Sotomayor shows she's a wise Latina at hearings

Senate judiciary committee chairman Patrick Leahy swears in U.S. supreme court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

There must be an epidemic of obsessive-compulsive disorder affecting Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's either that, or they're stubbornly set on making the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor revolve around two words she said in a speech eight years ago: "wise Latina."

You'd think she said "serial killer."

In a 2001 speech at talks on Latino presence in the American judiciary system held at the University of California in Berkeley, Sotomayor said: "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."

I can see why some would have concerns about this comment, and why, therefore, they would have questions about it. Fine. But hasn't it gone a bit too far?

“No words I have ever spoken or written have received so much attention,” Sotomayor said at the hearings after being grilled about her wise-Latina remark for the umpteenth time.

“I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging,’’ she also said. “I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.’’

Sotomayor went further: “My record shows that at no point or time have I ever permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an outcome of a case. In every case where I have identified a sympathy, I have articulated it and explained to the litigant why the law requires a different result.’’

I wonder how many times, in how many ways and with how many words will Sotomayor have to explain herself about a light comment that, as shown by her track record, in no way determines how she rules from the bench.

While I get where they're going with this line of interrogation (it's obvious), I don't get where they're coming from given how many others have made similar comments about their cultural backgrounds, trials and tribulations, and so forth without having to explain themselves.

A Time.com piece by writer Carolina A. Miranda addresses this subject:

It is no different from what Samuel Alito said in 2006 ("when I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender"). And what countless other Congressmen and Supreme Court nominees and presidential candidates have said when channeling their own "I grew up in a van down by the river" youths. Our varied experiences shape us, they enrich us, they give us the ability to... empathize.

Yup. Justice Samuel Alito said this (and much more--uninterrupted for three minutes) on Jan 11, 2006, during his confirmation hearings. His remarks were much more extensive and provocative than Sotomayor's two words, yet he didn't get crucified for it. But when Sotomayor quips about being a "wise Latina," she's called a racist. Alito was nominated by George W, by the way. Pinocchio politics as usual.

In addition to the wise-Latina broken record--Sotomayor is also being repeatedly questioned about judicial activism, to which she has replied that the court's job is to apply the law, not to legislate.

Judges "can't change the law, we're not lawmakers," Sotomayor has said.

What part of that do they not understand?

I'm wondering if they're expecting her to slip into another personality dwelling deep within her psyche and give a totally different answer to the same question.

Whether or not a judge is an activist shows in his/her rulings--right? And the senators have had more than enough time to study these ahead of the hearings. The question had to be asked at least once, maybe twice, even three times. But, c'mon. Enough already.

Same with the New Haven firefighter reverse discrimination claim. This issue, too, has been discussed ad nauseam.

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court last week overturned Sotomayor's decision to reject firefighter Frank Ricci's reverse discrimination claim in an appeals court. It was not unanimous, not 8-1, 7-2, 6-3, yet Republicans are using this case to argue that Sotomayor's decision shows she has a racial preference for minorities that could influence her rulings as a Supreme Court justice. That's a big stretch, if you ask me.

I'm not saying Ricci didn't have a legitimate claim; however, I find it suspicious that he has filed lawsuit after lawsuit throughout his career. Is it because he's being discriminated against over and over again, or is he the type of person with the time and resources to file lawsuits whenever he doesn't get his way?

I also find it a legitimate argument that the 35-year-old dyslexic man got his firefighting job in the first place by claiming discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"I don't think Mr. Ricci thought that his being hired was a case of reverse discrimination against those who weren't disabled," says Marge Baker, vice president of liberal group People for the American Way. "But you can't have it both ways. These laws can't be good when you use them to protect yourself and bad when they're used to protect someone else."

Sotomayor already has been questioned--numerous times--about her decision in this case, and she already has explained--numerous times--the basis for that decision. At this point, any further discussion about this case at the hearings seems like beating a dead horse to me.

I understand that the senators have to do their jobs (or at least give the impression they're doing their jobs). Fine. But time is wasted when senators can't come up with more intelligent, relevant questions, relying instead on those already asked and answered as well as those stemming from ulterior motives that require next to no thought or research on their part. Who do they think they're fooling?

I must add that I'm impressed with Sotomayor's conduct. Several senators have been rude, sarcastic, cynical, even hostile, and she just sits there, cool as a cucumber, with a neutral expression on is face or a slight smile, listening, measuring her words. That's experience. That's wisdom.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) congratulated Sotomayor on her demeanor, which was devoid of any of the sharp remarks she acknowledges that she sometimes employs on the bench, the Boston Globe reported.

“I must say that, if there’s a test for judicial temperament, you pass it with an A-plus-plus,’’ Feinstein said. “. . . You have just sat there, very quietly, and responded to questions that, in their very nature, are quite provocative.’’

What a contrast between Sotomayor and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)! Watching him interrogate Sotomayor and disrespectfully interrupt her when she would not reply to his questions with the answers he wanted to hear was embarrassing...and painfully annoying.

His is the kind of attitude and behavior that gives legislators a bad rep: unwise, pompous, big-headed, loves-to-hear-himself-talk, arrogant prick. Sorry, but I call it like I see it, and that's what I saw when Sessions did his thing.

Folks, Sotomayor is getting confirmed no matter how many times they salsa around with the "wise Latina." If there are no other questions, let's wrap it up, give her the robe and move on.

Sources: AP, WSJ, Time, Boston Globe, CNN
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved