ArchivesShe's a BIGOT. A BIGOT. These words were screamed by a television talk-show idiot who should look in the mirror before labeling someone else.
|
|
For one thing, Sotomayor is correct. A Latina female has an understanding of certain situations that a white male would not. A Black man raised in a white household has a certain understanding that a Black raised only with other Blacks does not. A white male raised in a middle-class setting has certain understandings that an Oriental who immigrated to the United States as an older adult does not.
We are all products of the environment in which we were raised; the experiences that shaped our childhood, the acquaintances that influenced our daily lives, and the historic times into which we were born. Sotomayor's shaping is unique.
The facts that she is Hispanic, or grew up in poverty, or that her parents were immigrants should be taken into consideration when evaluating her achievements, but they are not reasons in and of themselves for her appointment to the highest court in the land.
Sotomayor deserves to be on the Supreme Court due to her intelligence, experience, and other qualifications.
That she is Hispanic means she will bring with her a perspective that no other justice has. That she is female is also a plus, given that there is only one other woman on the court, but neither this nor her ethnicity should be substituted for substance. And it is her substance that makes her a great candidate. Words she spoke in 2001 should not keep her off the bench.
However, Sotomayor will be subjected to unfair treatment and unfounded accusations by dint of her uniqueness. Every word she ever uttered that was recorded in print or in video form will be scrutinized. Many times these statements will be taken out of context. Other times perhaps she did say something that she should not have, but who hasn't? No one, no matter how honest, unbiased, or dedicated, would stand unscathed under such scrutiny.
Nowadays there is bound to be a record of almost everything one has done since childhood. That is why parents need to carefully censure what their children post on social networks or what they send via text messages. The words and images can come back to haunt the individual decades later.
Even adults have to be extra careful about what they say and do, for a moment's lapse in judgment could prevent them from getting that new job, qualifying for credit, being considered for some appointment, or something similar.
Most certainly Sonia Sotomayor never seriously considered that she would be a candidate for the Supreme Court. Even if she harbored such goals, she “ like us all “ would have moments when she wished she could turn back time and adjust her actions or words accordingly. There is not a single potential Supreme Court candidate “ or just a common citizen “ who has not made statements that could be twisted out of context. And sometimes we all make statements or have acted in such a way that does indeed deserve reprimands.
It is just to look at the whole and not isolated parts of how a person has acted or spoken many years ago. Sotomayor deserves to be treated better by the media unless it can dig up something more than a statement that most would agree has some validity.
(Editor’s note: Scott has been with the Nogales Unified School District No. 1 for 32 years and is an English teacher and freelance writer. She may be contacted at kscott 1969@msn.com.)
Popular Searches
Comments
George Wilgers wrote on Jun 26, 2009 1:23 AM:
I fully expect if I said some of the things she did, I, as a "white" male would be called a bigot and worse.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander and vis a versa. "
Turn the Dial wrote on Jun 22, 2009 11:18 AM:
Spied on us: Yes, the old..."he kept us safe, he should be allowed to do this." It is against the Constitution, and answer me this: "Representative Harmon of California was one of the people who was wiretapped (hardly a terrorist subject). She was caught cutting a deal with the Israeli intelligence service and lobbyists, and when confronted by the BUSH AG office, was pressured into supporting the program rather in exchange for not having to answer for this deal with the Israelis. This is not protecting the homeland, this is using a national security incident to gain political power, and this is exactly why this is not permitted in the Constitution. For being such purported lovers of America, you really are very willing to shrug off such an offense to the Constitution.
Torture: It is illegal, period. Did it work? Who knows, but there are coercive methods that do work which are not torture. And before you tell me, "if your family was in trouble and you knew this person had the info to save them....then would you allow it?" (an often repeated nonsensical hypothetical on Fox News), I ask you this: When you need money, why don't you steal it? Because it is illegal, period.
And we as a country DID torture people that we later released because of lack of evidence, and if torture worked so well on those three terrorists, why did we have to do it to them over 200 times each? Because it does not work. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed just admitted to making up stories under torture. Does not work, and I can assure that it is such a powerful tool for recruiting Taliban and Al Qaeda young people to kill Americans, that torture has actually HURT more people than it has supposedly saved.
