Thursday, May 28, 2009

I was born a poor black child....

"I was born a poor black child....."
--Navin Johnson (Steve Martin's character in "The
Jerk")


Disingenuousness is not a very good way to start off a presidency or an appointment to the highest court in the land.

POTUS and Judge Sotomayor discussion of "empathy" as a desirable quality in a Supreme Court appointment is a complete straw dog. And they should stop trying to spin it that way.
From a president who on his first day chided his predecessors and dreaded “Washington Insiders” for past shenanigans and promised to “… proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics...,” we get an act of raw, boldface political gamesmanship. “Oppose THIS, all you Republicans.” (All that’s missing is “make my day.”)

This is a quota check mark nomination, pure and simple, so let’s at least acknowledge that much. Some would say, “Hey, that’s the way it is—elections have consequences.” To them I say, see above.

First, she points out that Holmes and Cardozo voted on cases upholding sex and race discrimination and that the Court until the 70s ever found for a woman in a gender discrimination case. Well, none of the nine guys on the Court in the 1970s had uteruses and THEY still found a woman’s right to an abortion somewhere in the Constitution. None were “Hispanic” in the 1960s, and yet somehow Ernesto Miranda was overturned by those same guys (8 white & 1 black). How does she explain that?

Next, as Cal Thomas says in his column today, if pulling oneself up from bootstraps biographies could guarantee smooth sailing through the process, Clarence Thomas should have been granted an express ticket to the bench instead of the trip to hell & back that was his confirmation hearing.

Then, she posits that her unique experiences and upbringing would prove valuable in seeking some yet unachieved wisdom from the Supreme Court, something white guys or men in general, or non-Latina women could not possibly understand nor hope to attain. Who’s to say her Latina perspective would be representative of:
a) all/most US women
b) all/most US Latinos
c) all/most fatherless diabetics?
d) etc.
Were Sandy O’Connor and Ruth Ginsburg in lock-step on all issues; you know, being they were both women? Do you think Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall would see eye-to-eye on all things because they were both black?

The fact that there's a "liberal opening" on the court now is proof that not even WHITE GUYS can agree on everything sufficient enough to keep the rest of all these second-class citizens under their thumb of domination and exploitation. (You'd think if ever there would be motive, that would be enough.)

No, Sonya, you’d only represent left-leaning, feminist, Latinas. And actually just one—yourself. The one thing you COULD represent with 100% certainty is that you are an American (you are, aren't you?) And don’t ask me how you can sit in judgment if you get some Gitmo detainees in front of you because none of them are women, Puerto Rican, or Liberal; OK they might be Liberal, but they probably all hate GWB, so you'll no doubt have that perspective in common.

Finally, I thought the goal has always been to find appointments who could be counted upon to check their experience, prejudices, and preconceptions at the door and seek only to see the case through the lens of the LAW and not through the color of their skin or thickness of their dogma.

If one has to have a “representative” on the Court in order to somehow come nearer to “justice” then what about a second generation descendant of coal-mining, deer-hunting, Eastern European Slavs?

Who represents me?

0 comments: