I’m sick of hearing about the “wise Latina” comment, but I feel compelled to say something about it as a Latina. Many ethnic minorities who lack representation or parity in certain professions have heard “ethnic pep speeches.” I have heard my fair share from more accomplished Latinos in politics, education, and even the law. Because we are so few in the professions, there are often statements of ethnic pride meant to inspire and encourage, as Judge Sotomayor has suggested she was trying to do with the much referenced speech to the law students. In my experience, these pep talks have never been given to be construed that the Latino ethnic group (which by the way is very diverse and can encompass European, Native American, and even African ancestry) is superior. So I take Sonia Sotomayor’s answer today as a positive clarification, although it has been reiterated so many ways during the past few days.
Now contrast what Sotomayor said with the following:
Is a different standard being applied to Judge Sotomayor?
My thought is that we keep hearing the rehashing of the “wise Latina” reference because there really isn’t anything else to throw at Judge Sotomayor.
21 responses so far ↓
1 PMG! // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:31 pm
“there really isn’t anything else to throw at Judge Sotomayor.”
ITA!! What really gets me though, is that EVERYTHING they have brought up have been used by the Rush and his ilk for MONTHS to get their listeners up in a froth about a ‘that racist Puerto Rican Woman’. That just goes to show, they talk about the evolution of Republican party, being more inclusive, a true alternative… and yet they all retreat to pander to their ‘base’…
2 evita // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:58 pm
They don’t have anything else to throw at her but it isn’t REALLY about the wise Latina comment. The problem, the beef, is over the belief that she a Latina is saying she is better than whites, but more specifically white men.
The line of questioning has a HOW DARE YOU attitude to it. They are offended that she is not humble- as though she had been GIVEN her career through Affirmative Action, GIVEN her citizenship (despite being Puerto Rican and an automatically a citizen- but the nuance of ethnicity is not detail that whites trouble themselves with…) and they also presume that because she is so professionally revered, clearly its through white guilt that she has attained anything at all.
Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh and the other ignorant front people for the GOP have given the marching orders for their Senators. They want to stoke the flames of the culture war/ race war. As long as they keep talking about this wide Latina thing very few other details, details that humanize, details that engender respect and admiration and so on gets heard. As long as they can pit people who need to pull themselves up from their bootstraps against groups like Latinos, who have had a few successes (but demographically have more than our share of challenges,) they STILL HAVE THAT VOTE. In the end (in the next election- 2 years,) they are going for the hardworking WHITE American vote. Republicans don’t the country unified on this Sotomayor confirmation because they want us to be enemies.
So far, it’s working.
3 Anna // Jul 16, 2009 at 1:03 am
Re: “Is a different standard being applied to Judge Sotomayor?”
Of course. Conservatives prefer minorities who have no sense of their own history, and who see themselves as the “other.” That point of view makes a person desperate to be accepted, and thus easy to use and manipulate. That’s why conservatives hate ethnic studies or any education that does not place white men at the center of the universe.
What Sotomayor did was take that notion of being “other” and flip it on its head. She’s saying, yes I’m different, and because of that difference I bring something to the table that you don’t bring, and I have insight and experiences that you don’t have. And that makes me a better judge.
The only way conservatives can refute those statements is to say that being from a certain race/ethnic group has no bearing on one’s ability to judge cases.
They have to renunciate their own ideology of superiority and universality.
That’s why they’re going nuts.
4 Cockroach People // Jul 16, 2009 at 7:01 am
It seems that anytime liberals take issue with an offensive statement, they are painted as politically correct thought police. Yet we’re supposed to accept that Sotomayor’s wise Latina statement is some horrendous display of bigotry. Por favor!
Did anyone catch the “you got some ’splainin’ to do comment?” Republicans and Democrats would have flipped if someone had said “wachu talkin’ bout Willis” to Clarence Thomas. We’re supposed to ignore Senator Coburn’s statement–it was just a cute channeling of a TV icon, right? At a cocktail party among friends, I would not find it offensive–in fact I tend to like offensive humor (e.g. I liked Bruno!). But at the confirmation hearing of the First Latina Supreme Court Justice EVER? Seriously?
5 6monkeyrs // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:25 am
I am not surprise to read this. Do you know what a latino or latina means? Its the Democrats version of stereotyping a group of people and put them against each other. “wise latina” means that she has experience in New York streets and not intellegent. We need intellegence in the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution right. Conservative is the prevention of change. We don’t need wise people, we need intellegent people. Wise people know how to speak with a wicket tounge and make less wise people follow….:/ So when will the chinese, korean, philipine, guam, vietnamese, and other Judges will be in place? Conservatives are working hard to preserving what this country is, and that is the make up of many group of people. And they do not have to be defined by Democrats, which is made of individual that define themselves like Latino/as and do not see this country as one.
6 evita // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:44 am
@Cockroach People
I saw that and I was floored. The only reason, I believe, it didn’t make much traction is because it was poorly executed. I heard on Chris Matthews that this guy has said FAR worse, more directly/ overtly racist things so for him this was nothing.
I was more enraged by Grahams pushing the temperament angle. All I could think was here we go… the spicy Latina thing… too emotional… not professional…
7 mas88 // Jul 16, 2009 at 11:29 am
the reason they keep bringing up the “wise latina” comment, is becuase they have nothing else. as for that sell out Linda Chavez, she’s not even Latina, she’s Spanish, meaning that she’s from Spain, not the carribean islands. Ben Garcia I have to wonder who he is becuase certain latinos hater PRs………..I’m not going to go into that becuase we all(latinos) know who hates who. I do my best to not do it as a PR, but I swear I hear them little remarks that come out the sides of their mouths.
8 BettyM // Jul 17, 2009 at 8:41 am
Sotomayor is doing very well and maybe it is because she is “wiser”…. Good for her!!
9 CockroachPeople // Jul 17, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Can someone translate what 6monkeyrs typed above? I think he’s trying to say a judge should not be wise (using the 3rd-grade definition as in “wise-ass”), but I may be wrong. Can someone help him formulate a proper sentence or two?
I’m sorry for the (hopefully) out of character flame–but it seems that a lot of folks woke up on Tuesday and decided that they would be the guardians of intelligence on the Supreme Court. I don’t think they knew what that might entail (e.g. coherence).
10 Miss Karma // Jul 17, 2009 at 3:14 pm
One thing we all must remember is that the non-Lincoln Republicans were going to oppose ANYONE that Pres. Obama selected for SCOTUS. He could have picked Jesus Christ himself and Dumbaugh, Scam Hannity, and the rest of the Right wing megaphones would have cried foul.
Jamison Foser made an excellent observation as it pertains to the (once again) double standards as it pertains to empathy, and the non-Lincoln Republicans.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200907170002
Here’s an excerpt
…Justice Samuel Alito — a white male of Italian-American ethnicity — made a comment very similar to Sotomayor’s during his confirmation hearings, saying that his ethnicity plays a role in his thinking when he hears cases, particularly discrimination cases. Neither the conservatives who now attack Sotomayor’s comments nor the media who go along with the fiction that her comments are remarkable complained about Alito’s comments.
But that’s not all. The plaintiff in the Ricci case is Frank Ricci, an Italian-American firefighter. Justice Alito, who voted in favor of Ricci, has said that his Italian-American heritage plays a role in his thinking when he hears discrimination cases. Yet reporters ignore that fact when they report on conservative allegations that Sotomayor’s background, rather than her reading in the law, determined her vote. Nor do they question why the Republican senators who are so concerned about Sotomayor’s Ricci vote are silent on the question of whether Alito’s ethnicity played a role in his vote.
That’s a clear double standard: A white man who rules in favor of a white man is presumed to have done so based on a neutral reading of the law — even though he has previously said his ethnicity plays a role in his judicial thinking — while a Latina is presumed to be unduly influenced by her background…
As a Black female, I must say this: If those good ol boys can do this to Hon. Sotomayor, a Latina I could only (but don’t really want to) imagine what they’ll do to Obama’s pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Regina Benjamin.
11 Anna // Jul 17, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Re: “as for that sell out Linda Chavez…”
I read the transcript of Chavez’s testimony and it was ridiculous. She said that Sotomayor drinks from the well of identity politics, a well that is dark and poisonous. lol
Why does she allow herself to be used like that? She’s a peon.
12 Anna // Jul 17, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Miss Karma:
There is definitely a double standard. Sotomayor graduated from the best universities in the country with honors, and has more experience as a judge than anybody else on the Supreme Court. Her rulings have been deemed mainstream and she was even initially appointed by a Republican.
But that’s still not good enough. Even if you exclude their criticism of her “wise Latina” comment, they still insulted her by calling her not that smart, tempermental, a bully, and an Affirmative Action pick, as if anybody who gets Affirmative Action is less qualified.
Every minority or woman who was admitted to an Ivy League college in the early 70s was an AA pick because those schools weren’t admitting minorities and women in significant numbers until they were forced to by AA. But they never call a white woman an AA pick even though white women are the largest group of AA beneficiaries.
Even supposedly liberal MSNBC gave Pat Buchanan a platform to smear Sotomayor last night, and today Lawrence O’Donnell asked what it mean tto have an AA pick on the Court.
Funny how they didn’t ask what it meant to have legacy admit Dubya as President. They called Dubya stupid, but they never challenged the fact that he got his degrees based on his family name.
Well, Sotomayor broke the barier for Latinas on the Court amd hopefully it will make things easier for professional Latinas all across the country.
13 Miss Karma // Jul 17, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Anna, I co-sign
It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t .
Chavez , is another hater and race baiter. Remember when she was going to be the Labor Secretary under Cheney/Bush but withdrew because of a maid that she hired (sounds like she engaged in her own form of identity politics.) Prior to that she had criticized Zoe Baird (who was set to be the Attorney General under Bill Clinton) FOR THE SAME REASON. The double standards go on and on and on…
…a well that is dark and poisonous…”
Coming from Linda Chavez, that could be interpreted in so many different ways.
14 reyfeo // Jul 18, 2009 at 5:32 am
I think you’re all hipocrats to even be having this discussion about Republicans bashing Sotomayor…BUT before I go any further, let me fully state I truly think Sotomayor is qualified and believe she is a good candidate for the SCOTUS.
That said, every body here who keeps slamming the Repubs for using the “wise latina” talking point is only kidding themseleves if they don’t think the Dems would be doing the same if the shoe was on the other side. In the George Bush years, it was the Dems who kept many (to include more than fully qulified American Latino Judges) from gettng any kind of up and down vote. Where were your loud sentimenets then? ans will you cry fowl if the Dems do it again.
So, please spare me the rethoric (and hipocracy if you will), its just politics. Obama has managed to throw us a bone with a American Latino to the SCOTUS…I think he didn’t have a choice. There was growing sentiment about an Obama Administration and its lack to satisfy the voting power (the American lationo) that put him in power. When the Sotomayor vote is over and she gets to the bench, can we then focus on what really matters, thousands of American (black, Asian, Latino etc) not working and in disarray with the economy.
15 6monkeyrs // Jul 18, 2009 at 5:38 am
CockroachPeople is exactly what I meant. Wise-ass comment from possibly now a Supereme Court Justice to who misrepresents the latino community.
16 Wise Latino // Jul 18, 2009 at 2:15 pm
After reading all the comments it seems that there are two truths:
1. Any latino/latina that doesn’t agree with the party line latin/dem is a hater.
2. If we do it to them it is o.k. but if they do it to us it is not.
Seems like you have it all worked out. Your as deaf, dumb and blind as “THEY” are. Pathetic.
17 Wise Latino // Jul 18, 2009 at 10:22 pm
U.S. v. Hamdi 432 F.3d. 115 (2005)
Sotomayor’s Decision:
Ali Hamdi is a citizen of Tunisia who was residing in the United States. He was arrested for producing fraudulent visas and fake Yemeni birth certificates in his Brooklyn, New York travel agency. He pled guilty to a felony, served 2 years in jail, and was then deported.
On December 19, 2003, Hamdi filed an appeal of his sentence. He must have filed this appeal from a foreign country, and had a U.S. attorney working for him. Hamdi wanted the sentence reduced. Yes, he had already served his sentence, so any sentence reduction would only be on paper. But the shorter his sentence on paper, the more possible that the immigration authorities would exercise their discretion and allow him to be re-admitted to the United States on a tourist visa. It’s called a “discretionary waiver of inadmissibility” under the immigration laws, potentially resulting in Hamdi being re-admitted to the United States as a temporary, non-immigrant visitor (tourist).
This case had already been before a federal district judge, who ruled against Hamdi. Sotomayor, a federal appeals court judge, issued a ruling concluding that, yes, there is a specific provision in the immigration law allowing the government the discretion to admit somebody on a tourist visa even if they had been convicted of a felony. She sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings based on her ruling.
My Comment:
Hamdi had already been actively subverting the immigration laws, so I would strongly suspect that once he re-enters the United States on a tourist visa, he will overstay that visa and also begin more activities such as issuing fake visas and fake birth certificates. I would be a fool not to suspect. Therefore, I think no sane U.S. government would ever re-admit Hamdi to the United States.
Tourist visas last 30 or 90 days. Why would anybody trust Hamdi to behave lawfully while in the United States and then to leave the country when his 30 or 90 day tourist visa had expired? The U.S. government still has no way of making sure that people leave the country after their visa has expired. As a federal judge who hears immigration cases, Sotomayor should have known this; if not, she didn’t know her job.
Since no sane U.S. government would ever exercise its discretion to allow Hamdi to enter the country in the future, this entire case is “moot.” “Moot” means “of no importance” or “there is nothing to decide here.” Therefore, Sotomayor should have dismissed the case.