Spending: Pure speculation that he is supposed to spend more than all other administrations combined. What is TRUE however, is that BUSH gave us more DEBT than any other administration. Pure truth. And regarding the auto industry, if the business had cared to make what we wanted to buy, they would not be in this mess.
So there: actual examples. This is what you can do when you turn off Fox News and turn ON NPR. Really. It is scientifically proven that NPR listeners are more informed than Fox News viewers. By far. "
Luis wrote on Jun 21, 2009 9:51 PM:
GW spied on us? Really? I thought he was trying to keep our country safe, and I think he succeeded after 9/11. Torture? What about the intel garnered because THREE confirmed terrorists were subjected to what I would call enhanced interrogation. Why does the current white house refuse to release the intel gathered? They do have the pictures for show and tell that they so conveniently told the world they have, for POLITICAL reasons. Could it be that further attacks were actually prevented? And it is NOT convenient for this white house to release proof, and they refuse to prove that GW was right. The President could very easily, with the stroke of a pen release this intel. Now why don’t they? And please don't say National Security... since this White House is and has been playing with National Security... why disclose they even have pictures for show and tell?
I guess that you watch NBC/ABC/MSNBC/CBS or some type of networks or stations that are cheerleaders for the current administration. Are these the “intelligent” shows? Me, I would much rather watch a program that does not advocate either a democratic nor republican point of view.
FOX news is far from perfect, that I will grant you, but can you imagine if freedom of speech and of the press were suppressed? Would we be having this exchange of views? I shutter at the thought that ANY president were always treated with kid gloves in all news stories from ALL news sources. At least FOX news keeps the current white house honest, sort of. It appears that the white house is obsessed with FOX news, they try to ridicule FOX news all the time.
Speaking of “spent us into oblivion?” I believe the current white house is on a fast track to do a much better job of bankrupting us than anybody could have imagined. How much money has it committed? I believe “they” the White House, has spent or is planning on spending more money than all previous administrations COMBINED. Hey what is a few trillion dollars among friends? What has happened to the checks and balances built into the constitution? This white house has more so called CZARS than all previous administrations combined. And CZARS do not have to justify anything to anybody other than the person who appointed them, and guess who that is.. They just spend our money. People voted for change, and that is exactly what they will have left, change in their pockets IF we do not let our voices be heard and stop this nonsensical spending.
I guess that we are just two patriots that happen to have entirely different points of view. Neither one of us will convince the other that they are wrong. So with that I leave you to ponder the future of our country. Financial and otherwise. Make sure you go out to buy the new and improved Government Motors cars, and enjoy the ride while you can, well at least until April 15th or the President decides to propose a national sales tax., whichever comes first.…
GM or Chrysler? "
Oh please wrote on Jun 21, 2009 1:16 AM:
Where were Glenn Becks tears I wonder when Bush spent us into oblivion?
Where were they when it was discovered that...agains the specifics of the Constitution....Bush spied on Americans?
Where were the tears when it was discovered that the United States had tortured people?
Where were the tears when Bush sent us into war with a country that did nothing to us?
Spare me the "he is only trying to be a good American, you should try it" line. We all heard it after 9/11, and all had our patriotism questioned by people who would allow the Constitution to be disregarded, our soldiers to be put in danger by the evils of torture, our money to be squandered by unchecked greed in Wall Street and the lives of millions of Americans to be affected by this deep recession. Very few people are more patriotitc than me, I just don't have to put a magnetic sticker on my trunk to prove it. Real Americans respect the Constitution, plain and simple.
Oh, and you said the following about Sonia Sotomayor:
"The ONLY reason she was nominated was because of her gender and ethnicity."
That sounds EXACTLY like you questioning her qualifications. Or am I wrong?
A repeated defense of Fox News, which is entirely in existance to attack Obama is seems, does not really make your point. "
Luis wrote on Jun 19, 2009 11:24 PM:
Not once did I question her qualifications…. She happens to be Hispanic and female, and that, in and of itself shows that this was a POLITICAL move….
I watch Beck because it just so happens that he is NOT a cheerleader for the White House as other commentators/news anchors on the Obama network(s) .. (oops don’t know if NI will publish this now)MSNBC/ABC/CNN/NY TIMES-did I leave anybody out? OR a cheerleader for the GOP such as Sean Hannity and a few of his co-workers.
