Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Hispanic Judges and Who Said It First
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s comment that a “wise Latina woman” will make a better decision than a white male judge is well known and, inexplicably to me, didn’t get her branded a racist and disqualified from the bench.
However, now that Donald Trump is taking mega-heat from all sides for saying the judge in his case, who is of Mexican descent, might not be fair to him, another of Sotomayor’s comments, even more on point, needs to be looked at:
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Note well: She said, “…may and will make a difference in our judging.”
I did a word count of her confirmation hearing. The Senators preening for the cameras outspoke her 67 percent of the time, which is probably why none of those amateur cross-examiners had time to ask her, “Your heritage will affect your judging? How?”
Now comes Donald Trump, who worries that exactly what Sotomayor said will happen is happening to him. What I’m curious about is the cognitive dissonance of the American noosphere when processing Sotomayor’s and Trump’s shared contention. Let’s examine:
Sonia Sotomayor said a judge of Latino heritage will be affected in his judging by being Latino. The American response was to slather ourselves in the self-glory of multiculturalism and put her on the Supreme Court for life.
Donald Trump said what Sonia promised will happen is happening to him now, and America’s response is to say it’s impossible for such a thing to happen and brand him a racist and unfit to serve for even four years.
Same contention — different response.
For the purpose of this piece, I don’t care whether anyone agrees with Donald and Sonia, disagrees, or any other measured, well thought out or careless analysis in the middle. I want to know what causes a society to accept as true a maxim presented by one person who gets rewarded, yet accept the same maxim as impossible to be true when said by another, who gets figuratively tarred and feathered.
I see several possibilities. Perhaps we are so afraid to be mistaken for racist that we won’t disagree with a person of a certain heritage, even if that person herself says something racist. Perhaps we suffer media malpractice in the manner and frequency certain ideas get presented (or media omission of facts and ideas). Perhaps we have short memories. Perhaps we have divided ourselves into such rabid political teams that no one wants to admit their teammate said something wrong.
As for me, I find at least some blame in the harmful little chestnut so often stated that we are “a nation of immigrants.” I put some blame on the idea that assimilation and American culture are not important. I blame Sotomayor and others for putting any significance on bloodline ahead of Americanism.
We are not a “nation of immigrants.” A family legally loses immigrant status with the first generation that was born here. By the second generation born here, they’ve lost most if not all cultural traditions of wherever their ancestors came from.
I speak from experience. My grandparents were born in Italy. My father was born here. I was born in New Jersey and have nothing but American cultural traditions and loyalties. Am I supposed to call mine “an immigrant family?” I’ll damn you for suggesting it. My grandparents were immigrants. The 50 or so people who descended from them were all born and raised here. We are an American family.
It appears schizophrenic when a country at one time screams for diversity, insists upon diversity, legislates diversity, and applauds diversity, but then calls anyone racist who points out that another person is different from them. So what is it? Why is Trump in trouble for using the Sotomayor axiom that a judge’s lineage affects judging, while that same axiom helped her become a judge?
Published in General, Law
Really the bottom line is ethnicity has nothing to do with the fact that Justice Sotomayer is rather mediocre and Justice Clarence Thomas writes brilliant opinions.
So Judge Curiel is responsible for the words of a different person in a completely different situation. Yeah that makes sense.
You’ve made my point.
That concept of representation, whether it’s a judge in a courtroom or a politician in the senate, is an internal contradiction. You cannot occupy an office that presumes to “represent” all the people impartially and yet at the same time, presume to advocate for one district or one political party. If you campaign for senate as a Democrat, then by definition you won’t be “representing” the Republicans in your district – you are not impartial. (After all, partiality and partisans are from the same root.)
The Constitution intended that each district would elect local citizens to advocate for their locality in the general legislature. When parties developed, they basically gutted locality-advocacy in favor of party advocacy.
Our entire Constitutional scheme (including the judiciary) was intended as balance of power between localities. But now everything is switched to parties, and that dissolves the power scheme – even in the judiciary. (A split 4-4 Supreme Court is prima facie evidence.)
On target, as usual.
God forbid such a man ever refer to a non-white as racist – there’s no higher evidence of his racism apparently.
On the other hand, people less mixed up than me often refer to themselves as half Irish or half Italian, etc. I myself am 100% Polish lineage. I know, like, and celebrate that lineage and cultural tradition. I’m still an American. 100%.
