Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Obama Administration Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

Ohhhh, Julia...

I didn't really take your posting as any kind of a gig. I guess that I was basically tilted a bit by the overall responses and probably went a wee bit overboard in my posting to explain why I said what I did that seem to stir the pot a little.

It's all a little confusing anyway, when ya think about it.

I believe that the greater population of the country is so use to "stereotyping" in one way or another. And I can see how the word "Hispanic" seem to become somewhat homogenious term commonly used as a depiction of individuals who speak Spanish.



You'd be profoundly surprised at the difference in folks from East Texas vs. West Texas. Yep, you can call them all Texans, but some will quickly correct you and say something like, "Hmmm, Im a native East Texan." And of course all you can say is something like, "Alrighty then."

Texans are really diverse. And especially those who claim to be Texans and are born in Connecticut ... (wonder who that might be?) I will say that George Bush does have the Texas twang down pretty good. He has the dialect of a native West Texan. East Texans...they have more of a "country" dialect, if you will.

LBJ is a prime example of a Texas Hill Country boy. That's where I reside. He did have that Hill Country Rancher thang about him. Those folks have kind of a rugged cowboy (or cowgirl) dialect.

Sotomayor and Condescending Identity Politics

Sky...

What a wonderful world it would be, huh?

While it's easy to see the nature of wanting to preserve heritage and culture, we still live in a world of extremism and territorialism. I guess we can also color those characteristics as "prejudice, discrimination, bigotry...etc.

I don't know of anybody who isn't biased in some way or another when it comes to family, community, ancestory...etc, but I guess the human species just hasn't been able to come to any resolve about all of our differences.

Despite the difficulties of having to really try to discern the ethnic and cultural "identities" of people who are labels as "Hispanic"...it's still a reality. There exists a variety of totally different "historical identities" among Spanish speaking people. And it's important to each one of those "identities" to be recognized independently.

The politicizing of "Indentities", now there is a real opportunity of our government to figure out how to exploit more groups. It's not like they haven't managed to muddle virtually every aspect of our lives as it is.

I guess we all carry our cultural pride on our sleeves to some degree.

And if you engage in conversations with people whose ancestral origins(or his or her origin)...they may feel that those who don't understand that there is a clear distinction between say, people from Mexico, Cuba, South America, Puerto Rico, etc...are being cultural specific insensitive or prejudice.

A few weeks ago I read a science article (A monthly subscription to "Science News"...sort of a digest), which stated that studies on evolution of humans show that we're becoming more diverse rather than melting into a singular society with regard to appearance and possibly language. So the human plot thickens, huh?

Went back to look at some history, and found the following paragraph. Swap out the names and maybe a key issue, and what do you get?

Everything Old is New Again

I think this is a fairly generic argument about a number of recent judicial nominees.

Regarding the first-name-lack-of-dignity -- this is not a surprise. Cast your mind all the way back to the primaries, where the leading candidates were Obama, McCain, and "Hillary." Some of us tried to make the point here but it wasn't well received.

Besides, "Sonia" is so much less ethnic-sounding than Sotomayor.

The other point, of course, is to make her into just another woman on the street, because there are people who would/will find the idea of Justice Sotomayor just scary as all get-out.

Finally, regarding the Nancy Drew thing - oh, I see what the writer is saying and I do agree - again, to some extent. But I also know that I really loved hearing that Sotomayor read Nancy Drew. It's a frame of reference that we share (I don't think I've ever really shared a frame of reference with a Supreme nominee.) As an evaluation of her, it's absolutely worthless. But as a marketing point, once again Obama's people know exactly what they're selling, and to whom.

Although there are points in the article on Identity politics I agree with - as well as AR's whole dissertation on "Hispaniosity" - reminds me of the discussion about whether Obama was "black enough" - there is a major point in that article that I disagree with, and that is the humanizing of Judge Sotomayor by using her first name. Harrop missed the big picture trying to fit a comment into her world view. Indeed, she is 108 degrees wrong* when she describes it as "patronizing." Obama is not Bush. Bush used the term "Judge Roberts" and "Judge Alito" to bolster their thin credentials, besides which, Bush was not a lawyer, so he was not working in a world he understood very well (which describes most of what he did in 8 years). Obama, on the other hand, is an accomplished lawyer, is much more personable and confident, and views Judge Sotomayor as both a colleague in the law and a human being. Rather than being dismissive of her in that way, he was acknowledging that she has depth and didn't need a lot of "bolstering." It is, in my view, Harrop that is being patronizing.

* That is, not completely wrong, but way off the mark.

well, if a mans opinion is worth anyhting when discussing a woman....

the Hillary thing i think was from her own impulse designed to seperate her identity from her husband - as in being a distinct brand within the Clinton umbrella - playing the I can make it on my own schtick also.

dont see anything sexists about that. didnt many of her campaign signs use Hillary rather than Clinton? correct me if in wrong, but in that case i dont think the use of Hillary was sexist (the treatment of her my manty media types on the other hand...)

and conversely i think many of her opponents also wanted to separate her from the popularity of her husband.

I think you are 100% correct, Schlack.

I have been looking at Judge Sotomayor's judicial record. A big thing has been made of reversals of her decisions (which, in reality, were extremely rare). A comparison is made to Judge (now Justice) Alito's 100% reversal rate. The significance, however, is not over the rate, but the merits. At least half of Judge Sotomayor's "reversals" were based upon a change in the law announced by the superior court. Moreover, more than half should not have been reversed, based upon the merits of the arguments. Alito's record, on the other hand, shows that 1) he was and continues to be an ideologue unconcerned with precedent, and very activist, and 2) he should have been reversed, as it was he, rather than the "mainstream" that was wrong. He remains, in my view, the least qualified member of the current Supreme Court, and should never have been confirmed. Judge Sotomayor, on the other hand, appears to be a pragmatic jurist. I suppose that is the problem. She is not an ideologue, and thus hard to "peg."

Okay, I'll grant lots of wiggle room on the first-name thing; Obama is definitely different from Bush in terms of personal style. It's probably a point-of-view thing.

I think it's also possible that times have changed enough that Obama is using a form of communication (first-name identification) that is natural and/or honest to him, but which has in the past been used offensively, to put women in their place. Two separate paths which happen to cross here.

But as I say - Sotomayor is being marketed; Obama is careful about his marketing. I think he's doing what he's doing intentionally -- his motivations for doing it that way are much harder for me to read.

(By the way - I hope that's me done with that whole topic; I lost my temper with NPR today when they concentrated more on the woman than on the judge.)

and now for something completely different







i remember an old joke - not very good.....

If women rule the world, there would be no wars, there would however be intense negotiations every month.

does this mean that Mellow cant be moderator for a few days every month?

Mellow isn't a moderator at all any more, Schlack, and hasn't been for quite some time.

I have an question, but it's only rhetorical - why does a two-bit crook who was bagman for a bunch of small-time sneak thieves have any voice at all, let alone a national one? Why is he not held in permanent and total disgrace?

Jeeepers.