President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, has been deservedly criticized for her stated belief that minority judges make better decisions than “white males” because of their race, gender, ethnicity, and life experiences. The remark, repeated by Sotomayor in near identical form in speech after speech, has raised questions about her ability to be fair and impartial on the bench.
Surprisingly less criticized has been Sotomayor’s defense of her membership in an exclusive women’s club, The Belizean Grove. A little over two weeks ago, Sotomayor responded to questions from Senators about the group with an answer that made even her champions at the New York Times blush. Sotomayor said that her membership in the all-female group was appropriate because the group did not “invidiously discriminate” against men.
“I am a member of the Belizean Grove, a private organization of female professionals from the profit, nonprofit and social sectors. The organization does not invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex. Men are involved in its activities — they participate in trips, host events and speak at functions — but to the best of my knowledge, a man has never asked to be considered for membership.”
The Times pointed out that the group’s own website does not agree with Sotomayor’s characterization, describing the group as a, “constellation of influential women,” and seemingly containing no mention of any roles for men. Like her explanation of her racial comments, Sotomayor’s defense of her membership raises more questions than answers.
Those questions could be fertile ground for Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to plow at Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, which begin next Monday. According to the group, The Belizean Grove’s members strive to form “mutually-beneficial relationships.” Republicans should pursue the notion that a sitting federal judge has no business belonging to such a group.
Senators might ask the nominee just how, if at all, members of the group could have expected to benefit from her membership. Did Sotomayor perform any favors for her sister members in her professional capacity as a supposedly impartial judge? Did she hear cases in which members of the group, their businesses, or their employers had an interest? Did she recuse herself from any case in which a member of the group had an interest? Why or why not?
Sotomayor’s membership in the group, even if it resulted in no tangible benefit to her fellow members, is a shocking case of poor professional judgment. The fact that, her interpretation notwithstanding, the group clearly discriminates on the basis of sex is bad enough. But for a federal judge to give the appearance that she is seeking to benefit from her position should be disqualifying. To paraphrase a famous alleged federal office broker, it is as if Judge Sotomayor believed that a federal judgeship is a valuable thing, and she was determined to make the most of it.
The Sotomayor nomination has largely fallen off the radar screen for the mainstream press. Even the Supreme Court’s reversal of her decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week received only passing mentions and not very much detailed analysis of her original decision. The lull in coverage has served Sotomayor’s interest, as the public has not been exposed to a daily drumbeat of criticism of her nomination. It will be up to Republicans then to give her a thorough examination at her conformation hearings. Sotomayor’s Belizean Grove membership, her inability to recognize the discriminatory nature of the group’s membership policy, and the potential for conflict between her membership and her professional duties should all be explored in detail.
Moe Lane
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
Daniel Horowitz
Jake Walker
Q: Is they did nothing wrong, why did you resign your membership?
bk (Diary) Sunday, July 5th at 5:46PM EST (link)Looks like Colin Powell has some words for Mark and Erick
Jack_Savage (Diary) Sunday, July 5th at 5:52PM EST (link)From Fox News online:
‘Powell said Sotomayor has “an open and liberal bent of mind, but that’s not disqualifying. But she seems to have a judicial record that seems to be balanced and tries to follow the law.”
Powell, a Republican who supported Obama, said his party still is not sensitive enough toward minorities.
He noted that Obama had a significant advantage with Hispanics and African-Americans in the November elections. He criticized Republicans who are not elected to office and “immediately shout racism” against Sotomayor, while accusing Powell of supporting Obama because both men are black.
“We still have a problem,” he said.’
Powell rambling, trying to make it true.
penguin2 (Diary) Sunday, July 5th at 6:07PM EST (link)I think open and liberal is an oxymoron. And “seems” and “tries” are not good enough for a Supreme Court justice. I expect surety in my judges for true, impartial justice.
And how will she determine cases between two Hispanics or a Hispanic and African-American. Or any other ‘races’ excluding whites. That day is going to come.
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills
Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List
Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
So, Powell doesn't believe in free speech, either? nt
Flagstaff (Diary) Sunday, July 5th at 6:09PM EST (link)“The press is so powerful in its image-making role that it can make a criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”– Malcolm X, Audubon Ballroom, December 13, 1964
No one "immediately shouted racism."
Warrior (Diary) Monday, July 6th at 4:47PM EST (link)It was only after Sotomayor shouted that Latinas were “wiser”than white men.
Indeed, to make such a statement in today’s racially charged political environment can be described in many ways, but “wise” is not one of them…
“Racial criteria are irrational, irrelevant, [and] odious to our way of life.” — Thurgood Marshall for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in the 1950 Supreme Court case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma
Regarding the Ricci case,
Flagstaff (Diary) Sunday, July 5th at 6:21PM EST (link)the outrage is that it even got to the Supreme Court, and when it did that four “judges” voted not to overturn.
The simple questions, “If one of the high scorers had been black, would you have allowed the results of the test to stand?” and, “If all of the high scorers had been black, would you have let the results stand?” If the answer to either question were “yes,” the decision to negate the promotions would be clearly based on race alone, and therefore illegal.
Inability to recognize that indicates a very low grade of “judging.”
Of course, IANAJ.
“The press is so powerful in its image-making role that it can make a criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”– Malcolm X, Audubon Ballroom, December 13, 1964
f all of the high scorers had been black, would you have let the results stand?”
snewb098 Sunday, July 5th at 7:48PM EST (link)Doesn’t matter anymore.