You actually should watch Beck- he MIGHT do you some good. And in the process you might become an independent thinker and not follow the party lines. EITHER Democratic or Republican. And yes he has shed a tear or two, but notice it is for the country, or a just cause… (well maybe ratings have something to do with it)
Beside if it were not for Beck and company, can you imagine the world of hurt that we would be in… hey, we already our, the White House has hocked our grandchildren’s children’s future! But it would be worse, I can’t imagine how, but they would be. Oh yeah, I forgot, Hold Onto your Wallet. "
Dear Luis wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:55 PM:
One sure way to ensure that you alienate Hispanics is to have people from your party play to illegal immigrant card and rile up the uneducated masses against Hispanics.
Luis, you DID say that the only reason that she was picked was because she was female and hispanic, well I am female and hispanic and would surely be a very poor pick for Supreme Court Justice.
Congratulations on watching Glenn Beck. I am sure it is nice to feel that you are doing things that are pro-American by watching a grown man cry because the country is going Socialist (not even the loosest definition of Socialism would encompass what the Obama administration is doing).
Pro American means a lot of things to a lot of people, unfortunately Sotomayor, who is very American and very much a symbol of the American dream does not fit into what people would call American.
You said it Luis, not me. You said she was picked for her race and ethnicity. You are incorrect. Can you come up with a more qualified candidate? Of course you cannot, because she is supremely qualified. He did this very very smartly, which is a relief from Bush who picked the embarrassingly unqualified Harriet Myers simply because she was his friend. "
Luis wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:28 AM:
Note to self, not once did I say she was not qualified, she is a political appointment and the person making that appointment is trying to ensure he will be re-elected… Ahhh,, ain’t politics great? Actually a very smart move by the President, they all have done it.
Self- if you inferred that I questioned her qualifications, you are sorely wrong. But face the facts what better way to get the female AND Hispanic vote than by appointing a female Hispanic to the court? Or does she qualify as a Herpanic…. Hmmm, have to ponder that.
And by the way Self, I am not a Republican NOR a Democrat, nor affiliated with any political party of any type. I am a registered voter…. I vote for the person not the party, or the party line. Many more people should try it—don’t worry about political parties, vote your conscious, and vote for who you feel will do the right thing.
And by way Self, I don’t watch the cheerleader news networks, and very rarely watch FOX, except to watch Glenn Beck, he appears to be pro America, and not a cheerleader for either part. "
Luis wrote on Jun 17, 2009 12:46 PM:
You are right, she was only picked because of her gender and ethnicity.
Now who is more qualified than her? Can you come up with a name?
What,,,,Fox News hasn't given you a retort? Too bad.
She was 2nd in her class at Princeton. That is no small feat. She has been on the federal circuit for a very long time. Ivy League educated, a huge amount of experience and extremely intelligent. Sounds qualified to me. "
Luis wrote on Jun 17, 2009 9:52 AM:
Ahh, politics don't you just love how politicians keep us foremost in mind when making political appointments?
Or do they worry about their political future first? "
Now Now Judy wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:58 AM:
Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts certainly do, and so does the sole woman on the court, Ginsburg.
The Court recently heard a case about the strip search of a 13 year old girl. The men on the court had never BEEN a thirteen year old girl, and it took Ginsburg to tell them how self-conscience and distrusting of her body a 13 year old girl is.
Study after study shows that having diversity in any group diversifies the thinking of the entire group. Simply having a woman on a school board or a council makes the whole council more aware of a woman's point of view, same goes for minorities.
Judges are not politicians, they are required to make their decisions on precedent and on the law, and in this area, Sotomayor has a very clean record. Sometimes their decisions are not popular and sometimes they are not what people want to hear, but they are based in law which is left up to interpretation. This is where experience and life work comes in. How else do you explain how 9 justices come up with vastly different rulings on every single case?
This is why they are appointed for life, and this is why background and sex and ethnicity are very important.
