My membership in the vast right-wing conspiracy is about to be revoked given my response to President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

It’s not that I’m spearheading a “Viva, Sonia!” campaign or anything like that. It’s just that I haven’t been able to muster the enthusiasm to bash Jurist Sotomayor, as so many of my fellow conservatives have been doing for the past few months.

Yeah, she’s probably a ‘quota queen,’ as Pat Buchanan calls her; and she does play hard ball when it comes to backing labor unions, as she did for Major League Baseball and National Football League players; and she has revealed what she thinks is an appropriate role of the appellate courts (“court of appeals is where policy is made”). We are also miles apart on Second Amendment issues, and her past affiliation with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund tells me our views on bilingual education and illegal immigration would also make us an odd couple.

But I think, if I were a member of the U.S. Senate voting on her Supreme Court nomination, I would register a quiet ‘no’ vote and leave the wailing and teeth gnashing to the more zealous activists.

See, Sonia and I have a few things in common.

We were both born in New York City in the mid-1950s to Hispanic parents who gave us “Maria” as an extra name. We both attended Catholic schools in the Bronx and loved reading Nancy Drew books and cheering for the Yankees.  Her mom, Celina, was a member of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corp; my dad, Roberto, served in the U.S. Army. We both lived in homes where education was emphasized as the gateway to success, so we graduated from well-regarded colleges and earned advanced degrees. (I even attended law school for a year.) In short, we both were able to successfully pursue our dreams.

Sonia considers herself a ‘wise Latina,’ as did President George H.W. Bush, who first appointed her to the federal bench in 1992. Truth be told, I sometimes think of myself that way even though no Bush family member has ever given me the time of day. Truth also be told, I think it’d be awesome to be the first Hispanic-American woman to join the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yet, somehow along the way, we developed polar-opposite views and principles regarding the rule of law and justice. What I would prefer, in place of bashing her, would be the chance to sit down with her and discuss (maybe in English, maybe in Spanish, maybe in Spanglish) the reasoning behind her beliefs, and even try to persuade her otherwise.

For instance, “Judge, why do you promote racial and ethnic preferences in hiring and education, as you did with your ruling with the New Haven firefighters in Ricci v. DeStefano and your comments about the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke? After all, you became valedictorian of your high school class, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University, and passed the New York bar examination based on merit and hard work, not your status as a minority.”

And, “Sonia, why should a pro-life proponent, like myself, be forced, through taxation, to fund abortions? What about equal rights for unborn Latina women?”

Or, “Ms. Sotomayor, why did you state in one of your decisions, that the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right? If it doesn’t mean that, what does the Second Amendment mean? Ninety million gun owners deserve an explanation.”

Admittedly, Sotomayor’s viewpoints are not outside the mainstream of the current American (liberal) mindset, but there’s no doubt they are far outside where we should be as a colorblind, constitution-abiding nation. In fact, if she’s confirmed, as I believe she will be, it may be an indication that we have reached the point of no return. Sotomayor’s elevation to the highest court in the land will be a watershed moment for the racially-driven culture of the Left, with white males bearing the brunt of the disenfranchisement and discrimination.

So, although I choose not to excoriate Sonia Sotomayor, personally, I will continue to exercise my right, as long as I am able, to stand against much of what she represents.

Note: A version of this column originally appeared in the Belgrade News, Belgrade, Montana.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Old Dan said:

	Can I choose where my tax dollars go? The author does not want her tax dollars to fund abortions. Can I choose too? I don't want my tax dollars fighting an immoral war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis including tens of thousands of Iraqi children. How about bailing out the bankers? My tax dollars went directly to fund their million dollar bonuses. Can I choose?
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 07, 2009
Votes: +1

Tracey Dey said:

Interesting article... Hi, It will be a glorious day when groups outside of white males can state opinions without having to qualify their racial and socio-economic backgrounds. Unfortunately, that is not where we are yet. The integration of a variety of peoples within the decision making levels of society is necessary to get to this point. There has been affirmative action in North America since Columbus arrived, old boys hired their own through the desire for familiarity and the ignorance and fear of anyone or anything that seemed different. If a society wishes for the brightest and the best they do not subject portions of their people to twice the work in order to achieve and then cry foul when one of those members finally climbs out of the near impossible maze they have been subjected to. I don’t think that white males need your concern as a group, only in that, those in power have developed a stubborn blind spot to their own brand of affirmative action. When any person works dilligently and is refused advancement in society based on race or gender we all suffer.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 07, 2009
Votes: -2

RichardR369 said:

	Unqualified Sotomayor bases her rulings not off of law, but on feelings. Thus she gets her rulings overturned. I would love to see a woman on the US Supreme Court as long as they're qualified and not just there to fill a racist quota like Affirmative Action.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 07, 2009
Votes: +2

Eyes Cream said:

	... I disagree with most of what you wrote, but I'm very pleased to see a writer who believes that respect is important - we don't have enough of those on either side of the political spectrum. Keep it up!
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 09, 2009
Votes: +0

person.of.nocolor said:

Jurist Bashing Old Dan said "Can I choose where my tax dollars go? The author does not want her tax dollars to fund abortions. Can I choose too? I don't want my tax dollars fighting an immoral war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis including tens of thousands of Iraqi children. How about bailing out the bankers? My tax dollars went directly to fund their million dollar bonuses. Can I choose? " Dan can you name one moral war? Also WE did not kill thousands of children in Iraq. Muslims are doing a fine job of that already without outside help. Your lying. The greater issue is abortion anyway. Focus like a laser beam on the issues that are even greater than tax funded executive bonuses like a decline in morality. Here are four truths about truth: 1. Truth is true whether you understand it or not. 2. Truth is true whether you agree with it or not. 3. Truth is true even if God is the only one who fully understands it. 4. Truth is true at all times and places, and situations. Therefore in the case of any discussion of affirmative action, quotas, racial profiling, by implication, the people that are FOR these systems are the racist ones. They are focused on race and focused on being judgemental with race as top criteria and the target is usually white people. The focus should be on intelligence, training, ability to communicate in acceptable English, skills, education. If given the option I never fill out EEO questions on job applications because I am person.of.nocolor who only wants someone to look at my skills and character.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 09, 2009
Votes: +2

person.of.nocolor said:

Jurist Diversity Our immoral culture has taken another word and twisted its meaning- diversity. Now every corporate website has to have a Diversity Statement and they are feverishly working on a "Green" statement. What is next? How did we as a culture get to the point where "diversity" means everything except a straight white Christian male that believes in being married to one woman for life? I married a wise Latina girl and she isn't wise because she is from Honduras she is wise because she has taken Jesus Christ as her Lord and Saviour. That's a 2nd place I can live with! The debate of the President's chosen jurist was one of the most useless wastes of oxygen one can imagine. If a new President's selection of Supreme Court Justices are expected to be given the nod then what's the point if not kingship? A Dictator would not need endless, mindless discussion would he? Then if the discussions are negated in effect don't we have a Dictatorship when it comes to jurist selection? Of course she's going to be biased of course she's going to be pro-abortion and of course she going to be against the not-diverse crowd I am a member of.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 09, 2009 | url
Votes: +1