"I would hope that a wise white male, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who has not lived that life."
Racist? Sexist?
Would that depend on who you ask?
Hmmm...
How about this?
"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."
Pretty arrogant either way, isn't it?
The first quote wasn't really a quote, if you haven't figured that out, but the second one was. The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor seems to think that justice actually knows color and gender. Granted, I'm sure that being raised in the Bronx is a vastly different experience than being raised in Alaska, but shouldn't the law be interpreted the same for ALL Americans? Is the Constitution a dynamic document? Are my legal rights and freedoms under that document less than that of someone who has had what might be considered a "harder" upbringing? I'd like to see someone from the Bronx actually survive a Valdez winter, by the way. (sarcasm alert!) What about that, Sonia? Ever had to shovel your way out of your house?
Judge Sotomayor also said, "a court of appeals is where policy is made". Sooooo, Your Honor... what exactly is Congress for then? Did you NOT read the Constitution when you went through law school?
She'll be confirmed, no doubt, so my hope is that she doesn't end up being yet another judge who thinks it's their responsibility to MAKE law, not simply INTERPRET it as the Constitution requires. I've seen just a glimpse of her rulings, and some sustain that hope. Yet when she says things like I've quoted here, that hope weakens. But that isn't surprising considering the guy who nominated her called the Constitution a "deeply flawed" document.
5 years ago
10 comments:
What's happening in the justice system is very disconcerting. Legislating from the bench... yikes. Stop depressing me! Being a voter is important, but sometimes I feel like it's just not enough.
oh honey ... you get me all fired up on topics like this! I have to say that I listened to some of Sotomayor's speech yesterday, and I actually didn't mind listening to her ... UNTIL I heard that "... court is where policy is made ..." stuff ... YIKES! a court is where policy is interpreted ... but what do I know? I just sit at home all day eating bon-bons while my boys run around like crazy banshees ... man ... I need to read more!!!
I looked up the context of Obama's "deeply flawed" remark and he was referring to what he saw as deep flaws in white colonial culture at the time, (namely allowing slavery to continue rather than abolishing it at the time). Now, I have a historical bone to pick with him about his interpretation of colonial attitudes, but my understanding is that he was saying the Constitution was a reflection of those perceived deep flaws in the attitudes of the framers, rather than an attack on the Constitution itself. Apparently all this went down in a panel discussion radio program on "Slavery and the Constitution," which included some historians and Obama. I'm no Obama fan, but that was a big enough issue that I wanted to look it up. (Feel free to delete this comment from your blog if you want...I won't be offended.) :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
Well said, Leah, but why would he say that the "blind spot", or flaw, carries on "until this day"? The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, was it not?
Unfortunately, Obama was not super clear in his remarks. However, from what I can tell he felt the blind spot was that (in his view) African-Americans were not part of the polity the framers were concerned with. He seems to believe that some individuals today do not view African-Americans as part of the polity they are concerned about. This, according to what I can tell, is what Obama feels is the blind spot that carries on until this day. While I disagree with some of Obama's historical conclusions about the attitudes of the framers, his remarks really don't seem to be aimed at the Constitution, but at the attitudes of some Americans towards African-Americans, both historically and today. Sadly, the 13th Amendment does not seem to have wiped out all racist attitudes towards African-Americans as definitively as it wiped out slavery. (Again, just one person's interpretation of the famed "deeply flawed" comment.) The text of his comments can be found in the following article, which I looked up after listening to the YouTube clip. I know nothing about Newsmax, so I can't tell you anything about its bias. http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_constitution/2008/10/27/144675.html (Forgive the overkill, but I tell my students to cite their sources, so I better follow my own advice!)
I looked up polity, people. It's a real word.
Also, when you have sisters this rad, who needs friends?
Source: 31 years of life.
Sally, you don’t have any friends?
Leah, when you add this, I think he’s actually quite clear.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79225
Of course, Africans weren’t part of the original populous the Constitution referred to , but the Civil War Amendments were intended to bring them into that realm. As far as racism goes, you can’t legislate morality. Racism is evil, no doubt, but it’s not something that changes to the Constitution will remedy. The 13th Amendment was supposed to end slavery, and even that is still around if you consider the sex slave trade. The attitudes of racism themselves cannot be eliminated by an act of congress, but by God changing peoples hearts and minds.
His concern seems to be the lack of governmental expansion, what the government “must do on your behalf”. This seems to me to be what he called the “fundamental flaw” in the Constitution. “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society”, referring to the Warren Court. What he calls “economic justice” and “redistribution of wealth” is basically communism. The Communist Manifesto is very clear on its intent to take away property and wealth from the upper class: “You reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend” and “You must, therefore, confess that by ‘individual’ you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” What is the “redistributive change” Obama talks about if it isn’t taking away one’s hard earned property (and therefore, their freedoms) to give it to someone else, someone who most likely didn’t work for it? And Obama thinks this is was a flaw in the Warren Court – that they didn’t address the Constitutional "flaw" of "economic justice".
Here's some more of Obama's Constitutional views:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-constitution-is-living-document
Peace out!
What I think the point of this comment string is for me is that we should avoid knee-jerk politics. Whether you're right or left, what is said should go beyond buzz words and quippy phases.
I like this comment string because it fleshes out opinions with what's behind them.
We grew up in a politically conservative environment. I find myself very much in that same mindset to this day, however, I'm very much put-off by emotional, reactionary responses from either side of the fence. Is Obama pure evil? No. Was Bush pure evil? No. But these questions seem to be the basis of so much opinion.
It's almost like we form an opinion and then go tromping the world over looking for snippets to support what we already believe rather than digging deep and possibly taking the time to consider what might drive the opposing opinion holders to believe what they do. That's what exhausts me about politics. Being hard on conservatives is the first step. We have to look at the man in the mirror before we can go on a witch hunt. We have to take our plank out, people.
In short, people don't listen to each other any more. In many cases (and I'm not saying this is the case with this post or these comments) people can be down-right rude. I blogged about it once.
http://itstrivial.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/conservatives-need-liberal-dose-of-manners/
In conclusion, do I have friends? Yeah, I have like 6. Lee, Mat, Wendy, Gary, Aaron ... Okay, maybe just 5 and I married that last one. Add my sisters and cousins in there and my cup is full. I'm all about quality, not quantity.
Mo friends, mo problems. haha...
I love a good political discussion!
Very interesting links, Justin. I agree with your views on Obama's redistribution of wealth ideas. At this stage I'd probably be on the receiving end of that deal (haha!), but the principle is very concerning nonetheless, and if you follow that line of thought too far we'd be in very dangerous territory. I'm all about personal accountability and work ethic, which I'm not sure jives with the redistribution of wealth theme. Besides that, history has shown full-blown "Communist Manifesto" style economy to be a flop. I've lived in a country trying to transition out of communism and it was not a pretty picture. Well, the pictures were pretty, but the grandmothers selling flowers in the market place because they lost their government pensions was heartbreaking.
The link to Obama's Constitutional views from his book was very interesting. I didn't see anything too scary in it, but maybe I wasn't reading with a suspicious enough eye. :)
Sal, I "amened" your blog post on political manners before and I do it again!
You guys are awesome!
When we gonna break us out some Shakespeare?
Post a Comment