The Striking Thing For Me About The Tribe Letter
That's the Lawrence Tribe letter to president Obama trashing Sonia Sotomayor and recommending Kagan ("Bluntly put, she's not as smart as she seems to think she is...")
The striking thing to me is that there's nobody recommended in the letter who doesn't have a vagina, which makes it pretty clear, as I believe Obama did during the process, that a woman, not the best person for the job, would be appointed.
Isn't that...dare I say it...discrimination?
I mean, fine, if a woman is the best person for the job, but men should have been considered and recommended as well. There seems to have been a tacit acceptance that it would be a woman.
And sure enough, when Mr. Obama appointed Sotomayor, here's what he announced, from the Telegraph/UK, by Toby Harnden:
But his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 54, a New York state appeals court justice of Puerto Rican heritage who grew up in poverty in the Bronx, drew immediate fire from Republicans.Announcing that he had "decided to nominate an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice", Mr Obama highlighted her "rigorous intellect" and said she had "faced down barriers, overcome the odds, and lived out the American dream".
He added: "What Sonia will bring to the court, then, is not only the knowledge and experience acquired over a course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life's journey."
Translation: "She's a woman, and a Puerto Rican, too!"
letter link via @walterolson
The Goddess writes: Translation: "She's a woman, and a Puerto Rican, too!"
And, like Obama, she's a racist!
Patrick at October 31, 2010 4:25 AM
Yes - it was obviously known that only women were being considered for the first two openings.
Keep in mind that there's a good deal of Harvard fluffing going on in this letter, but I do agree w/ Tribe that Kagan will likely be a more effective justice, so far as her ability to influence the court. But he doesn't consider that Obama may have preferred a partisan bully to an erudite diplomat.
What's also interesting is that Tribe recognizes that Obama was simply looking for a slate of decisions and a good 'story'. There's no real appeal to his constitutional thinking, which he refers to as Pragmatically Progressive. The justification of his recommendations is actually pretty shallow, and a little overwrought. It's surprising that this is the level of 'the national dialog' among the 'best and brightest' of our country.
Nick at October 31, 2010 6:32 AM
I quite frankly don't care who is on the court -- as long as they know what is in the constitution.
It took nearly a hundred years to overturn Dred Scott/Jim Crow with legislation. Where if the SC had stayed out of it, we would have moved forward much more easily.
Jim P. at October 31, 2010 7:13 AM
Tribe's surname is ironic in this context, since it was clear from the beginning that Obama's team regards the SC as a council of tribal leaders. Remember all the ruckus about how O'Connor's seat was "the woman's seat" and it was absolutely essential that she be replaced by another woman?
(The funny thing is, I've read some things lately suggesting that Sotomayor is coming under the influence of Scalia... the joke will be on Obama if she winds up being a conservative or swing vote.)
Cousin Dave at October 31, 2010 7:43 AM
Incidentally, I noticed in reviewing the list of SC justices that, with the exception of Thomas, the last ten appointments have all been from states that are now solidly blue states. You have to go back to O'Connor's era (she was confirmed in 1981) to find more of a mix of justices from politically different areas of the country.
Cousin Dave at October 31, 2010 7:48 AM
So... you are upset that women are getting appointed? Or are you upset that women who aren't white are getting appointed? That is pretty sick, especially since you appear to be a woman as well. Aren't there enough men on the court already? Seems like they do need more women to balance it out fairly. I think its more about political leaning for you than it is about the sex of the candidates.
Eastbay at October 31, 2010 9:43 AM
Eastbay you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
V at October 31, 2010 10:12 AM
V is right. You don't seem to have read the blog item, Eastbay. You just decided that I'm racist or it's all about political leaning (what "political leaning" do you think I am?).
Eastbay, I'll put it very, very, very simply:
I want the best PERSON for the job.
That means I DON'T want skin color or country of origin or sex to be a factor.
Best person for the job. Best person for the job. Best person for the job.
Comprende?
Amy Alkon at October 31, 2010 10:50 AM
What V said.
