Watching the confirmation hearings of Sotomayor, it makes me wonder if Sotomayor wants to scream, "hey white dude, you are partial to your own life experience as well..." The Sotomayor hearings are pretty painful to watch, and should put to the side any belief that we are in a post-racial space. Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.
It seems the question of whether Sotomayor's experience adds value, verse whether it impacts her ability to be objective in her rulings is at the core of the questioning, which is almost a pre-multiculturalism line of questioning that only a Republican would concern themselves with them. At least Democrats are up to the multi-kulti frame, where the more diverse we are, the better things are. It is not perfect, but it is better than the belief that white men are objective and everyone else is holding to much baggage to do their work.
Watch more here.
What do you think? Consider this an open thread for those that are watching the hearing as well.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Only White Men Can be "Objective." .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14944
I'm so glad to see this posted- I said as much yesterday on another post further down the page and someone hopped all over my ass.
Actually, the problem is that white men *can be*, (and often *are*) impartial, as can any wise person regardless of race or gender. She is actually hurting her position by reiterating her argument that Sandra Day O'Connor was mistaken when she stated that wise men and wise women would reach the same conclusion. Sandra Day O'Connor was correct.
Sotomayor has made this argument multiple times on different occasions that a wise latina more often than not would reach a *better* conclusion than her male counterpart. That's a preposterous position, and she would do well to run as fast and far away as she can from this position.
She's looking pretty shaky to me. I fully expected her to be more well spoken, and am pretty disappointed in her performance.
I disagree that true impartiality exists much in the way that true objectivity exists. (This is actually a discussion that went on on U-Stream). I think what Sotomayor is aiming at is that there is a striving for impartiality but a recognition that none of us exist in a bubble. In other words, standpoint epistemology.
I disagree - I think she sounds very strong. I loved when they asked her where the right to privacy could be found in the Constitution (I say "they" asked because I have only audio, not visual) - I thought she knocked that question out of the park, citing illegal search and seizure, the 14th amendment, etc. I also think she's done a terrific job defending the precedents in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Roe, and Griswold.
Can't wait for her to be on the court!
Oh, I want her to be appointed, but she really does seem shaky. I expected much more from her.
And really, the whole thing seems to be tame and evenhanded. I'm not seeing any racism or sexism on the part of the senators, except the democrat yesterday who referred to her as "warm" and "maternal". What's up with that?
Can someone please tell courtship dating that racism and sexism extend further and deeper than simply calling someone racist or sexist names? That what's going on in the hearings IS inherently racist and sexist based on what Samhita and other commenters have written? ...Oh wait, I just did.
Seriously! Sometimes I feel like I'm reading a completely different post then some of the people on this board.
Then to have courtship dating go on to call Samhita racist and foolish? Really? *headdesk*
I agree. There were copious amounts of head/desk-ing from me when I read Courtship's comment.
False. She did not say a wise Latina *would* make a better decision. She said "I *would hope* that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Why is no one pointing this out?
Samhita, you just sound racist (and foolish) with this whole, "Hey white dude..." bit. What's with that?
How exactly is it racist to suggest white dudes are influenced by their backgrounds as white dudes? There is substantial sociological data to back that up.
okay. here we go. "hey black dude, you are..."
or "hey white chick, you are..."
or "hey brown chick, you are..."
nope. nothing to see here.
So acknowledging someone's race is automatically racist? BS.
There are two logical ways to come at this.
Either:
you accept that all people can put aside their backgrounds, and therefore everyone is equally capable of doing so, or
you accept that backgrounds do influence people, in which case, why is a male white background any less prone to make one biased than any other?
I think the original post is coming at this from the second stance.
What is not logical is the idea that white men's backgrounds do not influence them, but everyone else's do.
I would agree with this, but it seems to miss that 1) is what's generally being advocated (in the world at large), and being played (by media, whatnot) is the fear that Sotomayor will deliberately operate under 2) when everyone else is trying to do 1), and everyone is "supposed" to do 1).
