|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
I was recently interviewed and quoted in the Denver Post regarding the selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice and in particular the comments that she made in her 2001 speech. To be honest, I was caught off guard. I had been following the story but on the day that I received the telephone call to state an opinion on this matter, I had not read yet read the morning newspaper, just simply skimmed through it as I scampered out the door on the way to my office.
I consciously avoid being dragged down into the gutters of rhetorical salaciousness as reporters scrutinize comments, in search of a verbal gaffe. Media pundits, in search in verbal blunders often fall prey to objective hypocrisy, many times leaving out substantive arguments presented in favor of slanting a perspective.
I wanted to add clarity to what was stated in the Denver Post on May 28th. I wholeheartedly support the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. In a nutshell, I stated that I expect controversy, criticism and witch hunts from the right when they don’t get their way, especially over an appointment of a brown woman to the Supreme Court.
Republicans are outraged that a female summa cum laude graduate of Princeton Law School may be hobnobbing with the government’s elite. As for Sotomayor’s appointment, you cannot have an effective debate or authentic dialogue without opposing points of view. Most reporters seek out debate. The real issue is about the rules of engagement, which should include civility; but seldom does. Fighting fair in American politics is not an American custom.
Politicians will question Sotomayor’s credentials, judicial decisions, ethics and her behavior. Many choose to do it in uncivil ways that put them in the limelight. To look for the nice guys in politics is like looking for a needle in a haystack. It doesn’t fit with American political culture.
Anyone expecting Sotomayor’s appointment to be without controversy may want to consider enrolling in a class on the shibboleths of political theory. It’s no secret that high ranking political appointments are based on which party is at the helm. The struggle in America’s two-party system is about power and control over public policy issues and contiguous resources that affect millions of lives.
What is supposed to be a balanced approach to making wise decisions, based on theoretical jurisprudence and historical precedence, is transformed into political theatre when politics intervenes. Law is not supreme; it is many times, a reflection of the inherent power struggles in a society that preaches the rule of law and its fair and consistent application. Appointments to the Supreme Court are for a lifetime. The arguments over legal interpretations and theories should be based on sound judgment and prudence in making a decision. I am also reminded that some laws are unjust.
The so called scathing remarks made by Sotomayor regarding a white judge’s perspective in comparison to a Latina’s is a red herring. It diverts from the white male historical hegemony that has taken place in the Supreme Court. As for the tactics that politicians use, in the deck of proverbial race cards, I expect right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh and Tom Tancredo to yell “reverse racism” or some other absurdity. It is the American way. Pulling out the reverse race card is an admission that racism still exists in American society.
If purists are seeking out complete objectivity from the appointee, join the crowd. For centuries, researchers and philosophers have historically debated whether as fallible human beings we can somehow magically fetter that out the process of our own bias. I fall in the school of thought argues this as very implausible. When politics is dipped into a bowl of objectivity; objectivity is diluted.
I was characterized in the Denver Post as “a Latino scholar who seemed most sanguine about conservatives taking shots at Sotomayor’s words.” My confidence is more about understanding political mockery than about Sotomayor’s credentials. Her comments have nothing to do with the controversy; there is a deeper issue, it is the color of her skin. She is a Latina who will make us proud amidst the expected controversy that has been created. Yes, she will be put through the ringer by someone. But she is a gallant warrior that understands objective hypocrisy. I am sure that she has waded in many political seas; this one is only deeper.
Ramón Del Castillo, Ph.D. is an Independent Columnist.
|
←
Back
|
|
|
|
|
|
view more photos
view more videos
Gente de Minesota 
Hoy en Delaware News - 
La Prensa Hispana - Noticias 
La Voz de Dalton El Periódico 
Revista en español para la 
El Semanario New Mexico 