RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Sotomayor: She Deserves Respect

by Chuck Warnock 05-28-2009

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States by President Barack Obama has electrified the Latino community in America.  Now the largest minority group in the United States, Latino-Americans have long sought their piece of the American dream in this land of possibility in which all, except Native Americans, are recent immigrants.  The nomination of the first Latina woman to the nation’s highest court is another milestone in the recognition of the pluralism of our society.

Latina, the upscale lifestyle magazine, celebrated Judge Sotomayor’s nomination today with this lede paragraph:

Today’s historic nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has had a huge impact on Latina staffers. It is yet another concrete reminder that anything is possible.

But the jubilation was short-lived as Latina continued:

But as we celebrate such a huge leap for both women and Latinos, we are reminded of the uglier side of politics by racist right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, who discussed Judge Sotomayor on his radio show today and proclaimed, ‘Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She’d be a disaster on the Court.’

Limbaugh was not alone in attacking Judge Sotomayor, Latina noted.  Mike Huckabee, former Baptist preacher and presidential candidate, issued this statement according to Latina:

The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama’s campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric.

Of course, Huckabee’s statement erroneously identified Judge Sotomayor as Maria, rather than Sonia.  Latina replied with a good-humored, but pointed jab at Huckabee:

One huge problem there, Mike! Her name isn’t Maria. Contrary to popular belief, every Latina in the United States isn’t named Maria. We’ll forgive you. We’re sure you were just watching West Side Story last night in preparation for this statement and got confused.

While the Washington Post reported that Republicans were withholding criticism of Sotomayor, other political analysts offered a real-world perspective. The New York Times quotes Matthew Dowd, former adviser to George W. Bush, as saying Republicans do not want to be perceived as opposing the nomination of the first Latina woman to the Supreme Court:

‘Because you’ll have a bunch of white males who lead the Judiciary Committee leading the charge taking on an Hispanic women and everybody from this day forward is going to know she’s totally qualified,’ he said. ‘It’s a bad visual. It’s bad symbolism for the Republicans.’

Dowd commented that in the future Republicans will have to win 40 percent of the Latino vote to capture the White House.  John McCain took less than 35 percent in the 2008 election.

Sotomayor’s nomination hearings this summer promise to be interesting viewing.  But, what seems to be lost in today’s negative responses to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination is a sense of decency that should pervade the Senate’s advise-and-consent process.  Beyond the politics of why any senator should or should not back Sotomayor, she deserves to be treated with respect.

Americans have seen the ugly face of fear and accusation taint other proceedings in our nation’s history.  During the Senate Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, Senator Joseph McCarthy relentlessly badgered the Army’s chief legal representative, Joseph Nye Welch. Finally, exasperated with McCarthy’s  false accusations about a colleague, Welch faced down McCarthy with these courageous words:

Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? (Wikipedia)

Those hearings, and the American public’s ultimate rejection of McCarthy, led to the censure of the right-wing senator from Wisconsin.  It is decency that was needed that day in that Senate hearing room.  Americans should demand today, as Joseph Welch did then, a sense of decency at long last.

Chuck Warnock pastors Chatham Baptist Church in Chatham, Virginia.  A graduate of Mercer University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and completing a DMin at Fuller Seminary, Chuck blogs at AmicusDei.com and Confessions of a Small-Church Pastor, and writes for other publications.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • cpd
    So is it now wrong to object to a Supreme Court nominee if she's a minority?

    I didn't hear Huckabee (calling her the wrong name was certainly stupid) but clearly he's objecting to her beliefs, not her background. Isn't that acceptable?
  • Not really, because what we're talking about is not the beliefs she holds but the ones he holds. And besides (as she pointed out), a difference in background will almost by definition color the way someone sees the very same law.
  • "color the way someone sees..."

    pun intended?
  • Certainly not.
  • Too bad. It was a good use.
  • Would that also apply to you?
  • ando
    I'm sure she'll get the same fair hearing from the Republicans that Clarence Thomas got from the Democrats (I'm not a Clarence Thomas fan; but one must also be impressed by his background.) Perhaps the two of them will provide a counter-balance on the court.
  • Very few people were impressed with Thomas' background, which was spent entirely in the conservative legal orbit; even he knows he is where he is only because of his connections. At the time the conservatives were desperate to get one of "theirs" on the court but learned their lesson with Bob Bork, who during his hearings exposed himself as a judicial activist -- and they also wanted someone who was black so that they would appear non-racist.
  • ando
    Spin away, bluedeacon. That's what you're good at.
  • You wish. Just because I bring up facts inconvenient to the conservative position doesn't mean I'm "spinning."
  • Nope, ando is right. You spin, dude. You ignore completely that it's your perspective that you propose as "facts."
  • Then prove me wrong. Truth be told, you can't -- because the cold, hard facts simply don't favor your position. (Why do you think that we journalists get labeled as "liberal"? We tell the truth and you just don't want to hear it -- and whose fault is that?)
  • I can't prove you wrong, because you are unwilling to believe that you could be wrong.
  • Show me the facts in context; otherwise, I have no reason to believe anything you say. On the other hand, I can prove from multiple or first-hand sources everything I say.
  • I called you "liberal" because you've called yourself that. You "spin" because that's in general what journalists do. I don't think that's a criticism. Journalism has become a perspectival approach to things. You report what you see, and how you interpret such observations. It's impossible to not "spin" something because you cannot get away from your own perspective.
  • I called you "liberal" because you've called yourself that.

    A lie -- in fact, I've often denied here that I'm a liberal (especially compared to the true liberals who frequent this blog).

    The key to journalism is to understand multiple perspectives, which we are all trained to do. That's why the majority of our college classes are in different disciplines, and that's also why we interview people from different perspectives. The problem comes when we run into people like yourself so committed to a certain viewpoint that if something that counteracts it appears in print it has to be "slanted" -- when it could be that you may simply not have all the facts that we do. (This is one reason why conservative publications, except for opinion pieces, never win journalism prizes -- their reporting is generally awful and/or irrelevant.)
  • You're right on the journalism piece. I'm glad you understand that. But as "one-sided" as I am, you don't seem much different, other than which side.
  • Again -- you don't have all the facts. Keep in mind that I don't support any specific ideology; I even subscribed to Sojourners magazine for a period in the 1980s but found it a little too liberal for my tastes when it came to certain issues and thus didn't renew it.

    Anyway, what I've consistently said about the history and MO of the modern conservative movement is provable from multiple sources; however, no such proof of corresponding liberal movement exists (if there were the conservatives themselves would tell you about it). You have chafed at my accusations of nefarious motives on the part of the political right; trouble is, there's way, way too much evidence.

    This is why when people complain that, say, Miguel Estrada and Clarence Thomas were not given their due as representing their race, so to speak, they're actually talking through their hats because they were nominated, as I said earlier, to look diverse when the conservatives who set them up in the first place want nothing to do with diversity. Several weeks ago a minister complained on Facebook about 95 percent of African-Americans voting for Obama in the last presidential election; I responded that, were he a conservative Republican, he wouldn't get anywhere near that amount of electoral support. (And he blasted me for bringing that up.)
  • He's a liberal journalist. What else would you expect?
  • I'm also a "born-again" Christian (though I never liked the term). So what?
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008