The Ginberg quote above, I think, illustrates the contrasting position that people are advocating. It's not that white men are objective, but that everyone can be objective, if they try (although obviously they'll be imperfect at this), but that it should be the goal. We'd all acknowledge that white men also come with biases (though we'd probably ascribe it to whiteness very little, and more often class, or gender, or whatnot), but that they're supposed to try to put that aside.
In practice, I guess, the American Supreme Court doesn't seem to be very unanimous, which suggests they do a bad job of being objective anyways.
Exactly. And based upon how they've treated her in past situations, I think it's safe to say that there is definitely a bias going on here.
Calling me foolish gets you banned.
Thank you.
"Courtship dating" has been stinking up the comments lately.
Samhita, I supported you when called some of Palin's actions "asshole moves," and I support courtship dating when sie says you "sound foolish." If you are going to ban ad hominim attacks, you need to
1) be very clear on what constitutes an ad hominim attack, eg, "asshole moves" vs. "is an asshole" and "sound foolish" vs. "are foolish"
2) follow your own rules.
(not to be construed as support for either's position, just the language they used)
I agree. I disagreed with courtship dating on many points, but to get bannination for something as mild as "foolish" stunned me. Unless this user had been previously warned on other posts, I think this was a little OTT.
Do you mean you support her right to say that without getting banned or you support her stance? I just want to clarify because it is unclear to me.
Even though, I disagree with a lot Courtship dating's posts, I have to say I agree with FrumiousB; I found Samhita's reply to be somewhat contradictory. Especially since Courtship dating didn't actually say that Samhita was foolish, but more so that the post itself was a foolish way of looking at things. Regardless, as long as she's respectful, I think she's entitled to her opinion.
Maybe the best place to discuss Samhita's position on the new comment policies is not a thread about how White dudes can just aggravatingly assume they're all objective and naturally a woman of color is going to have a distorted perspective and do some kind of freaky non-White and hence probably-biased decision-making. Unless we are trying be all meta.
courtship dating has been flirting with labeling Samhita as racist for viewing things from a woc's perspective a while now. I think that's enough
Wow. So apparently, we can call out commenters for what, subjectively, seems implied by their statements, but not editors. That is making the comment policy of this site laughable, when I thought it was in good sense before.
"Hey white dude" seems to be shorthand for reminding white males that they also have a race and gender, despite the way some seem to believe either that they don't, or that theirs doesn't get in the way of impartial thinking. This isn't to say that white men are never fair in their thinking, or that POC are always by definition fair in their thinking, but it does mean the notion of "impartial" gets really complicated - and it should!
As a POC color, Samhita can neither sound nor be racist. She can be (and sound) prejudiced based on skin color, but I doubt that she is. Racism is a social institution based on power and privilege. Marginalized ethnic groups are not capable of racism b/c they carry neither power nor privilege. When pointing out a person's invisible privilege, granted them based on a physical trait, it is entirely appropriate to point out that trait. White cis men's privilege comes from both their skin and their sex, making the words "white dude" appropriate.
As a POC color, Samhita can neither sound nor be racist. She can be (and sound) prejudiced based on skin color, but I doubt that she is. Racism is a social institution based on power and privilege. Marginalized ethnic groups are not capable of racism b/c they carry neither power nor privilege. When pointing out a person's invisible privilege, granted them based on a physical trait, it is entirely appropriate to point out that trait. White cis men's privilege comes from both their skin and their sex, making the words "white dude" appropriate.
You're looking at the macrocosm of all people everywhere and ignoring the microcosm of specific situations. If a white, cis male lives in a neighborhood that is predominantly black and hispanic he can absolutely experience racism as you define it. It may not be as rampant or as far reaching but to deny its existence is to state that racism against one specific group of people is somehow less insidious than it is towards others and that is both dishonest and morally bankrupt.
I don't think Samhita has come across as a racist at all. You, on the other hand, have.
Read over the distinction between racism and prejudice another time. You have completely missed the point.
Sorry, no. I gave a specific example where power could be taken away from a cis, white male through racism. You just chose to ignore it.
Main Entry: rac·ism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights ; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
This would only make sense if all of the people in this neighborhood and the white man have spent their entire lives in a vacuum and have built their community totally separated and with absolutely no influence from greater society.
Which would, obviously, be impossible.
And again, no. These environments have a self-contained quality to them and, yes, Virginia, a white dude can experience racism there.
"A self contained quality" does not mean they are completely cut off and unaffected by the outside world. The cis white man in your example may experience some negative prejudices due to his race, gender and sexuality, but just because he is living in a neighborhood where he is a minority does not mean he is experiencing racism. The shows on television will still feature mainly white people (and lots of men), he will easily be able to find products made specifically for him, he will be earning more money than his neighbors, etc etc etc.
Short version: your example highlights prejudice, not racism. There is a difference.
If he attempts to get a job in that neighborhood but is denied even if he is qualified due to his race is that simply 'prejudice'? What if he wants to give his patronage to shops in that area but is treated discourteously or even threatened with violence due to his race is that also 'simply prejudice'? What happens if a crime is committed against him but there is no justice because the court are biased against white men? Is that simply 'prejudice'? Just because it's far less common doesn't mean it never happens. These things I'm describing are not fantasy they, are, however, unquestionably racism.
I'm sorry but I don't buy this concept that because white dudes are on tv there can be no such thing as racism for white, cisgendered men. Not all white men automatically get paid more either. Every point you have made is rooted in an absolutism that simply does not exist.
To your questions/examples: yep, that's prejudice.
You are laboring under the misunderstanding that prejudice is no big deal. Prejudice is unfair and can certainly have negative consequences for individuals.
Minority groups themselves are the victims of racism, and as a consequence of this racism they have been denied access to the traditional means of power and influence. Therefore, these groups of oppressed people (anyone who is not able-bodied, cis, straight, white, male, upper-class and from the Western world) are incapable of being racist towards groups in power or anyone above them on the hierarchy of patriarchal power. HOWEVER, anyone, no matter where they fall on the matrix of oppression, can be bigoted and prejudiced against others.
And the wage gap is a proven statistic, a white man most certainly makes more than a fellow employee of color doing the same job.
Further, you cite examples that are completely hypothetical and uncheckable. Such a neighborhood (populated with shops run only by people of color, with a police force of only people of color, and only POC judges) simply doesn't exist. Your insistence that a cis, white man could potentially be (and somewhere truly is!) the victim of racism is coming off trollish.
My belief that racism exists towards white people is hardly contingent upon an environment where all of these possibilities exist as one. I think accusing someone who disagrees with you of being "trollish" is kind of unfair. Why? Because we don't see eye to eye on words as you choose to define them? I'm sorry but nothing you've said has seemed like anything more or less than exercises in absolutism. No matter how unlikely you may believe these sets of circumstances may be, they do exist. Are you going to tell me that in the annals of american history there has never been a single example of racism towards a cis, white, hetero male?
Again, unnecessary troll calling. Yeah, you had different styles of arguing. You disagree. That makes neither one of you a troll.
The point, I think, is that to say "Racism = Prejudice + Power" is probably fine (though that's not really the usual meaning of the word), but the further assumption, that the non-dominantest group(s) have zero power, and thus cannot be racist, is false. They have less power, and thus an equal amount of prejudice translates to a lower amount of racism, but not zero racism. Probably "Racism is the integral of prejudice with respect to power" would be a better equation, but sadly Feministing doesn't support LaTeX in comments. That makes me sad.
It's certainly the case that being white in North America, I experience less racism than an otherwise equivalent black person would, but to suggest the total amount is zero is flatly wrong. I have certainly been in situation(s) where someone with anti-white prejudice had the power to act on it, and did so. It just doesn't come up very much, so it isn't usually worth worrying about the general case, but just dealing with specific cases as they arise.
The point, I think, is that to say "Racism = Prejudice + Power" is probably fine (though that's not really the usual meaning of the word), but the further assumption, that the non-dominantest group(s) have zero power, and thus cannot be racist, is false. They have less power, and thus an equal amount of prejudice translates to a lower amount of racism, but not zero racism. Probably "Racism is the integral of prejudice with respect to power" would be a better equation, but sadly Feministing doesn't support LaTeX in comments. That makes me sad.
