Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Sexuality Political Wedge Issues
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
- 
It’s Supreme Court Justice Cardoza (1932-1938) versus Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor for 1st title. The certain thing is RUTH BADER GINSBURG will not longer be the hot chick on the Court.
Sonia Sotomayor’s Puerto Rican heritage would make her the first Hispanic to serve on the nation’s highest court - unless you count Benjamin Cardozo, who was on the U. S. Surpeme Court from 1932 to 1938.
As news of Sotomayor’s nomination spread, so did the question of whether she truly would be the first Hispanic on the court.
“So far as I know whether one was ‘Hispanic’ was not an issue for Cardozo in his day. I don’t remember ever having run across the term in contemporary relevant writing,” says Cardozo biographer and Harvard Law professor Andrew Kaufman.
The Cardozo family legend is that they came from Portugal, Kaufman says, and the family tree cites their heritage as Sephardic Jews from the Iberian Peninsula. “Many Spanish would deny Portuguese are Hispanic,” he says.
In today’s climate where race and gender play increasingly dominant roles Sotomayor’s ethnicity is being made a major issue. Hispanic groups insist Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee. “She is recognized by the community,” says Liz Lopez, of the Hispanic National Bar Association.
To “solve” the issue Sotomayor’s ethnicity has been molded that she is a Latina and nobody is talking about Cardoza.
Comment by Joker on 30 May 2009:
I don’t know about you, but I’m thoroughly tired of this “first” crap. The “first” African-American President, the “first” female Speaker of the House, the “first” Hispanic woman on the High Court, blah, blah, blah. It’s clear the first two “firsts” have been disasters, and I predict the 3rd “first” will be even worse, because she’ll still be lending her racist opinions to the rule of law in this country long after the other two are gone.
Who was the first Italian on the Court? How many Italians have there been? Greeks? Poles? How about Eskimos? Does it matter and who really cares?
The more emphasis we continue to place on ethnic and racial “firsts,” the more we contribute to the type of identity politics we need to move away from if all of us are ever to be thought of as “equals.” I don’t have a problem with a woman or a Hispanic on the Court. I do have a problem with the selection being about as far-Left a moonbat as one could find. Hispanic, female, liberal, and gee, no indication of a husband. What other group can we think of that will be catered to here? Hmmmmm. That’s a tough one. The only thing she doesn’t bring to the table is a handicapped parking permit. Watch for Obama’s next appointment to be the “first” wheelchair-bound Justice.
Let’s not pay any mind to the prior judicial record of any of these people, let’s just keep going for “firsts.” Never mind that Sotomayor declared that her experience as a Hispanic woman would more often allow her to reach a “better conclusion” than a white male. Let’s not consider her role in ruling against white New Haven, CT firefighters who were clearly victims of reverse discrimination. Granted she was only one of three judges, but her support for the lower court’s decision against the plaintiffs does serve as a look into her thought process. In my mind, these two examples show her to be a racist.
Now, having said that turn it around. Let’s have a white male nominee from a Republican President who says that his experience as a white man would more often allow him to reach a “better conclusion” than a Hispanic or black woman. Bring out that he ruled against blacks in a case that was clearly about racial discrimination by whites. Are there any of you out there who think that nominee would have a chance of being confirmed?
Why is it that only white men are recognized as potential racists? When is “affirmative action” going to be recognized as the blatant racism that it is and be done away with? The answer is not anytime soon if Sonya Sotomayor sits her expansive Hispanic buttocks on the SCOTUS. But hey, at least we’ll have another “first.”
Comment by Richard on 30 May 2009:
Joker: I’m uncertain what to title this nonsense. I am certain it deserves to be smart aleck and cutting. Any ideas?
Comment by Joker on 30 May 2009:
The first things that come to mind are Laissez-un-faire identity politics, or “I’ll take Moonbats for $500 Alex!”
Comment by proletarian on 31 May 2009:
Joker, it appears you have grown up. I like your rants but be careful, a caveat if you will, you might turn into a conservative Deb Della.
Comment by Joker on 31 May 2009:
proletarian: I’m 43 now and I was 43 when I first commented here. Looking back I can’t say I recognize a lack of maturity in my earlier comments, but if you are enjoying the read that is all that counts. Fear not my descension into the pit of vipers. I shall not allow myself to become what I so strongly oppose.