-
Eliminating Obsolete Law
February 10, 2012 | 3 comments
-
Morton Blackwell's Kind Words for Santorum
February 8, 2012 | 41 comments
-
President Santorum
February 8, 2012 | 68 comments
-
Now Can I Get an Acknowledgement That Supporting Santorum Wasn't Meant to Help Romney
February 7, 2012 | 34 comments
-
Peace Pipe with Jeffrey Lord
February 7, 2012 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Over the past three years I've come to admire the Washington Post editorial page as the voice of the sane center-left, definitely not agreeing with it most of the time but still recognizing its sober tone, its attempt to be fairminded and constructive. That's why today's editorial on Sonia Sotomayor is so disappointing. It is, in a word, pitiful. Its first paragraph reads as follows: "At 3:15 P.M. Thursday, Aug. 6, the nation witnessed the confirmation of its first Hispanic justice to the Supreme Court. By a vote of 68 to 31, Sonia Maria Sotomayor, daughter of the Bronx and Puerto Rico, became the 111th person and only the third woman to join the highest court in the land." This is nearly vomit-inducing. When can we, finally, please, please get beyond this identity politcics? The fact that she is Hispanic, and from the Bronx, and by heritage (not herself) from Puerto Rico, is utterly, completely irrelevant to ANYthing having to do with her qualifications for the court. The Post is playing ethnic identity politics in making that their lead.
Then there is this: "The moment will be remembered above all as a triumph for Justice Sotomayor, who refused to let financially humble beginnings define or restrict her in any way." Funny: Did the Post emphasize the humble beginnings of Clarence Thomas, and celebrate them? Thomas grew up in far more impoverished surroundings than Sotomayor did.
Then the Post writes this of the 31 senators who voted against her: "These senators were within their rights to dislike the outcomes, but they were wrong to overlook the fact that in each of these cases Judge Sotomayor either followed settled law or appropriately exercised judgment that was well within the mainstream." This is utterly laughable. Stuart Taylor showed conclusively that Sotomayor did not even come close to following settled law in the Ricci case. It wasn't even close. Likewise, her opinion in Didden v. Port Chester, the eminent domain case, was nowhere near mainstream. Indeed, it was outrageous. Likewise with her opinion in Hayden v. Pataki, the case where she opined that currently incarcerated murderers and rapists have a right to vote. And, of course, the Post ignored its own judgment in an earlier editorial that Sotomayor's testimony strained credulity, that in fact she dissembled. How does lying under oath qualify one for the Supreme Court?
Nevertheless, all that latter stuff is secondary to the main problem with the editorial: the aforementioned identity politics. It is disgusting racialism to play up such aspects of a person's life. It is divisive, irrelevant, and wholly without regard to current conditions in which, if anything, ethnic identity-mongering is an advantage to promotion rather than a disadvantage, in an America that overwhelmingly rejects race or ethnicity as a determining factor in public life. As for Judge Sotomayor, Lindsey Graham was right in what he said early in the hearings, before he himself dismissed his own remark in a breathtaking example of a double standard. What he said was that if he himself had said and written some of the things Sotomayor has said and written not just once but repeatedly -- but if he had said them just once -- his career in public life would have been over. Actually, as I have noted, if any Hispanic of black REPUBLICAN had said those things, their public lives would have been over. And for good reason. But Sotomayor gets a pass because she is Latina, and a Latina of the right sort, meaning a liberal Democrat. That double standard is despicable. Yet, in effect, the Post embraces it. How intellectually incoherent. And how shallow.
View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/07/washington-posts-pathetic-iden
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Current Wisdom
- Bowling Alone
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Eric Damon| 8.7.09 @ 10:00PM
Quin,
Why are you so surprised that the WaPo editorial page introduced race into the story about Sotomayor's confirmation? The WaPo is as politically correct and left wing as any other MSM outlet going, even if they are 'sober'; they are soberly left wing, and that's it. They shouldn't get any extra points for being NOT as left wing or rabid as the NYT; that's like giving someone a raise for doing the job you hired them to do!
We all know that this entire nomination was not about her qualifications, but was based on two things: race and ideology. Ideology was first on the list, because her leftwing viewpoints dovetailed nicely with the president's views on how law should be shaped to fit preconcieved notions, and to come to the "right" decisions. Race was used as a cover to protect Sotomayor from any criticism, even legitimate criticism, about her terrible judicial record. The fact that the WaPo led its editorial with race comes as no surprise to me at all, since they are basically just another leftwing media outlet.
Liberal Reader| 8.7.09 @ 10:18PM
It seems to me that the senators questioning Sotomayor were far were preoccupied by race than this editorial -- or than Sotomayor herself.
