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.

Categories: Faith and Politics, Gender, Race

JOHN_FROM_HORSHAM

Thanks for writing. I simply cannot comprehend under any BIblical
system of justice that the color of one's skin should matter.
The facts in the New Haven case are clear. The reason even four
justices supported the decision while not the argument is that they
are strictly political - right down the line without exception. Have you
ever heard Stephen Breyer? Amazing. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
admits abortion was intended to reduce "undesirables". I have
been married inter-racially for thirty five years, and trust me,
rhetoric aside, there is racism on the left and the right. The
hypocrisy of the left is more galling, because they claim to know
better, while those of the right often try to understand and admit
they are learning. Actually, the policies being favored now by the
left are hurting minorities more than anyone and it is a shame.
That is why more minority journalists have turned on the paternalism
and want even-handedness. I remember in the ellite college I
attended the Black engineering student in the dorm room next to
mine whom too many people thought was there while not being
deserving of it. He was extremely smart and was admitted based
upon his intellect and achievements. It is demeaning to assume
Black people can't make it without white largesse. My wife aced
statistics at Michigan State, and that was BEFORE affirmative action.
You destroy a person by making them second class, and that is what
affirmative action does. Jesus' parables in the Bible bases progress
on the wisdom and entrepreneurial skills of those he mentioned.
If we are going to be Chrisitian, it must supercede any political
agenda. Look at Black economic progress - it was great during
Ike and Reagan, but slipped when the government convinced
minorities that they cannot make it on their own. The best
message in New Haven would have been to promote the achievers
and have those who didn't make it study harder for the next one.
That's the way lifeis for others. Anything else is partiality which
the Bible condemns and which is the source of so much unneeded
friction in our nation.

letjusticerolldown

I apologize. I had not read the article. I responded from community page in which I can't see original articles. I thought it was a different article that I had read. Hence my question about "electrified." Thanks for clarification.
I just think it quite unfair to characterize the Second Circuit's unanimous decision as based on something other than the law and precedent they had to act on. The Supreme Court dissenting opinion acknowledged that to be the case. We have to assess the decisions based on the question/issue being presented to them--and the parameters within which each court operates.

One thing I think Christian's really need to bring to public discourse is a capacity to turn down the dial on the smoke and mirrors that gets played far too much in politics and public discourse. Sometimes we act like there is nothing significant or substantive to discuss, explore, learn about together, debate, etc.---and we sign on to political propoganda or 'search and destroy' missions.

JOHN_FROM_HORSHAM

It was said in the ARTICLE that the Latino COmmunity was electrified by the
annoncement.
Sotomayor's court decision was made simply on the basis of race. The test
had been carefully
crafted, but only White an Latino persons scored high enough to merit
consideration for
promotion. Lastly, the Supreme court voted 9-0 to reject the ARGUMENT
Sotomayor
offered, which was a pitiful and political one at that, and then 5-4 to
overturn the decision itself. Her reasoning
ability and fairness is what was rejected 9-0, and that is the basis for
appointing such
a person.

letjusticerolldown

What community are you talking about being electrified?

You may or may not agree with the legal decision in the firefighter case--but I think it a pretty hard case to characterize the court decision as racist. Since you identified it as such I think it fair to ask you to explain why.

Would you also explain why you identify a 5-4 decision as a 9-0 deicision?

What do you mean she is "hard left?"

What in scripture talks about partial persons selling their souls??

What is the Alinsky plen and how does it relate to the Sotoamyer?

JOHN_FROM_HORSHAM

Why should a community be "electrified" about a woman with a poor judicial temperment whose racist opinion in Connecticut was rejected 9-0 by the Supreme Court she was nominated for? She is hard left and the GOP treated her with great deference. She admitted she was partial, and the BIble says a partial person will sell their soul. Obama selected her because he is that way, and proven it by taking sides in the Cambridge situation because he believes in politically correct outcomes,NOT impartial justice. It is all part of the Alinsky plan.

mscynthia

If you really wanted to be fair about the entire process:

We should fire all the men on the supreme court and appoint only women for the next 250 years.

In the mean time 50% of the rest of us will try to be broad minded about the entire process and forgive all of you for the past.

95% of minorities in America are culturally very conservative people and they voted in mass for a Cultural Conservative in spite of the fact that he is liberally an intellectual.

