For this wise African-American, Sotomayor hearings unveil the heart of race conflict in America

Never have I wanted more to throw a brick through the screen of my television.

Watching Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sit stoically through a succession of white men, perched at the head of the whitest, malest, most powerful political institution in the country -- the U.S. Senate -- telling a Latina from a New York housing project that her Hispanic heritage should mean nothing in her work as a judge, was heartbreaking.

“Our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads. Down one path is the traditional American system, so admired around the world, where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to personal views,” said Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions during the  first day of Sotomayor's hearings Monday. “Down the other path lies a brave new world, where words have no true meaning, and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see. ... I reject that view, and Americans reject that view.”

Or Sen. Charles Grassley from Iowa: “Judge Sotomayor, you are nominated to the highest court of the land, which has the final say on the law. As such, it’s even more important for the Senate to ascertain whether you can resist the temptations to mold the Constitution to your own personal beliefs and preferences. It’s even more important for the Senate to ascertain whether you can dispense justice without bias or prejudice.”

For anyone who knows how the pointedly conservative views of justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have shaped their decisions, this posturing was worse than disingenuous. It was a neon sign that said: judges get to use their personal backgrounds to decide cases when they're conservative.

GOP legislators have worked themselves into a lather over Sotomayor’s comment about a “wise Latina” making better decisions than a white male. However true that might be regarding discrimination cases, it’s the kind of in-your-face racial absolutism that was a perfect softball for conservatives bent on twisting her original meaning.

On Tuesday, Sotomayor didn't debate the issue, dismissing the line as a clumsy mistake and insisting she would “state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging.”

Still, consider what then-nominee Samuel Alito told the Senate during his confirmation hearings in 2006: "But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . .  When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Anyone who is paying the barest attention knows that this is when Supreme Court rulings count most; when issues of law are debatable and all that's left is what each justice believes in their heart is right.

But yesterday's cavalcade of conservative GOP senators decrying Sotomayor's statements about her heritage and the role of judges in making law -- boldly honest statements she had to know would come back to bite her someday -- also reinforced that age-old Republican canard: conservative white people don't make decisions based on their culture.

It's what I have often called the privilege of being generic. When Chief Justice John Roberts reaches back to his heritage and personal values to make decisions, he's simply allowing timeless principles to guide his thinking. But Sotomayor using the experience of being the first and the only in so many places of power is shrugged off as bias -- an unforgiveable unfairness for GOP senators, mostly because it doesn't benefit their causes.

(Indeed, as blogger Glenn Greenwald points out, nobody asked Alito whether his Italian-American heritage influenced his vote upholding claims by Italian-American firefighters in overturning a Sotomayor-decided affirmative action case.) 

Still, this is the beating heart of most conflicts over race in America. People of color fear decisions made by institutions still largely controlled by white culture and white people, while those white people in power often insist they are just doing "what is right" or "what is just" -- unable or unwilling to admit the role their culture plays in their own decisionmaking.

What we're really seeing, of course, is an elaborate Kabuki theater, in which Republicans complain loudly about a jurist everyone knows is really a centrist -- though you never can tell, once they get that lifetime appointment -- so that when Obama advances a real liberal justice in his next appointment, that person will look even more radical by comparison.

Sototmayor proved Monday she's going to play along, offering a short statement that focused mostly on the facts of her biography and promising "fidelity to the law." It's the Obama strategy -- don't engage these sticky race issues if you don't have to, dodge them.

And so we're treated to another high-profile instance where some people get to pretend they don't have an agenda while others are accused of nothing but.

*

Comments

[Billy]

Act One. “Barry,” a mysterious Community Organizer with multiple names and an indistinct past, suddenly appears in Chicago. His consummate mastery of the brown-nosing techniques he learned at Harvard (where the “Obamamometer” was invented to measure the audacity of taupe) quickly wins him the patronage of American patriots/guys in the neighborhood like William Ayers and his lovely wife, Bernardine Dohrn. True romance kicks in when “Hussein” (as he’s now calling himself) meets former Chicago Tribune journalist David Axelrod; the chemistry between Big Ambition and Big Media is instantaneous and in short order, Hussein rises to state senator, U.S. senator, and, miraculously, president. The highlight of Act One comes in Berlin, just before the election, when the high-flying, adored Hussein serenades thousands of rapturous Berliners with Weint nicht für mich, Berlintina.