Frankly, much like the phony dichotomy between religion and science, I think there’s a phony dichotomy with this subject too. People can and do identify with their discrete lineage and heritage all the while considering themselves American. Also, people can and do take it too far and become racist, prejudiced, and biased – even minorities.
Of course those diverse backgrounds will affect how they (we, I) view things. Most of the time it won’t matter too much as long as we’re all basically on board the same ship and paddling in the same direction. Sometimes, however, it does matter. Especially when the judge in question might himself be a racist, a political hack, a leftist hack, or some combination of all three. It could be the perfect storm of bias based on a divergent background. As I said in another post, if this were a white judge ruling on a black defendant and the judge had some loose affiliation with a white analogue of La Raza then we’d all recognize the conflict wouldn’t we?
Let’s not go too far in the other direction either. People associate with people of similar background, culture, and heritage for all kinds of reasons – one of those reasons being a mutual aid society meant to aid the team members in the face of a cruel, disinterested, or hostile world. Other reasons for such associations being that yummy split pea soup, sauerkraut pierogies, gnochi, enchiladas; anothyer being comfort at sharing so many formative elements and so many common obstacles going forward; another being to get in touch with that connection to one’s past that is very much based on point of origin and status at that point.
Is Trump really taking “mega-heat” for saying the judge “might not be fair to him?” Wouldn’t the Sotamayor comparison provide more fodder for discussion if somewhere Trump’s actual words appeared?
I think Trump’s claim is that Curiel is being unfair, and that the only thing left is to figure our why since Curiel persists in the case. Trump offered the political bias angle (Curiel is an Obama appointee) and the racial bias angle (Curiel is Mexican and involved in a La Raza group, so obviously Trump’s immigration and wall stances would not be popular). One might find any or all of that to be unconvincing, but I still don’t see how it’s racist. At worst he’s accusing the judge of being biased.
No argument with that summary. My point is that Trump used his own unique brand of phraseology–including calling the judge a “hater”– to question his objectivity. Let’s not pretend that Trump is taking heat only for intelligently questioning the judge’s objectivity and not examine what Trump actually said.
Exactly. It’s called “civil society,” and it’s a good thing. It’s things like the B’nai B’rith, the National Korean Grocers’ Association, the Howard University Alumni Society, the National Foundation for Traditional Chinese Medicine, United Against a Nuclear Iran, the Argentine Tango Club, the Alliance Française, the Goethe Institute, the Haitian earthquake relief effort. Government exists to secure our right to assemble peacefully, get the heck out of the way, and let civil society take care of business. There’s not a thing wrong with it.
If you believe that government is a practical way of resolving common problems and conflicts, as Locke did and small-government conservatives still do, then how people associate together outside of that is their own affair.
However, if you see government as the anchor of our identity (or as progressives say, “what we do together”), then submission to government is a pledge of allegiance.
I argue that the American experiment is about a narrow range of practical and common commitments, but as for the rest (and bulk) of your life, you’re free to do whatever you want. The pressure to conform to a single dictated social culture comes from Hollywood, not the Constitution. You are required to assimilate and accept the minimal American political values, not the universalist social values of the progressive elites.
Claire when the 1964 Civil Rights Act public accommodation provisions were passed, they were greatly needed. If you repealed it today, absent a very few examples there would be no need for it now.
I can understand new people wanting to gather with others from the old country (which goes away 1 generation later).
But in today’s America do you think Latino lawyers need an association, or Asian lawyers or black lawyers? What prejudice will hold back a Latino lawyer if he doesn’t have a group?
What does “need” have to do with it? Does anyone “need” to join the Tri-Delts or “need” to train guide dogs for the blind or “need” to lead a Girl Scout troop or “need” to raise money to restore a beloved historical building? This is part of the fabric of a free society.
Claire, I think some of the unease is due to the double standards involved, when non-whites frequently set up discriminatory organizations. Without justification in today’s America, there is a Black Congressional Caucus, a Black Journalists Association, etc., but no white equivalents.
Why do we need a “justification” for joining an organization? There’s surely no “justification” for being a member, say, of Skull & Bones. We don’t need to “justify” being members of organizations, for goodness’ sake. It’s America, not the Soviet Union.
Because, I think, organizations based on based on race or ethnicity seem discriminatory. Imagine, for example, the outrage if someone formed a ‘White Congressional Caucus, ‘ or a ‘White (or European-American ) Journalists Association.
