Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchkin03
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?
|
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.
Threaded Mode
