But oddly, she unconsciously falls back into the same kind of error for her last sentence, which should really be:

"It's only considered to be a negative when non-WASP ethnicity is involved, or non-white race is involved, or non-male gender is involved."

Somehow, this is a point that seems to go largely ignored, if not completely ignored, at major news outlets.

Could that be because most major news outlets are run by white males?

This morning, John King (I think) read a quote to Kay Bailey Hutchison from her web site about how, as a mother who managed a household, she would be better able to shape policy than someone who didn't have her experience.

She ducked the question by pointing out that, unlike Sotomayor, she's a legislator who's supposed to make policy.

No one called her on that! No one said: "Okay, fine. That takes care of the policy-maker/jurist issue. Now about whether you'd be better able to do your job because you're a mother with the experience of having run a household..."

The media drive me crazy!

Class is more influential than ethnicity. If I were a Gopocrat or a Demogop I'd worry more about her working class identity.

Oh, no. Could it be true because MSM is white male "upper" dominated and after all the MSM is surely OBJECTIVE?!!??? Gwen Ifill just cannot be objective by MSM definition. So there.

She [Kay Bailey Hutcheson] ducked the question by pointing out that, unlike Sotomayor, she's a legislator who's supposed to make policy.

Someone needs to explain to Sen. Hutcheson about case law. Whether an appellate court arrives at an activist conclusion or a strictly constructionist one, it is setting policy.

Once again, Ms. Ifill shows why SHE should have been offered the job as Tim Russert's replacement on Meet the Press instead of the gray vacuity known as David Gregory. Point well made.

i think gwen ifill could have been the greatest if she'd 'a slapped a few of the white men on camera over the years -- of all those honkies who have spewed idiocy in her face all too often.

(and yes, i would have her practice on me if she felt too 'polite')

"Class is more influential than ethnicity."

Class and ethnicity are frequently the same thing. Most poor people are white, but so are most middle-class and wealthy people. And poor white kids are far more likely to rise above their poverty and succeed as adults than poor non-white kids.

That's because the major "news" outlets aren't news outlets anymore....they're mediocre sensationlist ratings seeking machines staffed by ass-kissing journalists who are a discgrace to the name.

Walter Cronkite is rolling over in his grave...

I've read a few of Judge Sotormayor's opinions in which she dissented in civil rights cases, and there is nothing remotely biased or ethnocentric about her reasoning or her decisions on those cases.

Although I don't agree with her comment to the effect that a "wise Latino woman" would, she hopes, make better or more correct decisions that a "wise white male," it appears to have had no impact on her judicial philosophy in the cases she actually decided.

In the end, after she's confirmed and been on the Court for a few years, people will wonder what all the fuss was about. To the chagrin of liberals (of which I am one) it's unlikely that she will go the route that Justices Douglas, Brennan, or Marshall did, and, regrettably, she is not going to stake out an absolutist position on free speech, due process, equal protection, or reining in executive power.

Although I don't agree with her comment to the effect that a "wise Latino woman" would, she hopes, make better or more correct decisions that a "wise white male,""

Why not? She was specifically talking about cases involving race discrimination. Are you suggesting that even the wisest white man could possibly understand that as well as even an average Latino (let alone a very wise one)?

This is *precisely* why a diverse nation like ours needs a diverse court system (and, for that matter, a diverse government in general).

OT: An abortion doctor was murdered today in church. Dr.George Tiller

The people who encourage and commit these murders are terrorists.

Amen! We got plenty of domestic terrorists and terrorist organizations, killing in the name of Jebus. How about getting the federal government to bring some rule of law to this country?

Although I don't agree with her comment to the effect that a "wise Latino woman" would, she hopes, make better or more correct decisions that a "wise white male," it appears to have had no impact on her judicial philosophy in the cases she actually decided.

THis annoys me.

If you've read the entire quote, and compared it to her record, it has had TREMENDOUS impact on her judicial philosophy.

Why? Because the whole point of her quote was that she has different perspectives than other jurists...and that has plusses and minuses depending on the situation. She has to go out of her way to consider cases from all sides, because all experiences are biasing if you don't account for it.

She tries to account for it--HENCE HER RECORD.

"Although I don't agree with her comment to the effect that a "wise Latino woman" would, she hopes, make better or more correct decisions that a "wise white male,""

Why not? She was specifically talking about cases involving race discrimination. Are you suggesting that even the wisest white man could possibly understand that as well as even an average Latino (let alone a very wise one)?"

Shade Tail

Why not? Because America's legal history is replete with examples of wise white males making excellent law in the area of racial discrimination. Here's just a few: the first Justice Harlan (1896 dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson), Chief Justice Earl Warren (1954 Brown v. Bd of Ed and decisions over the next 15 years), Justices William O. Douglas and William Brennan, and a lot of the heroes who served on the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals whose lives were in danger throughout the '60's because of their civil rights and desegregation rulings. Plus a lot of lawyers who argued those civil rights cases.

Which doesn't mean that diversity isn't good for the Court. I never cottoned to a "Jewish" seat on the Court or a "Black" seat- because that seemed to mean the limit was one. At present, there are two Jewish Supreme Court justices and one woman (one is a two-fer, Justice Ginsberg). I think the country is healthier if there is a perception that there are no bars by gender, race, religion, or ethnicity to holding any public position. And appointing, electing, or promoting qualified people who are diverse is one way to get past that point- but not in such a manner that the perception is that an unqualified person (such as Clarence Thomas, who, regardless of his race, was grossly underqualified for any judicial position) was selected solely because of that immutable characteristic.

"Why not? Because America's legal history is replete with examples of wise white males making excellent law in the area of racial discrimination."

You didn't answer the full question. Are you suggesting that even the wisest white man could possibly understand racial discrimination as well as even an average Latino (let alone a very wise one)? I would say no simply because white people are very rarely exposed to it, and most of those decisions you list support me on that. The white men who made them had enough contact with the minority viewpoint that they had learned the facts from people who *did* understand better than they ever could. And, of course, they were always overwhelming opposed by white men who had no such understanding at all. That's particularly true for cases that were surrounded by media attention, like Brown vs. Board of Education.

Racial identity is an inevitable and important part of everyone's background and personality. That includes white people like me. And all things considered, it is a better idea to put people who directly understand racial discrimination on the courts, rather than to hope that we're lucky enough for everyone else to learn better through osmosis.

Or to put it another way: I emphatically reject the GOP's spin that racial awareness is a bad thing. It seems to me that, while you and I ultimately agree on the end point, you get there by buying into that spin.

For blacks, race trumps all. Look at how fast blacks dumped the Clintons for Obama. If you see a black man walking about of a polling place, you can be 95% certain of how he voted. Since swing voters are overwhelmingly white, then whites are the only group that can be consdiered relevant during election. Everything else is turnout instead of changing opinions.

"Walter Cronkite is rolling over in his grave...

Er...Um he's not quite dead yet. But I'm sure he would rolling be if he was.

Superdestroyer, I voted for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary but I didn't "dump the Clintons". I'm quite happy with Hilary as Secretary of State and was ready to be persuaded she'd be a better POTUS. Obama just made a better case for himself to me. It seems quite likely that there are many black people whose motivations were similar to my own. How many black people voted for Alan Keyes when he ran for President?

Assuming that "race trumps all" to black people just because most of them voted for Obama is as stupid as Rush Limbaugh's attempt to paint Barack Obama as an "affirmative action" president voted for by white liberals strictly because he's black.

Of course, it is pretty obvious why the universe of dittoheads can't fathom anyone voting for a guy because he is smart, levelheaded, works hard and demonstrates a good grasp of the issues.

I never even knew Gwen Ifill was black before today :/

Guess that kind of proves her point.

Super, please. I'm white and I 'dumped the Clintons'. I 'dumped the Clintons' in the early part of the decade because I saw all this BS that Bush was doing. I know Bill couldn't say anything because of tradition, but a lot of us really looked to Hillary for leadership. When we did that, we saw her standing behind GWB.

Hillary lost because she didn't grab the mantle of leadership. If she had come out against Bush and run in 2004, she would likely be President right now. She's didn't win because she's not a leader. Leaders lead, they don't play it safe and wait for the most opportune time to make a go at it.

Quote: "Someone needs to explain to Sen. Hutcheson about case law. Whether an appellate court arrives at an activist conclusion or a strictly constructionist one, it is setting policy."

That's mostly true. Occasionally a statute is so explicit it really is almost a turnkey operation. But then, those kinds of issues seldom make it to the Court of Appeal anyway. Even denying cert is, if not setting policy, then making a decision about policy.

But my point here was different: How can Hutchison say that she, as a mother who ran a household, might be able to do her job and then turn on Sotomayor for saying that she, as a Latina woman, might sometimes make better decisions?

She ducked, and no one called her on it.

Feh!

jrw says: Somehow, this is a point that seems to go largely ignored, if not completely ignored, at major news outlets.
Could that be because most major news outlets are run by white males?

Could it also be because most of the guests, experts, reporters they feature are white males?

Lynn Dee - It wasn't my intention to disagree with you. I just wanted to add to the comment since you mentioned Hutchison. And I would add that appellate court decisions don't usually so often interpret a law as determine how to balance conflicting ones - eminent domain vs individual property rights, for example, or freedom of speech vs campaign law.

doretta

There are two congressional districts that are majority blacks and are not represented by blacks. One is due to Louisiana's bizarre election laws and the other in Memphis is due to four blacks and one white runnng in the Democratic primary. If blacks vote based upon something other than race (with the caveat that blacks always vote for Democrats) then there would be a few more non-blacks representing a majority black districts. Actually, 40% black is enough to ensure that a Congressional district will be represented by a black.

If blacks did not vote upon race, the Voting Rights Act would be enforced very differently.

Since 90% of blacks and 70% of Hispanics are automatic Democratic voters, there is no way that the Republican Party can stay relevant in politics.

"I never even knew Gwen Ifill was black before today"

That says more about how uninformed and unobservant you are than it does anything about Ifill...

"Lynn Dee - It wasn't my intention to disagree with you. I just wanted to add to the comment since you mentioned Hutchison. And I would add that appellate court decisions don't usually so often interpret a law as determine how to balance conflicting ones - eminent domain vs individual property rights, for example, or freedom of speech vs campaign law."

Thanks, I didn't feel disagreed with actually, I just wanted my point to not get lost. (But I agreed with your point as well!)

Anyway, I guess we can't expect every talking head to think of everything we think of "in the moment." But my gosh, it does seem like they miss so much!

And I never hear people say that for a white male that it's identity politics if he is shaped by his white maleness, and by the things that affected his life, and whether privilege affected his life. That's never considered to be a negative.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., frequently referred to his combat experiences when debating cases on the court. He lived to be very old, so he did this a lot, enough to annoy his colleagues. The Civil War mattered to him because he had been through it.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for governor of California his Democratic opponent complained that Schwarzenegger couldn't even pronounce the name of the state correctly. (That was Gray Davis, during the recall campaign.) Schwarzenegger touted his immigrant experience, and the fact that he had raised himself up to prominence starting with practically nothing.

The more criticisms of Sotomayor I read, the more I like the full speech. People who are "first" (first Black Republican Supreme Court nominee, first Navajo on the UC Berkeley Physics faculty, first Vietnamese professional football player) are almost always more conscious of these "identity" details than others. I'd be happier if I thought that she'd be really sympathetic to overturning all of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, or rule against "hate speech" codes, but everything in her record suggests that she'll be good, thorough, and sometimes persuasive.

Its interesting to hear people talk about Blacks and race politics and our dumping of the Clintons.

I have voted for --volunteered, to help so many whites win political office, even when I realized that once the election was over they would walk away even without saying thanks, that I slap myself silly, at times.

But all that was done in the name of my goal to participate in the democracy in which I live.

Yet someone is surprised when someone who may have walked a mile in my shoe, has the same qualifications as the other candidate and I give them my support. Unbelievable!. Until Obama, whites generally only voted for whites... that's the only exception to the rule.

Gwen your point is well taken!

Well of COURSE she's going to take the side of a woman of color. /Repuklisnark

That's the whole problem. White men HAVE no "identity." They are the norm as far as they're concerned, and as far as the "power structure" has been concerned for centuries.

But you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

And I think they can feel the wind, and they don't like it one bit.

Ha ha ha

"Class"?

Poor white boys who make it through Princeton, graduate summa cum laude, 2d in their class, and edit the Yale Law Review ... they can pass.

"I never cottoned to a "Jewish" seat on the Court or a "Black" seat- because that seemed to mean the limit was one. At present, there are two Jewish Supreme Court justices and one woman (one is a two-fer, Justice Ginsberg)."

How many Catholic seats are there? THAT's my problem with race, class, ethnicity, gender, etc. Whatever "identity" you want to name.

She'll be one (at least) too many Catholics as far as I'm concerned.

Use of the racial slur WASP is should suffice to show that many consider that being of English descent and Protestant is a highly negative matter.

Air Jordan

Jordan basketball shoes

http://www.air-shox.com air shox

"White" used to equate with WASP. The definition of the "White Race" has evolved over the past 100 years or so. Irish, Italian and other immigrants were not considered white when they first came to this land.

A book about this evolution is: Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race by Matthew Frye Jacobson

White, WASP, whatever, there are just too darned many Italian-Americans on the Court. TWO, I mean, where ARE the Anglo-Saxons, huh? After all, Kennedy is IRISH, and they aren't really Anglo-Saxons. They Celts. With Souter gone, we're down to Stevens and Roberts. Being tied with Italians in just not right. They admit they're deciding cases based on their ethnicity, and our ethnicity is much more prominent in America. After all, how many of the founding fathers were Italian, huh? Well I'll tell you, NONE of them.

Steve,

I have to disagree with both you and Gwen Ifill.
First, there is a big difference between identity politics and the very natural state of our backgrounds and culture informing who we are. Identity politics is a form of ethnic bias that at best is boosterism and worst is cronyism and racist.

The most common forms of white identity politics comes from the overt (David Duke - like) and covert (code word toting southern politicians). To their credit, many liberals call these politicians for what they are - bigots. But make no mistake, white people don't get a pass on identity politics- nor should they.

There's being shaped by your genes and upbringing - we all are. Then there's pursuing an agenda that caters to your particular ethnic or cultural group. That's far less acceptable and in many (though not all) cases is bigotry.

I have no idea whether Judge Sotomayor has engaged in identity politics, which in my opinion is a disqualifier, or whether she is merely someone shaped by her New York Puerto Rican heritage. Let's find out.

Bob