They say it takes one to know one. If so, maybe we should listen to Sherrilyn Ifill on Sonia Sotomayor’s racist (or not) status. Ifill wants us to believe her. Really, she does. Here are shorts from Ifill’s piece published today at CNN (with my emphasis and commentary):
[T]he “R” word has become the taboo of the white world. By this I mean that calling someone racist is a taboo, not racism itself.
Are we to understand that Ifill believes that racism (and its concomitant refusal to utter the “R” word) is a malady of all whites — “the white world”? Do I smell stereotyping??
Judge Sotomayor’s speech is, in fact, an excellent meditation on how the experiences of judges might affect how they approach aspects of judicial decision-making. It explores the important, and too-little examined reality that judicial deliberations can be affected by a judge’s background, perspective and experience.
Sotomayor’s speech doesn’t feature the phrase “might affect”. It comes across as more of an enthusiastic “does affect and I’m delighted.” Sotomayor’s entire thesis is that Hispanic and Black women — because of their “richness of experience” — are better at judging than white men and, therefore, more of them should be judges.
In the next sentence immediately following the passage above, Judge Sotomayor says, “Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.”
Could she have been referring to Buck v. Bell, the 1927 case in which Justice Holmes — widely regarded as perhaps the most brilliant justice in the Supreme Court’s history — upheld the state’s plan to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old white woman, who was accused of being congenitally retarded. Buck’s main crime seems to have been the fact that she’d had a child out of wedlock.
In any case, Justice Holmes upheld the sterilization order, emphatically and coldly stating, “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” Does anyone seriously believe that a woman, and especially a woman of color “with the richness of her experiences” would not have “reach[ed] a better conclusion ” than that adopted by Justice Holmes in 1927?
OK, enough for now. This is an astonishingly shallow stereotype coming from a woman of color presumably far more capable than this “middle-aged white male” of “reaching better conclusions.”
Does anyone seriously believe that no “women of color” anywhere in the world (say, for example, Somalia or Kenya — where thousands if not millions of “women of color” acquiesce in the genital mutilation of their daughters every year) with all of their “richness of experience,” would not have reached an equally or even more disturbing conclusion than J. Holmes?
In fact Buck v. Bell is the perfect example of how a “wise old [white] man” got it wrong in a way that a woman judge or a racial minority most likely would not. . .
What Gingrich and others decry in Judge Sotomayor should be applauded. Judge Sotomayor has the humility to recognize the difficulty of achieving true and pure impartiality. . .
Sotomayor apparently finds racial prejudice appropriate in some circumstances. So too does Ifill, rather obviously. “Difficulty” isn’t the issue.
Unlike so many judges who by virtue of being white and male simply assume their impartiality, Judge Sotomayor recognizes that all judges are affected by their background and their life experiences. . .
If this isn’t the pot calling the kettle “black,” I don’t know what is. Another great piece of racial stereotyping by civil rights expert Professor Ifill.
These are the realities of judicial decision-making evoked by Judge Sotomayor’s speech. It’s perhaps easier to say as [then-Supreme Court nominee] Clarence Thomas so famously did, that a judge can simply, “strip down like a runner,” and become utterly impartial simply by putting on a black robe. But it is more honest to acknowledge that regardless of race, gender, ideology or professional background, impartiality is always a work-in-progress for judges. . .
But can’t we acknowledge the difficulty without celebrating and embracing it as a societal virtue?
Justice Thomas is the perfect example of how hard it can be for a judge to lay aside the personal experiences that shape his worldview. His views about the affirmative action cases that come before him are shaped quite clearly by what he regards as the self-sufficient dignity of his hard-working grandfather and the humiliation he says he felt when others believed his scholarly accomplishments were the result of affirmative action.
White judges are also shaped by their background and experiences. They needn’t ever speak of it, simply because their whiteness and gender insulates them from the presumption of partiality and bias that is regularly attached to women judges and judges of color . . .
Ifill couldn’t walk away without taking a stab at Justice Thomas. And the racial malice fairly drips from Ifill’s pen – “their whitness and gender . . .” This is heady stuff. It paints Ifill into a gaudy, racist-sexist corner.
