In yesterday’s Orlando Sentinel, FAMU College of Law Professor Jeremy Levitt sharply denounced the “barrage of racist, sexist and unpatriotic public attacks” against U.S. President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee: Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
From his column “Think Twice”:
What appears to have fueled the far-right backlash is that a Latina judge would dare state that she “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.”
What is so controversial about Sotomayor's commentary? Is the mere suggestion that a wise Latina could reach a better conclusion than a white male objectionable? Has anyone asked whether or not Sotomayor may be right in a country that is soon to be a majority-minority? Would it be less controversial if she had said "a wise woman" rather than a "wise Latina"?
If one were to read Sotomayor's entire commentary titled "A Latina Judge's Voice," it is clear that she forwarded the basic premise that the gender, national origin and personal experiences of judges impact their judging. Is this really a novel revelation? Does such an assertion warrant racial attacks against a senior member of the American judiciary? Is this simply Washington politics, or is there a more primordial and insidious rationale?
Limbaugh, Gingrich, Hannity and Liddy's shameful and ignorant attacks on Sotomayor are nothing more than race-baiting, and they exemplify the worst sort of sexism, racism and lack of patriotism we have come to expect from fledging pre-integration ideologists.
Read the full column here.
You might also be interesting in: FAMU prof reflects on meaning of Obama’s victory.
FAMU professor hold's down Chicago talk show
From his column “Think Twice”:
What appears to have fueled the far-right backlash is that a Latina judge would dare state that she “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.”
What is so controversial about Sotomayor's commentary? Is the mere suggestion that a wise Latina could reach a better conclusion than a white male objectionable? Has anyone asked whether or not Sotomayor may be right in a country that is soon to be a majority-minority? Would it be less controversial if she had said "a wise woman" rather than a "wise Latina"?
If one were to read Sotomayor's entire commentary titled "A Latina Judge's Voice," it is clear that she forwarded the basic premise that the gender, national origin and personal experiences of judges impact their judging. Is this really a novel revelation? Does such an assertion warrant racial attacks against a senior member of the American judiciary? Is this simply Washington politics, or is there a more primordial and insidious rationale?
Limbaugh, Gingrich, Hannity and Liddy's shameful and ignorant attacks on Sotomayor are nothing more than race-baiting, and they exemplify the worst sort of sexism, racism and lack of patriotism we have come to expect from fledging pre-integration ideologists.
Read the full column here.
You might also be interesting in: FAMU prof reflects on meaning of Obama’s victory.
FAMU professor hold's down Chicago talk show
Here's the catch. Sotomayor appears to swing neither far left or far right. That's good for conservatives and frankly good for the nation. If the conservatives succeed in canceling her nomination they are likely to end up with someone less empathetic with their point of view.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows that a white man will always make the better judgment. They are smarter and wiser.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows that a white man trained the 911 terrorist how to fly an airplane. I'd say that was smart, wise, and very good judgment on the white man's part.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it was the "smart, wise, and very good judgment" white man that led us into the smit we're in now.
ReplyDelete