Sherrilyn A. Ifill, professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law and a civil rights lawyer, recently wrote a piece for The Root entitled, “Should Blacks Be Disappointed About Sotomayor?” (definitely worth reading as Professor Ifill's knowledge of law and history of confirmation hearings comes through). My first inclination was “have we not moved beyond the ‘competing minorities’ argument yet? Really, are we still stuck there?” Thankfully, the argument (although some of the comments are not) was more nuanced than the title suggests, though I still find the article a little unsettling. I think that there are larger implications of Judge Sotomayor’s appointment and (hopefully) subsequent confirmation. As always, issues of equality, justice, and progress are paramount. The philosophical balancing of the bench is another. The cases presented before the court will shape the nation for generations to come; a reality that previous generations remember, lived through, and speak of with mixed feelings. So if I had to answer the question of whether African Americans should be angry over the appointment of a non-African American, my answer would be as follows: “I would prefer the bench to become more diverse, racially and ideologically. To have both forms of diversity in the same body, then I am happy and have faith that my future children will live in a better society.” This may seem like a copout but I assure you it is not; lessons learned have shown me (and the nation) this.
In the article, Professor Ifill argues that current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas does not have “experiences and perspectives [that] are more representative of African Americans.” To be colloquial, duh. This “fact” is not saying much. African Americans have very disparate experiences. Blacks who come from disadvantaged backgrounds—typically—don’t attend Yale Law School and become Supreme Court justices. Privileged blacks experience a different America (and world) and these unique experiences often influence their politics. I am not saying that an African American from either group cannot speak intelligently of the experiences of those from a different background; I am saying that it is simply not a guarantee either way. I think this holds for other groups as well. Thus, pushing for an African American is just as tricky as pushing for someone from a number of many different racial groups.
The issue of talking about an African American Supreme Court Justice is an interesting one. Ifill is right to speak to the issue of cosmetic versus real diversity of the court, the former being satisfied by a court that “looks like America,” rather than one that actually is like America. But we went from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas when the “black torch” was passed. I am not saying that we do not need additional Black justices to balance out the Black representation on the bench. That is not my point. What I am saying is that right now, given the current and future political and economic climate of the United States, the appointee to the court needed to be someone whose philosophy is true to intent of the constitution but not blinded by it. We must think of the current state of affirmative action (and similar measures), the precarious position of Roe v. Wade, the oscillating support for gay marriage, and the like. To me, the diversity we need is not necessarily racial but ideological so as to counter the conservative stronghold that current populates the bench.
The issue of Obama’s choice was both strategic and appropriate. The fourth woman and first Latina is not to be taken lightly. I believe that Sotomayor’s politics, but more importantly, her judicial philosophy is sound and quite frankly what America needs. Her record serves as evidence of this. Would I have been just as excited if she were Black? Yes. Nevertheless, Obama chose a candidate that he feels trustworthy enough to help, channeling Martin Luther King, Jr. for a minute, bend that moral arc of justice a little bit more this way. I think this appointment is a step in the right direction, one where Judge Sotomayor’s legal and judicial philosophy stand as guiding force for her decisions, her rich life experiences serve as context, and her racial identification has more social rather than legal ramifications. Lani Guinier, Charles Ogletree, and other leading African American legal scholars agree and support President Obama in his nomination; they speak from personal as well as academic positions. They highlight Judge Sotomayor's intelect and knowledge of the law as well as her passion and drive for justice.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteWe have just added your latest post "Social Science Lite: Black Torch or Judicial Niche?" to our Directory of
Science . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to
submit all your future posts to the directory and get a huge base of visitors to
your website.
Warm Regards
Scienz.info Team
http://www.scienz.info
I think racial diversity is a priority. There is no compromise between race and ideiology as ideological views within any racial group are diverse.
ReplyDeleteI do see how an African-American could be upset at having Thomas, who many people (indllucing me) consider to be a "house negro", as the Black man on the court.
But, I don't think it's fair-minded to want a second Africa-American on the court when there are no Hispanic-American, Asian-American, etc... justices.
I'm Chicano and I cringed every time I heard Alberto Gonzalez speak. It was very disheartening to me to have this historical Hispanic-first post taken by, in my opinion, a complete douchebag. Nevertheless, I would not endorse putting another Hispanic Attorney General in office before Eric Holder or an Asian-American simply because I wanted a re-do on Gonzalez. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but positions like Attorney-General and Supreme Court Justice are filled by presidents whose political views we may find very objectionable.
The Black electorate isn't as willing as the Hispanic electorate is to put Obama's feet to the fire. I'm not sure if that is due to a sense of pragmatism where beliefs such as Obama not nominating a black justice as his first nomination may emanate. It could also be due to the fact that the Black electorate feels they have received more than they bargained for and are still basking in the glow Obama's election. Other progressive communities are not so blithe. The gay electorate is getting extremely anxious about Don't ask, don't tell not being repealed, a lack of openly gay cabinet members and other appointees, and Pamela Sullivan, an openly gay former dean of Stanford Law, not being nominated for the Court. And the Hispanic community was all too willing to let their opinions be heard about the consequences of Obama not nominating a Hispanic.
ReplyDeleteJohn S. Wilson,
ReplyDeleteWhat is your personal opinion about the post?
CDWriteme, I am sorry that I missed responding to your comment but I was traveling. I wanted to make clear that I am not arguing that racial diversity is a priority. It is. I think it is time that the highest court in the land, as Professor Ifill brilliantly states, is like America rather than pretending to look like it. What I was trying to bring attention to is that focusing on the "looking" actually can blind us in the appointment of certain people to positions. If we say, an Asian should have been chosen. There are Asian Americans who are just as or even more conservative than Clarence Thomas. Native American, a people who have been getting their share of the shortest ends of a many a sticks, are not represented either. That is why I pushed for ideological diversity in tandem with racial diversity, something I believe that Obama has done with Sotomayor.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I am in part agreement with you. As I say in the post, the nomination was both strategic and appropriate. Gender was definitely as much of a variable as was race. Many different groups were necessarily upset (not sure if this is the right word because of its negative connotations) about the nomination because one of thier own was not chosen. However, I think those of us who are more liberal, we won one. I am not positing that we need to choose one part of ourselves and attach it to this nomination and "be happy" with it. Some of the blacks you say who may be on cloud nine to have Obama in the House may be still floating, but they are still as critical and watchful as ever. Nevertheless, we should understand what the nomination of Sotomayor means politically, legally, socially, and definitely culturally.
cdwriteme, I thought the post was on point. It reflected the truth of the matter for progressive circles - that they won. At the end of the day that is what counts most because that will have an enduring effect. 20 years from now chances are Sotomayor will still be there. Not to mention having the first Hispanic justice on the court (excluding Cardozo) is a monumental achievement indeed.
ReplyDeleteTony, yes I do see your point. I think your post dealt with the matter from a range of perspectives. I just wanted to highlight one thing that I think will increasingly come into play as time wears on. It'll be interesting to see how the Black electorate responds to the administration's decisions.