Only a judge who is conscious and fully engaged with the reality of how her experiences may bear on her approach to the facts of a case, or sense of social justice, or vision of constitutional interpretation, should be entrusted to sit on the most influential and powerful court in our nation. . .
And since males are by standard English usage not “hers,” they manifestly fail Ifill’s test for judicial suitability.
Judge Sotomayor’s speech is one of the most honest and compelling statements about judicial impartiality we’re likely to hear from a judge of her stature. . .
It’s entirely appropriate to question Judge Sotomayor about this speech at her confirmation hearings. She is evidently more than capable of explaining in compelling, clear language what precisely she wanted to convey in this speech. But Judge Sotomayor is not a racist.
You bet it’s appropriate. Whether she is one . . . well, that all depends on how we define the word. Too bad Ifill didn’t try. But then maybe she knew what would happen if she did.
It is an insult of unimaginable proportion to unleash this charge on her, based on one sentence from her Berkeley, California, speech. It is not just irresponsible to make this charge against a sitting federal appeals court judge based on this flimsy record; it is — and here I’ll break the taboo — racist to do so.
Hmm. Who nominated Sotomayor, first, as a federal district court judge and, second, to the Court of Appeals? Could they have been two older, white, southern males? And how many white males in the U.S. Senate voted to confirm her nominations? Maybe there’s something to that “whiteness and gender” thing, after all. Maybe it does lead to bad decisions.
Look for Ifill in a future Senate Judiciary hearing. Her piece is at CNN.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Why do you call Ifill a racist?
Ifill uses words that convey disdain and antagonism toward whites and men while endorsing the idea that caucasians (whom she dismissively labels “whites”) all share certain (apparently negative) non-skin color characteristics because of their racial background.
Example: “Because of their whiteness and sex . . . ,” as if all white males share whatever characteristic because they are white and male.”
If we define “racist” as one who endorses or practices “racism” — which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “1. the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races” — then Ifill and Sotomayor (who thinks “wise Latinas” make better judges than white men) are both racists.
Applying your approach to and understanding of what it means to be a racist, then this comment certainly seems to be a racist comment:
“Hispanic polls, Hispanic surveys, indicate that Hispanics think just like everyone else. We’re not like African-Americans. We think just like everybody else. …”
Maybe. The most important question in the context of a Supreme Court nominee isn’t whether she “is” racist or sexist. I think it’s pretty clear that Sotomayor is both. The question is whether she can and will actively neutralize her racism and sexism in deciding cases. If her 2001 Berkeley speech reflects her actual attitudes and beliefs, I think the answer is “No, Sotomayor is neither willing nor capable.”
Kurt, why don’t you look to her performance as a Judge, rather than to an 8 year old speech, to guage her performance as a judge? Doesn’t that make more sense? You can find good research and analysis of her performance at the Scotusblog.
When you are considering whether someone nominated to the U. S. Supreme Court is a worthy pick, yes, you go back to every speech, every written record of their positions on issues. Eight, ten or twenty years back.
It intrigues me no end to recall the aggressive and vicious scrutiny given to Bork, Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, considered justified by their liberal opponents — but somehow, we are to take Sotomayor as qualified because Obama says so, and disregard her unapologetically racist views and her decision against the Caucasian firefighters — which plainly confirmed her racism.
Potential members of that court will be there the rest of their lives, with no chance of removal if they are duds. We had better look carefully.
If Sotomayor regrets her racist remarks, she has had plenty of time to say so.
Isn’t it funny that dingy harry says he has never read one of her opinions and doesn’t intend to read any of them. I guess that’s what we get.
Just a funny aside, in one of my husband’s classes – end of the semester – senior business law class, one of the girls raised her hand and said, ” you’ve been really unfair to us.” He said, “ok tell me why.” Her response was, ” if it’s just their opinion, then why isn’t my opinion just as good as their’s?” OK, so now he calls it their decisions.
(‘<
//)
“”"
Actually, the opinions of the judges are individual positions, while the decisions are by the majority group, speaking to the actual issues before the court.
While it is amusing — and amazing — to see a college student who doesn’t understand the difference between a judge’s opinion and her own, maybe there is more to this student comment than meets the eye. Maybe she DID have a point: if Judge Sotomayor is just going on her “own opinion” as “a wise old Latina,” instead of arriving at opinions based on the Constitution, her opinion is indeed no better than anyone else’s.
Well, April, you almost got it right.
Put it this way to get it right:
” if Judge Sotomayor is just going on her “own opinion” as “a wise old Latina,” instead of arriving at opinions based on the facts of the case, relevant statutes, administrative rulings, prior ruling case law (stare decises), relevant treaties, and the Constitution, her opinion is indeed no better than anyone else’s.”
Have you any indication AT ALL that Judge Sotomayor has “gone” on her own opinion during her judicial career (that is, since being appointed to the federal bench by President Bush)? If you do, please share it with us.
How many of her rulings have been overturned?
Gram, why don’t you go to
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
and find out? Great reading.
Just give me the heading that says: Reversals. I spend enough time on the internet reading.
How do you like the reason they fired Walpin?
What a putz obama is!
Your degree of curiosity is a wonder to behold.
Thanks, I think you’re great too.
Just saw Walpin on Beck. Intelligent patriot.
Too bad chicago thugery rules!
Have you been invited to acorn’s dinner tonight?
No, I have not. That only nuts I associate with are on this blog’s comment section.
I wear the title proudly.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/17/sweet-glenn-beck-gives-gerald-walpin-a-senility-test/
A good read if anyone is interested, specially the comment section.
Beck does a great job in his interview. Good for him going after acorn. Good for him taking up Walpin’s cause. I hope he watches his back. Chicago politics is the most corrupt and always has been.
Sotomayor has a long and consistent history of promoting the bigotry euphemistically known as “affirmative action,” going back well before she was even a college grad, much less a judge. She has made her own opinion and her own racial profile her standard, not the Constitution.
I suggest you do a little reading up of your own on Sotomayor, Doran. There are lots of good sources available. Here is a place to start: The Sotomayor Case File, in Human Events, p. 3, June 8, 09, which summarizes seven cases ruled on by Judge Sotomayor and later reviewed by the Supreme Court. Four of these decisions were reversed, while two were upheld. One is still pending, which is the Ricci v. DeStefano case, the much-discussed firefighters’ case. No need to discuss that further here.
But along with the “wise Latina” quote she has given us a number of others that make quite clear how her personal views will indeed be given free reign on the bench. Here is one: “I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” This is from a speech in 2001 in Berkeley, CA.
Another quote, apparently from the same speech: “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
Well, Sotomayor is, anyway; how interesting to read her words acknowledging exactly that. But no white male nominee could make that admission and get away with it.
Most Constitutionally-oriented justices do their best to be impartial, adhering as closely to the Constitution as the facts of a given case allow. They do not throw the objective of impartiality overboard as a mere “aspiration.”
April. If your analysis is accurate, then the Republican President who appointed Judge Sotomayor to the federal bench, as well as the many, many Republicans who now either support her appointment to the SCOTUS or do not oppose it, are blind, dithering, intellectual cripples who just do not enjoy your ability to see things so clearly.
Yeah. Sure.
Can you understand the cramped and convoluted logic of your final paragraph above? “Most Constitutionally-oriented justices do their best to be impartial….” What is that but an example of “aspiration?” They try to be impartial. They aspire to be impartial. Impartiality is their objective. They are, in your opinion, constitutionally-oriented. Sotomayor says she trys to be impartial. It is her objective. But her honesty on this, in your opinion, makes her someone who throws that objective overboard. Jeez, girl, at least get your thinking cap on straight.
April, chew on this for a while. It is from gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com. [I'm having some trouble formatting this to clarify who is "speaking." The first three paragraphs and the final paragraph are written by Scott Henson at grits for breakfast. The paragraphs in between are written by Jeffrey Deskovic. You can see the entire post at the gritsforbreakfast site.]
