Opinion Pieces Discuss Criticisms Of Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Article Date: 03 Jun 2009 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

Two opinion pieces recently responded to criticisms of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court.

~ Raina Kelley, Newsweek: The "discussions about whether ... Sotomayor was chosen just because she is a Hispanic woman drive me nuts," Newsweek columnist Kelley writes. She continues, "Yes, the fact that she's a Latina makes a difference in what she brings to the bench, but let's not overlook the fact that she'd be qualified for the job even if she were a white man." Citing Sotomayor's experience as a Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge for more than a decade and her educational qualifications as a graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, Kelley writes that "we can assume that she has at least some of the appropriate skills to be a Supreme Court justice." She adds, "But when she sits down for those hearings in front of the cameras and the country, the lingering question will still be, 'Did she get into all those great schools just because of her race?'" Kelley writes, "It's infuriating to me that a woman as competent as Sotomayor will have to prove she deserves her nomination while a white-male colleague with the same resume can skip that step and go straight to his judicial philosophy." According to Kelley, "It is time for our hallowed institutions to look like the country" they serve. She notes that "white males have gotten the jobs over at the Supreme Court 96% of the time," concluding that "the assumption that they're naturally the best candidate for everything, and we're doing anyone else a favor if we give them a desirable job, is a bit much" (Kelley, Newsweek, 5/29).

~ Kathleen Parker, Washington Post: "Even without the help of all those foot soldiers who blast out late-night memos, any sentient being could have predicted the reaction" last week to the nomination of Sotomayor, syndicated columnist Parker writes. She adds, "Within minutes" of the announcement, "a dozen other e-mails tumbled through the hatch enumerating all the reasons Sotomayor was a terrible pick: affirmative action, identity politics, the Ricci [v. DeStefano] case, double standards, racism, sexism." She continues, "Although her judicial record has raised some legitimate concerns, Sotomayor isn't so easily characterized as the radical liberal that some on the right have suggested. She has ruled favorably toward abortion protesters and unfavorably toward minority plaintiffs." In reference to Sotomayor's 2001 comments that her experiences as a Hispanic woman might help her reach a "'better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,'" Parker asks, "Could a white man get away with saying something comparable about a Latina? Of course not. After Latinas have run the world for 2,000 years, they won't be able to say it ever again either." Parker continues, "For now, the hot winds of punditry could use a little chill," concluding, "Calling Sotomayor a sexist and racist, far from being fair, is an irrational rush to judgment unbecoming ladies, gentlemen, scoundrels and scholars" (Parker, Washington Post, 5/31).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.