Let's see...where do we start? Oh yeah...let's start with the potential new Supreme Court Judge, the Honorable Judge Sonia Sotomayor out of New York. Judge Sotomayor is under a lot of scrutiny for comments made in past speeches, and the word "scrutiny" is only a microcosm of all the attention she's received since being President Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter. On the day Judge Sotomayor was first announced as the President's pick, her story of coming from the projects of the Bronx, New York, attending both Princeton and Yale, and working her way through the courts system until she made it as a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York.
But in all the "American-dream style" stories about Judge Sotomayor, there is the looming controversy about comments she'd given about judges "setting policy" and about how her heritage gives her more ability to make rulings. Her comments about judges setting policy were said in 2005 at a panel discussion at Duke University...and she made no bones about the notion that legislating behind the bench was very commonplace. That's one thing many conservatives and Republicans are upset about with this pick...but that's not what's been making the news, radio talk shows, and blogs. Sotomayor's much-commented statement...spoken near the end of a lecture given at the University Of California at Berkeley School of law in 2001, in which she says, "I hope that 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." was on its face a racist comment, but placed within the context of a lecture about a lack of diversity in the nation's highest courts. And while I as a black man appreciate the fact there should be diversity in the court systems...diversity for the sake of diversity isn't good.
I know that Judge Sotomayor has tried to "explain" away her comments, and a lot of her media-based and political supporters have done the same thing. It should also be noted that 60% of her decisions have been reversed...and Media Matters is referring to a SCOTUS blog saying that number by herself is lower than the average of all circuit court decisions reversed. However...I think it's fair to note that her record should be scrutinized when she finally does come before the hearing committee that will ultimately decide her fate on the Supreme Court. And I also feel her comments, both on courts seemingly legislating from the bench, and her "wise Latina" line, should be scrutinized to the "nth" degree.
Let's be honest here...we all know that if a white man said what Sotomayor said about the "wise Latina"...even if there was a legitimate context to the line, there would be almost no mercy shown to that individual, and he or she would have to either withdraw his/her name from consideration, or (especially if that nominee was a Republican) have that nomination tarnish the political party in the next campaign cycle. In fact, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned, there is no "legitimate context" to a racist comment. And while we're at it...let's call Democrats out on trying to use the "racist" angle to seemingly protect Sotomayor, and not allow any criticism. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly after her comments were leaked to the public that critics should "be careful" on how they'd critique her qualifications for the Justice position. Hispanic leaders also chined in saying any criticism of Sotomayor would possibly lead to a backlash from Latino voters. Any Republican or any blue-dog Democrat who has the spine to look these "racist-style" tactics in the face and call them for what they are ought to stand up and be counted. Democrats who are trying their best to protect Judge Sotomayor from any heat for her statements are the same people who lambasted nominees President George W. Bush had, such as Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Those two, a Hispanic and a white man, were constantly grilled by Democrats...Alito to the point where his wife cried in disbelief her husband would be treated to harshly. Yet no one on the Democratic side of the political fence was willing to protect the Supreme Court nominee because of his heritage. In fact, if I can say the most obvious sentence in this paragraph...Alito and Roberts, and any other Bush nominee to any other position, were criticised harshly because of politics, and not because of race. It's just more rare when a person of color is not on the Democratic side of the political fence.
But in all the "American-dream style" stories about Judge Sotomayor, there is the looming controversy about comments she'd given about judges "setting policy" and about how her heritage gives her more ability to make rulings. Her comments about judges setting policy were said in 2005 at a panel discussion at Duke University...and she made no bones about the notion that legislating behind the bench was very commonplace. That's one thing many conservatives and Republicans are upset about with this pick...but that's not what's been making the news, radio talk shows, and blogs. Sotomayor's much-commented statement...spoken near the end of a lecture given at the University Of California at Berkeley School of law in 2001, in which she says, "I hope that 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." was on its face a racist comment, but placed within the context of a lecture about a lack of diversity in the nation's highest courts. And while I as a black man appreciate the fact there should be diversity in the court systems...diversity for the sake of diversity isn't good.
I know that Judge Sotomayor has tried to "explain" away her comments, and a lot of her media-based and political supporters have done the same thing. It should also be noted that 60% of her decisions have been reversed...and Media Matters is referring to a SCOTUS blog saying that number by herself is lower than the average of all circuit court decisions reversed. However...I think it's fair to note that her record should be scrutinized when she finally does come before the hearing committee that will ultimately decide her fate on the Supreme Court. And I also feel her comments, both on courts seemingly legislating from the bench, and her "wise Latina" line, should be scrutinized to the "nth" degree.
