What I really need to know is what Rosie Perez thought because you know show was sitting at home taking copious notes of the confirmation hearings. Lifetime Movies don't just get made; they are a lot of work, y'all!
It's easy for all of them to say. When Sotomayor is confirmed, and she enacts her plan for world domination, their lives will probably get BETTER. Meanwhile, all white men will be forced to give up their jobs to like, black people and immigrants or something and perform abortions all day long (when they're not getting gay-married that is). At night, they will be required to find and destroy at least 5 guns, while they recite the pledge of allegiance WITHOUT the phrase "under God" in it. All churches will be closed, and they will instead be forced to worship the Wise Latina.
I'm frankly kind of bummed she played it safe and didn't defend this statement during her confirmation hearing (I felt the same way many times during Obama's campaign, but I guess that's why I'm not in politics). As articulate and learned on our legislative history as she is, not to mention good at framing an argument, how hard could it have been?
The defining feature of our American Constitution is that it includes safeguards that protect the rights of the minority. That was undoubtedly the framers' intent, knowing that they were creating a charter for what supposed to be and is the most diverse, pluralistic, free society in modern history.
Perfecting this Union was a challenging mandate and at times along the way, the majority (White men for anyone who hasn't been keeping score for the past 200+ years) has made mistakes that have impinged on the rights of the minority. The framers of the Constitution anticipated this, which is why they made certain to carefully craft a charter that would allow the minority to have a voice. Because they believed a country in which the minority is allowed to have a hand in government is a better, more perfect country.
Without having read the speech, I would guess she was implying that a Latina's experiences might differ from a white male's, and that divergent perspectives are valuable on the court. Shocking!
Someone (Dahlia Litwick?) pointed to an article that showed that judges do vote differently in the company of other judges with different backgrounds vs. in the company of only white male judges. Again, Shocking!
Didn't you guys know? White, financially-secure men are raised in laboratory vacuum tubes until they're old enough to run for political office. That's how come they can make every single decision with no hint of bias, agenda, impartiality or evidence of previous life-experience. That's also why they all have the same side-parted 1950's haircut.
No no no. Everything, everywhere, is a referendum on white men. They are the fundament (serendipitous pun retroactively intended) on which every other concept in every other context rests. This song really IS about them.
They're assuming they aren't biased and that she is because she's an ethnic person. All these white men who were on the Supreme Court for the first 200 years were supposed to be impartial and unbiased, but for 200 years they upheld laws that supported segregation and discrimination.
Yes yes yes! This! It's the same shit as when Obama was running for president and my mother was convinced that he secretly wanted to exterminate all the white people. She kept saying, "I wouldn't vote for someone who I thought wanted to exterminate all the black people either!" and yet she voted for Bush twice.
People tend to get so worked up about biases. It's kind of like stereotyping, there are always these cries of "OMG it's so awful I never do that!!"
Well, actually, you do. It's not a horrible thing. Biases occur due to your experience, the way in which you've navigated the world and how others have interacted with you.
Diversity is always positive. ALWAYS. I am not sorry that the Old Crusty White Man Club is struggling with that.
@Penny: Exactly. Background and experience determine most of our paradigms. The fact that there are those who feel inclined to believe that their own paradigms are the absolute standard and therefore all the other paradigms are what's "different" in life, is simply a proof of how social isolation and/or privilege shape our views.
Josefina Lopez's quote is EXACTLY what I was screaming in my head during the last week.
Everyone has biases! At least she is aware of hers and honest about them. Unlike all the old white dudes who, y'know, totally don't have any biases - nope, no sir.
Well, exactly. The statement was taken from a much longer speech in which these issues were being thoughtfully discussed. On it's own, it doesn't sound....great. But it doesn't sound awful either. It is, and always has been, a non issue.
@Penny: Either those Senators a) didn't read the speech and are wasting the hearing asking about something they heard someone mention on TV; b) they did read the speech and lack reading comprehension; or c) they read the speech, understood the context perfectly well, and are taking advantage of a bad soundbite to race bait.
It's simple: she's a judge. She's been a judge for a long time. She has a sterling record. Attach that record to any person of any color, or race, or religion, or of either gender, and you'd be a fool not to put them on the court.
What the Republicans tried to do (unsuccessfully), is claim that who she was as a person would negate who she was as a judge, that it was impossible for her to be two people at once. To which I reply, "Even Superman had to be Clark Kent occasionally."
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
THIS IS THE FUTURE WE CAN EXPECT.
07/17/09
07/17/09
The defining feature of our American Constitution is that it includes safeguards that protect the rights of the minority. That was undoubtedly the framers' intent, knowing that they were creating a charter for what supposed to be and is the most diverse, pluralistic, free society in modern history.
Perfecting this Union was a challenging mandate and at times along the way, the majority (White men for anyone who hasn't been keeping score for the past 200+ years) has made mistakes that have impinged on the rights of the minority. The framers of the Constitution anticipated this, which is why they made certain to carefully craft a charter that would allow the minority to have a voice. Because they believed a country in which the minority is allowed to have a hand in government is a better, more perfect country.
It is NOT that hard to understand.
07/17/09
She did the right thing.
07/17/09
07/17/09
Someone (Dahlia Litwick?) pointed to an article that showed that judges do vote differently in the company of other judges with different backgrounds vs. in the company of only white male judges. Again, Shocking!
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
Yes yes yes! This! It's the same shit as when Obama was running for president and my mother was convinced that he secretly wanted to exterminate all the white people. She kept saying, "I wouldn't vote for someone who I thought wanted to exterminate all the black people either!" and yet she voted for Bush twice.
07/17/09
Well, actually, you do. It's not a horrible thing. Biases occur due to your experience, the way in which you've navigated the world and how others have interacted with you.
Diversity is always positive. ALWAYS. I am not sorry that the Old Crusty White Man Club is struggling with that.
07/17/09
07/17/09
The thing that has really irked me in some of the reporting of this issue is the use of the term "reverse racism", as if racism is a one way street.
Isn't it *just* racism, period?
07/17/09
07/17/09
Everyone has biases! At least she is aware of hers and honest about them. Unlike all the old white dudes who, y'know, totally don't have any biases - nope, no sir.
07/17/09
I think it was Chris Rock who said that colleges admitting legacies is "affirmative action for white people" ...
07/17/09
/snark
07/17/09
Well, exactly. The statement was taken from a much longer speech in which these issues were being thoughtfully discussed. On it's own, it doesn't sound....great. But it doesn't sound awful either. It is, and always has been, a non issue.
07/17/09
07/17/09
What the Republicans tried to do (unsuccessfully), is claim that who she was as a person would negate who she was as a judge, that it was impossible for her to be two people at once. To which I reply, "Even Superman had to be Clark Kent occasionally."
07/17/09
07/17/09