Your Honorable Ms. Cynthia

judithod

Agreed. She deserves respect. She also deserves a complete vetting, just as that undergone by other prospective justices.

ando

xfree, not much.

naekwon

I really am not sure how conservatives can criticize her. Their only real criticism that has caught any traction is the fact that she is Hispanic. What!? Why has that caught traction amongst the moral majority should be the real question. The NY Times had an article the other day on her pro-life stance (which has made NARAL quiver), while the Wall Street Journal has touted her as an ally (Mr. Merdoch meet Miss Sotomayor). She was a corporate lawyer, on the bench for 17 years with better qualifications than any current justice when appointed to the supreme court. The fact that conservatives are so enraged about her nomination is more evidence that the Republican Party was and still is using the wedge issue of abortion to dupe well meaning Christians into voting for their candidate.

BlueDeacon

Nonsense -- because, as I said before, many of those same groups will compromise because they can be convinced that "he (or in this case, she) will be the best we can get." Pro-choice groups are already freaking out about a minor decision Sotomayor made concerning abortion regulation but eventually will say, given the circumstances, "Well, at least John McCain isn't making the choice." Contrast that with Bush's pick of Harriet Miers, who was sunk by conservative activists precisely because she didn't come across as sufficiently conservative (her lack of legal acumen notwithstanding).

Eric77

There are numerous liberal interests groups that are in lock-step on Democrat appointees to the courts. Where's the dissenting group? Who is opposed? They might not all agree on what issues are most important, but they all agree they will support the nominee. And why is this? Because every nominee put forward by the Democrats has subscribed to the "liberal" ideology of all these groups. There's no way a nominee who is hostile to any one of a number of key liberal constituencies such as abortion rights, gay rights, unions, environmental issues, affirmative action, etc would ever be nominated to the supreme court. These might be disparate interests, but it's all one political ideology - contemporary American liberalism.

BlueDeacon

The trouble with that statement is that you don't have numerous groups that march in lock-step on the "liberal" side, no central authority/agency that determines policy, limited propaganda arms, etc. etc. (If anything, the liberals are amenable to compromise while the conservatives are not -- which is where the problems come because the liberals simply don't want to be run over anymore.)

Eric77

You touch upon an important point here when you mention your experiences with Mexican immigrants. Many people like to say they celebrate and encourage cultural diversity. But if this were really the case these same people wouldn't try to lump all people who come from South and Central American decent into the group labaled "Hispanics" as if it's one monolithic culture. The only real similarity is a common language and a somewhat similar skin pigmentation. There's tremendous diversity among different nationalities and cultures yet they aren't celebrated by the national race groups - they all get lumped together most of the time. Why? Because it's about obtaining and wielding political power (or profit, as in the case of Latina magazine). You can't do that if Hondurans, Costa Ricans and Peruvians all think of themselves as different than each other. It's really not about celebrating diversity; it's about political power. If it was about diversity and preserving culture differences these groups would be trying to highlight the differences all the time rather than trying to meld them together.

I know, this is a little off topic.

Eric77

That's a ridiculous argument. Of course "conservatives" don't believe in ideological diversity when it comes to nominating people to serve on our courts. Liberals don't believe in it either. No one is going to support someone for the Supreme Court that doesn't share their ideology. This isn't a slight against conservatives.

Eric77

First, I'm not sure what court he was being nominated for matters. All nominees deserve respect. Why should this matter in your mind?

Second, you're wrong about the cloture vote. No Republicans, "conservative" or otherwise, voted against cloture. 43 Democrats and 1 Independent were enough to deny Estrada an up or down vote. 51 Republicans voted to end the filibuster and they were joined by 4 Democrats.

Third, there is a long precedent of not releasing confidential memos from when nominees worked at DOJ and there are good reasons for this. This is why every living former Solicitor General from both parties opposed release of confidential memos by people who worked under them and they signed a letter telling the Democrats this is not wise policy at the time.

Again, I don't remember any calls for respect from those on the left during Estrada's nomination proceeding.

Eric77

Thanks, I'll check it out.

BlueDeacon

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.)

BlueDeacon

Would that also apply to you?

xfree9

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.

BlueDeacon

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.)