Did you have a chance to see the electrifying speech President Obama gave to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the NAACP? He spoke very clearly of change coming from the family unit ‘up’, although of course he said that government also had a part to play.

In terms of Judge Sotomayor, it is my belief that the woman who testified before that committee last week should be confirmed as soon as possible–a fine Judge of the liberal persuasion. The Court, I’m sure you’d agree, needs balance. The thing that keeps troubling me is this: IS Sonia Sotomayor that woman who testified last week, or is that woman who testified last week the product of several weeks of coaching and media-spin?

It is ironic that a President who spoke so beautifully, so eloquently, about transcending race, who in fact embodies such transcendence, should nominate someone to the Supreme Court whose career seems to cry out AGAINST transcending race.

I hope that, if Justice Sotomayor is confirmed, she does indeed stand out, as you suggest, perhaps becoming a ‘wise Latina’ counterpart to Justice Scalia.

Bork was a criminal; he was promoted by Nixon for obstructing justice. And then made a judge by Reagan as a further reward. In a better system, he’d now be eligible for parole. And that’s not taking into account that he’s a batsh*t insane right-winger, on the order of a Patrick Buchanan.

Clarence Thomas was a cynical and very successful attempt to play on race – by the GOP.

Alito?!?! You mean Mr. ‘Swiftly Confirmed’ Alito?

I gotta ask, just WTF are you complaining about Pat? Whackjobs on the right are swiftly confirmed, with a few token complaints. Meanwhile, we see Senator Hatch pocket veto 6-0 Clinton nominees, with nary a problem.

Just the Sotomayor situation alone kind of tells the story to me: How in the world did we get to the situation where a Supreme Court nominee could utter her “wise Latina” remark and be confirmed when a white male uttering his version of same would without question be utterly and absolutely disqualified by same?

To me the only answer is that the now decades-old attempt to fight modern non-tribal politics has just absolutely and utterly failed. Barring something I at least don’t see sooner or later the only outlet for the interests of the non-tribal will be to become tribal, and as Buchanan’s math notes it has its potential.

The only possibility I guess is that the current strength of tribal politics will wane, but my problem is that I don’t see why that will happen. People have a seemingly natural need to distinguish themselves; can anyone see any other basis for doing so with even half so much of the apparent strength of racial/ethnic/tribal identity?

As that fairly recent piece in Foreign Affairs noted, while we in the West delude ourselves about the arrow of history otherwise, in the rest of the world tribalism of one form or another is only gaining importance.

It’s funny, but the inability to arouse the mass of good and ostensibly non-tribalist folks about something like Sotomayor’s comment really is just a kind of vindication of tribalism. In essence, they seem to be saying it’s perfectly understandable and okay for people to think that way. Valid and legitimate.

Not my cup of tea for sure and I’m glad I’ll probably be dead by the time it comes, but the future I think is gonna be an all-tribal, all-the-time affair, with the Caucasian equivalent of the other tribes sooner or later coming to the fore.

It sounds unrecognizable in terms of the U.S., but then again the perspective of the tribalists who have brought us to this pass has been that in fact America’s total tribalism has always existed, it’s just been deceitfully hidden by the majority tribe. Not that same will stop them from screaming bloody murder when that majority tribe emerges and finds its tribal voice, but it won’t be lacking in irony at least.

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?