On the Contrary

The Republicans and their mouthpieces have anointed Judge Sotomayor a racist because of the following statement:

“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.” “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she elaborated, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging…. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”

Therefore these experts on racism, having been so adroit at exploiting it for years to attract and hold on to their base, claimed this was reverse discrimination where she would be biased in discrimination cases.  One of the faithful of the noise machine said, “How would you feel if you heard a white person say they would be a better judge because of his/her experience as a white person?  Wouldn’t you consider that racism?”

These guys are clever because their failures in logic are subtle.  Now I have no opinion one way or the other on Judge Sotomayor as yet, but I do see a smear campaign so typical of the Republican’s and their usual convoluted hidden racism.  For my part I would be quite happy with a justice who would be firm on a woman’s right to choose (there are inherent rights in the Constitution not necessarily innumerated), gay and lesbian rights (a real enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause), limiting executive power, and someone who would throw out the State Secrets defense.  But I am a progressive through and through and this defense of Judge Sotomayor has nothing to do with any of that. I don’t know where she stands on any of those issues to be quite frank.  But I believe in debating the facts based upon their merits, not submarining her in a cloaked racial attack.

First let’s take the obvious.  Judge Sotomayor says that her being a minority (Puerto Rican) raised in the projects gives her unique ability to understand underlying issues.  Republicans claim that this says she will be biased toward minorities in any issue that comes before the court.  If you follow this logic, what it says is that anyone who has experiences outside the mainstream of white America would be biased and therefore not qualified for the court.  Other minorities unless they have been lobotomized like Clarence Thomas, need not apply.  In other words and quite simply, if you don’t think like us, you need not apply.  The underlying subtext to their base is that their favored status may be at risk and we will protect your position in handing out rights.

The second failure in logic is to assume the law is not about justice.  They want someone on the court who will “follow the law”.  Now this is code for strict interpretation of the Constitution and activist judges need not apply.  As an example, strict interpretation of the Constitution means there is no implied right of a woman’s right to choose (it is not enumerated) and so kiss Roe versus Wade goodbye.  Activist judge means anyone who does not agree with their position.  There was probably no more an activist ruling than in Gore versus Bush back in 2000 when they made up law, but these fine Republicans had no problem with that one.  In other words the term is totally subjective in their minds.  For most of us the test is whether the ruling is based on sound legal reasoning.  But as always that is in the eye of the beholder.

More importantly, what most of us want are carefully crafted legal decisions that do not have unintended consequences that expand injustice.  Unlike the Republican’s claim that everything in the law is black and white, most laws require interpretation specific to a situation.  If your life experiences give you no insight into the consequences of your actions, how can you tell if your ruling is consistent with the law you are trying to interpret?  What we want in our Supreme Court is a wide spectrum of American experience so that the discussions and debate around a ruling are not performed in a vacuum of whites only experience.  We want rulings based upon the law applied to the real world.

But to really see the hypocrisy of the Republican attacks on Sonia Sotomayor is to realize that almost everything she has said has been uttered in one form or another by the Republican’s favored candidates from Clarence Thomas to Judge Alito.  But since it was said by someone who thinks like they do, it was not a cause for alarm.  If you ever wanted to have a full demonstration of a bankrupt morality all you have to do is watch these guys in action.  But the final glaring hypocrisy is that even though they detest the idea of Judge Sotomayor on the bench, their craven desire for power without principle will prevent them from filibustering her because they want to curry favor with Latinos.  They are a delightful bunch aren’t they?

One last comment:  In answer to the question, “How would you feel if you heard a white person say they would be a better judge because of her experience as a white person?  Wouldn’t you consider that racism?” Yes, I would because I would know that that experience is most likely born out of a favored position in our society.  But when a person, whether white or other hues of the rainbow, states the experiences that give them a special perspective on the problems of life, that is not racism.  It is wisdom born by experience.  They are two entirely different things.

I have been listening to the Republican allegations about Judge Sotomayor and it is truly repugnant.  No repugnant is not the right word, it is nuts.  Have the psychos taken over the Republican Party?  I listened  to Rush Limbaugh talk about President Obama and I thought to myself, has hate speech come into vogue?  No, I am serious.  Rush Limbaugh and some of the others are inciting to violence.  This is not entertainment.  This is encouraging the demented in our society to take up arms.

Even some Republicans have asked the mouths of Newt Gingrich and  Rush Limbaugh to tone it down.  They are realizing that these racist attacks could alienate one of the biggest voting blocks in the future, but I have no idea how Republican ideology could appeal to them anyway.  I guess what is so shocking to me is that the whole debate is one smear campaign.  Is that what the Republican Party has come to?  Instead of standing firm on their values, they just make outrageous claims about their opponent and hope the feeble minded voter buys into this slander?

I think we are seeing the bankruptcy of Republican ideas in these attacks.  I think what we are seeing is frantic behavior resulting from Republicans starting to realize that their ideas no longer have merit.  They are having a panic attack.  The debates on torture and closing Guantanamo are a case in point.  They have become shrill.  There is no more give and take, but rude interrupting and shouting.  I guess it is hard to continue the torture has value mantra as more and more evidence is mounting that it didn’t.  So out shout your adversary.  Get more frantic.  It reminds me of a discussion I had a while back where a very conservative, conservative explained to me that George Bush wasn’t a conservative, but a liberal.  They are grasping at straws and the straws they are grasping at are less and less rational.

The problem is our 24/7 news media who looks at these shouting matches as entertainment and that is how they cover them.  As Frank Rich pointed out in his column this morning (Who is to Blame for the Next Attack)  and I pointed out in my blog (We Moved On, But They Haven’t) the press is making the same mistake it made before 9/11 allowing false information to go unchallenged.  Dick Cheney’s speech last week is a case in point.  When one side is making outrageous statements, and the other is trying to be rational, the media should not be a neutral moderator of this discussion, but debunk the outrageousness instead of letting it be presented as fact.  If they keep this up, we are doomed as they repeat their errors of the post 9/11 reporting.

I think when you look at the details of some of the allegations that are being made, you really start to see the irrational emotionalism of the Republicans.  Pat Buchannan, who MSNBC keeps giving a microphone to, has attacked Judge Sotomayor about the reverse discrimination suit involving white fire fighters.  Is his emotionalism he missed the whole point of the case, which was that throwing out the test as being unfair because no black firefighters had passed it was not a question of fairness. It was a question of whether throwing out the test was legal  Had she ruled as he felt she should, she would have had to ignore current law and precedent, and in fact, be an activist judge.  For a Republican there is no definition anymore of activist judge except one that doesn’t agree with them.

What we are finding is that Republicans have no argument on the issues based upon the facts because more and more, the facts are not supporting their arguments.  So they are turning to fear and wild emotional appeals not based upon a rational considerations of the actual reality.  Their mantra of small government, low taxes, and faith in the market place with minimal regulation has failed miserably.  That doesn’t mean there isn’t merit in these ideas, but they need to evolve to meet the reality we find ourselves in.  In order to do this, they must jettison their base because it is what mires them in their intransigence.  Right now the Republican’s base are the irrational psychos that need to be marginalized.  Said another way, If the Republican Party is going to be rejuvenated and become a big tent organization, then this base will have to be jettisoned. They are going to have to accept some moderation that their base will never stand for.  Until they are up to this task, we will continue to see the kinds of irrational and emotional attacks and wild claims instead of reasoned and thoughtful debate about our problems.  As long as the 24/7 cable media continues to feed on this circus, we are all done a great disservice and if we fall for it, we are doomed.