
February 5th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
[...] Matthew Miller has an interesting response: Larison is undoubtedly right that we can’t ever be entirely [...]