Senator Jeff Session has opened Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing by saying individuals “should not bring their own personal background” into the courtroom. Again under the white sheet of impartiality, he wants the brown woman appointed by the brown man to ignore who they are, but as a white man it’s okay for him to bring his personal perspective to the table.
This is the hypocrisy or racism in two thousand nine – crying white men who believe that simply acknowledging the differences in experience and perspective that people of color, women, homosexuals and other recently and historically discriminated against individuals is racist because their race is a part of their person. These crybabies think that there is an objective (read: normal, meaning white and male) standard, and that anyone who deviates from that does so as an activist, or a reverse racist.
Senator Session’s opening statement is a restatement of white privilege under a new sheet. And his twisting of Judge Sotomayor’s personal experience is politics as usual. It’s a good thing that while he does have a microphone, it’s waterproof.
I agree. I think the ‘New’ America is undermining the ‘Old’ Bars and Stars of yester-year. The only thing in life that is constant, is change. We are living in a time where great change (which is far overdue) is taking place in this country. Finally, the words that were written in the Constitution are beginning to apply to everyone…not just the landowning white males (with Black female concubines) who wrote them. In the long run, I think this ‘change’ is going to benefit everyone, especially white males. We have underutilized the talent and brainpower of so many citizens that we have become a second or third rate country. If we welcome all the talent, creativity and brainpower that ALL Americans have to contribute, we will once again move to the top of the food chain and be the beacon of hope and righteousness worldwide….I’m just saying….
This blog has really taken a turn back toward a rant site. You are using listing as a substitute for content VERY often. A long running list of names, situations, etc. doesn’t really state anything.
The only real content appears to be animosity toward the racial majority and dumbed-down anti-republican blasting.
This used to be a place I enjoyed for dialogue (it was actually my preferred spot to spout my political opinions). It just feels hostile now, and I, as a differing opinion, don’t feel welcome. Maybe I’m not.
I don’t expect to come back . Enjoy your mutual bitch-fest with like-minded readers.
That just isn’t how you bring about change or influence people.
Wow-
Perhaps, then, it is time for us to part company. You missed the entire point of the post, and that is hard to do considering its brevity and its title. The fact that this “was actually [your] preferred spot to spout [your] political opinions” is great. It’s mine, too. And while I can accept your disagreement with my pov, I don’t need to find you hostile, or claim you’re bitching . . . like Jeff Sessions and the crying white men on the Senate Judiciary Committee that I was referring to, you appear threatened by the experience of a person of color, threatened that white isn’t the norm it’s the majority, and uncomfortable with the possibility that just because you are white doesn’t mean you are right. The world, and fortunately for us, this country is an ethnic smorgasboard (sp?) . . . it has historically, though, been a myopic public statement for anglo masculinity. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal” automatically excluding women. In the Constitution of the United States, negroes and Indians were pejoratively mentioned and treated as chattel. In two hundred and twenty years, we have matured nationally, through much blood and toil. But I am cognizant that Jeff Sessions thinks “the only thing wrong with the Klan is that some of its members smoke marijuana,” and he’s the ranking Republican on the United States’ Senate Judiciary Committee that is set to confirm the fourth non-white male in over two hundred years . . . and he’s worried that she is a wise Latina whose experience is going to prejudice her? Please. Like many of the white people I have encountered in my life, you too believe that your person isn’t subject to criticism. It is. Like all of us, your bullshit will be called. Right now, I’m calling it.
If you chose to run away from my favorite place to elucidate my perspective, that is your cowardice. You are welcome to come back when you understand the point of the post, and the texture of my response. Until then, spout somewhere else.
“white men on the Senate Judiciary Committee …appear threatened by the experience of a person of color”
It disappoints me to hear the argument reduced to this. It’s too easy, not to mention completely unproductive, to reduce the opposition to racists or antagonists without motive beyond emotion. I share many of these ‘scared white men’s’ concerns about Sotomayor. At some point we’ve all got to re-train ourselves to accept that our respective opposition’s views are based on much more than irrational emotion.
Not trying to play holier than thou here, just an observation. I know I’m guilty of this often enough in the opposite direction.
***Having said all that…Republican opposition to Sotomayor is ALSO more about party politics than it is about race.
Nimrod . . . I’m taking the words and statements of Sessions and others, not balling up their entire argument and reducing it. They are attacking (as I sit here and listen to Sessions repeat the same statements) the fact that she’s acknowledging her ethnicity and gender play a role in who she is, how she speaks, how she sees the world without acknowledging themselves that their maleness, their whiteness, their background play a role in who they are, the questions they ask and the conclusions they draw. That’s the problem. They’re acting as if their conclusions are an objective norm. They’re not. And they’re threatened by the fact that her life experience may lead her to read/interpret the law differently.
I think you’re right . . . we do often diminish our opponents’ argument. But as you and I have repeatedly addressed on these and other places, we’ve done okay at addressing the wholes as well.
I’m certain that there are political differences between Senator Sessions and Justice Sotomayor. This isn’t, though, a campaign. It’s a nomination and hearing on her ability to do the job. To quote Senator Lindsey Graham, “President Obama won the election. That ought to mean something.” Good to hear from you.
To ask someone to judge without drawing upon their own unique experiences is an unrealisitc ideal, but we’d like to get as close as possible. The problem is not WHAT her experiences are or race is. The problem is that she believes she SHOULD use her experiences to judge. That’s what’s troubling to a person like me. I don’t believe that it’s any worse than a rich old white man using his experiences to judge. I expect the rich old white man to be as computer-like as possible in making decisions, and the old white men that I support on the SC feel the same way about it. The fact is that she’s given the distinct impression over her career – both in words and actions – that she doesn’t feel that way. The fact that I would tend to agree with the old white man more often makes no difference. Except that people use it to call me a racist.
All I’m saying is that if Sessions & Co. agrees with me, they’re not attacking her hispanic-ness. They’re attacking the chance that she’ll actively use it on the stand. This is not something we don’t expect from the old white men. I’d ask them to do their best to leave their white-ness at home as well.
Nimrod-
I get what you’re saying . . . but none of the men on the Supreme Court have ever done that. It’s a perspective divorced from reality. When Sessions and Co. (or Scalia and Roberts) say that, the code is that their “close as possible” is the norm, that their political differences or interpretive understandings derive and reside from no specific experiences, but simply from “the rule of law.” That’s the sheet that I’m claiming they are drawing over their eyes. It’s what Peggy McIntosh called the “knapsack of white privilege.” It’s an assumption so inherent that they do not even tacitly acknowledge its existence. Every judge on the bench brings with them “their own unique experiences.” The difference is, she has acknowledged hers as being about perspective. Much as Justice Ginsberg in the recent case about the strip search of a 13-year old girl said that that experience was different for a teenage girl beginning puberty than a teenage boy, and the male justices and tv pundits all tried to walk her back. As a woman in our patriarchal society, she was listening to and hearing the facts of that case in a different way, and I would argue a more just way. The facts of the case didn’t differ, but her understanding did.
Sotomayor’s judicial rulings have not borne out the attacks on her statements. They’ve been moderate in interpretation and application both of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. That’s why many of the objections to her nomination on the Judiciary Committee have attempted to disregard her record, and attack those statements. That’s what I’m talking about. You can’t ask them to leave their whiteness at home. You can expect them to acknowledge that it plays a role in who they are as lawyers, as senators, as judges, as people, though. That assumption of their life as normal and everyone else as other is the racism that I’m referring to. Not their political difference. Update: Check out the article at the bottom of the post.
“What is normal?…”
I’m not buying it. Being male or female or white or black does not make you a better interpreter of either the law or what constitutes right and wrong. It simply makes you more sympathetic to male, female, white, or black. That can be a good thing (see Ginsberg in strip search case), but it can also be a bad thing (see Sotomayour in New Haven Fire Department case).
I believe that Justice Ginsberg’s empathy, literally her experience to understand that young woman’s experience in the strip search case, is necessary for the court. The cases that reach the court are far reaching, and affect people who don’t look, or live, like the justices themselves. The more varied and diverse experiences that can be acquired for that community mean (collectively) that justice is served for more people, not just us. You are right, it doesn’t make you a better interpreter. But, and this is what I believe the true issue and fear is . . . being in a lesser position allows one to see and appreciate two different perspectives (their own and the more powerful position) and forces them to sift through both to reach a conclusion. Being solely in the powerful position often leaves one blind to and ignorant of other perspectives. None of these are superior to the rule of law. But they are (and always have been) mitigating factors to the interpretation and application of said law, and sometimes in the drafting of the laws themselves. That oversight, that perspective and white male experience has played into the creation, is what leaves Senator Sessions and the others with the fear of acknowledgement of Justice Sotomayor’s “wise latina”ness. That perhaps there is something there that they are missing, and that’s not fair! It’s why I called the post “Crying White Men”. Instead of listening to her statement in context, they are arguing that she’s wrong because she is acknowledging the role her race, gender, etc. play in her interpretation and experience of the world.
“Being solely in the powerful position often leaves one blind to and ignorant of other perspectives.”
But never blind or ignorant to justice. As I said above, a person’s sympathy for perspectives they better appreciate can do just as much harm as good.
A wise old man and a wise old woman…
“But never blind or ignorant to justice.” If they don’t acknowledge any other perspectives, then that translates to Just Us.
And I find myself drawn back in…
The comment that a judge “should not bring their own personal background” to the bench does not have to be read as a shot at women or hispanics by a white male. In fact, I fully agree with the statement. No white male nominated to the bench, such as John Roberts, should bring their personal background to the bench.
That comment could be read as an opposition to the believe that the Justice nominee might choose to legislate from the bench based upon political opinions. These opinions, like yours and mine, are born from our background, education, and life experiences. It could also be read as a potential block to have a catholic (which I am one) not get her positions from the pope.
Supreme court judges have two places to look when making their decisions. 1st, they are to look to the Constitution. 2nd, they are to look to prior Supreme Court authority. Our Court has varied from those sources greatly over the years. Many disagree with that practice.
It is your assumption that the Senator’s comments are racially based. I actually agree with the Nimrod, that he is grandstanding and posturing for political reasons, trying to create purpose for his party that has no power at the moment. They will not and cannot block this nomination. Any comments he has are likely meaningless. But if he can get on C-Span for his 15 minutes, he will do so.
The reason I am leaving is not cowardice. I will find another place to “spout”. I am leaving because there is nothing productive that can come from me stopping by here anymore.
I admire your resolution to “fight the good fight” here for your beliefs. It is just no longer done in a way that I can participate productively. Best of luck.
BTW – if that one poster here a while back was right, and you are on a separate crusade against credit cards for young students, please continue your efforts. If we can teach young people to manage money wisely, tough times like these can be avoided by all but that upper 1% who can afford the hit for their stupidity.
But minority status is not a requisite for acknowleding other perspectives. Not knowing what it feels like does not preclude someone from sympathizing with it or making a decision on its behalf.
I’m not arguing that it is. My point is that specifically the white men attacking Justice Sotomayor (and Wow in his responses) are not a) acknowledging their own perspective, so b) they’re threatened and “outraged” that she’s acknowledging her perspective, and c) they’re trying to paint her with the “sympathy = empathy = prejudice = unqualified”. You don’t have to be a person of color to understand that others have different perspectives, you don’t have to be a woman to understand that, either . . . but in seeking justice for all you do have to acknowledge your own perspective as one of the many, as opposed to the norm from which others deviate to their ultimate detriment and peril.
We always seem to be able to lead ourselves right back where we started! I’m just not sure you’re seeing their concerns for what they really are. I’m convinced that they feel the same way I do. I think the stage their standing on…as well as their defensiveness in being the minority voice right now… makes it difficult to express without appering myopic to the opposition.
Pingback: Colorblind and Deaf? « Spreading the Word
Pingback: Haley Barbour, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions and John McCain: Racial Hegemony, Patriarchy and the Heterosexual Domination of American Life | Spreading the word