The "Wise Latina"

July 15, 2009

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
~ The Wizard on being discovered in "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz"
by L. Frank Baum

"Do as we say, and not as we do"
Giovanni Boccaccio (Italian poet and scholar, 1313-1375)

Recovery from an unexpected sojourn in the hospital following a routine test allowed me time to view the kabuki theater performance being played out by the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week. To say the least, it has been somewhat enlightening, often predictable and almost always entertaining, if one can resist the impulse to reach into the screen and choke somebody for committing outrageous hyperbole.

It has been clear from the outset that although there has been little doubt that she would be confirmed, the Republican Senators have done their best to spit in the soup by re-casting Judge Sotomayor's words out of context and by strained attempts to picture her as an "activist judge" who would write law from the bench, especially in cases of civil rights and racial preferences. Although they have leaned over backwards to appear polite, the tag team of hit men on the committee have continued to hammer the same accusatory talking points, each one of which has been artfully deflected by the even-tempered, measured responses of the nominee.

The Republican committee members appear to be so determined to expose some perceived radical proclivities they infer are held by President Obama's choice, that they have lost sight of how obvious their bullying game of "gotcha" appears to the viewer. Indeed, what they fail to see is just how good they make their quarry look as she returns their slings and arrows with polite, serious and well-considered replies. I liked what I read about her when she was chosen; I like her even better as I see her joust with her adversaries.

The ironic point which is lost to most people who tune into these matters and go on is that the lead attack dog in this exercise in intimidation is Senator Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama, who still harbors a deep grudge for having been spurned by this very committee when he was a Republican judicial nominee years ago. Sessions was forced to admit having made racially prejudicial statements and he was rejected for these views. Today, Sessions leads with his stinger, in hopes that he can exact revenge on all those liberal Democrats who denied him his political reward on the federal bench, merely because of his racially extreme views. Now he and his gangmates twist every nuance of Judge Sotomayor's past speeches and rulings, in hopes that they can force her to admit that she is what Sessions himself admitted to being.

According to some sources, Judge Sotomayor comes to her nomination with more prosecutorial and judicial experience than any other nominee in nearly a century. John Roberts, who was named Chief Justice by President George W. Bush, has far less experience, and his background and youth will assure that the paradoxical biases of that allegedly "conservative" administration--in favor of heavy executive powers and a weaker Congress, favoring powerful corporate interests, minimal consumer and environmental protection and subordinating individual rights in favor of the government--will continue for decades.

Judge Sotomayor is being excoriated for having made the now-famous "wise Latina" statement that her gender and ethnic background were valuable ingredients in making decisions that reflected the wisdom from these experiences. Duh. We ought to be hoping that every nominee for the federal bench can represent diverse interests and insights along with the best legal background available. What seems clear from her record is that she seems to be exactly what we are taught to expect (and seldom get) from a judge--someone who applies the law in an even-handed and objective manner.

This is a chess game, and Judge Sotomayor is the first piece on President Obama's board. Her appointment seems to assure that at least four members of the Court will continue to look beyond the vested and powerful special interests that have managed to slide the conservative majority into place over time. One must only look at the consistently disturbing rulings of a 5-4 split Court to realize that the election of George W. Bush was really about assuring a conservative takeover of the Supreme Court.

Watching this serious Supreme Court vacancy game being played out reminded me of listening to John Grisham's powerful book, "The Appeal," as we drove through the vacant spaces of Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico recently. Grisham, an Arkansas native and highly popular writer of melodramatic tales involving lawyers, courts and intricate plots, normally builds his stories around an underdog who beats the bad guys in the end. Not this time. Every good guy loses. Big time. At first I was upset, expecting right down to the end to have an unexpected twist win the day for the appellant. It dawned on me that Grisham, a devoted student and practitioner of the law, chose this devastating means to portray a credible scenario that exposes the ease by which our political and legal systems might be manipulated by well-entrenched special interests with deep pockets. I haven't spoiled the story--read it and think of characters you might recognize. You will be a better citizen, believe me. And you will think twice about the wisdom of electing judges.

Charlie Crow © July 15, 2009