A number of readers have asked my views on last week’s Supreme Court decision in the Osborne case out of Alaska where a slim, 5-4 majority ruled there is no constitutional right to postconviction DNA testing.
******
Elsewhere, though, for the most part prosecutors react defensively to requests for DNA testing because it implies their office might have got it wrong. IMO this prosecutorial impulse to vigorously oppose post-conviction DNA testing is misguided and runs counter not only to the interests of justice but the DAs’ and judges’ political interests. It opens them up for legitimate criticisms they cannot counter if someone they denied DNA testing to someone who was later proved to be innocent. In such situations, “I’m sorry” really doesn’t cut it as a response.
Which brings us to our case study of the day on how denying post-conviction DNA testing can come back to haunt you. Go read this excellent piece from Politico by Jeffrey Deskovic, an innocent man falsely convicted of murder and rape at age 17 who was denied DNA testing by Judge Sonia Sotomayor during his habeas appeal. He spent six extra years in prison because of her decision, all for a crime DNA later proved he didn’t commit. The headline of Deskovic’s piece: “Sonia Sotomayor’s ‘empathy’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.” The whole article is worth a read, but these are the main conclusions he draws:
Despite Sotomayor’s rhetoric, her ruling in my case showed a callous disregard for the real-life implications of her rulings. She opted for procedure over fairness and finality of conviction over accuracy. Many of the victims of wrongful convictions serving long sentences had exhausted their appeals long before they were exonerated. In how many of those cases did Sotomayor vote to refuse to even consider evidence of innocence?
My case is far from unique in an age when the reality of wrongful convictions is well-established. We face the prospect that Troy Davis, an innocent man on death row in Georgia, faces imminent execution, absent intervention by the high court or by President Barack Obama.
I would like an opportunity to testify at Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings to let the senators — and the country — know that we need a Supreme Court justice who understands the problem of wrongful convictions and is ready to correct them where the facts deem it necessary. Procedure should never be used as an excuse to override justice. The state must not be permitted to take away an individual’s liberty and later argue that his or her actual innocence is no longer relevant. Truth-seeking is central to our understanding of justice.
In my case, Judge Sotomayor did not demonstrate that understanding. If that is her idea of “empathy,” a trait that Obama sought in his appointee, then God help us all, especially those who are wrongfully convicted and possibly sentenced to death. Innocence can never be ruled as out of order in court.
Judge Souter, who Sotomayor will replace, held that there is not a constitutional right to DNA testing, which judging by her ruling in Deskovic’s case appears to also be her position.
Funny, no one is commenting on the reversal in the Ricci case!
Gram, that could be because Kurt hasn’t posted on that topic.
I understand, but Doran has.
Hey, Gram. Did you get the news yet? Frank Ricci was originally hired as a fireman after he filed a discrimination suit, claiming he had been discriminated against.
You can read all about it at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com.
Here is a snip from the TPM story:
“If you were Frank Ricci, you might say something like, “Frank Ricci got a job and somebody who wasn’t dyslexic didn’t.” Remember, this is the same Frank Ricci who took his reverse discrimination suit all the way to the Supreme Court, where lower court rulings against him–including one by Sotomayor’s Second Circuit–were overturned.
“Ricci will testify against Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week–this despite the fact that his views on jurisprudence seem to begin and end with the proposition that legal protections against discrimination are great when they work in his favor, and unconscionable when they don’t. ”
Have a nice weekend, Gram.
Mr. Schulze,
So glad to have stumbled across your article/commentary. Very interesting reading. Am particularly impressed by your intellectual dishonesty and distortions. Your point of view is your own to which you are entitled, so why do you need to distort? Doing that may appeal to the less intelligent and more impressionable, but it is not appropriate or honest discourse.
Could it be that you are so devoid of sound judgement or is it that you really know that you are wrong but so need to hit out – especially at people of colour – that any lie or distortion on which you can conveniently hang your garbage is fine?
Do try to make your arguments more truthful and intelligent in the future.