It's certainly the case that being white in North America, I experience less racism than an otherwise equivalent black person would, but to suggest the total amount is zero is flatly wrong. I have certainly been in situation(s) where someone with anti-white prejudice had the power to act on it, and did so. It just doesn't come up very much, so it isn't usually worth worrying about the general case, but just dealing with specific cases as they arise.
And you think their self-contained quality was created outside of any history or outside influence? I'm sorry, but I think you're almost willfully missing the point. Nobody is saying that a group of POC can be prejudiced against a white man in a community that they dominate statistically. Nobody is saying a single POC cannot be prejudiced against a single white person based on race. But there are thousands of other factors that you are ignoring. What brought the white man to that community in the first place? What about the POC in the community--where did they come from? What are their backgrounds? What happens if there is some sort of confrontation? What happens when the state police get involved?
You cannot extricate race or gender or class or age from any situation even if you mess around with the numbers or go to a seemingly "self-contained" community.
And again. See everything I've written above. You are the one being willfully ignorant here, not I. You deal in absolutes as though there can never be a single circumstance where racism exists towards white men. There are zero absolutes in this world. If a white man is raped is it not really rape since he comes from a place of privilege?
Even if it only happened once in human history that one time would completely invalidate your argument.
I really have nothing more to say to you on this matter because I think you're simply struggling to understand what people mean when they say prejudice, and that racism is a societal phenomenon based on privilege, not a character trait.
But I do need to say that you bringing the example of rape into the equation is totally unwarranted and wrong. Rape is an action. It is not an attitude. Please do not attempt to derail the conversation by using feminist buzzwords. If a POC kills a white man, or mugs a white man, or rapes a white man, or commits any crime against a white man, it is what it is. A crime. An action.
Oh, of course. I'm not allowed to use the word "rape" because I'm a white dude and hence not really a feminist. Thank you for betraying not only your own racism but your sexism as well. It is not my job to educate so I'm more than happy to end this conversation here.
What? First of all, I didn't know your race or gender when I made any of my comments. How would I? If you were any race or any gender or any age or class, I would've said the same thing. Rape has NOTHING to do with this conversation. It's an analogy that doesn't make any sense. I felt like it was thrown into your comment because most of us feel very passionate about the topic, and I took offense to that. Please don't make this into something that it isn't.
Putting aside my disbelief that you made no assumptions of my gender or race, allow me to make it clear that my rape comparison is completely germane to this discussion.
If a white man is beaten for being white you are suggesting that is not racism but prejudice. It's become clear to me that prejudice to you, as well as to everyone else arguing with me, is bad but not as bad as racism which apparently only minorities experience.
My question is: if a white man of privilege is sexually assaulted would you consider that rape or would you opt to choose a different term that means essentially the same thing except less so?
Both being beaten due to race and being raped are violent crimes where the aggressor uses their power over the victim. Every argument I've heard others white people from everyone else and I believe that is not only illogical but totally counterproductive.
All I've learned from your comments is that you believe it's possible for white people to experience racism. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to derive assumptions as to your race and gender from that.
I think that kate80andstuff made it clear that nobody is trying to say that prejudice isn't as bad as racism, but it is DIFFERENT. It comes from a different place.
You say that I am trying to make the point that racism and prejudice are essentially the same thing, but I apply one to white people and one to POC. No. Racism and prejudice, let me repeat, are DIFFERENT. Racism is institutional, societal, political, widespread, and propogated by power. Prejudice is not. Prejudice can be deeply personal or informed by greater society. Prejudice is highly specific. Prejudice does not require power or privilege to exist.
If a white man is sexually assaulted, it's rape. Period. You say that "being beaten due to race" and "rape" are violent crimes based on power so they are somehow comparable. No. Being beaten and rape are violent crimes. Being beaten DUE TO RACE is an act of racism or prejudice. I think you're confusing an action with the motivation leading to the action.