Let's be honest here...we all know that if a white man said what Sotomayor said about the "wise Latina"...even if there was a legitimate context to the line, there would be almost no mercy shown to that individual, and he or she would have to either withdraw his/her name from consideration, or (especially if that nominee was a Republican) have that nomination tarnish the political party in the next campaign cycle. In fact, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned, there is no "legitimate context" to a racist comment. And while we're at it...let's call Democrats out on trying to use the "racist" angle to seemingly protect Sotomayor, and not allow any criticism. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly after her comments were leaked to the public that critics should "be careful" on how they'd critique her qualifications for the Justice position. Hispanic leaders also chined in saying any criticism of Sotomayor would possibly lead to a backlash from Latino voters. Any Republican or any blue-dog Democrat who has the spine to look these "racist-style" tactics in the face and call them for what they are ought to stand up and be counted. Democrats who are trying their best to protect Judge Sotomayor from any heat for her statements are the same people who lambasted nominees President George W. Bush had, such as Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Those two, a Hispanic and a white man, were constantly grilled by Democrats...Alito to the point where his wife cried in disbelief her husband would be treated to harshly. Yet no one on the Democratic side of the political fence was willing to protect the Supreme Court nominee because of his heritage. In fact, if I can say the most obvious sentence in this paragraph...Alito and Roberts, and any other Bush nominee to any other position, were criticised harshly because of politics, and not because of race. It's just more rare when a person of color is not on the Democratic side of the political fence.
Congratulations to radio talk show host Michael Savage for not only holding his own against a British bureaucrat, but also showing what can happen if/when a "Fairness Doctrine"-style cencorship is enacted. Savage was banned from entering Great Britain after Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released a list of 16 people who were denied access into the U.K.. Smith justified her ban on Savage by saying he is "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence." These claims are ludicrous considering the other people on this ban list include former Russian skinheads, Jewish extremists, a former KKK Grand Wizard, several Muslim extremists, and even a preacher I wouldn't let step on my front doorstep unless I had a guard dog on standby. After many days of publicity here in the U.S. and the U.K. about this ban, Smith resigned her post. Turns out she's stepping down because of a potential scandal involving her husband improperly using money, but that's besides the point.
What is the point is that what happened to Savage in the U.K. could happen to anyone here in the U.S. who doesn't go along with what's happening in Washington...or any other government entity. The much-maligned "Fairness Doctrine" got a ton of criticism from conservative commenators, all saying it would eliminate their voices from opposing the current administration. Rush Limbaugh, and other prominent radio hosts all expressed their disdain for such legislation because, as they put it, it would infringe on the constitution's promise of "freedom of speech". They also cite that Democrats who support the idea of "shutting down conservative talk radio" would try to pass legislation through some back door scheme...all in the name of "fairness". Even though President Obama publicly stated he opposed the "Fairness Doctrine", many politicos are trying as hard as they can to find a way to slip it through, and stop opposing voices. As of now, Michael Savage is suing the British Home Office for defammation. Good for you, Mr. Savage. To have a radio talk-show host put in the same category as terrorists, KKK leaders, skinheads, Hamas leaders, and others who vow destruction on civil society makes no sense at all. Yet...there are many who believe that comparison is not only appropriate, but also enough to have dissenters' voices silenced.
With the ever-expansion of "Gay marriage" popping up across the country, I for one as a dad and a Christian am glad to see that an attempt to pass a "civil unions" bill fail. I say that first of all because I believe that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Even though former Vice President Dick Cheney said at a National Press Club function not too long ago he supported it, I'm afraid that is a position I could not support. Granted, he does have a gay daughter, and I'm sure he loves her very much. Yet his position is one that is disappointing to many, including myself. Still, with a large gay-rights lobby continually fighting state capitol after state capitol, it's good to see that an old-fashioned, grass-roots effort was made to halt such legislation. Let's hope those who helped in this fight are up to keep going because there are many, many lobbyists on the state and federal level who will not stop until gay marriage is the law of the land.
And finally...good luck to Aurora, Colorado City Councilman Ryan Frazier in his bid for the Colorado State Senate. Frazier is a 31-year-old black REPUBLICAN who is running against Republican Ken Buck in a primary to challenge Colorado State Senator Michael Bennett, a Democrat. And from the looks of it, it seems like people are warming up the idea of a black republican as a viable candidate. Frazier is one of few "minority" republicans who are willing to stand up against the notion that if you have more melanin in your skin than a white person, you're supposed to vote for Democrats. There is a strong mistrust among black voters towards the Republican party, but there are those who are not only fighting through that mistrust, but they are showing a large voting base that it's okay to "not vote for a Democrat" if a voter doesn't believe the Dem. is the better choice. Personally, I think the Republican party has to "roll up their sleeves", engage the voters, and not worry about looking for a particular kind of vote. What I mean is...if someone is running for office, he or she should espouse their values, policies, and plans for the area they want to serve, and not worry about trying to get the "black vote", the "asian vote", the "hispanic vote", and so on. If the candidate's platform is worthy enough for consideration, then many people...regardless of race...will climb on board the bandwagon. Look how many people supported President Obama's run for office? I don't think a black Republican would get that kind of support considering how liberal the media and society in general is. However, people like former Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Pittsburgh Steelers' receiver-turned-Pennsylvania politician Lynn Swann show that someone with a lot of melanin in their skin can make a successful run into office as a Republican...be drawing support based on their platforms, and not their skin color.
Whew...that was a lot. More coming soon. Thanks for reading. 'Til next time...keep enterprising.
