Most of believe that our life experiences run the gamut, enabling and entitling us to believe that we understand the full spectrum of experiences. We are, of course, delusional.
Our experiences are ours. Not being a “wise Latina,” the experiences of a wise Latina would not be mine. Nor the experiences of a black man. Not even an Italian man. But I do have the experiences of a Jewish man. The problem is that my experience as a Jewish man is likely to be different than Joel Rosenberg’s, also a Jewish man, but far better armed.
The latest blawg rage is discussion of a statement by Sonia Sotomayor, which made the New York Times’ editorial page today.
The talking point conservatives pushed hardest last week — to the alarm finally of some Republican senators — was a 2001 speech in which Judge Sotomayor said she hoped a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The context matters: she was pointing out that throughout history even esteemed white male justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes voted to uphold race and sex discrimination. She said accidents of birth inform people’s views, but judges must strive to look beyond them.
The Times pointed out similar expressions by Justices Alito and Thomas in their confirmation hearings. This makes two points that are very important, and should take the wind out of the both sides of the discussion. Each brings experiences that others, who don’t share their ethnicity, race or color, won’t have in their bag of tricks.
None of these Supreme Court Justices or nominee, on the other hand, is the exclusive source of experience for their ethnicity, race or color. None speaks for all Italians, all blacks or all wise Latinas. Even more to the point, none reflects the median experience of their identified groups. If you were hoping that a black judge, any black judge, would sit on the court to be the root source, the go-to guy, for black issues, you are likely disappointed by Justice Thomas. He is not the poster boy.
Sonia Sotomayor went to Princeton and Yale Law School. Not the norm for Latinas, I’m afraid. She was a prosecutor. Also not the norm. She never succumbs to life on the street in the Bronx. Not the norm. The mere fact that she is Hispanic from the Bronx will confuse many who believe that she must, by virtue of her experience, understand what life is like for Hispanics from the Bronx. I suggest that anyone who thinks that she brings that perspective to the table will be as disappointed in Sotomayor as others are in Thomas. These individuals are the exceptions.
If you want someone who understands the experience of a Hispanic in the Bronx, I would be a better choice than Sonia Sotomayor. Not because my life experience is that of a “wise Latina,” which it obviously is not, but because I’ve spent the past quarter century with Hispanics from the Bronx and gotten to know some quite well. I’ve listened to them tell me what life is like for them, how they are treated by the cops, what they think and believe, for better or worse. I may not always agree with their view of life, but I can appreciate why they do certain things based upon their life experiences. I can say with certainty that the life experiences of many of the Hispanics I’ve known will not be shared by Judge Sotomayor.
We want to believe that merely by being a Latina from the Bronx that she gets it. Lord knows the Supremes, particularly after the decisions in Montejo and Ventris, could use someone who has a clue how things really happen outside of the marble hallways. But to assume that one’s race and ethnicity are enough to assume an understanding and shared range of experience would be a mistake. Judge Sotomayor was an SDNY and 2d Circuit judge. That’s not the typical experience of Hispanics from the Bronx. And to anyone who has spent much time in that courthouse, the vision of Judge Sotomayor strolling the Grand Concourse in search of amigas and cervesas, no less diablita, is ludicrous. That’s not her experience.
I know that I suggested that there isn’t really much to discuss about Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, so I apologize for doing so anyway. But this is less about Judge Sotomayor than it is about those who are busily ruminating on the subject of her nomination, both for and against, writing furiously about every detail of her life that comes up from one side or the other. This discussion is all in the abstract, replete with assumptions being made by people for whom the real Judge Sonia Sotomayor isn’t part of their life experience. That doesn’t seem to stop them. It doesn’t even slow them down.
The other day in court, a friend of mine whose practice is primarily before the 2d Circuit told me how hard he’s been laughing about all the Sotomayor commentary. He’s also been crying, because he knows that Judge Sotomayor is not even close to being the liberal judge we keep hearing about from those who oppose her. The irony, he notes, is that if they had a clue what they were talking about, the conservatives should be applauding the nomination and rushing it through before the liberals figured out how off-target their assumptions are. When it comes to criminal cases, personal freedom and civil rights, Judge Sotomayor is not exactly empathetic.
Indeed, if one really wanted to understand why such a stink is being made of Ricci v. DeStefano, one need only look at who represented the plaintiff in the case to realize that it was a wacky radical neo-conservative loud-mouthed lawyer with deep connections in the uber-conservative movement who has a personal grudge against her and has no doubt planned for the past year to rally the fellow-travelers against her nomination. It’s not like it hasn’t been expected. Aside from that, the per curiam circuit ruling was your basic deference decision, which would hardly be worth a second look.
If you are amongst those who are hoping for someone on the Supreme Court to reflect the experience of a wise Latina, or deathly afraid of it, don’t be too sure that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is the one to watch. Maybe if she was characterized as the “wise Latina” who was raised in the Bronx and then went to Princeton and Yale Law School, then became a prosecutor, and later sat on the SDNY bench until elevated to the 2d Circuit, people would have a better idea of who they were talking about. But even that doesn’t properly cover it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As is often the case, you and I disagree around the edges; we seem to have survived, so far. I think there’s a lot worth discussing about her nomination, not because she’s going to not be confirmed, because she, well, is — and you’ll be perfunctorily relieved to know, p’raps, that I think your discussion is well-thought-out — but, to go a bit orthogonal, some of what passes for “discussion” on this ticks me off, like the “racist” accusation.
It’s clear, both in and out of context, that she thinks being a “wise Latina” is a good thing to be, which is both obviously true and unobjectionable. (“Nah. I want a foolish Lower Slobovian on the bench.”)
Yesterday, on the way to the range, I was listening to a couple of my friends talking about it on their radio show; they oppose her nomination (as I do; I’m also opposed to the Third Law of Thermodynamics, all in all; I think it was a bad call), criticizing her on at least arguably legitimate grounds, I was struck by the idiocy of the argument, such as it is, that “she’s a racist!” (They criticized that preposterous “racist!” accusation, too, and Limbaugh for making it, and if they didn’t do it as strongly as I’d have preferred, well, I don’t remember any of my friends running their opinions past me for my approval.)
Calling her a “racist!” (they mean “bigot”, but that’s bull, too) is like accusing, say, Scalia of being a child molester because he’s been seen hugging a child. (I assume he has; he’s got kids and grandkids.)
Pfui. This criticism from Human Events, has more intellectual honesty to it than that, and it’s a friggin’ parody:
Pfui. SLTF.
I’m not even sure we disagree around the edges on this one, except that our reasoning is different.
Fair enough; I think both of us think there are better choices, but for different reasons. (I hate the spurious Racist! charges — no matter what the source or target — as, among other reasons, I think that kind of queers the pitch when there’s a real racist to point and jeer at and inflict the other appropriate social sanctions upon. Doubt you disagree on that, either.)
I know it is a bit off topic but while I am often in the Bronx, I rarely find the time or opportunity to discuss Theremodynamics and was wondering if you had an opinion regarding Ginsberg’s Restatement
“You can’t get any thing you want at Ginsberg’s Restatement . . .aurant.”
Roughly
Well, the food isn’t much but the 8X10 glossy photos on the wall with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back make the decor at the restaurant something very special.