Senator Kyl lectured her for ten minutes about letting her minority identity influence her vote and accusing her of "relativism run amok":
"You seem to be celebrating [the superiority of being a minority judge] . . . You understand it will make a difference . . . And not only are you not saying anything negative about that. But you are embracing [it]."Finally, after waiting her turn, a somewhat exasperated Sotomayor chimed in, noting that there was little of substance in Kyl's critique.
"I have a record for 17 years, decision after decision," she replied. "It is very clear that I don't base my judgments on my personal experiences or my feelings or my biases. All of my decisions show my respect for the rule of law."
And then, a snotty Lindsey Graham, himself known for getting hysterical and ranting from the Senate podium or making wild statements on tv, smugly saying to her, "Do you think you have a temperament problem?" because some disgruntled lawyers, who had faced tough questioning by her in court, had criticized her as being a "bully" on the bench.
But Alabama senator Sessions, himself with a history of blatant racism, was just plain obnoxious in refusing to take in her eloquent explanations and repeatedly going after her about her remarks in speeches that, taken out of context, imply that her feelings might influence her vote.
Dr. Nathaniel Frank, author of the authoritative and carefully researched book exposing the failures and unfairness of Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- and incidentally the son of two psychoanalyst friends of mine -- put it so well in an essay on Huffington Post:
Sessions was unmoved: "So you willingly accept that your sympathies, opinions and prejudices may influence your decision-making." Sotomayor: "Well, as I have tried to explain, what I try to do is to ensure that they're not. If I ignore them and believe that I'm acting without them, without looking at them and testing that I'm not, then I could, unconsciously or otherwise, be led to be doing the exact thing I don't want to do, which is to let something other than the law command the result."
Nathaniel goes on:
This is precisely the value of diversity: it can take people who are not living in the bubble of prosperous white male privilege to recognize how the markings of their identity may shape their actions. To ignore the real ways that our experiences, background, ambitions, and emotions affect us is a recipe for the destructive unconscious behavior -- discrimination, hypocrisy, dishonesty, infidelity -- that so many powerful white men engage in (especially, it seems, politicians). Too many of them live their lives in an emotional closet of which they know not.
The whole show between Sessions and Sotomayor was, of course, a trap. And it was tinged with the destructive cluelessness of white male privilege. The implication of Sessions' inquisition was that, as a white male with no distinguishing "heritage" to speak of, he and his ilk can make judgments totally free of feelings, belief, or experience, that they are not prone to ever make a judgment that could be clouded by who they are. A Latina woman, however, is a dangerous addition to the Court because her "difference" could shape her judgment.
To put the day in balance, Sotomayor had some wonderful support and praise from Democratic senators. And she will undoubtedly be confirmed. Republicans know that. Their goal is not to defeat Sotomayor's appointment but to sow fear and intimidation in future nominees and to warn Obama not to make his next nominee even more liberal (and less able to defend herself).
As for Sotomayor herself, she was remarkable in the directness and candidness of her answers. Anyone who could withstand that all-day grilling -- and not blow up -- can hardly be accused of "having a temperament problem."
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment