| Anyone listening President Obama's US Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor confirmation testimony will understand one thing quickly. She's running from her statements that "life experiences" and "skin tone diversity" have appropriate roles in the proper role of judging. What does Sotomayor's flat-out statements that skin color and gender, and conversely, the "life experience" they allegedly necessitate (allegedly, because Clarence Thomas' under-privileged life experience is as equally interesting, if only because the philosophical outcome is diametrically different), should not influence except in the most background-like way (we struggle to hear her define that, as we did also struggle to understand protagonists in previous legal and political battles). What does Sotomayor's retreat prove? It proves she understands a majority of Americans support the principles of equality - as commonly understood and re-iterated by Ward Connerly and others through things like MCRI. Sotomayor knows she can't just admit to her beliefs that diversity should be a criteria to judge people and society, so she evades admitting to what she plainly said a number of times. What's perhaps more distressing is that this show will go on and the farce ignored. The Emperor-ess will be crowned Justice of the United States Supreme Court despite her statements and this deception. Honest answers to confirmation hearing questions are a thing of the past - a pre-Bork era relic. If I were a Senator, I'd be more inclined to confirm her if she was honest about her feelings on diversity - after all, a previous Supreme Court itself pre-varicated on the issue, and ultimately, whomever Obama appoints is going to hold the same view. It appears unlikely the rest of Sotomayor's body of work is so extreme as to justify rolling the dice on something worse. Then again, in an era where we don't get honest Supreme Court nominee answers, how can I even know that? |
