Stain of “Identity Politics” is a misguided contrivance
Sonia Sotomayor and family members listen to Judiciary Committee hearings.
The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, began this morning with a respectful tone though some lectured her about the concept of judicial impartiality.
True to tradition, the 55-year-old New Yorker of Puerto Rican descent (aka Nuyorican) sat quietly through the opening statements. The main agenda will turn to her opening statement followed by questioning from the senators, under which the tone will become much tougher.
As the preliminary jockeying unfolded, an undercurrent of what some critics label ”identity politics” and other code words swam beneath.
Since the nation elected its first African-American president, the phrase “identity politics” is hurled — ironic, since the identity of white male American prevailed on the U.S. Supreme Court from its establishment in 1789 until Justice Sandra Day O’Connor broke the gender barrier in 1981.
With further irony, the all-white Senate Judiciary Committee (which includes Dianne Feinstein of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota) will determine whether Sotomayor’s nomination will go before the full Senate. Historically, white men have been the impartial, neutral arbiters of law in the United States. Others were not on the bench to bring other perspectives.
The high court was the entity that supported slavery, denial of women’s right to vote and separate-and-unequal public accommodations through the decades. Fortunately, the law and the Supreme Court rulings evolved over time. Is that judicial activism?
Sotomayor will be confirmed because of the Democratic majority of the U.S. Senate, short of some shocking immolation before the judiciary committee. Nevertheless, these hearings are a venue to re-evaluate a contemporary American ethos that recently broke a racial barrier in the White House.
A default position of white male judges as arbiters of impartiality defies the human experience. Supreme Court judges, who served on the highest court for nearly 200 years before the the gender/racial barrier ended, were not monolithic robots in personality or legal temperament.
Current Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all of whom testified before the same Senate committee about how their personal experiences shaped their lives, were human beings shaped by political views, geography and childhoods that created their individual foundations.
Since race and gender barriers have been broken on the Supreme Court, let’s dispense with “identity politics” as some evil, hidden agenda. No one spoke of it before 1981.
At the root, politics are about people and their deepest inner feelings across partisanship.
It is striking how conservative Republican leaders who condemn ”identity politics” then select Michael Steele the first African-American to become Republican National Committee chairman shortly after President Barack Obama made presidential history by securing a broad coalition of gender and racially diverse voters. Pure coincidence?
Sonia Sotomayor has the most extensive record as a federal judge (17 years) for a nominated Supreme Court justice in almost a century. Her public record as an appellate judge, trial jurist and prosecutor is readily available for intense scrutiny and grilling. That should be the basis for assessing whether she should get confirmed to the lifetime position on the court.
One focus will be the recent U.S Supreme Court 5-4 reversal of a lower federal court ruling in which Sotomayor voted in the majority in a case in which New Haven, Conn., white firefighters sued contending racial discrimination involving test scores and promotions. Four justices, including the outgoing Justice David Souter, concurred with the lower court ruling against the white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter in Ricci vs. DeStefano.
Such legal probing is essential. But since four justices agreed with her stance, that alone should not be reason to conclude that she is an unfair judicial activist as some have contended.
Lamentably, a disproportionate amount of time probably will be devoted to her quotes about her personal life as a Latina instead of how she behaved as a judge, generating sparks and political theater that some on the committee will desire despite the fact that her confirmation is likely.
Sotomayor needs to look the senators and the nation in the eye and describe what she meant in those oft-repeated quotes. We need a straight distillation from her that is free of the “instant analysis” that pervades our 24-hour news cycle fueled by sound bites.
Senators and Americans should form their opinions based on her legal substance, her record and her own words. That would be fair and impartial.
Gilbert Bailon has been editor of the P-D editorial pages since November 2007. Previously, he worked as a reporter, editor and executive editor for The Dallas Morning News and its daily Spanish-language newspaper, Al Dia. He still harbors a passion for all things Tex-Mex: food, music, language, boots and border culture. And yes he has found some of that in the Midwest. 
> At the root, politics are about people and their deepest inner
> feelings across partisanship.
Absolutely correct. Hence, few find fault when a majority black legislative district elects a black representative. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act has been applied to create just such districts.
However, the courts - and all the more, the Supreme Court - are not supposed to be about politics, they are supposed to be about law. And as you may recall, the law is supposed to blind as to its subject. If, as seems likely, Sotomayor would put her finger on the scale of justice when confronted with subjects of a particular gender, race, or nationality, that is a cause for legitimate concern.
Identity Politics & the Supreme Court
…yet no mention of the high-tech lynching Clarence Thomas received.
Again, it’s the familiar Democrat chorus:
“Racialism by thee but not by we”
Is it bias or dishonesty? In this case, — it’s the Editor’s bias.
“Since race and gender barriers have been broken on the Supreme Court, let’s dispense with “identity politics” as some evil, hidden agenda.”
OK, so we should expect you to criticize every member of the committee who reminds us that she is a Latin woman?
“But since four justices agreed with her stance, ”
That is just not true, and cant be true since she offered no stance on the case. None of the Justices agreed with her summary judgment in the case, they used their own twisted logic to come up with their decision, and they did something Sotamayor didnt do, attempt to justify it.
–It’s “disingenuous” to say “stain of identity politics is a misguided contrivance”, when the only thing that “qualifies” her is her “identity- politics”.
Ms. Sotomayor has an extensive record of legal opinions and actions in her career as a judge at multiple levels. That should be the only criteria used to judge her fitness for SCOTUS.
In fact, the written opinions will tell more about her “philosophy” than sound bites from speeches. How good is her research? How carefully does she frame her arguments? How much weight does she give precedent? Does she argue against precedent, and how often (and how cogent is the anti-precedent argument when made?) THESE are the serious questions, that unfortunately will not get asked, or answered. Perhaps another question might be…on the appeals court, how often did she participate in summary judgements, with no opinion issued (the New Haven case is that type)? Frequently, dismissing an appeal without comment says more than a formal written opinion would.
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Questions by Senators as to her ability or desire to impartially carry out her responsibilities “without respect to persons” are perfectly appropriate. If a nominee made the statement that a wise white male would come to a better conclusion than a Latina woman, we would expect that the meaning and ramifications of that statement and the beliefs it represents be explored to full satisfaction of the Senators before they could approve. Those who think that tough questions along this line are out of bounds are truly disrespecting the nominee and the position she’s been nominated to fill.
All wise Americans know that to be true.
Several excellent comments in response to another clown type editorial. Old Gilbert thinks that because she’s (sotomayor) a liberal, how dare anyone question her ability to be an impartial justice?
Hopefully, the Republicans can keep the next ginsburg type skank from being confirmed.
“yet no mention of the high-tech lynching Clarence Thomas received.”
–He brought some of that on himself, but not answering questions, and instead responding with platitudes about how horribly his grandfather was treated. I have only so much sympathy for Justice Thomas after that.
The “high tech lynching” Clarence Thomas recieved was based on his harrassing behavior, not his judicial philosophy. I suppose Bill Clinton was also subject to a “high tech lynching”.
The only difference is Clinton’s behavior was consensual.
Ten years ago republicans were preaching the “rule of the Law”.
Now, they’re defending Cheney. My, how things have changed.
Every justice brings empathy, personal interpretations and temperament to the court.
If decisions were based simply on law, every opinion would be 9-0.
Listening to a Democrat or liberal editorialist decry the nasty political strategies they’ve wielded for decades is like listening to Christopher Coleman extoll the virtues of being a good husband and father. Nobody’s buyin it.
Sotomayor is Obama’s Harriet Miers. Unfortunately, no one in his party has the guts to point it out.