According to the wikipedia entry I was reading, it's not even firmly established that you can trace Cardoza's family history to Portugal although it was the family tradition.

I had been told at one point that if you were Spanish you weren't Hispanic, so I wouldn't think that being descended from folks from Portugal would make you Hispanic either, not only because of the language issue, but because it's an issue of the colonial relationship.

ETA: upon more reflection, I can't remember who told me that or why I regarded him or her an an authority, so it's pretty much without value, I guess.

I don't think when that happens that it diminishes her accomplishments at all. If anything it goes to show that not everyone has to come from a privileged background in order to be successful. I'm really not sure why it would be an issue if Obama chooses to highlight the fact that she wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth since she is qualified.

I don't really remember anyone back in 1991 playing up Clarence Thomas's background when it's just as humble, if not more so, than Sotomayor's. There's a double-standard for sure, but it's also probably based on the fact that GHWB's base wasn't into the "back story" the way that many liberals are.
The fact that he was a good jurist was enough for the GOP back then--why isn't it for the left wing today?

Per that same Wiki article, it appears that all that is known for sure is that his grandparents were Sephardim -- which would suggest that the families came from either Iberia (Spain or Portugal) or northern Africa -- and that the name Cardozo is a common Portugese surname.

Per the dictionary:

Hispanic = Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America; of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.

Brazil would be Latin American but not Hispanic.

Judge Sotomayor affirming herself and the experiences she brings as she moves through the world as a Latina is not a negation of white men or anyone else.

I wouldn't go so far as to label it a double-standard -- I remember personal background and the rise from humble beginnings being talked about quite a bit for Thomas as well.

Nor would I call it a conservative vs liberal thing, necessarily. Way too tidy.

It has only been 48 hours or so since the news broke. It's premature to start comparing the coverage of Sotomayor to that of Thomas (or anyone else) unless you're going to limit the comparison to the first 48 hours of coverage on Thomas. In those first few days, media-types haven't necessarily had time to pour over her decisions to get a feel for her jurisprudence, so they focus on what they can talk about quickly -- background and personal story. Meanwhile, when Obama talks about the "empathy" factor, he is talking in terms of jurisprudence, not just "what a great story."

Whether background and personal story will continue to occupy the media's attention through the confirmation process remains to be seen.

From OMB Directive 15, it's much less clear.

Note that the two bolded statements conflict with one another. This sort of goes to my point (if I didn't make the point earlier, I meant to) that "Hispanic" is a completely artificial racial classification.

As do I. There was much talk about him 'pulling himself up by his bootstraps' leaving the segregated south (some small town in SE GA near Savannah--can't remember the name) to go to school in the North, etc. And if I remember correctly he was totally or partially raise by a single parent with the help of his grandfather who was uneducated. The somewhat unspoken narrative I remember was "see, black people can be against affirmative action (even if they were helped by it)!" Of course that was until Anita Hill came along and then all bets about his background were off. Then it was all 'high tech lynchings' and such.

Yeah, I was going with the basic dictionary definition. Some of what I looked at noted that government definitions/classifications might be more . . . convoluted.

Just to muddy it up more, the basic dictionary definition of latino/a means anyone from Latin America (which would include Brazil), while government/census-type definitions equate latino/a with Hispanic.

And just to add the icing, some definitions would include Haiti and Quebec in Latin America -- the "Latin" referring to use of a Romance language.

I agree with your rationale. I would not necessarily call her a "safe" pick, but I do agree that she is qualified, not just a minority and should get the job.

I believe that no matter who he were to choose, both he and the candidate would be scrutinized, so he should just go with whomever he believes is best suited.

I hope that she is the best pick and is confirmed and does a great job as a Supreme Court Justice!

Meanwhile, former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee attempted to stay ahead of the game by releasing an early morning statement to the press which read as follows:

"The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric."

One huge problem there, Mike! Her name isn't Maria. Contrary to popular belief, every Latina in the United States isn't named Maria. We'll forgive you. We're sure you were just watching West Side Story last night in preparation for this statement and got confused.

There have been a host of other mischaracterizations of Sotomayor, including media outlets that have defined Sotomayor's parents as "immigrants." Being that she is of Puerto Rican descent and that those born on the island have been American citizens since that pesky little Spanish/American War ended and congress made it so in 1917, this definition is 100% incorrect. Puerto Ricans who migrate from the island to New York are no more "immigrants" than those who move from one state to another.

This is just another stark reminder that even though we have come so far, there is still a long, long way to go.


http://www.latina.com/lifestyle/news...alls-her-maria

I thought Sonia was running...o well

You're right. And the town was Pin Point, Ga.

This choice, as are all presidential SC choices, is by definition, political. In addition to the president's ideas about what a justice should bring to judicial decision making, the choice also plays to audiences particularly important to continuing Democratic consitutencies (Hispanics, women) and puts his political ememies, at least initially, in a quandry as to how to attack.

It's the same thing Bush41 did with then nominee C. Thomas -- remember how conflicted the NAACP was in whether they should oppose the nomination in filling what was then considered to be "Marshall's seat" on the court?


...and for the record, Eclipse, you have been gone waaaaaaaaay too long from around these parts. Any updates on what you have been doing (minus the unneccesary shots at Skyline Chili) would be greatly appreciated. :)

The issue with Thomas was that he was NOT a good jurist - at least, there was a significant chance that he wasn't, according to both the ABA and the general concept of precedent (which he's not particularly fond of). His background got play, but was quickly washed under by the spectacle of his confirmation hearings - and not just Anita Hill.

I'll grant that the backstory probably plays better with DNC-aligned audiences, but it's still generally compelling, and the only 'downside' is that it allows the RNC to really strike using stereotyping and innuendo, which isn't exactly a perfect, no-fail strategy considering how much the Republicans need Hispanics going forward.

You're absolutely right that Thomas, going in, was clearly not a brilliant legal mind. I did want to point out that, at the very least, he was somewhat qualified for the position; I don't remember GWHB going on and on about his background the way that the disciples of Obama are about Sotomayor. I definitely remember the stories about his having to learn standard English after years of speaking Gullah, but this information didn't make up his entire story for the first 48 hours of the news cycle. I think that the mainstream media is more skeptical about conservatives of color, and that leads to less fawning like we're seeing now.

Granted, I think I'm a little tender about this sort of thing, and as a result am probably a little less than coherent, since the first thing I heard from my liberal colleagues was her background. Why do I care? As a person of color, I could give two ishts about what color or gender the next Supreme Court justice is, or how they grew up.