Latinas are better than white males and other leftist articles of faith.
I came across an article by Stuart Taylor in The National Journal (via Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online) titled, "Identity Politics and Sotomayor." (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php) This article gave me tremendous pause for thought
Taylor's article was posted scarcely 72 hours before President Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to replace David Souter on the United States Supreme Court. He took Sotomayor to task for a remark she made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in 2002. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1):
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Taylor believes her remark warrants more scrutiny. As he correctly points out, imagine what would have happened if it had been found out that Samuel Alito uttered such a thought about a Latina woman. He would have been castigated and rightly so. Isn't it only fair that Sotomayor be similarly taken to task? Just because Sotomayor is a Latina female does not mean she should not be accountable for her public statements. Surely her life of such rich experiences can withstand some criticism.
I have no doubt that Sonia Sotomayor has had a life of rich experiences. Sotomayor was born and raised in the South Bronx. My father was also born and raised in the South Bronx. Does Sotomayor believe my father's life is less rich than hers because he was raised a Jew? If not then why does she deem my father's Bronx Tale to be less worthy than hers? Sotomayor's father (who died when she was only eight) was a tool and die worker. My paternal grandfather installed sheet metal ceilings. Isn't it possible that Sotomayor and my father have some of these rich experiences in common? Who is Sotomayor to say my father hasn't lived a rich life?
To be sure there were differences as there always are. After the death of her father, Sotomayor was raised by her mother who also worked as a nurse. My paternal grandmother stayed at home. While Sotomayor grew up with her mother and a younger brother my father shared an apartment on Longfellow Avenue with his parents, seven siblings (five sisters and two brothers) and a grandmother. Those were tight quarters indeed. Does Sotomayor honestly think Latina women such as she has a monopoly with these sorts of experiences?
If one thinks about it, Sotomayor's remarks are a disservice to Latina women. Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican heritage but grew up in New York. She is a self-described "Newyorkican" (a.k.a. "Nuyorican.") But surely a middle aged Puerto Rican woman living in New York who spent her formative years in San Juan is going to have a different tale to tell. Surely a Puerto Rican woman who matriculated in the Ivy League will have different experiences than a Puerto Rican woman who has just obtained her G.E.D. Surely a Puerto Rican woman who has children will have a different narrative than a Puerto Rican woman who doesn't have hungry mouths to feed.
And what about Latina women who are not of Puerto Rican heritage? Women from Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Ecuador are every bit a part of the Latina experience. While they might share some common experiences does Sotomayor think there are no cultural differences amongst Latin American women? Does Sotomayor see as Shakira the twin sister of Jennifer Lopez? If she does then she cannot the tree of individuality from the dense forest of group think.
It is possible Sotomayor has had experiences that most white males have not had be they good or bad. But how do these experiences make Sotomayor a better judge? What does it say about Sotomayor that she dismisses the experiences of white males out of hand? Isn't she judging white males both by the color of our skin and by our Y chromosomes rather than by the content of our characters? If a white male and a Latina female should be on opposite sides of a case before the Supreme Court is Sotomayor's mind been made up before hearing oral arguments? To paraphrase George Orwell, are some people more equal before the law than others? Some firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut are probably inclined to answer that question in the affirmative.
In that same 2002 speech Sotomayor said:
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
Aren't judges supposed to consider all the facts? Now judges might give some facts more weight than others and that is within their discretion. But for a judge to publicly state there are facts she chooses to see would indicate there are facts that she chooses not to see. In Sotomayor's case, one must ask if she chooses not to see facts which come into conflict with her gender perspective and what she terms "my Latina heritage." If that is the case one must then ask is the law unworthy of her consideration? Or does the law simply take a back seat to her personal experiences?
In seeking to replace Justice Souter, President Obama said he wanted a Supreme Court justice who possessed empathy. Yet he chose someone who possesses anything but at least where it concerns white males. How can Sonia Sotomayor claim to have empathy when she thinks her Bronx Tale is the only one worth telling?
This is yet another example of the new racism that I have been casually observing for the past twenty years. In the past liberal hare-brained schemes could be countered with constitutional arguments, they were pushed through anyway but at least they were stumped for a coherent reply. Now any challenge can be dismissed purely on the racial basis. The constitution is dismissed as document penned by a bunch of dead white guys. The minute men who sat on the U.S. border with Mexico reporting invasions by illegal aliens were summarily discharged as disenfranchised white males who hate Mexicans. The Tea Party activists we’re charged with being racists because most of their ranks were made up of white men. The Fairness Doctrine was championed by politicians who felt that talk radio was inherently “unfair” because so many white guys listened to it. It’s a scary road we tread when we dismiss an entire segment of society on race. But it is consistent with liberal logic, the same logic that says you fix a borrow and spending problem with more borrowing and spending and you fix racism with more racism (the good, government approved, kind of hate).
seanW: Your discussion of the liberal logic of "fairness" dovetails with a pet theory of mine on the linkage between fairness and Constitutional Rights:
We often use the terms “legal” and “moral” as synonyms. But “moral” and “legal” are not the same thing. They often are in a Representative Republic (again, putting aside the abomination of legalized abortion in the United States that even some "progressive" religious leaders condone).