I am disagreeing with your (and others) assertion that there is zero room for racism for white people in america. To make your original statement true you took the word "racism" and changed its definition to suit your argument. Every time I come up with further proof that what you're saying is wrong in its absolution you have to further refine your definition of racism. So now we've refined the definition of the term so far that there is zero wiggle room and you must therefore be right save for one simple fact: your definition of racism and the actual definition of racism do not coincide. If we've been reduced to semantics then there's really nothing left to discuss since obviously neither of us is going to budge. You say that you consider racism and prejudice as equally bad and I will take you at your word.
Seriously. It was completely inappropriate to compare racism to rape.
No. What's inappropriate is your insistence upon a hierarchy of oppression. Hint: there isn't one.
up, that's a misuse of the term hierarchy of oppression... kate08 was simply stating that rape and racism aren't comparable. rape, while having an institutional basis (sexism or patriarchy or rape culture), to be certain, is one type of violent act. racism, however, is an institutional basis for other actions and beliefs (more akin to sexism and more comparable to sexism). it's kind of like comparing existentialism to throwing a ball. while both may be kind of pointless in the long run, they're not really comparable beyond that. further, i don't believe you're actually arguing your point in good faith. you seem to just be trying to unhinge the concept of racism as a systemic problem and narrow it down to a personal act. which is, well, inaccurate... and isn't going to find a lot of supports (although certainly some) here...
If using sexual assault in comparison was triggering to you or anyone else I sincerely apologize as that was not even remotely my intent.
It would certainly be significant if it happened once or even more. Yet this isn't the point where everybody seems to be disagreeing. I think people are getting frustrated with what they see as this argument trying to make the exception qualify as the rule. The exception here is white men being discriminated against *as* whites (and not as something else - as poor people, for example).
People are arguing that this normally doesn't happen because discrimination against whites *as* whites has never been a threat to American democracy or to the opportunity available to the whole race in the same way that discrimination against blacks has.
And I wouldn't say that there has never been a single black person who relied on some misconception of white people to justify negative actions or words against them, but white people started it and continue to provide the historical precedent for that - we can't just decide that prejudice against whites *as* whites is equally as detrimental as prejudice against blacks. We have got to keep history on the table.
It would certainly be significant if it happened once or even more. Yet this isn't the point where everybody seems to be disagreeing. I think people are getting frustrated with what they see as this argument trying to make the exception qualify as the rule. The exception here is white men being discriminated against *as* whites (and not as something else - as poor people, for example).
People are arguing that this normally doesn't happen because discrimination against whites *as* whites has never been a threat to American democracy or to the opportunity available to the whole race in the same way that discrimination against blacks has.
And I wouldn't say that there has never been a single black person who relied on some misconception of white people to justify negative actions or words against them, but white people started it and continue to provide the historical precedent for that - we can't just decide that prejudice against whites *as* whites is equally as detrimental as prejudice against blacks. We have got to keep history on the table.
It has been pretty interesting over recent days to watch Republicans carry out these almost comedic scuffles over the dangers of talking about experience, or, acknowledging subjectivity. The kind of outrage we saw on the right when Sotomayor said the word 'empathy' struck me as kind of predictable but also really telling. Maybe because it at least partly reveals the limits to which politics on the right accepts the values that really underlie commonly used terms like diversity and multiculturalism (to whatever extent Republican politicians say the words). And then I think there's something kind of hopeful about the fact that if the word 'empathy' can stir up such a bizarre, contradictory Republican spectacle, it means that maybe we're on the right track with it.
I think you're referring to Obama's comments on "empathy". I've heard no comments from Sotomayor using this word.
You're right! http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/07/14/sotomayor-hearings-day-one-empathy-respect-and-political-circus
I think I confused Obama's comments on her nomination hearings with Sotomayor's words. Though I still think the general ideas on what it means to talk about experiences and have empathy are relevant.
I agree that the hearings are painful to watch. There was a great opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday on this topic exactly:
'Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.'
Check it out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html
I doubt it. She doesn't seem like the screaming type. She's a judge not a blogger.
Overall, watching everything the last two days has been interesting. There's been little actual interrogation of Sotomayor or her qualifications. Most senators used the hearing as a forum to state their opinions and to party snipe. Its been really disappointing to me to watch all the partisan sniping that is going on, but it isn't surprising at all.
Over 20 minutes alone was spent between Sessions and Sotomayor discussing her so-called bias/bigotry/etc. It came down to Sessions saying, "you said this and I think you meant it like this" and Sotomayor replying with "no, in the context, this is what it meant and what I was trying to say" and Sessions saying "No, I don't believe you. You said this . . " and therefore repeating the entire thing until Sessions finally moved on to the firefighter case and even that was used to quarrel with his fellow senator.
I don't think Sotomayor seems shakey. Can you elaborate as to why you feel this way, courtship?
I do think that it must be difficult to be a Latino woman being stared down (literally) at by a host of white, males, some of whom are clearly hostile towards her and some of whom have been disrespectful the last two days. Especially when you are being asked to explain and account for 17 years of experience plus speeches and statements you've made during those time periods.
Its certainly really interesting to watch.
The reason I think she's shaky, is that she's literally shaking. She keeps stuttering and keep stumbling over words, and she has gotten names and situations confused on numerous occasions.
I understand that she's nervous, but this nervous? And who is being hostile towards her? Some are taking issue with her statements and positions, but who exactly is "clearly hostile"? Partisan? Yes. Hostile? I don't think so.
I don't see her shaking, but I see her trying to very carefully phrase the things that she is saying and trying to defend her statements as strongly as possible.
I guess its a difference in interpretation in her behavior.
I would argue that Sessions was hostile with her by harping upon the same thing for 20 minutes. He was rhetorically calling her a liar. It became a back and forth where she tried to defend herself as he said "you said this and meant this". It wasn't a questioning, but more of an accusation or statement. More of the hostility was shown yesterday, though. I'd have to review the footage to point out the exact situations and exact persons.
Have you been watching Sessions?
Yeah, and sessions grilling someone else on their supposed racism is rather...ironic to say the least.
Sessions' "greatest hits" over the years:
"I used to think they [the Klan] were OK until I found out some of them were pot smokers."
Sessions called a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks."
Sessions stated that he believed the N.A.A.C.P., the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Operation PUSH, and the National Council of Churches were all "un-American organizations teaching Anti-American values" and "Communist-inspired" groups that "forced civil rights down the throats of people."
I really appreciate this point, Samhita, and absolutely agree with you. I have to say, too, that when Senator Schumer of NY spoke, and you could see Sotomayor's mother just behind him, nodding along to his recounting of her family's dedication and struggle, I was a total crying mess at work. When Sotomayor's turn came and she turned around to thank her mother, I almost lost it... the import of these moments is massive, even as implicit racism and sexism seeps through the Senators' questions.
Something to remember about Jeff Sessions is that he has a long history of racism on the Hill alone. He has been identified and called out on his racism -- it even got in the way of his ability to be appointed to a court position about 20 years ago. His behaviors and attitudes are neither new nor unexpected.
Notice how many of the other Republicans are not following his lead.
I'm very curious about whether he's gone rogue and is scaring the other Republicans, or whether they've assigned him the bad cop role to demonstrate to the base that they're putting up a fight while the others behave themselves.
I sincerely have no idea. I know he's deeply racist -- having called POC "boy" in the past. I really can't determine if this is a personal vendetta against her because she's a Latina woman, or if it's having to do with the Republicans needing to do something as being the opposition party.
He's also allegedly warned black staffers that they'd better be nice to white people.
Something to remember about Jeff Sessions is that he has a long history of racism on the Hill alone. He has been identified and called out on his racism -- it even got in the way of his ability to be appointed to a court position about 20 years ago. His behaviors and attitudes are neither new nor unexpected.
Notice how many of the other Republicans are not following his lead.
I absolutely agree- painting white, hetero men as the neutral norm while making everyone with any sort of identity as "other" is what makes these hearings so uncomfortable. Does anyone know if there were any stereotypical Italian comments made about Alito and his judgments on issues?
Also, I'd like to know if SCOTUS judges are supposed to judge from inside a bubble, or if they're picked because they have both the credentials and the life experiences with which to understand the world in a nuanced way. Sorry that sounds rhetorical, but I'm actually curious to find out what people think. I'm inclined to think it's important to have leaders who have not lived in the lap of luxury and privilege all their lives. But I could be wrong I suppose.
In theory the law is the law, as written, and a competent judge can just apply it to the case, like marking a math test. There's a right answer. That's obviously not how it works in real life.
That's not even how lawyers and judges treat it in theory. Only the media and politicians.
True. And it's politicians and the media judging Sotomayor.
This is coming from memory of class a few years back, but I'm fairly certain that the supreme court is NOT supposed to exist within a bubble. They can (and should) take social climate into account when deciding whether or not to hear a case...so I assume that something similar is expected when judging on a case.
I don't remember so much hubbub about this guy and how his identity would impact rulings: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/25/090525fa_fact_toobin
Read more on The She Change blog! http://theshechange.blogspot.com
I'm curious why she seems to skirt this topic. Why cant Sotomayor just say, "My experience as a hispanic female will have as much affect on my rulings as your experience as a white male on yours" or something similar to Sessions? Why does she have to talk about experience enriching us blah blah instead of just saying, "Hey! I'm hispanic, your white, we all have experiences!"
Or is she being blunt enough where they should catch on but aren't...?
Because it's precisely comments like this that a lot of Sotomayor's detractors used to devalue her opinion; they use it as fuel for the "See, minorities are all biased and stuff!" argument. As soon as she admits that she has a bias, people will ignorantly question her ability to be unbiased, and fair as a Supreme Court Judge. Ludicrous, ridiculous,yes, but that's how some people look at it.
Because the only real strike against her is her history of suggesting that a latina perspective is qualitatively better than an anglo. Important or not, that's not a winning position to argue for diversity from, so she's avoiding and diffusing the issue rather than confronting it head on from a huge disadvantage.
Shorter answer, she's wisely choosing her battles.
Because it's precisely comments like this that a lot of Sotomayor's detractors used to devalue her opinion; they use it as fuel for the "See, minorities are all biased and stuff!" argument. As soon as she admits that she has a bias, people will ignorantly question her ability to be unbiased, and fair as a Supreme Court Judge. Ludicrous, ridiculous,yes, but that's how some people look at it.
Samhita you must have been easedropping on some of our conversations. This stuff infuriates me.
Yes! Thank you for posting this, Samhita. I just saw the NYT headline, "Sotomayor Says Identity Won't Distort Her Decisions", and I had the same reaction as you did. Does this mean that SCOTUS was completely objective when it was exclusively white and male? Hardly, since it deprived women and people of color of their rights. Our experiences *do* affect our opinions, and I fully expect that Sotomayor's decisions will be shaped, in part, by the fact that she's a Latina, a woman, the child of immigrants, and grew up working class. In short, her background has given her a perspective that SCOTUS desperately needs to hear.
Yes! Thank you for posting this, Samhita. I just saw the NYT headline, "Sotomayor Says Identity Won't Distort Her Decisions", and I had the same reaction as you did. Does this mean that SCOTUS was completely objective when it was exclusively white and male? Hardly, since it deprived women and people of color of their rights. Our experiences *do* affect our opinions, and I fully expect that Sotomayor's decisions will be shaped, in part, by the fact that she's a Latina, a woman, the child of immigrants, and grew up working class. In short, her background has given her a perspective that SCOTUS desperately needs to hear.
This confirmation hearing will tell us alot about the under currents of racism in our country.
god this is obnoxious to listen to. did the other supreme court justices have to endure so many stupid fucking questions about whether their feelings, and not LAW, would inform their rulings? so fricking insulting.
And I am blown away at the arrogance of these (men) who assume they are so goddamn objective that they have absolutely no privilege, no racism or sexism, and that different life experiences don't lead to a richer understanding of society. THAT is what is really scary. I shouldn't be surprised, but i am.
