- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 6
-
Sparkle (0)
Linda Chavez, Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, was asked to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee during Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. The first Latina ever nominated the the United States cabinet (under Reagan) had some sobering words for the ambitious Sotomayor in her recent Townhall column:
My message today is straightforward. Do not vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I say this with some regret, because I believe Judge Sotomayor's personal story is an inspiring one, which proves that this is truly a land of opportunity where circumstances of birth and class do not determine whether you can succeed.
[...]
If Judge Sotomayor were a white man who suggested that whites or males made better judges, we would not be having this discussion because the nominee would have been forced to withdraw once those words became public.
[...]
As an undergraduate, she actively pushed for race-based goals and timetables in faculty hiring.
In her senior thesis, she refused to identify the U.S. Congress by its proper name, instead referring to it as the "North American Congress" or the "Mainland Congress."
During her tenure with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, she urged quota-seeking lawsuits challenging civil-service exams.
She opposed the death penalty as racist.
She made dubious arguments in support of bilingual education and tried to equate English language requirements with national origin discrimination.
As a judge, she dissented from an opinion that the Voting Rights Act does not give prison inmates the right to vote.
Finally, and perhaps most dramatically, she showed in the New Haven firefighters case a willingness to let her policy preferences guide her, ruling that it was perfectly lawful for the city there to throw out the results of a promotion exam because those who did well on it were the wrong color.
Although she has attempted this week to back away from her own words -- and has accused her critics of taking them out of context -- the record is clear: Identity politics is at the core of Judge Sotomayor's self-definition.
Well. I can hear the echo of that three finger snap reverberating off the monuments in D.C.
I've written about Sotomayor in the past; yes, I think she engaged in identity politics and should just own up to it; yes, I don't think she's the most accomplished nominee ever nominated to the court, but I still maintain that there's a bit of a sliver lining in that she isn't the worse choice President Obama could have made.
Kathy Shaidle minces no words and calls Sotomayor a fake. Ann Althouse takes a more fangirl approach, and finds some middle ground concerning Sotomayor's responses. Little Miss Attilia? Not so much:
A Supreme Court Justice who confuses eminent with imminent? WTF?
Ick.
Allahpundit notes how the slip, malapropism regardless, is fair game.
I myself just like to note the differences between Manuel Estrada, Clarence Thomas, and Sotomayor's hearings.
