The fight over Sonia Sotomayor: Why are so few Hispanics on TV debating the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court?

I’ve figured out what annoys me most about the media circus that has erupted in the wake of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

It’s not watching a long procession of white males – and a few females -- dissect what Sotomayor meant when she said eight years ago that she hopes a Latina would make better legal decisions than a white male.

(Frankly, it seems obvious she went a little overboard in celebrating the impact of her own culture. And where the heck is the Senate’s highest-profile Hispanic member, former Republican National Committee chair and Florida U.S. senator Mel Martinez, in this debate?)

It’s not seeing the predictable right-wing extremists say extreme things. Though it is hard for me to decide whether I should laugh or fume upon hearing Rush Limbaugh – the guy who made satirical song for his radio show called Barack the Magic Negro – call someone else a racist.

It’s not even seeing a procession of journalists present the same three criticisms of her past, while glossing over a career’s worth of legal judgments, academic achievements and job accomplishments.

Or seeing so few of those same journalists take a few minutes to unearth Republicans talking about the wonderful impact from the cultural background of conservative Supreme Court nominees such as Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

What irks me most, is what happens whenever race surfaces as an issue in politics: white politicians and pundits pretend their race and culture have no impact on their sensibilities.

It’s an unspoken subtext in many of these conversations. On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked “What happened to the idea that justice should be blind?” later asking about the impact of “identity politics” in one of her decisions.

Why does the term "identity politics" only surface when people of color voice their concerns about stereotyping and institutional bias?

A CNN story quoted a tally of her decisions on discrimination from a blog, noting that she ruled against a finding of discrimination 80 percent of the time – as if rejecting claims of discrimination were, somehow, proof that she’s fair.

In the end, it is a knife that cuts both ways: when people of color acknowledge that their ethnic heritage gives them an insight their white colleagues may lack, then they are more easily reduced to caricature.

I think it was telling that in all the political TV chat about Sotomayor I watched over the weekend, it was PBS host Gwen Ifill, who is black, who made the point that few people find controversy in the way white men’s cultural experience have shaped their opinions and professional decisions.

I’ve always said, in these situations, context counts. If someone makes a racially clumsy remark, and they have no history of living out that remark in other ways, it’s probably just a stupid mistake.

But television loves conflict, and political TV depends on a cast of disturbingly similar pundits and politicians to discuss the issues facing an increasingly diverse nation. I couldn’t imagine how frustrating it would be as a Latino to watch this debate play out with nearly no Hispanic voices involved in the discussion.

My second biggest gripe about coverage: Seeing Hispanics subjected to a level of callousness that likely would not be tolerated against black people.

There are few hosts who would feel comfortable seeing the NAACP compared to the Ku Klux Klan; I would hope most would see that as analogous to comparing anti-Semitism watchdog the Anti-Defamation League to the Nazi party.

But former congressman Tom Tancredo had no problem calling the Hispanic-centered civil rights group La Raza a “Latino KKK” on CNN, just as others have said -- quoted anonymously by journalists such as CNN’s John King – that the honors graduate of Princeton might not be smart enough to sit on the court.

Indeed, as U.S. Sen. John Cornyn sat on ABC’s This Week Sunday criticizing Sotomayor, he also stuck up for filibustered George W. Bush nominee Miguel Estrada -- a lawyer suggested for the court of appeals in 2001 with no prior experience as a judge -- and Clarence Thomas, who saw allegations of sexual harassment surface soon after his nomination was announced.

So does experience really count? Why do so many arguments against Sotomayor seem to lean against common sense and history? And why aren’t the hosts of these shows pressing politicians harder on all of this?

I hope, when the Senate prepares to debate her confirmation, they have more substantive issues at hand than a line from a 2001 speech, a 2008 decision reached with two other judges and a line from a 2005 speech.

The nation deserves a better debate on its next possible Supreme Court justice. It’s time traditional journalists, columnists and TV anchors worked harder to give them one.

*

Comments

[David Kennedy]

Sotomayor probably should have kept the odd "Latina woman" comment to herself. Nobody cares about her background, they only care if she would be effective as a Supreme Court Justice.

That remains to be seen.

And yes, Ricci v. DeStefano certainly does not cast Sotomayor in the greatest of lights. But right now, the media has swallowed their tongues on things such as this -- after all, who exactly WOULD want to criticize a "Latina woman" who has overcome so much?

Sadly, as people are slowly starting to see, things are not always as they appear in the Obama administration.

And lest you try to lay the "conservative Republican" tag on me, here is my take on politicians. They all are corrupt, regardless of party affiliation (I realize this will send Eric scurrying into "Protect Obama" mode, but eventually, even Eric will realize I am correct). The two-party system is played out, and it is contributing to the demise of the United States.

[Bill]

The color of one's skin - black, brown, white or otherwise - isn't a determining factor in how "wise" a Supreme Court Justice would or could be.

It's hard to imagine someone making that argument -- that the color of one's skin should make a difference in Justice worthiness -- with a straight face.

And yet, many on the Left are doing so, agreeing with Sotomayor that in certain types of cases a Latina woman's value judgments would somehow be more valid than those of a white person.

Were a white person making that type of statement, the same pundits would be freaking out, and rightly so - because racism, no matter the color of one's skin, is still racism.

Don't forget that discrimination cases are just a small part of the caseload faced by the Supreme Court.

So how - in theory - a Latina woman might vote on those particular types of cases doesn't have much to do with how well, on the whole, she would be able to fairly apply the Constitution to the myriads of cases that would come before her.

On the whole, it's probably a good idea to have a person of Hispanic or Latin heritage on the Supreme Court. But not just for the sake of doing so

If Obama and his supporters are truly interested in creating a post-racial society, then quotas - filling positions or granting privilege merely on the basis of skin color - should be a thing of the past, don't you think?

[Eric Deggans]

i didn't respond to the hypotheticals, because i can't imagine someone making the reverse argument with a straight face.

A white jurist would make better decisions on discrimination cases because they understand the issue better than a black person or hispanic person? Not even Pat Buchanan or Newt Gingrich have gone that far.

Of course, you don't have to believe me when I say context counts and history counts. But the people I have criticized in this blog for spreading stereotypes and trafficking in race-baiting have much more than one example to their credit.

Which is exactly the argument I expect you would be making, if this jurist was a conservative...

[Robby]

And you didn't respond to the hypotheticals.

If a white nominee had made that statement about a Latin nominee, or if a Latin nominee had made that statement about a black nominee, would you be so quick to give those statements a pass?

Would you also attribute them to "a poor choice of words"?

I'm guessing the answer is no.

When you're a judge, you are behooved to make good word choices.

Blame her racist statement on "context" all you want.

But fitness for the position of Supreme Court Justice isn't determined by how sensitive any given candidate is "to the complexities of racial oppression."

Nor is it supposed to be determined by one's gender or the color of one's skin.

It's supposed to be determined by how well one is able to interpret the Constitution.

[Eric Deggans]

if you look at the full context of the quote, you will see she was talking about making decisions on discrimination cases.

She made the point that very wise jurists who were white men and perhaps did not understand racial oppression because they hadn't lived it, were not sensitive to the complexities of racial oppression in making judicial decisions.

As i said in my earlier post, if this statement revealed a long history of her exalting Hispanic people over everyone else, then I might have had a problem with her nomination.

But it is obvious from looking at her record as a judge, that she is a careful jurist who follows the law, but also recognizes the challenges ethnic minorities face in America.

I have stood against race-baiters like Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly, Don Imus and Louis Farrakhan because they all have long histories of making awful statements or pushing racially derogatory ideas. Sotomayor hardly fits that category.

You will note that even Newt Gingrich has now said he shouldn't have called Sotomayor a racist.

Here's the full text of her speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

I doubt it weill change your mind. But I think it makes little sense to argue for derailing a Supreme Court nominee because she made a poor choice of words during a speech eight yearts ago.

[Robby]

Hypothetical for you, Eric:

Here's what Sotomayor said: “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 man who hasn’t lived that life.” (By the way, isn't a Latina a woman?)

Let's say that a President nominated a Supreme Court candidate who said the following:

“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn’t lived that life.”

A second hypothetical for you.

Let's say you were applying for a position as an editorial writer at the Washington Post. And you found out that the leading candidate for the position, a Latina woman, made the following statement to the hiring manager:

“I would hope that a wise Latina with the richness of her experiences would more make a better editorial writer than a black man who hasn’t lived that life.”

Would you consider either statement racist? If not, why not?

White males haven't exactly cornered the market on racism. Take the rabid anti-white rantings of "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright, Obama's mentor, for just one example.

