Court could use a “wise Latina woman”

Some social conservatives can’t stop complaining about how Judge Sonia Sotomayor is unsuitable for the U.S. Supreme Court because she had the audacity to point out that different perspectives, life experiences and identities can lead to different judicial opinions.

In 2001, Sotomayor gave a speech in which she said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.” She compared the judicial opinions of a “wise Latina woman” to those of a white male judge.

And for that, the conservatives call her a racist, a bigot and someone who puts identity politics above the law.

Enough with the handwringing already. Of course, a different point of view can lead to a difference of legal opinion. That’s so much of a no-brainer that even those with no brain should be able to understand it. After all, how else do you explain judges coming to completely opposing conclusions regarding the same case?

Take the recent California Supreme Court decision regarding marriage equality for same-sex couples. Six of the seven judges ruled that gays and lesbians would still get “equal treatment under the law” even after the word “marriage” was taken away from them.

Most gay Americans, however, understand that this is completely wrong. You are not equal under the law unless you are treated equally by the law. Taking away the word marriage – and all that the word confers – results in a clear inequality under the law.

And creating a parallel system of civil unions or domestic partnerships – “separate but equal” arrangements – is not “equal treatment under the law,” either. Many African Americans – as well as other minorities who have suffered unfair discrimination – understand this.

But many straight white men – people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh – don’t get it, because they haven’t had the life experiences that allow them to understand it.

This is one of the reasons why we need more diversity – and more “empathy,” as President Obama put it – on the bench.

But the Limbaughs and Gingriches of the world hold onto this idea that all judges have to do is apply the law, without any interpretation. Either they are arguing this because it sounds good and they score political points with the hard right, or they don’t see most of the interpretation that goes on because they agree with it. After all, the grand majority of the federal bench is made up of straight white men.

Only two women have served on the U.S. Supreme Court so far. Only two African Americans. No Latinos. None have been openly gay.

Does being a Latina woman alone qualify Sotomayor for the Supreme Court? Absolutely not. But if she is indeed qualified based on the requirements that count for such things, being a Latina woman can only help.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Conservative commentator Mark Krikorian

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Mark Krikorian, head of the Center of Immigration Studies and the man who argues that Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee isn’t qualified because she pronounces her name in an un-American way.

Ever since Obama chose Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, the fringe of the Republican Party has gone nuts.

Talk-show blowhard Rush Limbaugh called her a racist and compared her to a former head of the Ku Klux Klan.

Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo – who once famously called Miami a third-world country because of the number of Latinos in the city – called her a radical.

And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote on Twitter: “Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism. White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

But perhaps the strangest and most offensive attack came from Mark Krikorian, whose anti-immigration views are often showcased in the National Review and the magazine’s online feature, “The Corner.”

This past week, Krikorian wrote that Sotomayor was not qualified to sit on the highest court in the nation because of how she pronounces her last name.

You see, she pronounces it the way it is in her native Puerto Rico – with the accent on the last syllable (so-toe-my-OR), instead of the first syllable (SO-toe-my-er). In fact, Krikorian calls hers the “unnatural pronunciation,” because that’s not how he would say it in English.

“This may seem like carping, but it's not,” wrote Krikorian. “… Conformity is appropriate [in] how your new countrymen say your name, since that's not something the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch. And there are basically two options – the newcomer adapts to us, or we adapt to him. And multiculturalism means there's a lot more of the latter going on than there should be.” (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkwYzY3ZTc4NTkwZjRiMjM3OGVlMzlmNTZjYmY2ZDI=)

So there ya go. In Krikorian’s us vs. them world, Sotomayor shouldn’t be confirmed because the way she pronounces her name doesn’t conform to his language standards.

But really, this has nothing to do with the Supreme Court, and everything to do with xenophobic fearmongering. He even makes a point to say that English is superior to Spanish because “English dropped gender in nouns, what, 1,000 years ago?”

The most ironic part of Krikorian’s blather is that he’s trying to make a subliminal link between Sotomayor and the whole issue of illegal immigration. But Sotomayor is from Puerto Rico – which has been part of the U.S. since 1898.

Sotomayor is NOT a foreigner. And Puerto Rican culture has been part of American culture for 100 years!

If Krikorian’s attack is really among the best that conservatives can come up with, then the Republican Party is even worse off than we thought.

Misoverestimating Obama

As I write this, I’m watching Barack and Michelle Obama dance at another inaugural ball. But frankly, I don’t care about the pomp and circumstance of this historic inauguration day. I don’t care about what dress Michelle is wearing. And I don’t care about which marching bands took part in the parade.

What I care about is the day after, the day now-President Obama begins the hard task of fixing all that the George W. Bush administration broke over the last 8 years.

Obama told us we have to have hope, and I hope he can live up to the hype. But I also fear that people’s expectations have been set so high that he cannot possibly meet them. To turn a phrase first used by Bush, I’m afraid we may be misoverestimating Obama.

Obama talks of change – and certainly, being America’s first African-American president brings change. But there is much that will not change. For example, like Bush, he easily laces politics with religion. In fact, Obama has talked of continuing Dubya’s faith-based initiatives. He even cited scripture in his inauguration speech.

Obama talks about dealing with the wars, and many are expecting him to keep his promise of withdrawing troops from Iraq in just over a year. Is that even possible without Iraq falling apart? And I continue to be surprised at how many people don’t know that Obama pledged to INCREASE the troop presence in Afghanistan.

Much has been made of Obama being the fulfillment of Martin Luther King’s “dream.” But aside from racial equality, King preached an anti-war message of peace. Increased fighting in Afghanistan will not be a fulfillment of that part of King’s dream.

In his inauguration speech, Obama talked of America’s “God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.” Setting aside his statement that such a promise comes from God and not the laws of the land, if he really believes that all are equal, why does he still support inequality when it comes to marriage rights for same-sex couples? Too many gay and lesbian Americans have been too easily pacified by Obama’s glowing oratory, without really pushing Obama on this issue. Yes, Obama supports “civil unions,” and that is presidential progress, to be sure. But real change would be having a president who really means “that all are equal.” As the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled about racial segregation, “separate but equal” is not really equal. (The Los Angeles Times gets it right in its editorial, “Obama’s gay-marriage waffle,” at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-warren21-2009jan21,0,1786860.story.)

The new Obama administration has a full plate – war, recession, and a damaged international reputation, just to name a few menu items. And Obama will need all the help that he can get. Right now, the best thing we can do is to stop deifying Obama, recognize that he is a vast improvement over Bush but still far from perfect, and set realistic expectations for president #44. If we don’t cool our collective jets, we will only end up even more disappointed and disillusioned than we were before.