David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

One thing that bugs me about this; I think President Obama is making things slightly harder for her in that he keeps harping on her background and upbringing. I know it makes for good press with the public, but he should just stick to the fact that she's very smart and thinks well on her feet, has an excellent academic background, and has been a successful federal district and appeals judge. At the end of the day, those are the things that will be most important when she sits on the SCOTUS bench, and he's just setting her up for a ton of questions from Republicans about whether she'll let her personal experiences outweigh her respect for the law.

I agree: I think I'm beyond bugged and it gets to be offensive. The person just ends up becoming a token.

I think well-intentioned liberals, egged on by the mainstream media, can't be faced with a liberal Black or Latino overachiever without putting the "up from the ghetto/barrio/sharecropper" story on them, whether or not it's true. When it's true, as seems to be the case with Sotomayor, I feel like it almost diminishes her accomplishments because her whole life story is condensed to that sound bite. When it's only slightly true, in the case of our President, it seems as if liberals and the mainstream media can't stomach the idea of a successful black or Hispanic person who came from an educated middle-class background. When it can't be applied at all, or if the politics of the person in general don't fit in with the mainstream media (case in point: Condolleezza Rice), it's not seen as an accomplishment at all. It's been annoying me for a little while now, and maybe the conservative press does it as well, so I'm just sensitive to it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I agree: I think I'm beyond bugged and it gets to be offensive. The person just ends up becoming a token.

I think well-intentioned liberals, egged on by the mainstream media, can't be faced with a liberal Black or Latino overachiever without putting the "up from the ghetto/barrio/sharecropper" story on them, whether or not it's true. When it's true, as seems to be the case with Sotomayor, I feel like it almost diminishes her accomplishments because her whole life story is condensed to that sound bite. When it's only slightly true, in the case of our President, it seems as if liberals and the mainstream media can't stomach the idea of a successful black or Hispanic person who came from an educated middle-class background. When it can't be applied at all, or if the politics of the person in general don't fit in with the mainstream media (case in point: Condolleezza Rice), it's not seen as an accomplishment at all. It's been annoying me for a little while now, and maybe the conservative press does it as well, so I'm just sensitive to it.

I probably wouldn't have said exactly that the media can't stomach the idea of successful black or Hispanic people with middle class backgrounds, but I agree that they oversell the up from nothing background story when the person's politics is correct. If you are conservative, forget it; it's just assumed that your were middle class or rich, it seems to me.

On the one hand, I'm a fan of giving Black and Hispanic kids successful people of originally meager means and similar ethnicity to look up to. On the other hand, why the love affair with people starting out poor? Sure, it's great when people overcome adversity, but how many of us are really born with silver spoons in our mouths? How many people in the last 50 years got to the level of Supreme Court nominee without having sincere personal accomplishments, Harriet Miers excepted?

I'd also, like those of you who've already said so, like to see people promoted and evaluated based on their accomplishments. I find the idea of using identity and ability for empathy kind of troubling standards in the judicial system, but Obama's been pretty open about using them.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'd also, like those of you who've already said so, like to see people promoted and evaluated based on their accomplishments. I find the idea of using identity and ability for empathy kind of troubling standards in the judicial system, but Obama's been pretty open about using them.

The thing is, he's said that, but Sotomayor (as well as the other rumored nominees) is extremely qualified. Yeah, she may have the "ability for empathy," whatever that means, but she's also got one heck of a resume.

That's part of my problem, which I think was echoed by Munchkin - by focusing on these touchy feely things, it ends up seeling someone short who has the brains and professional background for the job (like Sotomayor). At the end of the day, the reason she is up for the spot is mostly because of her accomplishments.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

The thing is, he's said that, but Sotomayor (as well as the other rumored nominees) is extremely qualified. Yeah, she may have the "ability for empathy," whatever that means, but she's also got one heck of a resume.

That's part of my problem, which I think was echoed by Munchkin - by focusing on these touchy feely things, it ends up seeling someone short who has the brains and professional background for the job (like Sotomayor). At the end of the day, the reason she is up for the spot is mostly because of her accomplishments.

[Edited to reflect my re-reading what you all said]

I honestly have no opinion about her experience. I don't know much about her. I'm not nearly as into SCOTUS (or courts generally) as you are. My general impression as a conservative is that there were far worse judges out there and she's going to be confirmed so let it ride.

Rather than "ability for empathy,"Obama's words, according to a NYT column were, “'I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.' That kind of judge, Obama explained, will have empathy: “I view the quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient fo arriving at just decisions and outcomes.'” (I googled and used this because it's quoted in the NYT; I haven't even read the whole column it's quoted in:http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...w/?ref=opinion)

I think he's set her nomination up to be framed that unfortunate way for sure, but there's a big part of his base, as Munchkin notes, that's into that.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

If you are conservative, forget it; it's just assumed that you were middle class or rich, it seems to me.

I'd also, like those of you who've already said so, like to see people promoted and evaluated based on their accomplishments. I find the idea of using identity and ability for empathy kind of troubling standards in the judicial system, but Obama's been pretty open about using them.

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?

[MysticCat]

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.

[Eclipse]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by Eclipse

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.

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.

[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?

[AGDee]

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 only thing anybody was paying attention to about Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings was the Long Dong Silver...

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I think well-intentioned liberals, egged on by the mainstream media, can't be faced with a liberal Black or Latino overachiever without putting the "up from the ghetto/barrio/sharecropper" story on them, whether or not it's true. When it's true, as seems to be the case with Sotomayor, I feel like it almost diminishes her accomplishments because her whole life story is condensed to that sound bite. When it's only slightly true, in the case of our President, it seems as if liberals and the mainstream media can't stomach the idea of a successful black or Hispanic person who came from an educated middle-class background. When it can't be applied at all, or if the politics of the person in general don't fit in with the mainstream media (case in point: Condolleezza Rice), it's not seen as an accomplishment at all. It's been annoying me for a little while now, and maybe the conservative press does it as well, so I'm just sensitive to it.

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.