Contrary to Sotomayor's misguided belief, there's nothing in her racial makeup or experiences that would make her more qualified than a person of another race. Her statement is inherently racist, and ought to be treated as such.

Sadly, Obama's decision to pick her amounts to identity politics at its worst, a practice that Obama decried during his campaign.

And it's more than unfortunate (and telling) that so many pundits on the left can't or won't recognize that fact.

[Eric Deggans]

at the very least, she will be the first Latino/a on the court....

[RagsTTiger]

Where does all this Hispanic talk come from? Sotomayor would NOT be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Benjamin Nathan Cardozo was. He was of Spanish/Portuguese descent.

Herbert Hoover appointed him to replace a legend on the court Oliver Wendell Holmes.

[Alex]

Tanya, no I have not suffered any of those hardships, thank goodness. But I know others who have suffered much greater than I have in their childhood and have achieved much more than me, all through hard work.

Am I denying luck has nothing to do with it? Of course not. But the underlying principles of this country are to extend to everyone equal opportunity to succeed. To promise everyone equal outcomes is to take away from all of those who have achieved so much through hard work.

[Tanya]

With all respect, Alex, I'm sure you do think it's enough to work hard.

Were you born in a slum to a semi-literate mother? Was your housing complex awash in flakes of lead based paints? Did you come from a family in which not one single member ever went to college? If so: All you have to do is work hard. Oh, after you overcome the deprivation of your early childhood, of course. How hard could that be?

True empathy is the ability to form an understanding of events outside of your immediate purvey, and make judgements based on that understanding.

The irony is that this kerfuffle only serves to obfuscate the importance of reviewing Sotomayor's record. Doesn't anyone remember the extension of eminent domain? Doesn't anyone care that yet another (lapsed?) Catholic is joining a court that will likely be re-opening Roe v. Wade?

[Alex]

Eric, I don't follow you in your comments at 4:15pm. Thomas is an originalist (like Scalia). How is opposing Affirmative Action contradicting ruling against a AA case? Maybe I misunderstood.

Beltway Bandit, well said.

Tanya, yes there are those of us who still think working hard is enough. As did the founders. This doesn't mean equal outcomes, it only means equal opportunity.

In my opinion, empathy is exactly that: giving each person an equal opportunity to succeed and equal treatment before the law. To do anything else is to play favorites based on race or gender, which does nothing but to harbor ill will.

[Bella]

Both Leslie Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican strategist & CNN contributor & Senate Candidate Marco Rubio have made comments about Sotomayor. More so Sanchez by appearing on CNN several times last week as well as writing this article http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/28/sanchez.court/
Both of them have been expressing their opinions quite openly on twitter too.

[Tanya]

Here's the test: Would the same "joke" work for the white candidate? After all, Rush et al. apply this exact argument to "prove" Sotomayor is a racist.

Think about it: while Rush actively disliked John McCain, he would never have called him the Magic Whitey. For one thing, it wouldn't have occurred to Rush that McCain HAS a race.

For another, it's just so shockingly disrespectful. Sure: Tell yourself that "Negro" isn't a loaded word. Call that tall guy in the grocery line behind you a Negro. Please? See how it works out for you. Maybe he's a Rush Limbaugh fan, too! :)

On the issue of Sotomayor, the charges of racism are proof that our society has far too many white males in places of power. Of course your background affects your judgment! If you don't realize this basic fact of human nature, you shouldn't be making judgments at all.

I always chuckle when some white male from a middle class background talks about how to get ahead. You just have to work hard! (and ignore the fact that it was actually your daddy--and his daddy's daddy--who worked hard to get YOU ahead.)

Furthermore: only sociopaths (or the willfully ignorant) would think that a judge should lack empathy. It's patently absurd. The problem is there are simply too many white males--in positions of power over the rest of us--blathering on in a self-important, pathetically un-self-aware haze, making irresponsible decisions that harm society and the planet.

In case there's any confusion, yes those remarks were intentionally both racist and sexist. Would you like me to put them to song?

[beltwaybandit]

It would seem to me that the argument here should not be about Rush and white people making decisions based on their cultural impact.

It seems to me that the true arguments are these:

* is the nominee qualified?
* is there anything in her background that could/should disqualify her?

My view is the answer to the first point is, yes, she has the qualifications.

On the second point, it appears there are no previous brushes with the law, membership in the communit party, etc.

That would leave the question of looking at the background to get a sense of whether someone has any personality flaws, discrimination or racist tendancies, etc.

On this issue, the argument can be made that a judge who would say, "I would hope 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", has the potential to carry that publicly stated view into the Supreme Court and whether that poses an issue.

No less than a Hispanic female journalist (here you go, Eric) in the Miami Herald weighed in on this subject, arguing that Sotomayor feels she is superior, and that air of superiority is a turn off to the writer.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1075245.html

Perhaps that helps explain the absence of Hispanics defending her in the media, as Eric noted is not happening. Maybe the community does not like her?

Maybe the Hispanic community does not measure everyone's value in terms of their race? As in, "just because she's Hispanic doesn't mean I need to support her."

And if we truly are tryting to get by racism in this country, why is it that journalists (and not just Eric) note the absence of support from Hispanics as some sort of big signal?

Racism is racism, and the answer to overcoming it is to not tolerate it in business, judiciary, government, media, etc....from anyone for any reason.

Rush Limbaugh is just a radio guy...with 20 million listeners a week...who does not speak for a majority of the 300+ million Americans. He also is not elected, and his party of favor is not currently in power almost anywhere that matters.

Sotomayor rightfully is being challenged on her comments, and depending on the results of the examination and scrutiny, she will get seated or not.

Next issue.

[Eric Deggans]

C'mon Jay. There is no shortage of white people commenting on this.

I'm saying let's be MORE inclusive about who is talking on this. How does that add up to you not getting to express an opinion here?

Ii is, however, a lot easier to complain about what people might say about whatever you believe than to actually say it.

And you didn't even have to give your full name. That is truly showing the courage of your convictions....

[Jay]

I can't comment on this story because I am white. If I say anything then I will be a racist. What a great world I live in now.

[Eric Deggans]

I think it is too easy for some justices to make decisions based on their personal decisions and their personal background, and insist they are following the law.

In one breath, Clarence Thomas can say he opposes affirmative action because his experience taught him it was demeaning to black people. In the next, he can rule against an affirmative action case, and that's considered a ruling based in law?

I said this in the essay above: white people make professional decisions based on their cultural heritage as well. Pretending that they don't is inaccurate and unfair...and it allows some people to pretend their opinions have the weight of fact or law.

[Alex]

My apologies, that last post labelled "Eric" is actually me.

[Eric]

Eric, I'll await your response on my previous comment.

As to Sotomayor and this new-fangled "empathy" that's going around, your comments, while appealing to the human heart, nonetheless lead one down the path of ignoring the rule of law. It simply isn't the role of judges to make those decisions, no matter how wrong he feels the public opinion is. This leads, for starters, to severe social disagreement (see Roe v Wade). To be even more succinct, it is the job of judges to apply the law equally to everyone and in all cases, not to "interpret" the law.

[Eric Deggans]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to judge Sotomayor apart from her ethnicity.

But there is a lot of discussion going on in media right now about how much she may let her ethnic background affect her rulings. And almost none of that discussion includes Hispanic people.

Beyond being unfair, it's just not journalistically sound.

True enough, you can't legislate people into accepting those who are different.

But true racial equality was never possible in this country until we eliminated laws which kept black people from the right to vote, kept people from marrying across race lines and kept people of color from the same neighborhoods, restaurants and schools as their white neighbors.

Those laws were struck down, by the way, against the will of popular opinion in this country -- in some cases, by judges who had human empathy for people who were disenfranchised by popular will and the law of the land.

That's why it is so important to have a panel of judges who understand life as it is lived today - and reflect the full breadth of our increasingly diverse nation.

[wayne]

A man whose heart, words and ideas are embraced by millions told American that - despite (or perhaps because of) the hate and restrictions heaped upon him during his lifetime - he hoped his children would some day be judged by the content of their character … rather than the color of their skin. There are millions out here who live by that creed, Eric. Some day you might, too. Revisit “A Testament of Hope, “Bearing the Cross” and
“Crusader Without Violence” ... relearn that difficult posture of leading by example. That man never challenged government to “Pass the measure and I am sure all racial issues will vanish,” for he was pragmatic. Realistic. And visionary. He knew it didn’t take laws to measure men’s hearts; we’re revealed by our words and actions. Some folks – well-meaning tho’ they are – inadvertently contribute to the on-going whiplash effect by seeing the entire world in contrasting colors. Perhaps folks are seeing the SCOTUS nominee as qualified - or not - for reasons beyond culture, ethnic heritage or the patina of her skin. And that is, after all, that to which most aspire ...

