Posted on 07/17/2009 12:37:19 PM PDT by freespirited
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I testify today not as a wise Latina woman, but as an American who believes that skin color and national origin should not determine who gets a job, promotion, or public contract, or who gets into college or receives a scholarship.
My message today is straightforward, Mr. Chairman: Do not vote to confirm this nominee. I say this with some regret, because I believe Judge Sotomayor’s personal story is an inspiring one, which proves that this is truly a land of opportunity where circumstances of birth and class do not determine whether you can succeed. Unfortunately, based on her statements both on and off the bench, I do not believe Judge Sotomayor necessarily shares that view. It is clear from her record that she has drunk deep from the well of identity politics. I know a lot about that well, and I can tell you that it is dark and poisonous.
It is, in my view, impossible to be a fair judge and also believe that one’s race, ethnicity, and sex should determine how someone will rule as a judge.
Despite her assurances to this Committee over the last few days that her “wise Latina woman” statement was simply “a rhetorical flourish that fell flat,” nothing could be further from the truth. All of us in public life have at one time or another misspoken—but Judge Sotomayor’s words weren’t uttered off the cuff. They were carefully crafted, repeated—not just once or even twice—but at least seven times over several years. As others have pointed out, if Judge Sotomayor were a white man who suggested that whites or males made better judges—again to use Judge Sotomayor’s words--“[w]hether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” we would not be having this discussion because the nominee would have been forced to withdraw once those words became public.
But, of course, Judge Sotomayor’s offensive words are just a reflection of her much greater body of work as an ethnic activist and judge. Identity politics is at the core of who this woman is. And let me be clear here, I am not talking about the understandable pride in one’s ancestry or ethnic roots, which is both common and natural in a country as diverse and pluralistic as ours. Identity politics involves a sense of grievance against the majority, a feeling that racism permeates American society and its institutions, and the belief that members of one’s own group are victims in a perpetual power struggle with the majority. From her earliest days at Princeton University and later Yale Law School to her 12-year involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund to her speeches and writings, including her jursiprudence, Judge Sotomayor has consistently displayed an affinity for such views.
I have outlined at much greater length in my prepared testimony the way in which I believe identity politics has permeated Judge Sotomayor’s life’s work. But let me briefly outline a few examples: As an undergraduate, she actively pushed for race-based goals and timetables for faculty hiring.
In her much-praised senior thesis, she refused to identify the U.S. Congress by its proper name, instead referring to it as the “North American Congress” or the “Mainland Congress.”
During her tenure as chair of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund’s director litigation committee, she urged quota-seeking lawsuits challenging civil-service exams, seeking race-conscious decision-making similar to that used by the city of New Haven in the Ricci case.
She opposed the death penalty as racist.
She supported race-based government contracting.
She made dubious arguments in support of bilingual education and more broadly in trying to equate English language requirements as a form of national origin discrimination.
As a judge, she dissented from an opinion that the Voting Rights Act does not give prison inmates the right to vote.
And she has said that a witness’s identification of an assailant may be unconstitutional racial profiling, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, if race is an element of that identification.
Finally, she has shown a willingness to let her policy preferences guide her in the Ricci case, first joining two of her colleagues with a summary order, and then withdrawing it and issuing a terse per curiam opinion which did not even mention the plaintiffs’ equal-protection claims. Such dispositions are typically limited to cases that raise unimportant or well-settled matters; the New Haven case was neither.
Although she has attempted this week to back away from some of her own intemperate words—and has accused her critics of taking them out of context—the record is clear: Identity politics is at the core of Judge Sotomayor’s self-definition. It has guided her involvement in advocacy groups, been the topic of much of her public writing and speeches, and influenced her interpretation of law. There is no reason to believe that her elevation to the Supreme Court will temper this inclination, and much reason to fear that it will play an important role in how she approaches the cases that will come before her if she is confirmed. I therefore strongly urge you not to confirm Judge Sotomayor as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Yes, but the same shame on Linda as all the rest without the fortitude and objectivity to publicly open sotomayers stinking can of LA RAZA worms.....
Can’t be too impressed with anything Chavez says after her insulting, presumptuous, condescending, etc., pro-amnesty for illegals statements during 2007.
Why are they wasting tax dollars on this hearing? It’s a done deal and has been from the moment she was nominated. Cut the charade and vote. For that matter the constitution doesn’t specify the number of supreme court justices so maybe Obama will just nominate three or four more just like Sotomayor...
The first clue that someone is a psychopath is that they actually think that they are “wise”.
Linda (how’s that unpaid Guatemalan “houseguest” of yours?) missed Dodo-manure’s six-year membership (1998-2004) in the National Council of The Race.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.