A Quota Queen for the Court
If the U.S. Senate rejects race-based justice, Sonia Sotomayor will never sit on the Supreme Court.
Because that is what Sonia is all about. As The New York Times reported Saturday, the salient cause of her career has been advancing persons of color, over whites, based on race and national origin.
“Judge Sotomayor, whose parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico,” writes reporter David Kirkpatrick, “has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career.”
At Princeton, she headed up Accion Puertorriquena, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare demanding that her school hire Hispanic teachers. At Yale, she co-chaired a coalition of non-black minorities of color that demanded more Latino professors and administrators.
At Yale, she “shared the alarm of others in the group when the Supreme Court prohibited the use of quotas in university admissions in the 1978 decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.”
Alan Bakke was an applicant to the UC medical school at Davis who was rejected, though his test scores were higher than almost all of the minority students who were admitted. Bakke was white.
After Yale, Sotomayor joined the National Council of La Raza and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Both promote race and ethnic preferences, affirmative action and quotas for Hispanics.
But why should Puerto Ricans like Sotomayor, who were never subjected to slavery or Jim Crow — their island was liberated from Spain in 1898 by the United States — get racial or ethnic preferences over Polish- or Portuguese-Americans?
What is the justification for this kind of discrimination?
Like Lani Guinier, the Clinton appointee rejected for reverse racism, Sonia Sotomayor is a quota queen. She believes in, preaches and practices race-based justice. Her burying the appeal of the white New Haven firefighters, who were denied promotions they had won in competitive exams, was a no-brainer for her.
In her world, equal justice takes a back seat to tribal justice.
Now, people often come out to vote for one of their own. Catholics for JFK, evangelicals for Mike Huckabee, women for Hillary Clinton, Mormons for Mitt Romney, Jews for Joe Lieberman, and African-Americans for Barack Obama. That is political reality and an exercise of political freedom.
But tribal justice is un-American.
In the 1950s and 1960s, this country reached consensus that denying black men and women the equal opportunity to advance and succeed must come to an end. Discrimination based on race, color or ethnicity, we agreed, was wrong.
Sotomayor, however, has an exception to the no-discrimination rule. She believes in no discrimination, unless done to white males and to benefit people like her.
How can any Republican senator vote to elevate to the Supreme Court a judge who, all her life, has believed in, preached and practiced race discrimination against white males, without endorsing the Obama-Sotomayor view that diversity trumps equal justice, and race-based justice should have its own seat on the high court?
Down the path Sotomayor would take us lies an America where Hispanic justices rule for Hispanics, black judges rule for blacks and white judges rule for white folks.
It is an America where who gets admitted to the best colleges and universities is not decided on grades and academic excellence, but on race and ethnicity, where advancement in jobs and careers depends not on aptitude and ability, but on where your grandparents came from.
On principle, Republicans cannot support Sonia Sotomayor.
And politically, if they do, why should the white working man and woman ever vote Republican again, as it is they who are the designated victims of the race-based justice of Sonia Sotomayor?
It was Richard Nixon who brought the white working class, North and South, into his New Majority, when he increased the Republican presidential vote from 43 percent in 1968 to 61 percent in 1972. Ronald Reagan solidified this base.
But why should the white working and middle class stay with the GOP? Its presidents exported their jobs to Mexico, China and Asia, and threw open America’s doors to tens of millions, legal and illegal, from the Third World, who have swamped their cities and towns. If the GOP will not end race-based affirmative action, which threatens the futures of their children, why vote for the GOP?
Why should white folks vote for anyone who says, “We are against race discrimination, unless it is discrimination against you”?
Obama would not have selected Sotomayor if he did not share her convictions. And there is nothing in his writings or career to hint at disagreement. Thus it comes down to the senators, especially the Republicans. A vote for Sonia Sotomayor is a vote to affirm that race-based justice deserves its own seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
But if that happens, it will not only be the race consciousness of Hispanics that will be on the rise in the good old U.S.A.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
I mentioned this briefly in the comments section of Daniel’s blog. Perhaps Mr. Buchanan should read the following summary of the 96 race-related cases (other than Ricci) where Sotomayor was a member of the panel of the judges, instead of relying on some lazy reporting from the New York Times of all places:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/
The lady’s record from the bench is open and freely available. It doesn’t take long via Google to find it. Here is, for example, her minority opinion in Pappas v Giuliani where she supports a white bigot:
http://openjurist.org/290/f3d/143/pappas-v-giuliani
I suppose one should stay with Eunomia if one wants to read any thoughtful discussions on Sotomayor (and yes, that includes the Ricci case).
What a sad state of affairs. This country fought hard to eliminate racism. We find oursleves now in a place where racism is acceptable as long as you discriminate against the right group of people. I pray that we will find a time in this great country when it is unacceptable to discriminate against anyone. It seems like a goal that will never be reached as we have simply shifted from discrimination against one skin color to another. For the party that claims itself a crusader for rights, the liberals have done more to perpetuate discrimination than any individual could have ever achieved.
RK,
Nobody is stating that Ms.Sotomayor is perfectly or completely biased, only that she is substantially biased, a fact that she nearly admits with her “wise Latina” comment.
I think Larison is excellent, but I suspect that he misrates Sotomayor on this issue by giving her a benefit of the doubt that her behavior doesn’t warrant. He construes her use of “I would hope” in the most benign way possible; that is, as a statement of personal attachment.
It isn’t that. Since she said that at a law conference, rather than in private, I think the inescapable conclusion is that she’s raising her personal attachment to the level of a prescription for public policy.
When someone does that, there is a problem. The problem is even worse when that person is presented by their nominating president as a model of empathy. With whom will she empathize? It’s a safe bet that people who she deems similar to herself benefit, while all other comers will, by extension, suffer.
“I think Larison is excellent, but I suspect that he misrates Sotomayor on this issue by giving her a benefit of the doubt that her behavior doesn’t warrant.”
You say this in response to a poster whose post includes links to absolutely clear-cut, irrefutable evidence, in the form of summaries of 96 race-based cases that she’s ruled on, that her behaviour as a judge leaves no room for even the most vague suspicion that she might make racially-biased decisions. No room whatsoever.
Then you go on to claim that it’s an “inescapable conclusion” that “she’s raising her personal attachment to the level of a prescription for public policy.”
One thing does not follow naturally from the other. You’re making claims in direct opposition to the evidence before you.
Just like Buchanan.
MattSwartz
Fair enough, but there is a body of actual rulings by her and they are more relevant to any discussions on her perceived biases than some of the arguments for or against her: the “wise Latina” comment in some conference years ago (unfortunately there does not seem to be any audio/video recording of that speech, so it is fair that Daniel Larison gives her the benefit of doubt based on his textual reading of the speech) or her association and activism with some club in school or college or the fact that she was appointed first to the US District court for the Southern District of New York by George H. W. Bush or the fact that Jesse Helms and Rick Santorum voted to confirm her to the 2nd circuit courts of appeals.
In cases like Williams v. R.H. Donnelly Co or Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital she does not seem to have her “empathy” interfere in her dismissal of the alleged racial/gender bias claims.
In her dissent in Pappas v Giuliani defending the rights of a white man to express his racial and anti-Semitic views in his private time she writes:
“To be sure, I find the speech in this case patently offensive, hateful, and insulting. The Court should not, however, gloss over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives because it is confronted with speech it does not like and because a government employer fears a potential public response that it alone precipitated.”
In her dissents in Hankins v. Lyght and Hayden v. Pataki she accuses the majority of judicial activism:
Hankins v. Lyght:
“The majority’s opinion thus violates a cardinal principle of judicial restraint by reaching unnecessarily the question of RFRA’s constitutionality.”
Hayden v. Pataki:
“The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created.”
[Sure, many conservatives will like the majority outcome of Hayden v Pataki, but she does have a point on how that came about.]
Thus I am uncomfortable with all these racist claims and name calling by people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Liddy etc. And yes, Buchanan also has been waving the flag in that direction both in his articles and appearances in TV. And he relies on lazy journalism by Stuart Taylor, the New York Times etc., to make his point rather than any substantive analysis of her rulings.
[On the other hand, the same Rush Limbaugh once told off the Democrats, reminded them of who won the election and suggested that they win some elections first and then go ahead and appoint some "socialist wackos" like Ginsburg and Breyer.]
I don’t know who these guys are, but I read these blogs a lot, and I don’t recall seeing their names before. I’m not saying they knocked on my door during the election, but I would be surprised if they didn’t hand out a few flyers.
But enough of the ad hominem, I just don’t find their defense very helpful in understanding the veracity of claims (based on club membership, judicial decisions and public statements) that Sotomayor sees government as a tool to advance one race’s interests over another. RK will have a field day with this, but I am not going to read every decision in his helpful links. That being said, I don’t see what his citations have to do with the issue of supporting racial preference by government.
1. So, bias didn’t occur in those cases. What does that have to do with institutional bias being okay against whites?
2. It’s okay for a white redneck to talk like a racist with his friends. Same question?
3. What does government scrutiny of religion have to do with racial bias?
4. So what if Congress passes laws that even more clearly advocate for one race or another? Is her duty as SCJ to rule whether the law was broken or whether the law is unconstitutional? Would she put on a different robe as a SCJ? Am I supposed to give her the benefit of the doubt? What if we’re wrong? Oops. Well, maybe she can be impeached.
And then what was up with all the name calling of name-callers? Nothing any of these trolls said calls into question what seems to be clear evidence that a future SJC thinks it is an appropriate use of government to “advance the race”.
Tony,
To be fair, I was basing my assertion on her statement, not on her record. Strategically, it might make sense for her to rule in one way as an appellate judge in hopes of avoiding scrutiny so as to make an elevation to the SC possible.
The statement she made at Berkeley is the statement of someone who is more race-conscious than I’d prefer. You’ve pointed out that someone’s analysis asserts that she doesn’t always rule in favor of what you imagine her race prejudices would be. Good job, but not so relevant. She took a pretty radical affirmative action stance on at least one occasion (the case of the firefighters). I think that alone is enough reason to vote against her, the rest is just gravy.
Jack Tracey
Unless you live across the Atlantic, no, I couldn’t have knocked on your door! As far as my “credentials” go, I was one of the early subscribers of the print edition of TAC when Buchanan launched it. I find him brilliant and thoughtful when he writes with an overarching vision of history and culture (eg., “A Republic, Not an Empire”) and very annoying when he writes GOP talking points, a GOP that often stabs him and discards him when not of use. In so far as making
significant financial contribution and participation to raise awareness, I was part of the “Ron Paul movement” during the elections. I do occasionally comment in the comments sections of blogs such as Takimag (before they disabled commenting), TAC etc. And yes, my phrasing was so poor so it came across as name calling name-callers. All I meant was that I am uncomfortable in the rhetoric of Limbaugh etc., in their claims that Sotomayor is a racist or reverse-racist or what have you based on diluted standards. Unless one wants to live in an echo chamber and not expand, we can use a lot more Daniel Larisons and a lot less flamethrowers. If that makes people like me trolls, so be it.
Coming back to the future SCJ, I have no idea how she will turn out to be. I doubt if anyone can divine that with certainty based even on her current records and rulings (which I believe is a more appropriate starting point for discussions than anything else). Stevens was a passionate and scathing critic of racial quota and affirmative action at the early phase of his tenure in the SC, but look where he is now!
[Personally, the main area that will concern me is her current view (which she will not reveal) on or how she will end up evolving on: unitary executive theory and unchecked executive power during any "war on ." If she is a firm believer in that, a lot of other areas are moot.]
In the preceding post, I meant to write …unitary executive theory and unchecked executive power during any “war on (whatever the President says)”…
Mattswartz -
“To be fair, I was basing my assertion on her statement, not on her record. Strategically, it might make sense for her to rule in one way as an appellate judge in hopes of avoiding scrutiny so as to make an elevation to the SC possible.”
No, to be strictly fair, you were basing your assertation on a – deliberate – misreading of part of her statement that has been exposed and discredited ad infinitum over the past few weeks. And you really – should – be looking at her factually based record if you want to build a convincing argument about what she’s likely to do as a Supreme Court judge.
And no, I don’t think that Sotomayor has been engaged in a decade-long conspiracy to build a reputation as a legalistic moderate so that she can be smuggled onto the SCOTUS and unleash Aztec Socialism on a duped country. I just don’t.
“The statement she made at Berkeley is the statement of someone who is more race-conscious than I’d prefer.”
I don’t agree, except in that the fact she’s of Puerto-Rican heritage might be an issue for you.
“You’ve pointed out that someone’s analysis asserts that she doesn’t always rule in favor of what you imagine her race prejudices would be. Good job, but not so relevant.”
Sadly, no. I pointed out that the post you were replying to contained links to her actual record, and that if you looked at that record, you couldn’t possibly maintain an argument based on her having any kind of ‘race prejudice’. How can her judicial record not be relevant?
“She took a pretty radical affirmative action stance on at least one occasion (the case of the firefighters). I think that alone is enough reason to vote against her, the rest is just gravy.”
No, it’s not.
RK,
Greetings from this side of the Atlantic. Sorry to impugn your handle. I’m a RP fan myself.
The disturbing charge against Sotomayor is not that she is a bigot but that she sees the advancement of any particular race to be an acceptable aim of American government. This charge is supported by her membership in organizations that lobby for official privilege on behalf of a particular race, by her questionable handling of the firefighters case and by her public statements.
