Sotomayor confirmation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080401691.html?wprss=rss_nation
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/24/20090524obama-court0524.html

"Latinos see [Sotomayor] as a symbol of Hispanic leadership in America," said Lionel Sosa, a Latino political strategist who has advised several presidential candidates on Hispanic outreach, including McCain. "If they vote against Sotomayor, it's a vote against Hispanic leadership in America. That's the way Latino voters will see it."

Well if they see it that way, then they are idiots.

It's not good for the country if symbolism and identity take too prominent a role in politics. Just because you oppose a public official doesn't mean you oppose their entire ethnic group's involvement in politics. It's like how AIPAC and other groups blanketly label any Israel critics as anti-Semitic. That is a sad reflection on our country and our political culture if some Latino-American politicians and activists threaten to punish any GOP "no" votes during the next election cycle. What does that say about their community if they feel the need to bully and blackmail opponents into agreement? The NRA and right-wing radio are doing the same thing for any Republicans who confirm Sotomayor, so what are they to do? I hope the Latino-American political machine doesn't want to lower itself to the level of the NRA and Limbaugh. I know it's not like they're in the streets with torches and pitchforks, but still I would hope for more restraint. If Sotomayor truly is the most worthy nominee in the eyes of the Latino community (and I doubt many even bothered to read up on her beyond the sound bites, or share much in common with her beyond speaking Spanish), then they should trust that the public, media, and Senate will come to the same conclusion. And if some don't, well you can't please everyone. Let the political process, which they seek greater visibility in, work.

Sotomayor probably well exceeds qualifications for the job. But it's not like she is the overwhelming obvious choice. Other names floating around were Kagan, Wood, Granholm, Wardlaw, and Napolitano (all white women), and their records are similarly impressive. Obama is playing politics too, and it would be a great boost to the Democrats for them to take credit for her historic nomination, considering that Latino swing votes may become more influential in future elections. It shouldn't be so consequential, but that is reality. And there's no need to play affirmate action with our High Court. Yes it would be nice if the Nine represent their country's demographics and were also the top judicators in the land, but it's not like we need quotas for various minorities. We are supposed to pick the most qualified, blindly. At least Sotomayor knocks off two categories: female and Latina. But if America worries about quotas and representation, then why nominate another Catholic when 5 of 8 justices are already Catholics?

After all, she will surely be confirmed despite 28 or so GOP nays. So what is the point of all their fussing? Maybe it's just media overexposure, but still this should really be a non-issue. I guess they wanted to hit a home run with nay votes in the teens or fewer, to send a positive message for Obama and the Latino community. And to put things in perspective, she is but one vote out of nine, and not even a swing vote. The court still leans conservative. Probably LA Mayor Villeraigosa is a more influential Latino leader, and he was elected directly by the people, unlike the undemocratic Senate-decided life term of a justice. Latino-Americans vote majority Democrat, so I don't remember them threatening Democrat senators over no-votes for Alberto Gonzales' nomination by Bush to AG a few years ago. He was a "historic" first Latino to that position too. Lastly, I don't recall the black community threatening the opposition party for refusing to support Thurgood Marshall, Eric Holder, or even Barack Obama - all three being the first African-Americans to their respective positions. I guess the GOP figured it was a moot point, since blacks vote over 90% Democrat anyway (even if the candidate isn't black), so very few additional votes to lose. But maybe it matters more with Latinos, who are projected to occupy a much larger slice of the American population in the coming decades vs. other minorities.

Pro-Sotomayor Republicans say that they are disappointed with their party for placing ideology concerns over professional qualifications over the Sotomayor confirmation. Well unfortunately for a Supreme Court nominee, ideology is part of your qualifications. Maybe that is true for most jobs in Washington (remember the attorney firings during the Bush years?). But probably they have little to worry about, since Sotomayor was rumored to be under consideration by right-winger Bush for the Supreme Court opening that Alito eventually took. Liberals would do the same thing against nominees who may want to overturn Roe-v-Wade, prohibit gay marriage, or other sensitive liberal issues. Of course nominees are smart enough to keep mum about their personal views during the long-winded confirmation hearings, and will come up with all sorts of confusing excuses to explain their past controversial comments, because they want the job so badly - and I guess we all do the same at job interviews.

I only have one thing to add about the "wise Latina" comments. She can say whatever she wants as a private citizen off duty, and that has nothing to do with her professional performance. But anyone who declares herself as "wise" demonstrates the contrary. The truly wise don't have to announce it to anyone, and Pascal said, "Do you wish people to think well of you? Don't speak well of yourself. " Gandhi followed with, "It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." That comes from two of the wisest humans in history. She wasn't wise enough to maintain her marriage, and has no children (and nothing edifies a person like having kids). So by missing out on those "life experiences", can she empathize as well as the other justices with families? She's very bright and a geek of the law. She's wise in the courtroom, but probably not on the streets. That's no better or worse than the other justices, so she and the public should stop trying to claim that she's something more. I don't mean to be so harsh on her, but suffering through her boooooring confirmation hearings on NPR for a week made me bitter! I think Sir Oscar Wilde summed up the Senate confirmation hearings process well ahead of his time: "In examinations, the foolish ask questions the wise cannot answer.”

She says that her background will help her empathize and understand more cases/people than a white male justice. But Sotomayor does not think, act, and live like a typical Latino-American now and for many years. She is rich and powerful, and actually lives more like an upper class white. Although much "poorer" than recent millionaire nominees Roberts and Alito, her net worth is over $770k plus full judge salary pension after she turns 65, according to NYT. The Pew Hispanic Center cited the median net worth of Latino American households at $7,900 in 2002, and I doubt it's much better now. So how much does she have in common with people who are 100X poorer? I am sure she is well versed in Latino issues from books and colleagues, but it has been decades since she was a poor Puerto Rican from the Bronx. It's just like the Obamas - what kind of personal/social connection do they have with the African Americans in Oakland or Alabama? Yet those communities love and embrace them as if they are a product of their neighborhood. I guess that is the "cult of personality". We love and vote for people who we identify with (in our minds at least), which is sadly no better than the fragmented Afghans and sectarian Iraqis.