Media Justice for Sotomayor
The Women's Media Center just released this assemblage of clips showing the ridiculous treatment that Sotomayor has already experienced at the hands of right-wing pundits and the mainstream media.
Take action here so that she can get the most fair nomination hearing possible.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Media Justice for Sotomayor.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14890
Well some of those comments are horrendous. Liddy's was the absolute worst, and Limbaugh's vacuum cleaner quip was completely tasteless. Beck and Miller were pretty bad, too. However, most of those comments were standard fare.
Am I the only one here who remembers the Justice Roberts proceedings? Alito? Both were as unquestionably qualified to serve, and yet there were ridiculously partisan attacks leveled at them. And don't even get me started with the Clarence Thomas proceedings.
At the end of the day, Sotomayor will be confirmed, and we'll all be better because of the process. Are there racist and sexist things being said about her? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, this is just more partisanship on the part of the Washington establishment. The Right is no worse than the Left in these matters. I know there will be those who disagree with me, but that's truly how I see it.
I think you have a valid point that this is a partisan game-but Clarence Thomas? Why defend him? He's an arrogant pig who's never been held to account for his harassment. If you think he got ripped to shreds, look what they did to Anita Hill.
I'm inclined to believe Anita Hill, but I have seen more than ample testimony from credible witnesses who defended Thomas. In the end, after hearing both sides, I've concluded that since I know neither of them, I won't take part in accusing him of harrassment.
I know this is a controversial viewpoint, but I've given this a lot of thought, and I truly believe that since I really don't know what happened, and since there was clearly partisan vitriol against him, and since ultimately he was qualified, I'm not going to join in on the hate. After all, a lot of this opposition was couched in racism and sexism.
That said, I'll be glad when this is all over, and Sotomayor is on the bench. It'll be a wonderful day for so many of us.
Ok-fair enough. Let me make a valid criticism of Thomas: he never asks any questions, he always looks like he's going to fall asleep during oral arguments (although I feel a scintilla of pity for him on that, because I've listened to some of those arguments and man, are they boring), and having had to read his opinions throughout law school, I think he's not a legal genius or a great thinker. I really really really dislike Scalia, but that dude can write persuasively and passionately about his viewpoint and back it up with law. Clarence Thomas? Not so much. And I think his inexperience was a big deal during his confirmation hearings, and that's fair. Roberts also had that problem.
And you know, I want Sotomayor on the bench, because she seems like a straight shootin cat, but I also want her to be able to stand up to and defend her legal reasoning in the hearings. I hope the Senators stick to legal attacks, which are ok, instead of personal attacks, which just leave us all feeling dirty.
I agree. And you're right, Scalia is really something. The left truly could use someone like him.
The stupid, it hurt.
Was there one single person on there who was not a white dude, by the way? All (or mostly) beneficiaries of a little something I like to call "reverse affirmative action".
Dear Dennis Millier: You're joke was intellectually lazy and poorly executed. You're a douche.
That is all.
Of course, I meant "your". Sooo glad it is friday.
Alito and Roberts endured "partisan" attacks, not racist and sexist ones. There is an important distinction in that partisanship may be a valid reason to question someone's ability to adjudicate, but race and gender are not.
I don't think any serious person really thinks that her race or gender truly matter in her ability to judge. I think that the partisans are using race and gender to manipulate morons into creating a vocal opposition.
Is this valid and problematic? Yes. But do you really think that any one of those pundits actually thinks her race or gender affect her ability to judge? I don't. I think this is pure partisan manipulation. Unfair, true. But it's always unfair. Just as the opposition to Roberts and Alito was unfounded and unfair.
I do agree that this is absolutely a *feminist* issue. I'm not arguing that.
The problem for Sotomayor were the remarks she made about being able to make a better decision than a white male. When you say that, you get a reaction. In a sense she brought up race and gender and her comment insulted white men generally. Not surprising. People disagreed with her decision on the Ricci case. The Supreme court disagreed with her too. She will probably get confirmed despite being overturned on Ricci and other cases because there are 60 dems in the Senate. However Robert Bork was not confirmed even though he had never been overturned. So it is more about politics than it is about judicial qualifications. I don't think the republicans are going to try to do much more than ask her embarrassing questions. They will ask her stuff, she doesn't want to answer to give her the opportunity to make a fool of herself. She will probably manage to get through it. Most do. The republicans know she is old and diabetic. They would take those odds over someone younger and healthier.
wow that is incredibly condescending.