But it is also true that other morally-neutral factors enter into the making of laws as well. “Fairness” is a concept that can have a great impact on policy decisions, but it is neither a moral or immoral concept in and of itself. Fairness can be used to justify any action depending upon the politically-motivated assumptions of its proponents. Set-aside quotas for minorities are often viewed through the prism of “fairness.” Instituting quotas favoring one group means automatically discriminating against another. But if the quotas are seen as a way to cure past evils, then they can be explained as a “fair” way to treat a difficult situation; just as counting slaves as three-fifths of a human being was seen as a “fair” way to deal with another difficult situation.
All this is tied into the relativistic concept of “rights”. For example, Liberal Relativist thinking states emphatically that women have a Right to Choose what to do with their own body. This includes foreign bodies attached to them by a placenta.
If this right does indeed exist, then it isn’t a stretch to conclude that abortion must be a “common choice.” If not, banning abortions wouldn’t affect anything. For example, anyone can choose to kill themselves. They can use a gun, buy pills, sit in a running car in a closed garage, or jump in front of a train. The opportunities are endless, and can be exercised at will. But in America, no one has a “Right” to kill themselves. Attempting suicide is illegal in most states. The only way to beat the rap is to succeed; otherwise you end up in the custody of the state for a few days observation — or maybe a lot longer.
Both suicide and abortion deal with an individual’s choice about their own body. Moreover, neither action is said to harm another human being because abortionists don’t consider the thing they kill to be human life. And yet, the state gives “Rights” to one action, but not to the other.
Since there are no marches on Washington or other demonstrable actions that demand rights for the oppressed suicide-attempters in America, I can only conclude that it must not be a very popular choice compared to such things as the Right to Vote, the Right to Free Speech, and the Right to Kill That Thing Growing Inside Your Belly Before The Twentieth Week — all of which have strong, vocal movements behind them.
Simply reading a newspaper or watching your neighbors go about their lives will quickly point out at least three more rights Americans hold dear: the Right to Party and Have a Good Time, the Right to Run Up Large Charge Account Bills and Then Declare Bankruptcy, and the Right to Download Music Free on The Internet.
These aren’t just options or opportunities that theoretically exist, like the option to wear slacks or shorts depending on the weather. Pass laws that limit or take away any of these “rights” and you’ll get a march on Washington that will rival Dr. King’s. People care about these rights; not just isolated individuals here and there, but millions of people throughout the country. Although these genetic rights seem to manifest themselves most strongly among high school and college-age hormonally active human males, people of all ages and sexes seem drawn to these rights. We can all point to enough personal experiences observing overweight 50-year old men driving around town in a brand new Porsche with a 22-year old trophy wife at their side, or read the newspapers about the rise in bankruptcy filings under Republican administrations. And then there’s that song or two you asked your twelve-year old nephew to download from a share file that paid no royalties to the composer.
Attempts to “limit fun,” force people to manage their financial affairs responsibly, and/or start charging them for using the Internet have routinely met with loud, wailing, hand-wringing howls. This isn’t some isolated group we hear screaming, it’s your neighbors, friends, and even your family. And perhaps you too on occasion.
But the simple fact that one group (however large and vocal) may want to do something — and want it really badly — doesn’t mean that all people want or demand it. If it was a fundamental human need, there wouldn’t be any question about it. As vocal as these advocates might be, they need to be balanced against a larger number of people who are interested in having children and raising a family, pursuing a successful career, managing their and the country’s finances responsibly, and paying for what they want instead of scamming the system.
Like the previous examples, though, these things are no more “rights” than the right to turn on red is a “right.” They are felt strongly, and to some people may even manifest themselves as a genetic disposition (fun times and alcoholism, for example), but they are not universally shared by all mankind, which if true would elevate them to the level of a universal moral imperative.
But what about other, more serious human rights? Let’s look at the U.S. Bill of Rights. As important and deeply ingrained as the Right to Vote and Right to Free Speech are in Western society, I still can’t elevate either of these to a universal principle. Even after the collapse of Soviet communism and the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, there are still a large number of people in these countries who reject any notion of Western-style democracy. Russians live in a quasi-capitalist thugocracy, and in Afghanistan and Iraq a lot of people still take their marching orders from the local Ayatollah.
“Rights” connected with personal freedom may tie back to certain moral principles, but it is these principles — such as a basic respect for human life — that are universal, not a free press or other rights embodied in the U.S. Constitution. A true appreciation for democracy is something that evolves with thought, debate, and cultural evolution. I have high hopes for democracy taking a firm root in the Middle East thanks to the courage and leadership of President Bush. But neither he nor I, nor maybe even my children, will live to see it work as well as I believe it can. Which means, not even the U.S. Bill of Rights has intrinsic universal appeal, because some of these concepts require a different cultural and social structure to be in place before they can truly be understood and flourish.
Russia today is a perfect example of both the potential of, and cultural/historical barriers to, Western-style democracy taking hold and prospering. Afghanistan and Iraq will require decades of additional preparation to pave the way for thinking about Thomas Paine instead of “giving pain” when operating in a political environment.
Which puts the lie to any suggestion that abortion is a universal right. Rather, it is a means to a political objective perpetrated on the United States by a logic that gives more weight to man-made laws and the culturally-dependent notions of privacy and fairness, than it does to basic human dignity. It’s the perfect, morally-relativistic logic gone completely out of control, where the focus becomes the mother’s desires, as opposed to what is in the best interest of another human being’s life.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/