June, 02 2009, 08:23pm EDT
Misquoting Sotomayor: Media Let Right-Wing Critics Frame Debate
NEW YORK
At this point, the confirmation
battle over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will hinge in part on
whether the media want to fact-check her critics. So far, the press is
largely failing.
Right-wing critics and politicians have been circulating comments Sotomayor made in 2001
at UC Berkeley. One quote has been replayed endlessly: "I would hope
that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would
more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn't lived that life." (Sometimes the quote is replayed without the
"I would hope that" qualifier--e.g., NBC Nightly News, 5/31/09.)
Does Sotomayor believe that Latina judges are wiser than white judges?
That's what her right-wing critics want the quote to mean. Washington Post
columnist Charles Krauthammer characterized (5/28/09) her views as "the
superior wisdom she believes her Latina physiology, culture and
background grant her over a white male judge." And as CNN host Lou Dobbs put it (6/1/09),
"She said more often than not a Latino judge would reach a better
decision than a white male." That message has been carried mostly
uncritically in much of the corporate media, thanks largely to a
willingness to let right-wing pundits frame the discussion--often with
little in the way of rebuttal from Sotomayor's defenders.
In the May 27 Washington Post, Howard Kurtz quoted that sentence along with a Fox News host calling Sotomayor a reverse racist. On May 28, the New York Times
ran a story headlined "Sotomayor's Opponents and Allies Prepare
Strategies." The piece recounted the controversial sentence, followed
by the reaction of Newt Gingrich--he thinks she's a racist who should
withdraw her name--and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, who doesn't think
she should withdraw, but was nonetheless troubled by some of
Sotomayor's views.
But anyone who reads Sotomayor's 2001 speech can see that the
prevailing media discussion is totally misleading. Her point was that
people's backgrounds affect how they see the world. This would seem to
be a rather uncontroversial fact of life; justices Sandra Day O'Connor
and Samuel Alito made similar statements about their own backgrounds to
no great controversy.
In regards to cases involving race and gender discrimination, which was
the topic under discussion, Sotomayor was arguing that the experience
of facing discrimination may help in judging such cases--pointing out
that despite the presumption that "a wise old man and wise old woman
will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," such wise old men as
Oliver Wendell Holmes and Benjamin Cardozo "voted on cases which upheld
both sex and race discrimination in our society." She added: "Let us
not forget that until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim
of a woman in a gender discrimination case."
It's not so hard to explain the context, but NBC's Meet the Press
host David Gregory bungled his attempt to do so on May 31, excerpting
primarily the lines from Sotomayor's address that buttress the claims
of her right-wing critics, while leaving out the lines that make it
clear that Sotomayor was advocating that judges strive to put aside
their prejudices. His excerpt closed with this line: "Personal
experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that
I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further
into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly
what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be
some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." But Gregory left out
her conclusion:
I am reminded each day that I render decisions
that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete
vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and
ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities
permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases
before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum
total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept
that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from
experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests,
continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices
are appropriate.
that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete
vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and
ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities
permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases
before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum
total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept
that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from
experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests,
continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices
are appropriate.
But the framing of the debate over Sotomayor has been about more than
this one speech. In some cases, the right's critique is driving the
journalism--no matter what the facts say. On May 29, the New York Times
featured a front-page examination of Sotomayor's work with the Puerto
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund: "Sotomayor's involvement with
the defense fund has so far received scant attention. But her critics,
including some Republican senators who will vote on her nomination,
have questioned whether she has let her ethnicity, life experiences and
public advocacy creep into her decisions as a judge." The article
managed to not include anyone who took issue with that suggestion; it
referenced only a single case that Sotomayor participated in, and
concluded by letting right-wing activist Curt Levey suggest that it
showed that "she had a very specific agenda here" (FAIR Blog, 5/29/09).
The next day, the Times (5/30/09)
featured a front-page piece headlined "Sotomayor's Focus on Race Issues
May Be Hurdle." The premise of the article was that "conservatives say
her strong identification with such race-based approaches to the law is
perhaps the strongest argument against her confirmation, contending
that her views put her outside an evolving consensus that such
race-conscious public policy is growing obsolete." That theme was
fleshed out with quotes from Republican Sen. John Cornyn and Gary Marx
of the right-wing Judicial Confirmation Network--but no discussion of
Sotomayor's actual record on these issues.
The Los Angeles Times, by
contrast, did look at that record--and found experts who undermined the
right-wing criticism of Sotomayor. As the paper reported (5/31/09),
"Little of that activist sentiment is revealed in the hundreds of cases
Sotomayor has decided in her 11 years on the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals.... Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer with a Supreme Court
specialty, said last week that he had reviewed 50 appeals involving
race in which Sotomayor participated. In 45 of those cases, a
three-judge panel rejected the discrimination claim--and Sotomayor
never once dissented, he said."
Unfortunately, the next day the L.A. Times (6/1/09)
was back to a more conventional approach ("GOP Senators Bring Race
Issue to Forefront of Sotomayor Nomination"), dwelling primarily on
conservative criticism of Sotomayor, only adding in the final sentence
of the piece: "And early analyses of her judicial opinions--most
notably one released Friday by the respected legal website SCOTUSblog [5/29/09]--undercut
the attacks on Sotomayor as a judge more interested in boosting
minorities by showing that the vast majority of her rulings rejected
claims of discrimination by minorities." Journalism that led with such
facts instead of burying them would make the confirmation battle look
very different indeed.
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
LATEST NEWS
Alcatraz Push 'No More Than a Sensational Distraction' From Trump's Attack on Public Safety
Less than two weeks ago, Trump's DOJ slashed nearly $1 billion from existing public safety grants that experts warn will "imperil public safety, not promote it."
May 05, 2025
Add "distraction" to the list of words being used to describe President Donald Trump's "psychotic," "deluded," and "unbefuckinglievable" talk about reopening the island prison of Alcatraz in California's San Francisco Bay.
In a statement to reporters on the White House lawn Sunday night, Trump said the idea for reopening Alcatraz—which he first floated in a social media post—was "just an idea I had" and that the prison was a "symbol of law and order."
But less than two weeks ago, the Trump administration ordered the cancellation of an estimated $811 million in grants$811 million in grants for public safety from the Justice Department that experts and advocates say were proving successful at reducing crime and curbing harm in communities nationwide—all with bipartisan support.
"Alcatraz," said civil rights attorney Scott Hechinger in response to Trump's social media post—which sparked no shortage of headlines across the news media—is "no more than a sensational distraction from this: Trump just cut nearly $1 billion from bipartisan, proven, successful anti-crime, violence prevention programs around the country."
The various programs impacted by the grant cuts—including gun violence prevention and law enforcement trainings—said Hechinger, were designed to prevent crime "before people were ever harmed."
Arguing that Trump has made the country less safe, not more, by his policies, Hechinger added, "now he's stomping and parading around with big words and sensational capital letters about a wasteful reopening of a domestic torture complex that will never actually happen and do nothing to keep America safer. All while claiming to care about violence prevention. What a dangerous joke."
Lamenting the public safety grant cuts in a blog post last week, the Brennan Center for Justice's Rosemary Nidiry, senior counsel in the group's justice program, detailed how the grant funding slashed by Trump "filled critical gaps" in the nation's public safety infrastructure.
The grants, she noted, "supported victims of crime, trained law enforcement, offered treatment to people with behavioral health and substance issues, and helped people reintegrate into society after incarceration. They also promoted research used to create and guide effective policies. Many if not all were ended immediately and without warning, in the middle of a typical 3-year grant period, disrupting programs and creating financial strain for nonprofits."
"The slashed programs have been proven to make communities safer," wrote Nidiry, "and their end will in fact imperil public safety, not promote it."
When Alcatraz was closed by the Bureau of Prisons in 1963, the cost of running the crumbling facility was the primary driver of that decision.
As Newsweek reports, "Operating Alcatraz proved to be significantly more expensive than other federal prisons. In 1959, the daily per capita cost at Alcatraz was $10.10, compared with $3.00 at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, making it nearly three times more costly to operate. This high expense was largely due to the island's isolation, which necessitated that all supplies, including food, water, and fuel, be transported by boat. For instance, nearly one million gallons of fresh water had to be barged to the island each week."
In a letter on Friday, over three dozen Democratic lawmakers called on the Justice Department to reinstate $150 million in grants awarded for gun violence prevention.
"This funding, appropriated by Congress, directly contributes to making communities safer," the lawmakers stated in a letter. "We urge you to honor the grants already awarded and to implement this funding as Congress directed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Mockery' of Humanitarian Law: Israel Wants US Mercenaries for Aid Relief in Gaza
What the Israeli government is planning is "not an aid plan," said one legal scholar, but rather "an aid denial plan."
May 05, 2025
Despite global outcry to end the "genocidal" assault on the people of Gaza, Israeli cabinet ministers early Monday approved a plan that could lead to the capture of the "entire Gaza Strip," prompting fresh warnings of a complete ethnic cleansing of the enclave coupled with outrage over a proposal to use U.S.-based mercenaries to be part of distribution of humanitarian aid.
One Israeli official familiar with the shift in military tactics toldHaaretz that Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear to his Security Cabinet that the new approach in Gaza will be different from what's been going over the previous 18 months in that it will shift from what were described as "raid-based operations" to "the occupation of territory and a sustained Israeli presence in Gaza."
Another unnamed Israeli official told Agence France-Press that the plan "will include, among other things, the conquest of the Gaza Strip and the holding of the territories, moving the Gaza population south for their protection."
"It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement."
To support the occupation plan, the Israeli army, with the approval of the Security Cabinet, will be calling up tens of thousands of reservist soldiers, in the words of the IDF, to "intensify the pressure" on Hamas and "expand and intensify" operations in Gaza.
According to the Associated Press:
The new plan, which the officials said was meant to help Israel achieve its war aims of defeating Hamas and freeing hostages held in Gaza, also would push hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to southern Gaza, what would likely exacerbate an already dire humanitarian crisis.