Sotomayor does not have any more overturns by supreme court than other judges on the appeals court. Her statement was made about why she thinks that judges should represent the society that they are judging. It was not a blanket statement about how she would always make a better decision. She was referring that a Latina Woman would have better knowledge from life experience about a case involving latina women. Something that even republican justice Alito has referred to.
She should get confirmed because she is a good tough judge and represents a large segment of the population that is not currently represented.
She should get confirmed because she is a good tough judge and represents a large segment of the population that is not currently represented.
I whole heartedly disagree. I believe in a meritocracy. Being though is a good criterion. Representing a large segment of the population that is not currently represented is completely irrelevant to merit. I find her contribution to Ricci completely meritless. The city negotiated with the firefighter union in good faith & contracted a firm with a reputation for weeding bias out of its tests. Sotomayors prominent quote from her cross was "was there another way?" Ricci studies for months and had quit his part time job to commit to his studies. He was in the top 3 and she wants to throw it to the wind because he is white. She is racist, flat out.
The clips make me ashamed that people hold the same view as I do are so common and bigoted, but Sotomayor aught not serve on the supreme court merly because she "represents a large segment of the population that is not currently represented"
Yeah. Sotomayor's ruling affirming the district court's ruling was absolutely wrong. It's as if she completely ignored the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I have to also say I'm shocked at how much support has been given in opposition to the Supreme Court ruling, including the 4 dissenting opinions.
There will be much questioning, and I think that's fair when you take into consideration her previous statements, including the "wise latina" statement. It's certainly not racist or sexist for her to be intensely questioned about this. It is, after all, a serious responsibility that Congress has in this matter.
In the end, I think she'll be a fine judge, and I hope she reconsiders her position on Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is absolutely unconstitutional. We do live a meritocracy, and there is no place in the constitution for it. I expect that many in our community disagree with me, but that's okay.
Oops! I meant to say *Affirmative Action that doesn't provide Equal Protection* is unconstitutional. Not Affirmative Action.
It may be considered wrong but she was hardly the only one that thought this way.
Also, I find it incredibly funny that this is the only case about affirmative action that people are talking about. If you go to the SCOTUS blog there is an article outlining her decisions on affirmative action. She overwhelmingly ruled against the defendants claiming discrimination and in one of the cases that she ruled in favor it was for a white man. She does not have a record of making bad rulings just in favor of minorities as many are constantly saying.
Also, she is a wise latina. How many times have people on this site said that it is fucked upw hen only men are asked to comment on situations like abortion. People that say they don't believe in a meritocracy....well do you really believe the 9 top judges in the united states and include only 1 woman and 1 black man? It's never meritocracy when a white guy gets appointed. She is a good, tough judge, liked by both republicans and democrats (until now) and she is also woman and latina. there is nothing wrong with Obama looking at top judges and deciding to focus on women or latina's as long as they are effective judges since there are already going to be6 white men on the bench.
Most of the gender and race-based comments are directed as critizms of Obama's choice for Supreme Court Justice, not a knock against Sotomayor.
Some of the comments in that video are very much taken out of context. A few of them are part of questions. Also, I would say that the smear attacks against Sotomayor have been rather tame compared to attacks against other prominent women.
NO YOU'RE WRONG. THE VAST MAJORITY OF COMMENTS CONSISTED OF "SHE IS..." THOSE ARE STATEMENTS. NOT QUESTIONS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.
This video is disgusting. I have to go vomit.
"She is ..., she is ..., she is ... according to ..."
This is a report of what others have said, nothing new for journalists.
"Is she responsible with her own money? Is she ...?"
All sorts of odd questions get asked of people that are under the public eye.
The menstruating comment bothered me the most, I think--though, clearly all are disgusting. When will we get past the belief that having a period does not make you so insane and irrational that you cannot function for a week? That comment was not only about Sotomayor's perceived incompetence in a higher position, but all women. What a tool.
The menstruating comment bothered me the most, I think--though, clearly all are disgusting. When will we get past the belief that having a period does not make you so insane and irrational that you cannot function for a week? That comment was not only about Sotomayor's perceived incompetence in a higher position, but all women. What a tool.