Act Two. Tragedy strikes when Hussein’s beloved teleprompter dies of consumption due to the shocking lack of national health care. Bravely vowing to fight on, a grief-stricken Hussein redoubles his efforts as Toastmaster to the World, giving speech after speech in which he decries the sins of his country and offers up imaginative versions of recent history designed to flatter his listeners and ring the Obamamometer. But the Law of Diminishing Returns, passed by the evil Rethuglicans under a revivified Newt Gingrich while Hussein was out of town, slowly starts to drag him down, and no matter how many times he quotes himself approvingly, sticks his nose in the air, juts his jaw, and bounces a pitch to home plate, the magic is gone. Visionary programs such as health care and cap-and-trade both come a cropper in the Senate, the poll numbers keep dropping, and even one last great speech, Don’t Cry for Me, Amerikkka, is broadcast live only on Fox News, where Charles Krauthammer makes fun of it. It’s a sad ending, no doubt about it. But what memories we have!

[Rod Weinstein]

She is being scrutinized because of the distribing racist commens she made. All the while other special interest groups such as La Raza and the liberals try to divert attention away from her hearfelt comments, minimize them and then put it back on her critics as if the comments in question are not hers and they mean nothing. Just in liberal fashion, not taking responsibility. We all know that any White candidate who would have made such foolish comments on a black or hispanic would be "borked". How nice that she waits until she is confirmed to reaveal her true self. A bigoted short and fat woman who got to where she is today as a result of affirmative action and quotas. Many of her law clerks describe her as not the smartest person out there. Her ruling against the White Firefighters in Connecticut is proof of her illogical and immoral path of thinking. She answers little and dances around serious questions posed by her critics and still will get appointed only BECAUSE she is a hispanic woman. What BS and circus show the appointment process has become. Thank the feds for throwing this country to the poor, the illegals, the underqualified and the liberals at large. Thanks agian for continuing to flush this country further down the perverbial toilet!

[Andre]

Minorities play the race card, and the almighty White Liberal establishment is more than happy to bow down and allow them to do so.

The concept of the race card is a monster that manifested through Liberalism, PC, white guilt, and people being cowards when it comes to speaking frankly about race.

[Ross]

She sidestepped questions on guns and abortion today. Go figure.

[Marilyn]

If Sotomayor were a white male would people be defending her? If she were Republican would they defend her? I do not think so. People are so blinded by party and that she is a minority that they are willing to give her a pass that others would not get. Ask people what her politics are and her decisions and you get a blank look (I tried it on my college campus today). The same thing happened when Obama was running. They wanted "change" but had no clue what he stood for. Some could not even say who he was running against. Pathetic.

Yes - there is racism out there. By those are playing the race card. By those who realize that if it is not played people may actually (gasp) have to stand by their own actions. What a concept.

[Lin Young]

Howard: You say it's wrong for a judge to look beyond the constitutionality of an issue they are deciding. But the truth is, the Constitution has changed - thankfully. Our original Constitution did not recognize blacks as people. Not only were they enslaved, but they were considered to be like 3/5 of a person or something. The Constitution gave white male property owners the right to vote. Not sure, but I don't think that white males who didn't own property could vote. And of course black people and white women were barred from voting. Society has changed our Constitution and will probably change it some more.

[Thinking . . .]

Sad.

If your race, your gender, your orientation, those variables over which we have no control is all that defines you - you have nothing.

The candidate is qualified to receive a high paying, life long position which comes with the opportunity to alter the course of American history.

This ridiculous all flash, no substance hazing process is one all must go through before securing that position.

And that's all that's happening here.

[Race & Gender Neutral]

Howie:

What on earth are you talking about? For example, define--if you can, "consitutionality".

Do you think there is some perfect formula--for domestic tranquility, say--that could exist without a thorough understanding of human behavior?

You do realize, I hope, that society--and its mores and priorities--change over time, in every human society, throughout history?

For example, there were FIFTEEN amendments to the constitution before anyone thought to ensure that race was not a barrier to voting. The framers owned slaves, for heaven's sake! if you really need to be reminded that things change.

The Constitution is not perfect and it requires interpretation and (gasp) amendment to ensure it is a timely guide for jurists to follow. It should be a living document for a living, changing, growing society.

The real problem with both sides, but particularly conservatives--who by definition resist change--is that they make judgments based on their own world view, rather than reality.

Conservatives often go a step further and base their views on how they wish the world worked, and people behaved, rather than the way things actually are.

I'll take reality based jurisprudence every time.

[Howard]

hi, Race & Gender Neutral.