Since a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas collapsed in mid-March, Israel has unleashed fierce strikes on the territory that have killed hundreds. It has captured swathes of territory and now controls roughly 50% of Gaza. Before the truce ended, Israel halted all humanitarian aid into Gaza, including food, fuel and water, setting off what is believed to the be the worst humanitarian crisis in nearly 19 months of war.
The ban on aid has prompted widespread hunger and shortages have set off looting.
In addition to expanded military operations, the Israelis also presented a new approach to distribution of aid on Sunday that would include the use of private military contractors, also known as mercenaries. By relocating the civilian population to the south and forcing people to travel for food, water, and medicine only to designated "hubs" for relief, humanitarians said the plan violates all principles of human rights and the laws of war.
The Washington Postreports Monday that "American contractors" would be used to carry out the plan, which was presented to officials in the Trump administration on Friday.
According to the Post, "two U.S. security companies are expected to be contracted to handle logistics and provide security along initial distribution corridors and in and around the hubs."
The companies, Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions, organized and staffed a vehicle checkpoint along a major north-south road through Gaza during the ceasefire.
SRS, which is to handle planning and logistics, is headed by Phil Reilly, a former CIA senior intelligence officer with extensive overseas service who has held senior positions in other private security companies. SRS is to subcontract on-the-ground security operations to UG Solutions, headed by Jameson Govoni, a former Green Beret whose service from 2004 to 2015 included tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The security contractors are to be armed and have their own force protection. They will not have detention authority.
In response to the new distribution plan, the coalition of United Nations and NGOs operating in Gaza, known as the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), which operates within the U.N. Office of Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), issued a harsh rebuke to the Israelis, saying that the proposal "contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic–as part of a military strategy."
"The design of the plan presented to us will mean large parts of Gaza, including the less mobile and most vulnerable people, will continue to go without supplies," said the HCT in its statement. "It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement."
The group added that both the U.N. Secretary-General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator in Gaza "have made clear that we will not participate in any scheme that does not adhere to the global humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality." Instead of the plan presented by the Israelis, the HCT called for an end to the imposed blockade so that neutral relief agencies could bring in the necessary supplies to the suffering population in Gaza.
Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), which helps distribute aid in Gaza and was presented with the plan, decried the proposal.
"After two months of devastating blockade and starvation of Gaza, Israeli officials demand that we shut down the universal aid distribution system run by the UN and NGOs like NRC," said Egeland. "They want to manipulate and militarize all aid to civilians, forcing us to deliver supplies through hubs designed by the Israeli military, once the government agrees to re-open crossings."
Adil Haque, law professor at Rutgers University and director of Just Security, said what the Israeli government is planning is "not an aid plan," but rather "an aid denial plan"—one that "makes a mockery of international humanitarian law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Asked If He Must Uphold the US Constitution, Trump Says: 'I Don't Know'
"I'm not a lawyer," the president said in a newly aired interview.
May 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump refused in an interview released Sunday to affirm that the nation's Constitution affords due process to citizens and noncitizens alike and that he, as president, must uphold that fundamental right.
"I don't know, I'm not a lawyer," Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker, who asked if the president agrees with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that everyone on U.S. soil is entitled to due process.
When Welker pointed to the Fifth Amendment—which states that "no person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"—Trump again replied that he's unsure and suggested granting due process to the undocumented immigrants he wants to deport would be too burdensome.
"We'd have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials," Trump said, echoing a sentiment that his vice president expressed last month.
Asked whether he needs to "uphold the Constitution of the United States as president," Trump replied, "I don't know."
Watch:
WELKER: The 5th Amendment says everyone deserves due process
TRUMP: It might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials pic.twitter.com/FMZQ7O9mTP
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 4, 2025
Trump, who similarly deferred to "the lawyers" when asked recently about his refusal to bring home wrongly deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, has unlawfully cited the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly remove undocumented immigrants from the U.S. without due process. Federal agents have also arrested and detained students, academics, and a current and former judge in recent weeks, heightening alarm over the administration's authoritarian tactics.
CNNreported Friday that the administration has "been examining whether it can label some suspected cartel and gang members inside the U.S. as 'enemy combatants' as a possible way to detain them more easily and limit their ability to challenge their imprisonment."
"Trump has expressed extreme frustration with federal courts halting many of those migrants' deportations, amid legal challenges questioning whether they were being afforded due process," the outlet added. "By labeling the migrants as enemy combatants, they would have fewer rights, the thinking goes."
Some top administration officials have publicly expressed disdain for the constitutional right to due process. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, wrote in a social media post last month that "the judicial process is for Americans" and "immediate deportation" is for undocumented immigrants.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent wrote in a column Saturday that "Miller appears to want Trump to have the power to declare undocumented immigrants to be terrorists and gang members by fiat; to have the power to absurdly decree them members of a hostile nation's invading army, again by fiat; and then to have quasi-unlimited power to remove them, unconstrained by any court."
"The more transparency we have gained into the rot of corruption and bad faith at the core of this whole saga, the worse it has come to look," Sargent continued. "Trump himself is exposing it all for what it truly is: the stuff of Mad Kings."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular