In Washington, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a “clarification” when people realize what was said. The clearly racist comments made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Berkeley campus in 2001 have forced the spinmasters to resort to their last-ditch excuse, that it was “taken out of context.”
If that line is used during Judge Sotomayor’s Senate confirmation hearings, someone should ask her to explain just what those words mean when taken in context.
What could such statements possibly mean — in any context — other than the new and fashionable racism of our time, rather than the old-fashioned racism of earlier times? Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.
Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor’s voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create “diversity,” her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well.
The Supreme Court of the United States thought that case was important enough to hear it, even though the three-judge panel on which Judge Sotomayor served gave it short shrift in less than a page. Apparently the famous “empathy” that President Obama says a judge should have does not apply to white males in Judge Sotomayor’s court.
The very idea that a judge’s “life experiences” should influence judicial decisions is as absurd as it is dangerous.
It is dangerous because citizens are supposed to obey the law, which means they must know what the law is in advance — and nobody can know in advance what the “life experiences” of whatever judge they might appear before will happen to be.
It is absurd because it flies in the face of the facts. It was a fellow Puerto Rican judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals — Jose Cabranes — who rebuked his judicial colleagues for the cavalier way they dismissed the white firefighters’ case.
On the Supreme Court, the justice whose life story is most like that of Sonia Sotomayor — Clarence Thomas — has a very different judicial philosophy from hers.
The clever people in the media and elsewhere are saying that “inevitably” one’s background influences how one feels about issues. Even if that were true, judges are not supposed to decide cases based on their personal feelings.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that he “loathed” many of the people in whose favor he voted on the Supreme Court. Obviously, he had feelings. But he also had the good sense and integrity to rule on the basis of the law, not his feelings.
Laws are made for the benefit of the citizens, not for the self-indulgences of judges. Making excuses for such self-indulgences and calling them “inevitable” is part of the cleverness that has eroded the rule of law and undermined respect for the law.
Something else is said to be “inevitable” by the clever people. That is the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. But it was only a year and a half ago that Hillary Clinton’s winning the Democratic Party’s nomination for president was considered “inevitable.”
The Republicans certainly do not have the votes to stop Judge Sotomayor from being confirmed — if all the Democrats vote for her. But that depends on what the people say. It looked like a done deal a couple of years ago when an amnesty bill for illegal aliens was sailing through the Senate with bipartisan support. But public outrage brought that political steamroller to a screeching halt.
Nothing is inevitable in a democracy unless the public lets the political spinmasters and media talking heads lead them around by the nose.
The real question is whether the Republican Senators have the guts to alert the public to the dangers of putting this kind of judge on the highest court in the land, so that they will at least have some chance of stopping the next one that comes along.
It would be considered a disgrace if an umpire in a baseball game let his “empathy” determine whether a pitch was called a ball or strike. Surely we should accept nothing less from a judge.
(To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.)
Columns
Taken out of context
- Columns
-
-
‘Calico Joe’ evokes memories
By Sid Salter/Syndicated columnist
The new “small” novel “Calico Joe” — John Grisham’s much-anticipated paean to the game of baseball — was the perfect traveling companion on a long drive from Mississippi to Fayetteville, Ark., to witness my niece’s graduation from the University of Arkansas last week. -
Is there a censored race war?
Thomas Sowell/Syndicated columnist
When two white newspaper reporters for the Virginian-Pilot were driving through Norfolk, and were set upon and beaten by a mob of young blacks — beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work — that might seem to have been news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper. But it wasn’t. -
The virtues of grunt work
By Cokie and Steven V. Roberts/Syndicated columnists
Occasionally a really bad idea gains currency and credibility. Here’s one: College students who work at unpaid internships are unfairly exploited by money-grubbing capitalists. In fact, goes this argument, the whole system is not only immoral but probably illegal and should be abolished. -
Once, there were no words
By Rhetta Grimsely Johnson/Syndicated columnist
No matter how many times I stand in front of a group to speak, I get nervous. One of the reasons I went into print journalism was because I figured I’d never have to do any public speaking or wear grown-up clothes. -
‘Finding Your Roots’ good show
By Cal Thomas/Syndicated Columnist
“Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates Jr.” is another of the Harvard professor’s wonderful television series for PBS. This is “must-see TV” and a more than worthy sequel to three previous projects Gates has hosted about how some of us came to be what and who we are. -
Moral duties in a muddied world
By Kathryn Jean Lopez/Syndicated columnist
In an election season in which the White House has instituted a policy that puts unprecedented limits on the constitutional right to freedom of religion, questions of conscience, duty and spiritual and moral obligation are of critical importance. -
Colleges, development intertwined
By Sid Salter/Syndicated columnist
At his speech here to the movers and shakers in the Mississippi Delta’s business, agricultural, educational and political circles, Gov. Phil Bryant’s remarks were met with more than polite applause. Bryant, the mechanic’s son from Moorhead, understands the Delta region’s challenges as lessons from his boyhood. -
Prolific circuit judge relieved of duty
By Wyatt Emmerich/Southside Sun
Relieving the best criminal judge of all his criminal cases is not the way to exercise responsibility as senior circuit judge. What on earth is Hinds County Senior Circuit Judge Tomie Green doing? -
Romney braces for ‘conspiracy’
By Byron York/Syndicated columnist
“There will be an effort,” Mitt Romney said recently, “by the, quote, vast left-wing conspiracy to work together to put out their message and attack me.”
By those words, many observers thought Romney, speaking to Breitbart News, meant the press. After all, the Republican nominee is likely to face some pretty tough coverage from left-leaning outlets in the months ahead. -
Invasion of the body snatchers
Diana West/Syndicated columnist
Remember the sci-fi cult classic “Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? The 1956 movie is about a small town where extraterrestrial “pods” take over the townspeople. Even pillars of the community change into zombielike clones, as revealed by their blank stares and abnormal impulses. Outwardly, though, the “pod people” remain unchanged. - More Columns Headlines
-
‘Calico Joe’ evokes memories



