David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[KSig RC]

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?

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

I find this conversation rather odd... I think we should publicize stories of those who rise from unlikely situations into one that is making an impact on society. If she becomes the next SCOTUS member or not, it is great representation for those individuals out there who feel like they are stuck in their economic situation. I remember working at a grocery store, and hearing a girl talk about how she needs to have a baby soon so that she will qualify for welfare. To me, this seems like a defeatist attitude that a lot of disadvantages kids take. So any story that shows that they are not stuck in their current situation, I am definitely fond of. I think that is why Obama was hitting on the story, as education, and instilling drive within today's students has definitely been consistent with his actions so far.

Now whether or not it affects the senate's vote to confirm her, I think that is more of a problem of if we elected the right senators who can look past media biased and onto the pure facts at hand...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

I find this conversation rather odd... I think we should publicize stories of those who rise from unlikely situations into one that is making an impact on society. If she becomes the next SCOTUS member or not, it is great representation for those individuals out there who feel like they are stuck in their economic situation. I remember working at a grocery store, and hearing a girl talk about how she needs to have a baby soon so that she will qualify for welfare. To me, this seems like a defeatist attitude that a lot of disadvantages kids take. So any story that shows that they are not stuck in their current situation, I am definitely fond of. I think that is why Obama was hitting on the story, as education, and instilling drive within today's students has definitely been consistent with his actions so far.

Now whether or not it affects the senate's vote to confirm her, I think that is more of a problem of if we elected the right senators who can look past media biased and onto the pure facts at hand...

Look, here's the real issue, plain as day:

Would her background be as widely-played if she were white and from Harlem, then went to Princeton and Yale?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Look, here's the real issue, plain as day:

Would her background be as widely-played if she were white and from Harlem, then went to Princeton and Yale?

White and from harlem maybe....but otherwise...NOPE.

Did Roberts get this much scrutiny?

I honestly dont remember

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

White and from harlem maybe....but otherwise...NOPE.

Did Roberts get this much scrutiny?

I honestly dont remember

He was scrutinized. Maybe not as much, BUT...

If Roberts had said anything along the lines of "I'm a white man and make decisions based on that," it would have been that last you would have heard of him.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Did Roberts get this much scrutiny?

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

He was scrutinized. Maybe not as much, BUT...

Wait, wait, wait.

In the context of confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, media focus on her background =/= "scrutinized."

Every SCOTUS nominee is heavily scrutinized, both before the nomination is announced and after.

[Eclipse]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

He was scrutinized. Maybe not as much, BUT...

If Roberts had said anything along the lines of "I'm a white man and make decisions based on that," it would have been that last you would have heard of him.

What about the justice (Scalia?) who talked about his Italian American heritage and how he thinks about his ancestors who came to this country when making decisions. I do not recall anyone worrying about his identity politics.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Look, here's the real issue, plain as day:

Would her background be as widely-played if she were white and from Harlem, then went to Princeton and Yale?

It would get play on a social class "up from boot straps" angle. Whites who overcome poverty are often noteworthy. They may've played up her gender more, though.