You said "Sorry, but whom you are always informs your judgment, whether you're a rich white male born in 1920, or a poor black woman born in 1990."

You're right with this statement. Of course your background/race/experiences color your decisions. Nobody could deny that.

The problem with Sotomayor, and Eric, and others on the Left, is that they believe that it's proper, when a judge is making decisions, to look beyond the constitutionality of any given issue, to your own experiences as a guide.

That's not the way justice is supposed to work: In this country, all are supposed to be viewed as equal under the law. So that if a white person comes before a black judge, or a black person comes before a white judge, those judges will make decisions on the basis of constitutionality, and accepted law, rather than on their own experiences (which inherently are different than others' experiences).

Yes, there have been injustices in the past. But two wrongs don't make a right. Same thing applies to Affirmative Action, which is inherently wrong and unjust because it's built on the idea that decisions should be made on the basis of skin color.

[John]

Curious how it will go if Obama gets a chance to nominate another SC justice.... Will he be able to find a disabled lesbian Eskimo? Or would a transgendered vegan daughter of migrant farm workers be a better pick? Hmmm - tough call. Their 'life experiences' would CERTAINLY help to inform their judgements...

PS - people, if you can't tell that 'Shakeela' is actually a troll then you need to wise up to the ways of the internet... He's probably a 40 year old fat white guy living with his mom whose only entertainment is pretending to be 'Shakeela' to provoke other people. Stop writing to 'her' and let HIM go do something else like talk to his virtual girlfriend or something.

[Banglijk]

Of course, Sessions is a tool in your opinion because he isn't a lib. His questioning was on point.

[FLNewsCenter]

I am white, male, southern and come from my own cavalcade of the "stars and bars." What in Eric's article made him sound racist? I was thinking the same thing while watching a synopsis of the hearings...especially from Sessions (what a tool!).

I think it was a well assembled and delivered piece. Kudos Eric.

[Banglijk]

Deggans, you seem to know racism. Obama received 93% of the vote in D.C. Would you say that racism is alive and well in the nation's capital?

[Reality]

I know racists, and you Eric Deggans, are racist! It works both ways brother!

[bulletinizer]

Eric wanted to throw something through his TV at the old white men. The wise latina just put me to sleep, ZZZZZZ. What would Obama's "typical white" grandma think?

[Jill]

Right on, Sondra. Perfectly stated.

[Sondra]

Let me get this straight. If anyone disagrees with Eric or with the nomination of Sotomayor you are a racist. If you think she should be questioned as strongly as other candidates were questioned you are a racist. If you want to think for yourself and not follow the popular opinion you are a racist. Just making sure.

So much for equality. Popularity is more important with this American Idol style audience. Maybe some of you think that is how nominations should be made. Have the candidate on tv and have people call in to vote. (in case some of you missed it - and I am sure the PC people will - the voting via tv comment was sarcasm.)

[Chrystal K.]

I just read about day 2, but I didn't get a chance to read about day 1.

[Lin Young]

RE: WOW

Hear, hear, that is the most rational statement I've heard in a long time. To be perfectly frank, I'm sick and tired of a so called Democracy that has more interest in policing the personal lives of individuals than it has in taking care of economic issues. My attitude toward abortion is conflicted. But my certainty that no one has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body never wavers. Roe v Wade should have been the law of the land from day one. If it is ever overturned, I'll march in the streets in protest and I think most women will.

[Race & Gender Neutral]

Wow.

Many of the comments here are a disturbing confirmation of Eric's main point: That racism is alive and well America, and pretty much invisible to anyone who is not a target.

Sorry, but whom you are always informs your judgment, whether you're a rich white male born in 1920, or a poor black woman born in 1990.

And what's with this irrational argument that judges should be strict constructionists? No document is perfect, not even the US Constitution. The second AMENDMENT--which was written well before semi-automatic weapons became such a lucrative product for gun manufacturers--is only one example of that.

I know it's verboten to even mention this--and I'll be dutifully chastised by my white, male, betters for it, I'm sure--but I honestly think that men shouldn't be allowed to rule on Roe v. Wade for the simple fact that they don't have a) actual skin in the game or b) sufficient life experience worth their opinion.