As a teen, I got involved in the sixties civil rights movement, the whole point of which was to oppose discrimination.
Yet there is a difference in governing and entitlement though. There is no one screaming for tri-delts or Girl Scouts on the Supreme Court or in government appointments. If it weren’t for that I would bless La Raza’s right to free association. I don’t think any Latino will have a problem becoming a lawyer or Judge these days without La Raza. Ditch affirmative action and the current American hypnosis over identity politics and I wouldn’t care.
I think it’s a majority/minority distinction. It would be offensive (and bizarre) to hold an “able-bodied Olympics,” given that “able-bodied” refers to every Olympic athlete who isn’t, specifically, disabled. The majority of the US population is white, so a “White Congressional Caucus” would seem to exist only for the point of excluding black people.
Ethnicity isn’t equal to skin color. I’d see nothing odd about a Balkan-American Journalists Association or an Irish-American Journalists Association. (A “European-American Journalists Association” would, I’m sure, be of little professional use, but only because Americans dislike the word “European” and see it as a code word for “snooty.”)
As for whether there’s still so much bigotry and discrimination in the US that these sensibilities make sense, I would have said until recently, “No, we’ve largely overcome that.” But I would have been (((wrong))).
Claire, you may not be factoring in our economic situation. Iow, in good times people tend to be more tolerant, but as a Time writer noted in, iirc, 1978- “In bad times people tend to assume they are doing poorly, or worse, losing ground financially, because others are profiting from their misfortune.” Why was Reagan able to pass amnesty in the supposedly more prejudiced 1980s? Because he fostered widespread prosperity, vs Obama’s prolonged stagnation.
I agree with your point regarding elected representation. It looks as if we disagree regarding the federal judiciary if you are asserting that the 4-4 split is reflecting the way it was meant to be. I think a given act passed by the Congress should be interpreted by the SCOTUS impartially as to its constitutionality. This does not mean all decisions will be unanimous but it also does not mean they will be invariably party-line. You are saying that a political party-line ruling is how it is designed?
We don’t need to justify (yet) joining an organization in the US of A. However, our associations can say something about us, and if we’re in a public position then people have a right to question the implications for how you do your job. If a white judge were even loosely involved with an organization, say for networking purposes, which had the word “Aryan” in it’s title then we wouldn’t see questioning that judge’s ability to impartially carry out his duties as racist, would we?
I misspoke here, I should have said federal judiciary instead of government officials. I know that federal judges are nominated by the sitting POTUS but does that mean they are expected to make rulings based on their political party affiliation that might have been apart prior to becoming a judge? I thought one of the main objectives of the confirmation process was to try for impartiality.
“Aryan” has a very specific association with Hitler, the “Master Race,” the Second World War, and genocide. We’d be questioning his ability to carry out his duties as even remotely sane, given the associations of the word. The San Diego La Raza Lawyers association seems to be your fairly typical “provide scholarships” and “be a good role model and mentoring” professional association. (And you know, Judge Curiel seems like a good role model for Americans of Mexican heritage. I’d be more than a bit worried if he was a member in good standing of the Arellano Felix cartel, but he’s actually the one who put them out of action.)
Maybe there is not total congruency of party advocacy and constituent representation. What do you think? What I have witnessed over my lifetime is that the two political parties at one time had elements within them that were at different degrees of conservative or liberal but it seems that has disappeared from the Democrat Party, at least there has been a shift left and more left, i.e. no conservatives at all.
Yes, and judges who were also KKK members hanged white murderers too. These judges were certainly fine upstanding people and good role models in much of their lives. That doesn’t mean they weren’t racist and so biased in some circumstances as to be incapable of carrying out their duties faithfully.
Fine, “Aryan” is not a good example. If a white judge were even loosely involved with an organization, say for networking purposes, which had the words “for the race” in it’s title then we wouldn’t see questioning that judge’s ability to impartially carry out his duties as racist, would we? We would see his involvement in something explicitly based on race as an indicator that he might be racist, wouldn’t we?
my comment from yesterday on the “unamerican” thread:
I look at it more from an Alinsky-ite “Make them play by their own rules” mindset.
If race based associations are unacceptable for whites, then they have to be unacceptable for non-whites too.
Just to refresh for any who might have missed this important point.