Way back around 9 A.D. when the Constitution was written (according to President Obama who yesterday claimed it was written over 200 centuries ago - how much press would Bush have gotten for that??), it was probably inconceivable that a Latina would ever be nominated to the Supreme Court.
But this is a strange time! I mean, this is a world where, over in Germany they have invested millions of dollars to install 150,000,000 solar panels to help curb global warming. The end result - IF global warming is occurring, those 150,000,000 solar panels will delay it by one half hour over the next century.
Phew! THAT was a close call! Thanks Germany!!!
(By the way, check out the numbers on Cap and Trade here).
So here we are and we're seeing a LATINA on the Supreme Court!!! Craziness!
Now, I think you all know me well enough to know I'm not racist, so there must be a reason I'm saying it like that. That reason is because that's how the media is reporting it:
Obama Nominates Latina!
As if the only thing that qualifies her are the facts that she's from a Latin American country and a woman. If that was the case, Obama could have achieved the same results by nominating Dora the Explorer. Plus you'd get a cool little sidekick monkey that wears shoes running around the halls of justice.
I'm sure the fact that Sotomayor is an intelligent, fair, experienced judge should be important....but, she's LATINA!!! And, while I understand every judge brings to the table with them their life's experiences, is THAT really what's important? In being fair, justice, as they say, should be blind. If a case is brought to her in which another Latina is in the wrong, and a white male in the right, will it affect her decision as the emphasis on her heritage implies? It shouldn't.
Here are my personal feelings on the issues surrounding Sotomayor:
1) The reverse discrimination case she dismissed with a one paragraph, vague decision in which she is accused to have ignored hundreds of hours of testimony and evidence: This one bothers me the most of all issues being discussed. To me, this shows a disregard for fairness. If 19 black firefighters had passed the test and no white firefighters, they would have all received promotions, period. Too bad, Whitey. Obviously, though, she is not concerned with fairness when it comes to people who are not minorities who worked hard and did what was necessary to achieve their goal. Signs point to this being overturned by Supreme Court - like many of Sotomayor's opinions (I've read estimates of 60%-80%).
2) Her statemtent that a Latina will make a better judgment than a white man bothers me. If she's talking about having experiences that help her understand people in similar situations, fine. But that's not what she SAID. She said - every time. What bothers me most here, is that it doesn't pass the "Reverse Test". If I said, that given the same information, a white man would come out with a better judgment than a Latina every time, I'd be drawn and quartered as a racist, sexist, pig.
3) Her statement that policy is made from the bench are disconcerting. IF she meant that as it sounds in the sound bites, it is not good. That being said, I will give her the benefit of the doubt that maybe it isn't exactly what she meant. For now.
The fact of the matter is, this is a lost battle for Republicans if they choose to fight it. First of all, you risk alienating any Hispanics and Women who are on the fence. Should this be a reason to compromise principles as a party? No. But, for a losing battle, it may be a reason to roll over. And this is ONE of the reasons Obama chose Sotomayor (and the reason the main stream media continues to hammer home the fact that she is Latina). Sure, she may be smart, she may be just, she may be compassionate, but let us not forget that one of the main enemies of the liberal is the individual. Individual success is not "fair". You are a group. You are gays, blacks, hispanics, women, the poor. This is how you work for them - by making you - your group - a sympathetic cause in which no one rises above the rest. To do so would illegitamize the cause which usually brings them lots of votes.
Liberals can care less who Sotomayor is as a person - as a judge. They care only that she's a Latina and solidifies their stronghold in the hispanic/latino-latina/female communities.
Now, should the Republicans fight the nomination? What purpose would it serve? If they were to successfully filibuster the nomination, do they think that Obama's next choice will be any less left of center? Do they think he'll choose somebody based on their loyalty to the US Constitution (yes, the one written in 9 A.D.)? No. You'll get more of the same, if not worse. This is a stupid battle to fight.
Question her thoroughly, yes. Fight her appointment for the sake of fighting and you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
Just to top things off..and something that has nothing to do with Sotomayor, check out this list of Chrysler dealerships being closed and their contributions to the Republican and/or Democrat parties:
As an old infomercial would say, "Coincidence? You decide."
J.E. Braun is the author of Paranoia, a 9/11 survivor's tale. 10% of profits from sales of Paranoia will be donated to the Twin Towers Orphan Fund (www.ttof.org). For more information, visit www.jebraun.com.