another angry woman of color reference, really?
You would think it would get old, but apparently not. Not even for NPR. In an article earlier this week, the ever so slightly left-leaning news asked Is Sonia Sotomayor Mean? This really doesn’t come as a surprise to me, especially not after the racist and sexist commentary that the right has been blasting out for the past couple of weeks. CNN reports question her intelligence and temperament—as if calling a woman of color unintelligent or too emotional is anything original. Despite whatever accomplishments women of color (WOC) make, WOC will still be questioned as not smart enough, stable enough or capable enough, especially in comparison to a white/male counterpart. Sotomayor is the current case and point. Having graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton and edited the Yale Law Journal and Yale Studies in World Public Order during her time at Yale Law School, not even Sotomayor is exempt from the bullshit—again and again.
Arguments around WOC and intelligence ultimately go back to a 16th century claim around the construction of race: that a biologically–determined and theologically–ordained racialized and gendered ranking order exists and from it a person’s worth can be determined. Through the study of physiognomy—the examination of a person’s physical appearance—one could determine a person’s intelligence, aesthetic value, morality, sexuality, and culture. These same arguments have been used over and over again to excuse/justify the domination and colonization of the Two-Thirds World for the past 5 centuries. I guess some things just never get old…
The NPR article eventually comes around to quote someone willing to name this type of question as “sexism in its most obvious form,” and I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I would add on racism to that claim too. But why even engage in this type of right-wing babble? I must say I am glad to see so many bloggers naming the attacks on Sotomayor for what they are—more of the same old shit.
To be completely honest I am not 100% sold on her politics, though I do understand the greater significance of her nomination for the Latino community and the greater progressive movement. The massive amount of hate that she is getting from the right wing might be just enough to push me over. (Progressive minded folks–if you have thoughts on this please feel free to share them with me. I would love to hear more about this actually.) This country is further behind than I think I realized. When Obama is considered a raging socialist, I guess I’ll take all the change we can get.
http://presente.org/cm/sotomayor
I’m no attorney (and indeed, no law student either), but my understanding is that basically all of her ‘controversial’ judicial rulings have been bound by precedent — Circuit courts aren’t as free as the Supreme Court to overrule previous decisions. So, as it is unlikely her critics will find a ’smoking gun’ of a case to attack, they’re probably going to continue to attack her ad hominem.
At first, I was hoping that those anti-WoC buzzwords would eventually leave the debate, but I’m starting to think there aren’t going to be any issue-based arguments, so we’re stuck listening to all this BS on one hand and, on the other, reporters who (as NPR did) feel the need to repeat it point-for-point “to explore both sides of the issue” before they offer any sort of thought of their own.
Like you, I still want to do some more reading about her rulings and her Foundation work in NY. But, unlike, say, meaningful health care cost control or a substantive bill addressing climate change, I can’t see her not confirmed to the bench by the fall.