She seems like a nice lady,nice smile.
Just let her be confirmed.
I’m a Caucasian native American (Redneck)
and I think we are wasting our time fighting this one.
Cap & tax, Health Scare reform and shamnesty will
have a more definitive impact so we need to focus on those IMO.
These senators below are up for re-election in 2010.
It’s not important which party they represent since they are the basically the same now and work for lobbyists and special interests not the voters and constitution.
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)-home office 501-375-2993 / D.C. office (202) 224-4843
Barbara Boxer (California)-home office 415-403-0100 / D.C. office (202) 224-3553
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)-home office 808-541-2542 / D.C. office (202) 224-3934
Evan Bayh (Indiana)-home office 317-554-0750 / D.C. office (202) 224-5623
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland)-home office 410-962-4510 / D.C. office (202) 224-4654
Harry Reid (Nevada)-home office 702-388-5020 / D.C. office (202) 224-3542
Chuck Schumer (New York)-home office 212-486-4430 / D.C. office (202) 224-6542
Byron Dorgan (North Dakota)-home office 701-239-5389 / D.C. office (202) 224-2551
Ron Wyden (Oregon)-home office 503-326-7525 / D.C. office (202) 224-5244
Patrick Leahy (Vermont)-home office 802 863-2525 / D.C. office (202) 224-4242
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)-home office 414 276-7282 / D.C. office (202) 224-5323
Richard Shelby (Alabama)-home office 205 731-1384 / D.C. office (202) 224-5744
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)-home office 907 271-3735 / D.C. office (202) 224-6665
John McCain (Arizona)-home office 602 279-5146 / D.C. office (202) 224-2235
Johnny Isakson (Georgia)-home office 770 661-0999 / D.C. office (202) 224-3643
Mike Crapo (Idaho)-home office 208 334-1776 / D.C. office (202) 224-6142
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)-home office 515 288-1145 / D.C. office (202) 224-3744
Jim Bunning (Kentucky)-home office 859-341-2602 / D.C. office (202) 224-4343
David Vitter (Louisiana)-home office 318-448-0169 / D.C. office (202) 224-4623
Kit Bond (Missouri)-home office 573-634-2488 / D.C. office (202) 224-5721
Judd Gregg (New Hampshire)-home office 603-622-7979 / D.C. office (202) 224-3324
Richard Burr (North Carolina)-home office 828-350-2437 / D.C. office (202) 224-3154
George Voinovich (Ohio)-home office 216-522-7095 / D.C. office (202) 224-3353
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)-home office 405-231-4941 / D.C. office (202) 224-5754
Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)-home office 215-597-7200 / D.C. office (202) 224-4254
Jim DeMint (South Carolina) (not relevant..true American)
John Thune (South Dakota)-home office 605 334-9596 / D.C. office (202) 224-2321
Bob Bennet (Utah)-home office 801 524-5933 / D.C. office (202) 224-5444
Christopher Dodd (Connecticut)-home office 860 258-6940 / D.C. office (202) 224-2823
I'll tell you why it matters
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, July 5th at 7:54PM EST (link)The more you attack, and the more you make them defend her, the more it starts to dull that luster Obama has.
We don’t need a knockout. We just need to score points every round.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
This is a part of the 2010 fight.
randy streu (Diary) Sunday, July 5th at 8:46PM EST (link)It is a means of exposing the Lefty leadership for the racists and misogynists they are.
Blogging also at
SLC Republitarian
The Minority Report
This is also an apt question for the suitability hearings:
Flagstaff (Diary) Monday, July 6th at 2:36PM EST (link)“If all of the plaintiffs in this case had been black and the city had not promoted anybody, would you have let the results stand or would you have supported the disappointed black firefighters?”
Her legal reasoning is faulty, and it needs to be exposed. But we need a straight-thinking conservative senator to ask it, not a mush-brained “open minded” senator like Orrin Hatch, good friend of Pat Leahy. She’ll have an answer ready, but she can’t be allowed to pretend that she wouldn’t have voted differently for black plaintiffs than she did for white plaintiffs.
And if her answer is “I would have ruled the same,” she’s lying and would need some further examination to make that clear.
“The press is so powerful in its image-making role that it can make a criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”– Malcolm X, Audubon Ballroom, December 13, 1964
One more Senator(D)
Stan(ley) Pruss (Diary) Sunday, July 5th at 8:51PM EST (link)Roland Burris (Il) can be beaten. His apointment ends in 2010.
Mark, you obviously weren't paying attention in
The_Gadfly (Diary) Monday, July 6th at 1:00PM EST (link)diversity indoctrination, I mean training class: only members of legally covered “protected classes” can be discriminated against. As you are not a member of an “protected class” you are not permitted to allege discrimination. Furthermore, your post completely ignores the self-evidently true corollary that “protected classes” can’t discriminate because they lack the power to do so.
/end snark.
Gad. Love your
Warrior (Diary) Monday, July 6th at 4:53PM EST (link)signature quote. That’s a fantastic trilogy…
“Racial criteria are irrational, irrelevant, [and] odious to our way of life.” — Thurgood Marshall for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in the 1950 Supreme Court case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma
Thanks.
The_Gadfly (Diary) Tuesday, July 14th at 1:33PM EST (link)I can’t help thinking about the N.I.C.E every time I read something new about the political scene these days, and thinking to myself, ‘it was supposed to be fiction!’