Instead, Sotomayor produced an 8 page, 6500 word decision (this blog is only 1000 words) and then sent the case back down to the district court for even more work. What a colossal waste of time and energy over nothing for somebody who is a criminal alien. The federal courts are overburdened, and whatever resources we have should be directed at more deserving litigants.
Additionally, in a post 9-11 world, it would be the height of government idiocy to allow Hamdi to re-enter the United States for any reason. Hamdi is a Tunisian. Tunisia has a strong Al Quaeda presence and has experienced several terrorist incidents since 9-11. The murderers of Afghan Northern Alliance Commander Ahmed Shah Masood, who operated on behalf of Osama Bin Laden, were both Tunisian. Hamdi was found in possession of 106 fake Yemeni birth certificates. Yemen is the birthplace of Bin Laden and remains potent source of Al Quaeda recruits. The attack on the U.S.S. Cole occurred in Yemen. FBI agents sent there to investigate the attack found the environment to be extremely hostile. One has to wonder what Hamdi was doing as he conducted his immigration forgery operation in Brooklyn, New York. Was it some kind of poorly executed mechanism of implanting sleeper Al Quaeda operatives in the United States by swapping their Saudi, Tunisian, Pakistani, or other nationality for a clean Yemeni identity? It does sound like a poor idea, but then again the Al Quaeda is not a operationally perfect. Whatever the precise circumstances of Hamdi’s visa and birth certificate forgery operation, in a post 9-11 world, the United States simply must deal with that kind of activity harshly and no sane U.S. government would ever use its discretion to let Hamdi enter the country on a tourist visa. Therefore, the case was moot and should have been dismissed. Justice Sotomayor’s absolute ignorance of security concerns raised by the Hamdi case is astounding. Did she get the memo that 9-11 happened? She failed to dismiss the case and thereby stop the waste of her time, the taxpayers’ money, and the time taken away from more deserving litigants.
I’m sure excuses will abound but all I can say is WOW!
18 Wise Latino // Jul 18, 2009 at 10:26 pm
So 8 pages and 6500 words for a person who has already been deported and should not be allowed back into the US. By contrast Ricci vs. De Stefano got one paragraph unpublished. Hmmmmm.
19 Cockroach People // Jul 21, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Wise Latino’s post is just a repost of Charles Breiterman’s anti-immigrant gobbledygook:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/cbreiter2/july-17-2009/sotomayor-immigration.html
Alternatively, Breiterman is now calling himself a Wise Latino.
The Hamdi case was a narrow ruling by a unanimous panel about an already released prisoner’s ability to challenge a sentence that could have collateral consequences.
It’s the tirade of Wise Latino or Breiterman or who ever he is, that is a “colossal waste of time.”
20 Wise Latino // Jul 21, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I appologize. I thought I attached Breiterman’s name to the end of this. My comment comes at the end. As for Cockroach Boy…..Well again if anyone presents information that doens’t go along with your view it is of course “narrow and a waste of time”. I am glad to see you are reading factual information CP. I am not Charles Breiterman. I am just a wise latino whose experiences lead me to a better conclusion than everyone else.
21 Vicky M Krause // Jul 28, 2009 at 4:41 am
STATEMENT BY BOB KRAUSE
Democratic Candidate, United States Senate
Monday, July 27, 2009
U. S. Senate candidate Bob Krause says Grassley opposition to Sotomayer follows pattern of anti-women votes
It was with regret but no surprise that I learned this afternoon of Senator Charles Grassley’s announcement that he will vote against the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Justice David Souter.
Senator Grassley’s vote against Judge Sotomayor is the capstone to a long string of anti-women votes by Iowa’s senior senator.
In combined 2007-2008 alone, he was rated at 40% favorable by the American Association of University Women (AAUW). This is actually his best in years. He was at 33% with AAUW in 2007 and just 10% in 2005-2006, just after his successful re-election. Perhaps next year, which is an election year, his women’s vote rating will improve.
But I am not hopeful of that improvement. On the first significant civil rights bill of 2009, Grassley voted against closing a huge loophole in the equal pay for equal work statute. Had Grassley prevailed it would have remained very easy for large corporations to discriminate on pay to women and get away with it.
Thus, it is not surprising that Senator Grassley’s first vote against a Supreme Court nominee in 29 years is against a woman. Her confirmation is important not only to women and Hispanics, but to all Americans as a reaffirmation of the great melting pot of humanity that is the United States.
It is unfortunate that Senator Grassley has chosen to again follow the party line and put partisanship above the interests of Iowans. I urge Senator Grassley to change his mind and vote “yes” to confirm a well qualified nominee for the highest court in the land.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, July 27, 2009
Contact: Keith Dinsmore
573-230-5360
keith@krauseforiowa.com
Leave a Comment