[Mike]

Ok, we're mostly in agreement here. We're we're not agreeing is that the reason New Haven was worried about being sued wasn't the results of the test and Griggs' impact there (they had verified pretty well it seemed the test wasn't biased), but that a ruling was put in place at one point to help "define" Griggs fairly vague nomenclature, and part of that stated that at a certain percentage, the test regardless of anything else would be declared biased. With that in play and the results given, by definition New Haven had a problem. The lower courts saw it that way as well in that legal precedent had declared the test discriminatory based on nothing but the results of the test. The appellate court agreed. The Supreme Court essentially said "contradictory" in this particular case, and while not overturning Griggs really, simply said "both views of this end up with lawsuit, so need to throw out the pctg based rule". BTW, that pctg wasn't a quota - it was a pctg difference from previous or expected results. Regardless, I'm really not arguing the case result or 'correctness' so much as stating that in that case, Sotomayor wasn't being activist in any way but simply following precedent. While the case on the face of it had a lot of racial and social overtures, all the rulings were pretty straight legal work, with no grand gesture made in any direction (as Scalia in your quote somewhat points out).

[DoctorDoom]

Mike,

Perhaps I came on too strong. For that I apolgize. But, I (and the Supreme Court)still hold that the lower court erred in their ruling.

The City argued that because they MIGHT face a lawsuit on disparate impact that allows them to intentionally discriminate via disparate treatment. The city made no effort to prove or disprove that their test was an accurate measure of job performance. These men were denied their promotion solely bacause of their race. Their ARGUMENT that the court finally rejected was that "we might get sued for this so we are going to invalidate the results." If their argument was that on review they found the test to have racial or ethnic bias, therefore they invalidated the results likely would have held up.

What Scalia was saying and trying to get the Court to take up unfortunately had no takers on teh Court as his concurring opinion was lone. Again,

"Whether or not Title VII's disparate-treatment provisions forbid "remedial" race-based actions when a disparate-impact violation would not otherwise result--the question resolved by the Court today--it is clear that Title VII not only permits but affirmatively requires such actions when a disparate-impact violation would otherwise result. But if the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties—e.g., employers, whether private, State, or municipal--discriminate on the basis of race."

[Mike]

Dr. Doom, I wouldn't say I'm incorrect, nor that she was. The part you left out is that after the Griggs case which essentially vaguely stated "if a test shows uneven results across racial or ethnic lines, it's up to the administrator of the test to prove the test itself isn't biased", a standard was put in place (and I'm admittedly foggy on the exact name of this) that stated that if the results were 80% off in terms of racial impact, that factor by itself is enough to prove discrimination. That was the precedent set back in the '80's or so with Griggs then the standard, and the one she followed in the appeal process. Also the one New Haven followed in the first place to protect from a lawsuit. The overturn was actually simply pointing out the inconsistency of this argument and stating "if the test is valid, it's valid". My only argument in this mostly ridiculous list of comments is that if someone is going to use a case to show her activism, don't use one where she stuck to precedent.

[Lee]

Eric Deggans,I lost a LOT of respect for you in this article.I want to throw a brick through my computer screen every time I read a one-side, anti-conservative article like yours in your newspaper.You completely ignore the fact that she 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 male who hasn't lived that life." So basically she said that Latina women are smarter than white men.This is no way the same as Alito saying he wants to look into his past when making decisions.This is saying that I am smarter than you because I am a Latina female.Comparing the two is disingenuous.Finally,she is NOT a centrist.Your newspaper, as usual, goes with the source that says what they wish to pass along, but ignores any other idea or voice on a subject.

[JH]

I see the angry white haters are out again. It is like watching two kids playing a game that one of them made up so that he always wins. Then when the other kid gets tired of losing all the time and tilts to board so that he has a *chance* of winning, the first kid cries foul.

[gary]

Ghana didn't have electricity and potable water until the '90s? Not sure if that's saying much for Africa.

[Bob H]

Johnny wrote: "The blacks want to turn the US into another Africa with welfare. Africa is an example of Blacks not being able to run anything. What US or world city has thrived under black leadership? What great inventions have come from blacks or Africa? Medical break throughs? Technological break throughs? Just sports and "entertainment". uhh huh..."

I know I shouldn't even dignify your idiotic comment with a response, but here are just a few notable blacks, past and present:

George Washington Carver, 1864-1943, scientist, botanist, educator, inventor.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, b. 1958, astrophysicist. Currently Director of the Hayden Planeterium at the American Museum of Natural History.

Amos Masondo, Mayor of Johannesburg, South Africa, 2000-present. Nominated in 2008 for World Mayor Award.

Jerry Rawlings, President of Ghana, 1993-2001. Restored Ghana to democratic rule in 1992, brought electricity and potable water to majority of nation.