Score one point for President Obama! "
Judy Hendrickson wrote on Jun 12, 2009 11:36 PM:
Kathy Scott’s endorsement of Sonia Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice,
and her argument that Sotomayor’s, or anyone’s, ethnicity, personal history and gender perspective are valuable assets as a Supreme Court Justice gives the impression that she either misunderstands or has a desire to alter the role of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is required to make decisions based on the law as it is written, not on the law as it is interpreted and colored by gender and/or ethnic background- but objectively, exclusive of one’s personal history, gender or ethnic background. Should the members of this court render decisions empathetically or sympathetically because of their personal experiences as a member of a particular ethnic group or gender? Should a female Justice feel empathy towards a woman and find in her favor because her personal experiences have included being treated less fairly than a man in a similar position? I think not. A Justice is charged with making decisions without allowing empathy, sympathy or any personal, ethnic or gender bias to play even the smallest part in rendering a decision. Our legal system is based on law equally applied to all.
Ms. Scott may also want to consider Sonia Sotomayor’s own statement that she
is “. . . a perfect affirmative action baby” and did not get grades as high as many of her counterparts while attending Princeton and Yale. My expectation is that appointment to the Supreme Court is reserved for the very best of the best, whether they are male, female, brown, red, yellow or white. Sotomayor admits that she was not among the best of the best. Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed. A sixty percent reversal rate is not a good track record.
One might want to reconsider Sotomayor’s own statement, made numerous times, about the superiority of a Latina female in decision making over that of a white male. If Sotomayor were to find in favor of a Latina female, a Latino male, or any female, -how certain could we be that her decision was solely based on an objective interpretation of law? If you had a brain tumor and required surgery, would you want a surgeon who got into and graduated from medical school with the help of affirmative action and who repeatedly states that that as a Latina female they think their surgeries will have better outcomes than those of white male surgeons?- Or, would you want a highly skilled surgeon of any ethnic background and of either gender who got into and graduated from med school based on academic merit and has a documented track record of successful surgeries? The surgeon with a 40% successful outcome rate would not be my first choice.
Ms. Scott gives the impression that Sotomayor has made the statement about the superiority of a Latina female in decision making over that of a white male as an isolated incident. In fact, she has made that same statement on numerous occasions. It was not a one time lapse in judgment; it is a clear statement of attitude repeated on numerous occasions. Assessment of Sonia Sotomayor’s suitability should not be based on political party affiliation or ideological feminist support of a female candidate. Ms. Scott’s opinion piece provides little more than a skewed, partisan rationalization excusing what should raise red flags.
Ms. Scott fails to mention Judge Sotomayor’s twelve-year affiliation with the radical organization, Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund (PRLDF) from 1980 to 1992, during which time she served on their Board of Directors. I was readily able to find this information on the Judicial Watch.org website.
According to Judicial watch:
PRLDF promotes enforced multiculturalism, diversity, bilingual public education, race-based gerrymandering of electoral districts, race-based employment quotas, tenants' rights, and illegal immigrants' rights. Some of the group's activities during Sotomayor's twelve years as the "top policy maker" on the PRLDF's Board of Directors include:
The PRLDF engaged in a battle in 1988 with the New York City Police Department alleging that its promotion exam was "racist", ultimately presiding over a radical redesign in order to allow more minorities to achieve a passing grade. According to The New York Times: "The new test, a four-part exam prepared with the help of an expert designated by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund...involved changes in format, including the addition of open-book questions and a video portion."
The PRLDF attacked then-New York Mayor David Dinkins in 1990, after the mayor labeled three Puerto Rican "nationalists" who shot five members of Congress in 1954 as "assassins.” The radicals were members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional). The PRLDF said the Mayor Dinkin’s comments "lacked sensitivity." Reuben Franco, President of the PRLDF said: "[Mayor Dinkins] doesn't recognize that to many people in Puerto Rico, these are fighters for freedom and justice, for liberation, just as is Nelson Mandela, who himself advocated bearing arms."
In 1981, PRLDF filed a complaint against Elizabeth, New Jersey Mayor Thomas Dunn after he issued a City Hall directive requiring staff to speak English while on the job. In 1990, the organization also opposed a law to require merchants to post an English sign in their storefront explaining the nature of business.
True justice is objective. The Justices in the Supreme Court are appointed for life. Doesn’t every citizen whose life may be affected by a Supreme Court decision want to know that justice was dispensed fairly based on law and free of gender or ethnic bias? Sonia Sotomayor’s own statements, and her long term association with PRLDF, should cast significant doubt on whether Sonia Sotomayor possesses this essential quality. I think better candidates than Sotomayor can be found, no matter what their gender or their ethnicity. "