Monday, July 13, 2009
Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings - Day 1
Today begins the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor to a position on the Supreme Court of the United States. As expected, the Senate Judiciary Committee became split along party lines in their assessment of the justice. In analyzing her qualifications, both Sotomayor and the democrats on the panel have gone to lengths to show her background experience: she is of Puerto Rican descent, she grew up in the Bronx, worked her way to Princeton, and then to Yale Law. Today, the emphasis was put on her ethnicity, her socio-economic childhood and background, and her dedicated work ethic. Although this is only day one, and there has been no serious questioning about her judicial decisions and public opinions, should a nominee's background, ethnicity, or work ethic matter in determining the most important judicial appointee in the nation? If we had two candidates with the same qualifications and judicial leanings, should a candidate's background, life story, and/or race be the deciding factors?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of course race should be a deciding factor. White people have unjustly subjugated brown, black and other folks for far to long. The richness of the culture and the experience of being oppressed gives people like Ms. Sotomayor an authentic perspective that only the most avant guard Anglo could hope to match.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, the old-guard Republicans Anglos will protest her appointment; but what can they do? Demographics don't lie--their time in power is coming to an end.
edit: Republican Anglos.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tricky question because you lump a lot together when you combine background, life story, and/or race. In any profession, when equal candidates present themselves, it is often left to more subjective judgments. If I was interviewing two candidates and one of them had climbed Mt. Everest, it would be hard for that not to influence my perception of that candidate, consciously or not.
ReplyDeleteRace is a blasé topic nowadays. This is where academics and the public sector have much too much of our money to waste debating such topics. In the real world people pay people to get a good job done, and when the bottom line matters (as it does in the private sector) race is not an issue.
The answer to your question is that if background, life story, and/or (ugh) race was worth regarding, it would be because it affected the qualifications of that person. If someone has a life story that does not affect their qualifications, then that life story is irrelevant. Climbing Mt. Everest says something about a person. What does ones race say?
Whether race should be a factor seems to be a pertinent question in one respect. If there are two candidates with the same qualifications, should one be chosen over the other so as to diversify the court (such as appointing a woman or person of color)? In one sense, I would say yes, only to show what America really stands for, and to show that anybody willing to work hard can achieve this tremendous position of respect and responsibility (think of our president in this regard). On the other hand, some believe that we should be straying away from looking to race or gender in making any of our decisions; a color-blind or gender-blind approach. I think in one sense, the words of Senator Graham seem pertinent. Senator Graham made the comparison between the rights and treatment of women in the Middle East, with what a Latino American woman can accomplish in this country, and what a tremendous feat it truly was. This, however, says nothing of the substance of the person being nominated, which is infinately more important.
ReplyDeleteThe poster above who states that "in the real world people pay to get a job done . . . race is not an issue" is completely wrong. Companies invest substantial amounts of money to have "diversity" hiring fairs and other events in which white candidates are not invited. I have personally witnessed numerous unqualified candidates being hired to fulfill racial quotas.
ReplyDelete