In the hundreds of cases she decided, she rejected over 85% of race-based claims in lawsuits. She has been judged -- even by Republicans who voted against her -- to be an able jurist. She has an outstanding record on the bench. She is center-left, although many on the left have criticized her pro-business leanings. (Her most important cases have been complex business related cases in which she often sided with corporate concerns.)
Mr Hillyer mentions Justice Thomas. I am very proud of his ascent to the Supreme Court. I think it is an outstanding achievement, so I'll mention it here.
Isn't it possible that the real problem are these hearings themselves. "Advice and consent" should not be a license for senators to grandstand for 10 days on CSPAN.
Presidents should be given the benefit of the doubt by senators of both parties. The fact that Obama or McCain would have at least one nomination to make was a major part of the presidential election. We had that election, and Obama won.
I'm willing to admit that Democratic senators have often been in the wrong on this -- including Obama, who wrongly, in my view, voted against Roberts on the ground that he didn't have enough "heart." This was not a good vote; nor were the votes against Sotomayor.
SoCon| 8.7.09 @ 10:37PM
Yeah, we know--Obama won, but the fool still thinks he's on the campaign trail. Doesn't he know he's supposed to be the President of ALL the people? He's an amateur and it shows.
You liberals are nauseating broken records.
Liberal Reader| 8.8.09 @ 2:31AM
I must withdrawn my earlier comment. Sotomayor, upon further reflection, is a moron who has never uttered an original thought in her life. Please forgive me, if you can, for the retarded comment above that I would erase if I could. I have realized I'm not nearly as smart as I thought I was. Goddamn, I am one friggin dolt. I have no business commenting on this or any other web site.
jimhenry| 8.8.09 @ 2:51AM
You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase
Jimhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
jimhenry| 8.8.09 @ 2:56AM
You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase
Jimhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
ncatty| 8.8.09 @ 10:10AM
I wonder how many more categories of racial/ethnic/cultural persons have yet to be appointed to the Supreme Court. A lot, I bet. Maybe it is time to expand the Supreme Court so we can get the quotas filled more quickly.
Pingback| 8.8.09 @ 11:28AM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Washington Post's Pathetic … | kozmom news links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.8.09 @ 11:28AM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Washington Post's Pathetic … | kozmom news links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Oldefarte| 8.8.09 @ 12:07PM
This issue is pure BS! As I've said before, the 1954 Brown vs. Bd. of Ed. case ELIMINATED discrimination----END OF STORY! Blacks, whites, blues, yellows, or whatever [since 1954] have the SAME [public] schools, teachers, computers, textbooks, buildings, etc--------and the same GD """""tests/examinations""""" If one person[s] scores less than others on same, it's their own GD fault; and to design a test [or manipulate the results of a test/examination] to favor/assist a person[s] in this regard is nothing but pure DISCRIMINATION, RACISM, DISENFRANCHISEMENT, etc or whatever else in hell you want to call it [and ANYONE (be they lawyer, judge, city/company/school administrator/teacher) that participates in, or condones such actions [in my humble opinion] is nothing short of a worthless [and hypocritical] WHORE!!!!!!:
Spicy Joker| 8.8.09 @ 1:25PM
The Washington Compost is another race-obssessed liberal newspaper. When the Beltway Snipers went on their killing spree, the Compost ran a story celebrating that the diversity of the victims reflected the growing diversity of the D.C. suburbs. See "Arbitrary Victims, Identical Fate; County's Growing Diversity Reflected in Those Gunned Down." The Washington Post. 2002-10-04
Pingback| 8.8.09 @ 2:49PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Washington Post's Pathetic … » words links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jim O'Brien| 8.8.09 @ 8:51PM
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor.
Despite this statement, and more disqualifying evidence, nine Republican Senators voted for her. Along with the Democrats (Socialists), they think that the rule of law should take a back seat to a judge's personal prejudices. They are saying, "forget about the facts of a case, and forget about the law. Let's decide based on skin color, religion, income status, country of origin, etc." On that basis, I would decide in favor of the guy whose ancestors came from Ireland, not the guy from Kenya or Indonesia, regardless of the facts.
Sotomayor will undermine the rule of law and freedom, adding to the damage that has already been done to the Constitution. It's nauseating to think that millions of Americans have been killed or wounded defending freedom, only to have it trashed by these unprincipled, ignorant, and disgusting demagogues of both major political parties.
RBUFF| 8.9.09 @ 11:55AM
The new judge should now recommend another Wise Hispanic Woman to be appointed the Wisdom Czar. The Wisdom Czar would decide such divisive issues as medical insurance, cap & trade, and card check and thus shut up all those folks arguing in Congress and at fishy townhall meetings.