I'm a white guy, and these are four that came to me as soon as I read your idiotic post. Your bigotry is an embarrassment to white folks everywhere.

[Roman727]

I feel she is being treated equally compared to the way Dems questioned the Bush and Reagan appointees. It would be unfair if Sotomayer was given easy questions and only comments of praise. Eric and Lin must be new to watching senate confirmation sessions. Welcome! Sotomayer should (and will) be confirmed...after the grilling. She is handling it well.

[DoctorDoom]

The whole tone of this article is laughable but a sad reminder of the decline of the establishment media. To quote that great Conservative Camille Paglia, "As a Democrat, I detest the partisan machinations that have become standard in Northeastern news management and that are detectable in editorial decisions at major metropolitan newspapers nationwide. It's why I, like a host of others, have shifted my news gathering to the Web."

Death to print!

[RagsTTiger]

The opening session was nothing short of an all day snoozefest. The same biographical information over and over How wonderful it is to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. That's the American way. This takes hard work and dedication. Pretty much not stated was how she was accepted into law school, via affirmative action not by test scores. She did well once in, but this raises the question, were the academic requirements for non minority students the same? Note Obama got tossed from Oxidental College, wound up in Ivy League schools. No one knows who provided the scholarships. All of his records have been sealed. A pattern?

I am pretty fed up with double standards for anyone. Let Judge Sotomayor rise or fall on her own philosophy. Will she make law or interpret law from the bench? Will she be guided by personal interests, political correctness, or the Constitution? This is what needs to be fairly ascertained.

[steve]

as a white American male, i agree with Eric's premise. White Americans think their culture is the only culture that matters. I'm tired of hearing about Sotomayor's comments about being a Latina woman -- her meaning was that as a Latina she will bring a different approach to the bench than that would exist with just 9 white males. Why are white males afraid of diversity?

[Rob]

Get off your soapbox Eric. You seem to be the one with an agenda. Judges are supposed to enforce the law, not create it, that is the job of the legislature. But liberal judges have had too free of a hand for the past 50 years, and it is time to balance the scales of justice. The law says you can't discriminate based on race, but what exactly is affirmative action?
An example of judges going too far is that in New Jersey, a state that instituted a death penalty by the vote of the people 30 years ago, not one criminal was ever put to death. Cop Killers, child killers, serial murderers, not one sentence was ever carried out, because liberal activist judges didn't believe in it.
Now, whether or not you believe in it or not, the people of that state voted to have this option for the most heinous crimes. Judges ignored the law, and amazingly the law was recently rescinded BECAUSE the state supreme court judges flat out refused to enforce it as an option.

[Lin Young]

Bill: I'm certainly not suggesting she not be questioned. I would not anyone seated on the Supreme Court without being questioned. I object to the tone of the questions. I think that she is not being treated the same way a white male candidate, with similar credentials, would be treated. That is what is annoying. Unequal treatment becomes tiresome after a while.

[Johnny]

The blacks want to turn the US into another Africa with welfare. Africa is an example of Blacks not being able to run anything. What US or world city has thrived under black leadership? What great inventions have come from blacks or Africa? Medical break throughs? Technological break throughs? Just sports and "entertainment". uhh huh...

[Richard]

As usual the US Senate has their collective head up their collective butts. It's okay for a white man to use his life experience to make judgments, but not a Latino woman. Give me a frakin' break!! As stated in the article, "whitest, malest" Senate panel can't see beyond there collective noses, and this is why this country is in the mess it is in. The same old crap, just a different day.

[SA]

Uh... was this not supposed to be a melting pot. Not a mixing bowl. We need to get rid of anything that identifies race. Especially school applications, government work, etc. This is one of the only countries where all races are accepted. Yes, it WAS traditionally white. BUT WE WHITEES HAVE STEPPED BACK. WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE DONE THIS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Grim Reaper]

Shakeela .... My grand parents were from Barbados so where did you get your rasism from ????? If you don't like whites go back and enjoy your utopic homeland.

[Jeffry]

The rules are different when you're not white. You're not allowed to call a non-white on their racism. They get a pass.

Liberalism, guilty white Liberals who buy into the concept of "White Guilt" are the driving forces behind this nonsense. Whites have nothing to feel guilty about.

[Turtle]

Oh my Deggans - this is pretty low.

[John]

I do not think Alito ever said that he could make a better decision than a white woman because of his life experience as an Italian American. Sotomayer set her self up for the criticism she is taking.Libs can't take the heat they give out(Bork, Thomas). I know how it feels to want to throw a brick at the TV. Every time I see Obama lie on it.

