On Tuesday night, PBS’s NewsHour discussed the Sotomayor nomination with a panel including Jenny Rivera, a former Sotomayor clerk and head of the Center on Latino and Latina Equal Rights. You could hear the latest buzz words on diversity being used. The addition of Latina diversity brings a certain "integrity" to the Supreme Court, which suffers from an "insularity," from being encased in a bubble:
GWEN IFILL, anchor: Jenny Rivera, how much is there -- is there a just concern about identity politics beginning to define the day for picks like this? Here we have another first.
RIVERA: Well, I think the president didn't make a choice based on identity politics. He made the choice based on the merits of her intellectual capabilities, on the experience that she brought to the court.
And you heard David Axelrod say, you know, the fact that she happens to also be Latina and be a woman, it's wonderful that we can bring that to the court. But this was a choice based on the strength of her background, her experience, and her intellect. And, certainly, that's important.
But at the same time, we have to recognize that the court is vulnerable to criticism that it doesn't look like the rest of the country and therefore is insensitive to those issues, and it is encased in this bubble, and there's an insularity about the court.
So it is important that we all feel that all sections, all branches of government somehow have a certain integrity behind them and really speak to people.
And I think certainly President Obama, when he says he's looking for someone who has empathy and who understands the implications of these cases on real people, is recognizing also the significance of the judiciary, not just the executive branch, not just the legislative branch, being a branch of government that all people in the United States, all our various, diverse communities can feel carry a certain integrity behind them and rule not based on appearances, but look at the merits of the case, and apply the rule of law, and apply those values of the Constitution.
Ifill didn't react by asking: "So a room full of whites can't make a decision with "integrity"? Can the current Supreme Court make a decision with "integrity"? Or is the current court implicitly dishonest by its ethnic makeup?
Integrity can be defined as "wholeness," but would the Supreme Court then need to have an Asian member, a native American member, and someone from the "disability community" to reach "integrity"?
This exchange was spurred by a conservative guest, James Copland of the Manhattan Institute, who reacted to a vague Ifill question about ethnicity by suggesting Sotomayor suggesting a Latina woman would be a wiser judge than a white man:
I think the Latina woman quote will get some play, and I think it should. What concerns me a little bit about this demographic picking, when you're sort of trying to pick the court is, is the notion that one person's life experience should, in fact, have a lot of impact on how they rule in a given case.
That doesn't mean that judges are blind to the long-run impacts of their decisions, but that the real-world impacts of their decisions go beyond whatever the hardship is that the individual might have faced.
So when Judge Sotomayor strongly dissented from a panel on the Second Circuit that was dismissing a lawsuit against a school board for demoting a black student who had underperformed, the real-world consequences of that go beyond that actual instance, but, in fact, create this sort of litigation, education through litigation problem we've got, which arguably we do a disservice to the very constituencies that that sort of empathy that she wants to embrace tends to create.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Diversity is divisive.
May 27, 2009 - 15:15 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsDiversity is divisive. Cultural diversity pits all groups against other groups. Just what 'progressives' want. No unity occurs with diversity. A diverse diet is a good thing, a diverse culture is not.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
"Diverse culture" is an
May 27, 2009 - 15:21 ET by HockeyKid"Diverse culture" is an oxymoron.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Exactly. There's little
May 29, 2009 - 11:40 ET by rbosqueExactly. There's little opposition to their policies when we're divided.
→ Right Rivera
May 27, 2009 - 15:15 ET by Cool ArrowAnd that's why you, with the latin-american name (Rivera), were asked the question.
Is that a spring shower on my back?
Soooooooo...... I can
May 27, 2009 - 15:19 ET by JimboSoooooooo......
I can conclude that a bunch of white guys can't have integrity.
Interesting......
guys
May 27, 2009 - 15:38 ET by CarlosSSince Miguel Estrada didn't have quite enough cultural diversity to bring "integrity" to the Court of Appeals..., and the Supreme Court already has women judges, the cultural diversity that Sonia Sotomayer brings is that she's a hardcore Democrat Liberal!
Who has Lexis-Nexis
May 27, 2009 - 15:20 ET by HockeyKidWho has Lexis-Nexis access? I'm betting "a certain integrity" becomes just like "gravitas" was when Cheney was announced as Bush's running mate.
No wonder these people (including Uhbama) think Sotomayor is such a brain trust: they're all dumber than a box of rocks. "Gee, if Katie Couric thinks she's smart, she must be really smart!"
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Intellect and competence??
May 27, 2009 - 15:33 ET by iveseenitallI was soooo surprised when Barry nominated an Hispanic female-- based on her competence and intellect, of course. Who'd have thunk!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Word of the Day
May 27, 2009 - 15:34 ET by jaywlPerhaps this will be the MSM word of the day. Hannity just played a montage of yesterday's word(s). Life Story. He must have had 30 clips of it. It is amazing to me that all those people will say the same thing. Life Story isn't even a very common usage.I wonder if these characters don't get a recorded message telling them what to emphasize that day, like Rahm's morning wake up call.
Insularity is a Problem?
May 27, 2009 - 15:43 ET by JustAlThe supreme court is insular by design. That was the purpose of lifetime appointment (not election) of the judges, they are supposed to be above the political frey and the cultrual fads of the day. They are supposed to be Constituional scholars, not partisan representatives of so called "cultures."
But then again, the left see the Constitution the same way Balboa saw the pirate's code,"more like suggestions than actual rules."
Appearances are everything ...
May 27, 2009 - 15:48 ET by metaphorsbwithuShe probably meant "the appearance of integrity".
By "merit" she meant "fairness".
By "rule of law" she meant rules that are made to be broken or changed in the miuddle of the game to create a "level playing field".
I can go on but you get the picture.
metaphorsbwithu
<insert hysterical laughter here>
May 27, 2009 - 15:51 ET by motherbeltRIVERA: Well, I think the president didn't make a choice based on
identity politics. He made the choice based on the merits of her
intellectual capabilities, on the experience that she brought to the
court.
Did she really say that with a straight face?????
So Sotomayor would have been his choice even if she were a white male?
Hey Jenny....you're not that smart. And we're not that stupid.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Diversity alright...she
May 27, 2009 - 15:58 ET by bigtimerDiversity alright...she loves groups like LaRaza...yep, she fits right in with the Obama mold leftists.
She's just perfect dontcha know...peachy-keen.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
It doesn't bring "integrity." It brings mediocrity.
May 27, 2009 - 16:23 ET by R D HelmAnd from what I have been reading, mediocrity is Sotomayor's specialty.
-Dave
Implying?
May 27, 2009 - 16:24 ET by StarAZIf she brings integrity, are the other Supremes dirtballs? What is being said here? I thought we were supposed to look beyond color or ethnicity to content of character.
Well, you know....there is
May 27, 2009 - 16:27 ET by balboaWell, you know....there is Scalia. Just sayin'. :-)
→ Scalia
May 27, 2009 - 16:33 ET by Cool ArrowDid Scalia engage in dirtballishness?
Ohh I get it.
Turnabout
May 27, 2009 - 16:29 ET by slickwillie2001Newt Gingrich is labeling Sotomayor 'a racist', and suggesting that her nomination should be withdrawn:
Gingrich: Sotomayor Racist, Should Withdraw Nomination: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
Once we have mirrored every
May 27, 2009 - 17:13 ET by RR GOPOnce we have mirrored every third world country out there, then America will, for once, be a truly great, prosperous nation!
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Demographics are not qualifications
May 27, 2009 - 21:30 ET by nkviking75Nothing is added to the Supreme Court by appointing a white male or a Latina female or an orange Klingon. Anyone applying his or her genetic makeup to the law is unqualified to rule on it.
Perhaps we should limit the court to white males because they don't have minority baggage to the court. Racist? Perhaps, but no more so than all the emphasis on minority appointments.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.