Covering for Sotomayor, and other outrages.
The debate over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court raises a much broader question: Why can’t any opinion leaders or office-holders on the Left show even a shred of intellectual integrity?
Remember when so many opinion leaders on the right pushed away their onetime hero, Trent Lott, when he said stupid things about Strom Thurmond’s segregationist days? Where, oh where, is the similar intellectual courage or consistency on the left?
The Sotomayor nomination is a perfect example. By itself, her infamous speech making the case for the greater wisdom of Latinas based on “physiological” differences ought to have been immediately disqualifying, no further questions needed, for any Supreme Court nominee. As Jennifer Rubin, Rich Lowry, and Steve Chapman (among many, many others) have noted, the whole speech in context was so much worse than the one, oft-quoted line about a “wise Latina woman” that there is no excuse, no justification, that could make it acceptable for a Supreme Court justice.
Many others have said that if a white male had said all those same things but changed the relevant subjects to “white males” instead of “wise Latinas,” his nomination wouldn’t last two seconds. Actually, that is understating the case.
If a Hispanic woman who had been nominated by a conservative Republican had said those exact same things without changing a single word, her nomination would be a goner.
Senators Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy would be up in arms. Joe Biden would be so apoplectic that he would be furiously googling for somebody else’s language that would be adequate enough to express his outrage. And Dick Durbin’s staff would be sending memos explaining that this language proves that the nominee is particularly “dangerous” “because she is Latina.” (Oh, right: That latter incident actually already happened, except with a man, Miguel Estrada, rather than a woman — and without Estrada having said or written anything outlandish.)
Quite literally, those arguments about “physiological or cultural differences” are the province of the David Dukes of the world. (From a Duke “letter” on his website, 3/10/2007: “Who can deny the differences in appearance, character, and physiology between dog breeds that can vary as much as the Maltese and the Great Dane? Is the obvious difference between dog breeds just a societal construct, a myth created by dog breeders? Are we so blinded by egalitarian dogma that we can’t see the obvious differences in human races and their expressions in culture?”)
But that Sotomayor speech is just the start of the reasons why, by any objective standards of right, center, or left, Judge Sotomayor’s nomination should be pulled. First, the infamous speech wasn’t a momentary lapse: She repeated the same thoughts, including most of the obnoxious reasoning behind it, in at least six other speeches. Likewise, she has repeated, and broadened and tried to provide intellectual support for, her outrageous quip about how the appeals courts “make policy.”
There is no rational way to excuse these sorts of oft-expressed statements — including Judge Sotomayor’s outright denunciation of “impartiality” as a reasonable standard — from a judge sworn to administer the law “without respect to persons, [with] equal right to the poor and to the rich… faithfully and impartially….”
These complaints about Sotomayor are not matters of partisanship or (except at the extremes) political ideology. They involve basic standards of judging.
They do not even broach the controversies about Sotomayor’s willful disregard for certain Supreme Court precedents, her support for extreme legal positions against the rights to private property, against firearm possession, against equal opportunity for white males, or against the authority of local majorities to restrict late-term abortions or abortions for minors or against their authority to keep currently imprisoned felons from voting — all of which have been detailed in recent Washington Times editorials and elsewhere. Wrongheaded as some of those decisions may be, they at least fall (perhaps, arguably) within the outer realms (barely) of accepted legal interpretation.
But her repeated discourses on ethnic wisdom are beyond the pale.
Yet where is E.J. Dionne to acknowledge the patently obvious fact that her multiple speeches are disqualifying? Where is Maureen Dowd? Where is the Los Angeles Times editorial page? Where is Jack Cafferty? Where are the editors of the New Republic? Where are Senators Dorgan and Reed and Hagan or Reps. Shuler or Bright or even Hoyer?
How do they even live with themselves if they won’t criticize that which is unambiguously indefensible?
But the Sotomayor nomination is just Item One on a list of matters that no knowledgeable, intellectually honest American should be able to countenance, but which nevertheless receive no condemnation, or even (in most cases) mild criticism, from leaders on the left or center-left. (The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen at least had the courage, before Sotomayor was nominated, to note her problematic-but-not-disqualifying deficiencies in temperament, but even he backed off once she was nominated.)
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online