Sorry for the absence lately. I've been busy here learning Marine Corps stuff and watching Twins games. Eventually one of us will, I'm sure, post a detailed analysis of Justice Sotomayor's jurisprudence, but for now I want to critique the media's coverage of the nomination.
"...A major effort to block her confirmation could be risky for a party still reeling from last year's elections. Hispanics are the fastest-growing part of the population and increasingly active politically." -Ben Feller, Associated Press
"[Wisconsin Democrat Senator Herb] Kohl said he thought Obama's selection of a woman and a Hispanic was a plus, adding to the diversity of the court." -Craig Gilbert, Journal Sentinel
"'A lot of Republicans are worried that [fighting the Sotomayor nomination] could be the last straw when it comes to the party's ability to reach the Hispanic community,' said Robert de Posada, a Latino GOP strategist who said he was advising Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'Republicans are in a very awkward position'." -The LA Times' Peter Wallsten and Richard Simon's take, who also opened their piece with this:
"Rush Limbaugh called her a 'reverse racist'," perhaps further solidifying Rush's stature at the top of the GOP.
From the Chicago Tribune, Mark Silva waits until late in the story to bring up race: "In a speech at UC Berkeley in 2001, she suggested that her background and heritage helped guide her decision-making. '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,' Sotomayor said."
This above quote is probably the crux of some arguments against Sotomayor's confirmation and seems to be the first legitimate mention of how her race, if at all, affects this nomination. All other mentions seem superfluous. Let's talk about her vision of the law, during the debate of her confirmation instead of making this a racial thing. Please.
Interestingly, the New York Times' online headline story on the nomination refused to being race into the equation, opting instead to discuss, seriously and maturely, Sotomayor's jurisprudence.
Update: Jonah Goldberg says, "Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How’s that working out for liberals?" Check out Goldberg's column (click on the word column).
Or, in honor of the Twins beating the Red Sox last night, listen to Jonah dominate on some Boston radio show.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah Rob, the supreme court and its appointment "contraversies" have become such a joke. Just 5 minutes of NPR and I hear MIIIIchelle Norris talking in her sickeningly snooty way about how amazing and fascinating the "story" of Sotomayor was and how she was so excited that they were going to be having a different story every day about her. I know NPR is kind of an extreme, but yeah, I've noticed the obsession. (How sad is that, I consider NPR, a tax-payer funded radio station, to be pretty significantly biased towards the left. I mean, how is there not more outrage about this? The dominance of conservative talk radio probably makes most people forget about it.)
And look how Specter justifies his support:
"I applaud the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court."
I applaud the change of allegiance of Specter to the Democrat party. "Goodbye is too good a word, so I'll just say farewell."
Post a Comment