Again, none of your citations offer counterevidence to this charge, nor due they refute the evidence supporting it. At best they divert attention away from the charge in dispute. (See my individual questions above.)
Why is her opinion on this subject even a matter of concern? You are right that there are equally important questions that are being overshadowed by the current level of conversation. A related and equally relevant question is her perspective on checks and balances, especially the role of judicial review. By your own citation– “The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms”– doubt is cast on her willingness to hold the law to constitutional standards. To what standard will laws then be held— the will of the emerging majority, personal empathy?
The argument that there is too little evidence to make conclusions about her judicial philosophy or her opinions about the role of law in advancing the interests of a particular race moves the goalpost beyond reasonable doubt to certainty. Tony J and RK want her convicted, dead to rights. There is no need to question her appointment unless she is on record (taped) saying that she will use her seat on the court to advance government’s enforcement of official racial preference.
Sorry, Tony J, but reasonable doubt is enough for me.
This is a great summery from Pat Buchanan of the great idea in America that identity is and will determine who deserves and gets what in America.
If republicans don’t roar about this then they have no moral claim to lead conservatives and patriots and true blue Americans with no hyphenated names.
I accuse President Obama of picking this nominee because of ethnicity and sex. She was the best female ‘Hispanic” to be found. A reward to the Hispanic voters and to the philosophy.
Identity and opposition to the Yankee and southern and somewhat European Catholic peoples is the great cause of modern urban liberal America.
This woman is not better then all the other Judges, even liberals, in America. Its a grand fraud. A great statement.
The media etc hardly pretends that its about quality. They agree that identity is the dominant legitimacy for mankind on its claims for its rewards of its work.
Was this woman quota-uped her whole career?
Is she the best in new york city?
Are women really yet in the same standard as the men?
Can president Obama look America in the eye and say her ethnicity/sex were not factors?
Will any Republican ask?
This is more then a outrage for such a high position. This is more then a rejection of Americans or men in what they have full moral and legal right to achieve. This is in fact a symbolic and practical example of a general great philosophy that sneaked into the country over the last few decades
To wit. That the identity of a man is the true origin of what he deserves in America and the world after all. Just what the results and who decides about results.
This is a great oppurtunity to strike at a great invasion of historic moral and legal foundations on the rights of man and citizenship.
Pat Buchanan truly articulates it strongly but more are needed.
The American man needs better lawyers to defend his RIGHTS.
This nominee is a opponent to his rights. Obama is a opponent.
Therefore both have no moral or legal right to demand compliance to their decisions.
TAC, conservatives, Americans. This is the big chance to strike down the new invading philosophy of identity RIGHTS replacing HISTORIC RIGHTS.
Don’t you see. God has given America a chance to reverse decades of interference with who gets what in important positions and dreams.
The common man does have tools to fight the powers of identity segregation .
The new segregationists are right. Identity is the most important thing.
I say American identity and its citizenship .
Pat Buchanan here gives intellectual guidance to this resistance. However it needs millions in these minutes.
Minutemen please assemble.
Not a bigot, but an ethnic chauvinist.
In response to Pat’s post, on June 1st, I submitted this comment:
The questioning of Sonia Sotomayor should be a simple matter.
#1 – Is she likely to be confirmed? Do the Democrats have enough votes to override any Republican objection?
#2 – If #1 is “yes”, then what is the goal of the Republicans? If she is to be confirmed, can WE THE PUBLIC use this as an opportunity to identify REPUBLICAN obstructionists and grandstanders, that would hurt our cause? (We may later need to BEGIN TO WEED THESE OUT of Congress/house/senate).
#3 – If she will PROBABLY BE CONFIRMED, then it is legitimate to note our objections and questions, without ALIENATING a lifetime Supreme Court Appointee, and also the Latino community.
Here are SOME of our questions:
Did SOTOMAYOR intend to say that the Latina point of view is superior to some “white” point of view? Has she changed her mind, since making those statements?
Or, did she intend to point out that EVERYONE has experiences that would help them make BETTER decisions than perhaps someone else would be able to make, without those experiences?
If it would be legitimate to ask a GAMBLING ADDICT whether or not they would make decisions by a ROLL OF THE DICE, so too it would be acceptable for us to ask:
#1 – Can the Supreme Court be used to insure equity for a minority, based on the percentage of the US population they represent?
#2 – Can the Supreme Court be used to established a “favored minority” status, for anyone the judge is sympathetic to?
#3 – Can the Supreme Court be used to “compensate” for past wrongs or inequities, by rewarding a minority to a degree LARGER than the scope of the current specific case being considered?