If this is the way we treat a Latina SCOTUS nominee, we more certainly need a Latina SCOTUS nominee even more desperately than I heretofore imagined.
Well played, Mr. President.
god this is obnoxious to listen to. did the other supreme court justices have to endure so many stupid fucking questions about whether their feelings, and not LAW, would inform their rulings? so fricking insulting.
And I am blown away at the arrogance of these (men) who assume they are so goddamn objective that they have absolutely no privilege, no racism or sexism, and that different life experiences don't lead to a richer understanding of society. THAT is what is really scary. I shouldn't be surprised, but i am.
I can understand how Judge Sotomayor would feel required to hold back a little bit, but I wish that someone would just succinctly explain to Senator Graham why he is dreadfully wrong and that he needs to speak to this experienced judge in a less condescending way.
I applaud her poise. I would be freaking out and yelling at that bigoted senator.
I can understand how Judge Sotomayor would feel required to hold back a little bit, but I wish that someone would just succinctly explain to Senator Graham why he is dreadfully wrong and that he needs to speak to this experienced judge in a less condescending way.
I applaud her poise. I would be freaking out and yelling at that bigoted senator.
It is insulting
however, white men having, we'll say partial beliefs, if found out about are slewn for it where as women and ethnic people are heralded for it.
Although i'm not surprised
im not sure what you're talking about... "partial beliefs"? please explain
partial = awkward way of saying biased.
partial = awkward way of saying biased.
so... women and POC can have "biased" beliefs and are heralded for it? I sure hope you're kidding.
"ethnic people?"
you gotta be kidding me.
"ethnic people?"
you gotta be kidding me.
Yeah, like Sen. Sessions has met with all kinds of negative repercussions for saying the only problem with the KKK is that they smoke weed... and for trying to prevent African Americans from voting in 1984... and for stating that the only deaths that mattered in Hurricane Katrina were "business owners"... and on and on... you know, he's be "slewn," and by slewn, I mean served in the Senate for 12 years and will probably be re-elected yet again.
Yeah, you know... a similar kind of slaying that met Strom Thurmond faced for being one of the staunchest opponents of the Civil Rights Act (longest filibuster ever... yay!) and, um, I dunno, running on an pro-segregation presidential ticket... yeah, that's why he served in Congress until he decided he was done... what a terrible punishment that was! Wealth and power, no one should have to suffer that. Damned liberals!!!
Yup, it's all these ethnics that get away with their bigoted points of views and still get to run the country. I. Hate. It. And them... but I'm not racist, I'm just tellin' it like it is... or something.
Eugene Robinson has up a great editorial about the Sotomayor hearings and specifically about the GOP and what he calls "white male exceptionalism" that I think is in order for this discussion. In typical Robinson fashion, he was able to articulate some of the complex and complicated aspects of our own discussions here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html?nav=hcmodule
Eugene Robinson has up a great editorial about the Sotomayor hearings and specifically about the GOP and what he calls "white male exceptionalism" that I think is in order for this discussion. In typical Robinson fashion, he was able to articulate some of the complex and complicated aspects of our own discussions here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html?nav=hcmodule
So does it seem to anyone else that Sotomayor is having to pass a particularly odd litmus test that reveals only how much disrespect she can endure?
I do think that it must be difficult to be a Latino woman being stared down (literally) at by a host of white, males, some of whom are clearly hostile towards her and some of whom have been disrespectful the last two days. Especially when you are being asked to explain and account for 17 years of experience plus speeches and statements you've made during those time periods.
-Pocket Bikes
I do think that it must be difficult to be a Latino woman being stared down (literally) at by a host of white, males, some of whom are clearly hostile towards her and some of whom have been disrespectful the last two days. Especially when you are being asked to explain and account for 17 years of experience plus speeches and statements you've made during those time periods.
The sad truth is there will always be a racism. People are only learning to be tolerant towards each other on the outside but deep inside people are racists.
Mira - Theeth Whitening Specialist