[Alex]

Eric, I didn't mean to suggest that the article criticizes Obama, only that, because it was written by a black author, it will be taken seriously, whereas a white author would be accused of racism. Rush turned it into a song to prove this point.

Nonetheless, if I admit to originally misunderstanding the point of the LA Times piece (ie it doesn't suggest that white people ought to elect him, only that they will), would you edit the paragraph above where you mention Rush's song and include the fact that he parodied it from the article? The way it's written, it sounds like Rush came up with that himself.

[Eric Deggans]

By the way, the big difference between the Shelby Steele column you link here and the Magic Negro column, is that Shelby blames Barack Obama for delibrately conning white people into voting for him.

The Magic Negro author seems to blame white voters...

[Eric Deggans]

I've listened to rush quite a bit, and i'm sure i will in the future.

But it is clear that the Los Angeles Times article doesn't say the two things you originally said it did.

The column does not criticize Obama. It criticizes white voters and how the author expects them to react to Obama.

The column does not say people SHOULD elect Obama to remove white guilt. It predicts white voters will elect Obama to ease their guilt. It also suggests in a sacrastic tone, that such action diminshes Obama's real achievements.

I agree that the piece could have been written better.

But I don't think it says the things you want it to say, no matter how much you try to parse it's words.

Reading a column doesn't matter much if you already have your mind made up about what it says...

[Alex]

Eric, by all means, "bother" with it. I don't bite. Sheesh.

As for the article, trust me, I've read it. The sub-headline suggests something similar to what Shelby Steele has written about:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-steele5-2008nov05,0,1642069.story

But the body seems to dance around a few different concepts and never really "gets to the point". I think Steele's article is more focused. I didn't want to get into the nitty-gritty of it, because as I mentioned, I felt the details were irrelevant.

Bottom line is this: Rush parodied a serious article written in the LA times to spark a discussion, a discussion that is too often left out when center-left folks bring up the subject of race. You accuse Rush of leaving out some important details. But I find it quite disingenuous that in your blog post above, you left out any mention of Rush's song being based on that Times article. If Rush mislead his listeners, you certainly mislead your readers.

Like I mentioned, I read the article, will you at listen to an hour of Rush this week?

[Eric Deggans]

i know i shouldn't bother with this, but it seems to me you are willfully misreaduing the Times column.

The author is saying that Obama's popularity with white people stems from the way he embodies the Magic Negro character type.

He's not saying people should vote for Obama based on that; he was predicting people would vote for Obama based on that reason -- and saying it in a sarcastic tone.

The author was saying that, despite all Obama has accomplished, he will get votes because he fits this character type.

Rush disengenuously twisted the meaning of a complex column into a simple, unfair, inaccurate meaning that would serve his agenda.

Again, not an example i would urge you to duplicate or commend...

[Alex]

Rush was telling the whole truth. In effect, the LA times piece says that Obama should be elected so as to remove white guilt. To me, that is the real race-baiting. The only reason ANYone should be elected is because they are the best person to lead.

The only thing Rush did was call the LA Times out by exposing the article for what it was. No one paid any attention to it until Rush brought it up.

I appreciate your clarification, but the only thing that Rush left out was a collection of irrelevant details. I stand by my comment.

Also, I sincerely encourage you to listen to Rush. You don't have to agree with everything he says, but you need to listen to him on a regular basis before you attack him.

[Eric Deggans]

Actually, the term Magic Negro is taken from academic usage, describing a certain kind of black character from movies and literature.

The L.A. Times piece talked about how Obama was a real-life version of that kind of character. Rush Limbaugh took the term and twisted it into an awful, race-baiting joke,citing the L.A. Times without context or respect.

Here's the third and fourth graphs of that essay:

"The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story

You should try checking up on the stuff Rush cites before assuming he's telling the whole truth.

[Alex]

Eric, just as a matter of clarification, Rush made that song as a PARODY of an article written in the LA Times with the same title, written by a black author.

His point was that it was ridiculous to say it was okay for black people to criticize Obama but not for white people to criticize him.

You should try listening to Rush instead of assuming he's a racist.