Eastbay, Amy made it clear that what bothered her was that ONLY women were being considered. That make it pretty clear that their ability to do the job isn't as important to Obama as the fact that they are women. The addition of "and a Puerto Rican, too!" may be a bit cynical of her, but she's probably right about that too. That Obama doesn't care nearly as much about how good they would do the job as he does about pandering to a certain subset of the voting population.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at October 31, 2010 10:54 AM
The Supreme Court is packed with Ivy League law school graduates. Not a one of them went to a non-Ivy law school.
Only four of them didn't go to an Ivy League school for their undergraduate. And "elite" schools predominate there as well. Two of the four went to Stanford, one went to Georgetown, and one to Holy Cross.
Six of the nine are Catholic. The other three are Jewish.
If, as the appointing presidents keep saying, they want justices who represent the diversity of experiences of ordinary Americans, where is the non-Ivy, non-elite graduate? Where is the non-Judeo-Christian justice?
Conan the Grammarian at October 31, 2010 11:25 AM
Conan, lighten up. They got Kagan, who apparently hasn't been anything.
Radwaste at October 31, 2010 12:44 PM
I had forgotten about that, but now I remember remarking that if Justice Sotomayor had been a lesbian (and for all I know, she is), they would have had a trifecta. It was so obvious Obama was looking for a minority woman who was also qualified to sit on the bench, rather than a qualified individual who happened to be a minority woman.
I really wasn't expecting much from this administration, and so far I have not been disappointed.
Steve Daniels at October 31, 2010 3:10 PM
As a woman, I find the "let's hire a woman" policy insulting. It makes it sound like a woman can't get the job unless she gets special treatment. I'm not a minority, but I think if I were, I might consider it insulting on that level, also.
This is actually one thing that puzzles me about some of the liberal mindset. In some ways, they seem to think that minorities aren't as good as white males. They must think that, or why would they help them like this?
Now, if you just think that many people who are minorities have a harder time because of poverty (although of course-, not all members of minorities are poor), then how about supporting school vouchers? Proper education is a major factor in being able to support yourself.
I'm sick of programs that seem to talk down to minorities. We're all people; a member of a minority can do just as well as anyone else if given a fair chance.
And the time to start a fair chance is in kindergarten.
KrisL at October 31, 2010 4:41 PM
It's not that she's a woman, or a minority, or a lesbian that factored into her hiring - those were all icing.
Both were solid progressives committed to using judicial activism to advance the progressive agenda when it cannot be implemented legislatively.
And since progressivism is inherently anti-constitutional, that means picking jurists who either don't know the Constitution, or think it's meant to be used as toilet paper.
Hence Kagan and Sotomayor. Neither gives a half a shit what's actually IN the Constitution, as they have no intention of using it in their jurisprudence. Gender, race, and sexual identity are only sops to the identity politics crowd.
Give me a court of 9 Thomases, and I'll be happy. I'm STILL pissed at Bush for passing him over for Chief Justice.
brian at October 31, 2010 7:48 PM
Give me a court of 9 Thomases, and I'll be happy. I'm STILL pissed at Bush for passing him over for Chief Justice.
Yeah, Thomas! I know he hates it, so it's good to know he's no affirmative action candidate. His skin color had nothing to do with his being chosen to replace Marshall.
Christopher at October 31, 2010 10:46 PM
"They must think that, or why would they help them like this?" Oddly enough no that's not how they see it. Their assumption is that all (non minority) white males are entrenched bigots even if they don't know it. So unless you force these primitives to see past their hatred by force of law they would take an under qualified white male over a women or minority.
This is of course total bullshit but that's the mind set. When proven that this is bullshit they shut down and revert to their white men fucked up the world meme. Just like when you corner a social conservative they starts screaming Jesus platitudes and tell you that you are going to hell. Same bat shittery different rhetoric.
vlad at November 1, 2010 8:50 AM
I think it's difficult to define "the best person" for the job in terms of a Supreme Court justice (as well as many positions). It's not like there's a completely unbiased test that people take and the one who gets the highest score is the most qualified. Picking a Supreme Court candidate is essentially a political act on many different levels: (i) picking Sotomayor, a female and Hispanic, certainly appealed to the Democrat's liberal/PC wing - just like McCain picking Sarah Palin as his VP candidate was, among other things (IMHO), an attempt to shore up the more conservative elements of the Republican base; and (ii) in this day and age, a President (Republican or Democrat) is going to try and pick someone who generally agrees with his interpretations of the Constitution, levels of judicial activism on a variety topics, etc. - it's just reality.
factsarefacts at November 1, 2010 10:03 AM
From Pollitt's book "Reasonable Creatures" (the essay is "On the Merits"):
"As long as we're talking about white men competing with each other, we tacitly acknowledge that we live in a realistic world of a Balzac novel, a world in which we know perfectly well that Harvard C's beat A's from Brooklyn College, in which family connections and a good tennis serve never hurt, and sycophancy, backstabbing, and organizational inertia carry the undeserving into top jobs every day of the week. Add women and blacks into the picture, though, and suddenly the scene shifts. Now we're in Plato's Republic, where sternly impartial philosopher-kings award laurels to the deserving after nights of fasting and prayer. Or did, before affirmative action threw its spanner into the meritocratic works."
(end of excerpt)
The rest is very much worth reading.
And, I have a dear close relative who may or may not have had to overcome the hurdle of affirmative action now and again. However, it has never occurred to me to feel sorry for him because of that, not just because he's more ambitious than any other relative I can think of at the moment, but because he's had plenty of advantages in life, including being white.
And, as it happens, he's doing quite well right now.
Speaking of conservatives' alleged belief in "meritocracy," here's another one from Pollitt (from 2008 - I can't find the link anymore):
"Sarah Palin’s only qualification is that McCain likes her"
Great column.
Last paragraphs:
.......There’s an upside, in that the old attack on Obama as a lightweight who is inexperienced and overreaching has all but vanished. Plus, there’s the fun of watching conservative pundits
scramble to deny the obvious. “There are Republicans who are unhappy about John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin,” acknowledged William Kristol in his September 1 column. “Many are insiders who highly value – who overly value – ‘experience.’”
Ah yes, experience. What is that, anyway? My people choose their leaders by inspecting the entrails of chickens, and the gods have always multiplied our herds! Besides, as Rush Limbaugh said recently: “She’ll be surrounded by a sea of advisers.” Hmmm, where did I hear that before? Was it not in 2000, when doubts were raised about whether George Bush could handle the job?
The stress on high-end conservative pundits is beginning to show. These are people, after all, who belong to the Ivy-educated, latte-drinking, Tuscan-vacationing urban elite they love to ridicule and who see themselves, however deludedly, as policy intellectuals and grown-ups. They’ve written endlessly about “excellence” and “standards”.
McCain’s erratic flounderings, and Palin’s patent absurdity, have driven David Brooks and George Will to write columns so anguished I’d feel sorry for them had they not made their bed by spending the past eight years rationalising the obvious inadequacies of George Bush. I want the people running the country to be smarter and wiser and more judicious and more knowledgeable than I am. If that’s elitism, count me in.
(end)
lenona at November 2, 2010 12:14 PM
lenona, you comment reminded me of this South Park clip
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/video-south-park-on-bailouts/
the first video on the page
lujlp at November 2, 2010 2:14 PM
We have constantly believed me personally on the list of very best stalwarts regarding Mozart, and also should do this right up until the afternoon regarding my own dying.
poloskjorte at June 2, 2011 9:50 AM
Thanks , I've just been searching for info approximately this subject for ages and yours is the best I have came upon so far. But, what about the conclusion? Are you sure in regards to the source?
ipads for cheap at June 21, 2011 2:14 PM
You actually think people are going to sit through this mumble jumble?
Music Sharing at July 6, 2011 6:15 PM
illusory perspective unimproved biopower ahrq snacks converts pills field strengthen izfke
Ken Gsell at July 23, 2011 2:59 PM
Excellent news it is actually. My mother has been waiting for this update related to your post “Advice Goddess Blog”. : )
private equity at July 29, 2011 12:23 AM
Leave a comment