[Kevin]

Fact reminder: The Supreme Court reversal of the New Haven case was a 5-4 vote (not 8-0)

[Bill]

Lin, are you saying that she shouldn't receive "tough" questioning because she's a woman?

She needs to be questioned, and she needs to answer questions.

She knew what she was getting into, and I'm pretty sure that she's tough enough to handle being on the hot seat.

[DoctorDoom]

Mike,

Actually she and the others misinterpreted the law. The firefighters were discriminated on the basis of "disparate treatment," absolutely prohibited by the plain language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which in opposition the thinkings of Mr Deggans applies to all Americans - both those of palor and color) -
"It makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Now the reason they allowed this to occur was because of the the concept of "disparate impact" that was introduced in 1971's Griggs Vs Duke Power Co which said, "An employer that uses "testing or measuring procedures" on which minorities do not perform as well as whites has the burden of proving that its method of evaluation is "a reasonable measure of job performance." The Civil Rights Act of 1991 codified this principle into statutory law.
New Haven officials argued that they would risk a disparate-impact suit if they did not discriminate against the white firemen.

This is what was correctly rejected by the Court. The Court writes, "Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action."

This is a very narrow holding and leaves open the possibility of future intentional discrimination. By framing the question as a conflict between statutory provisions, the court avoids addressing the question of whether New Haven's actions are constitutional, as Justice Antonin Scalia notes:
"[The] resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection? . . .The difficulty is this: Whether or not Title VII's disparate-treatment provisions forbid "remedial" race-based actions when a disparate-impact violation would not otherwise result--the question resolved by the Court today--it is clear that Title VII not only permits but affirmatively requires such actions when a disparate-impact violation would otherwise result. But if the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties—e.g., employers, whether private, State, or municipal--discriminate on the basis of race. . . .The war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how--and on what terms--to make peace between them."

[Lin Young]

Eric is right. And this hearing is hard for anyone to watch who isn't aligned with this country's traditional male, white power base. As a white woman who came of age in the 1960s, watching the way the white men of the Senate are questioning Sotomayor in public, reminds me of the chauvinistic way I was treated during job interviews I had in the early 1970s.

Is Sotomayor being treated in a racially discriminatory way? Yes, I think so. But I also think she is being treated the way any intelligent, competent, rational woman is often treated when white men in control feel their boat being rocked. And actually, all that racism really is is white people in power trying to limit the power of people they view as being the "other," because of race, ethnicity, gender or class.

[Lin Young]

Eric is right. And this hearing is hard for anyone to watch who isn't aligned with this country's traditional male, white power base. As a white woman who came of age in the 1960s, watching the way the white men of the Senate are questioning Sotomayor in public, reminds me of the chauvinistic way I was treated during job interviews I had in the early 1970s.

Is Sotomayor being treated in a racially discriminatory way? Yes, I think so. But I also think she is being treated the way any intelligent, competent, rational woman is often treated when white men in control feel their boat being rocked. And actually, all that racism really is is white people in power trying to limit the power of people they view as being the "other," because of race, ethnicity, gender or class.

[Conservative Tom]

TonyC. The Constitution does not need *diversity* code for affirmative action. When a case goes to the SC the Justices are to be impartial and should base their rulings on the constitutionality of the case. So we do not need, nor is it prescribed, to construct the highest in the land court based upon race. Rather the most qualified appointee(see record) in accordance with this great US Constitution. I would support her if her record and statements reflected as such. I don't see the color of her skin only the words that come directly from her own mouth. Words have meaning.

[Ricardo Gonzales]

We are need to see a Hispanic on the court. Judge Sotomayor please make it easier for us to become citizen in this country and to bring out family. I come for work to send money to Mexico for family. Give me citizen and I will bring my whole family. That is 20 more tax payer for the country.

[Paul]

Shakeela, we are all from the USA. My great grandparents were from other places... but I'm American. No special notation needed.

[harold hill]

Joe:
Supreme Court justices are tasked with "interpreting," or, you're right, "judging" the intent of the Constitution.

Big difference between doing that, and activism, which is saying, "yeah, the Constitution is okay, but, really, what's most important is what I think, based on my life experiences" (as Sotomayor appears to suggest she would do, and folks like Eric believe is okay, in order to redress past wrongs).

[Paul]

Hey Eric Deegans, which African nation are you from? Please tell me... I'd like to know, as I've met quite a few Africans in my travels, mostly cabbies, and they are nice people.