In case you can’t see in the pix, the New Yorker conveniently points out that the current SCOTUS is on the “far right.” Now, Sotomayor is not as left as I’d like her to be, but don’t buy all this crap the right is giving you on her “radical” views. The current justices are way right of Nixon, and it’s about damn time we got a little rationality. I don’t know when I’ve ever seen this much premeditated political BS over a nominee.
GBitch provides a good link to this article, and there’s a lot to see here. My main beef is that these folks don’t seem to see the White Privilege from which they’ve received great benefit. Roberts says that affirmative action mandates the “recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates.” Wrong, fucker, wrong. AA requires that we give people a look who aren’t on the inside track, who weren’t the privileged sons of rich folks who got them in the door of the CEO’s office. Here’s what Roberts believes:
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Easy for him to say. He doesn’t see that the simplicity of his argument belies the depths of the racism that much of the American public (including people who’ll probably comment in response to this post, because they’re the usually the only people who comment on my posts) feel. Everyone would be fine with stopping discrimination, but the privileged classes have screwed things up so bad, we need to fix some things. And affirmative action provides a positive approach to this goal. It’s not a quota, and it doesn’t require employing unqualified people. As soon as you suggest it does, you insult the phenomenal qualifications of Sotomayor.
Here’s another telling quote from the New Yorker article:
It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.
Yeah, sounds good, but guess what, your people have been doing it for many, many generations, so you don’t get to decide that the time for divvying is over now. You’re out of touch, and I’d call your ignorance judicial activism.
Last point: This claim of judicial activism is as spurious as the claim of “pork” in the legislature. Pretty damned subjective. Anybody who’s a judge and doesn’t fall in my line of thinking is an activist to me, and anyone who disagrees with Sotomayor’s views will see her as an activist. Damn straight, a Latina from a poor family will see the world, and the law, differently from those of us who have not felt the sting of dismissal. No shame in that. The white men haven’t exactly had a monopoly on wisdom, God knows.
Sonia Sotomayor is quaified to be a Supreme Court Justice, no matter what her “story” is, and those who lob their condescending opposition her way are just the desperate, privileged few who fear a little social justice heading their way. Maybe the chickens really are coming home to roost.
UPDATE: Jim Morin says it better than I ever could: