Sotomayor vs Estrada
Karl Rove says conservatives shouldn’t worry about alienating Hispanic voters:
The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada’s nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second-highest court?
As Jon Chait says, the comparison seems a bit inapt:
And the situations are pretty much identical, except that the GOP has a bad reputation among Hispanics and the Democrats don’t, and the Supreme Court plays an ever-so-slightly larger role in the public imagination than the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
This is right. Another way of putting the “reputation” point is that Republicans don’t actually need to lose Hispanic support in order to lose ground. The Latino vote share is growing, and the Republican share of the Latino vote is already terrible. It’s hard to see how opposing Sotomayor is going to help with that.
But what Chait’s left out is the tenor of the criticisms made of Estrada. The argument against Estrada, as I recall it, was that he’s very conservative. The argument about Sonia Sotomayor consists of the idea that we should discount her career and her degrees because those are just the results of the kind of “preferential treatment” that poor Puerto Rican girls from the projects get. We’ve also heard that she has a troubling fondness for Puerto Rican food. That it’s unreasonable that she pronounces her name as if it’s a Spanish word. We’ve heard that she’s a soft-hearted woman who wants to set aside the law in favor of empathetic victims, and also heard complaints that she’s failed to set aside the law in order to help out empathetic white people. These kind of criticisms are going to drive Hispanics away from the conservative cause not because conservatives are criticizing a Latina, but because they’re criticizing her in terms that imply a generalized skepticism about the qualifications of all American Hispanics, a loathing of Latin culture, and a monomaniacal obsession with defending the interests of white people. And while not all conservatives have gone in for the full Goldfarb/Krikorian madman treatment, no prominent voices on the right seem interested in checking the tide of borderline bigotry from their camp. It’s a reminder that checking prejudice against non-whites isn’t something conservatives are interested in.
56 Responses to “Sotomayor vs Estrada”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 28th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Translation. Yglesias thinks that Hispanics are stupid.
Is there any other logic to this kind of debate? Either Hispanics get a better deal, in violation of Due Process, or Hispanics will run screaming to the party that passes out favors.
Regardless of political views, any Hispanic that follows the Yglesias line of logic that they will get special favors because they come from an inferior race will not fly.
Back to Animal Farm.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
It’s not so much that Rove is “evil”–that kind of elevates both his talent and his success level (let’s not forget, despite the fact that the editorial pages of the WSJ want to: this is ‘Permanent Majority’ man). He’s more like a well-funded sleaze.
Rove’s got a case of “Beltway-stupid” like I’ve never seen. Well, except for maybe POLITICO’s Mike Allen and Roger Simon. “Beltway-stupid” worked fine when that was the only game in town. Thankfully, the Intertubes have saved us from that hell.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Any way we can get Mattyoung on teevee? With a big R after his name?
What’s Hispanic for “R?”
May 28th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Republicans rolled in the opposition to Estrada’s nomination with that of a couple of other extreme-right, anti-abortion judges and pushed the line that Democrats were opposing them because they were hostile to Catholics. I recall this getting much more play than the argument that Democrats were anti-Latino. Such an argument wouldn’t have played well with their anti-immigrant voters, anyway.
Seriously, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were led by Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy. So they hate Catholics. These people have been politically inept for a long time.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
The argument against Estrada, as I recall it, was that he’s very conservative.
Technically, the argument was that he had no experience as a judge, nor a paper trail as a legal academic upon which to evaluate him, and his most relevant experience, his time in the SG’s office, couldn’t be properly evaluated because the SG refused to release the memos he wrote.
Now I personally think there is pretty good evidence that the Democrats spiked him at least in part because they were afraid he was being groomed as a Supreme Court pick. But I also think that in addition to all the other reasons to see a difference between these cases, it matters that Sotomayor has a long and distinguished record as a judge that will be open for evaluation, so that particular reason (or pretext if you prefer) for obstructing Estrada is not available to the GOP.
Finally, bringing up Estrada is a double-edged sword, because there are some quotes floating around involving the GOP accusing the Democrats of being racist for obstructing Estrada.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
re estrada no one but political nerds care abt a circuit court judge – the supreme court on the other hand is a big huge giant deal of a media event
May 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Seriously, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were led by Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy. So they hate Catholics.
Don’t forget that Mathhew Yglesias thinks Hispanics are stupid.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The argument about Sonia Sotomayor consists of the idea that we should discount her career and her degrees because those are just the results of the kind of “preferential treatment” that poor Puerto Rican girls from the projects get. We’ve also heard that she has a troubling fondness for Puerto Rican food. That it’s unreasonable that she pronounces her name as if it’s a Spanish word. We’ve heard that she’s a soft-hearted woman who wants to set aside the law in favor of empathetic victims, and also heard complaints that she’s failed to set aside the law in order to help out empathetic white people.
Matthew missed that she turns out to be a racist. That’s a pretty good argument against her.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Ctrl-X; Ctrl-V
May 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
The CW is that she’s a lock and I’m sure she’s a fine pick, but presuming the Republicans play up her decision that screwed the New Haven white firefighter – won’t that hurt the Democrats with white Catholics? How do you wiggle out of that one?
May 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
So, basically what you’re saying is that, for instance, the idea that Dred Scott would have probably been decided differently by an all-black SCOTUS isn’t something completely fucking obvious to anyone with a brain, it’s actually racist; indeed, the only non-racist position in this whole business is to assert that only white male jurists have the capacity to interpret the law objectively and without regard to the personal viewpoints of the plaintiffs.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
won’t that hurt the Democrats with white Catholics?
You’re forgetting, Trevor, that white people, who are never racist, always put the objective law over their own identity-based interests.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Al is probably incensed that women go to gynecologists instead of his doctor.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
By the way, what did we do to Matt that we desserve to see a big picture of Karl Rove when opening this thread?
May 28th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Oh, devastating. You can pull out your old Michelle Obama blast faxes.
No, seriously, it’s especially powerful when articulated by Rush Limbaugh. Or Jefferson Bureaugard Sessions. No, wait…Tom Tancredo.
Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I don’t think there was much Hispanic “backlash” because of the Estrada nomination for a few reasons. I believe Estrada was one of several nominees, including Priscilla Owen, that were held up during that time. So whatever political capital that Estrada’s ethnicity would have brought was wasted because Sen. Frist was running around calling for an “up or down” vote and threatening the “nuclear” option.
Over the last few years Republicans have demonized Hispanics- and not just undocumented immigrants. So if they want to run around and say, “Hey, no really we love you guys, look we nominated Estrada,” go ahead.
I think the line in Glenn Gary/Glenn Ross was, “you got the memory of a f*cking fly!”
May 28th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Matt should have included Steve Benen’s point that opposition to Estrada was very much supported by Hispanic political institutions:
May 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
This all sounds right, but HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU RE-WRITE THE SAME POST ABOUT SOTOMAYOR, just replacing which politician or pundit is making which one of a handful of criticisms?
May 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Is the Ricci decision a dealbreaker for white Catholics? I mean, there are a lot of issues that, if you ask people directly about them, they have an opinion, but it’s not top-of-mind when they go to vote. White Catholics will probably have forgotten about Ricci by the time there’s an election and vote on other issues.
And, if blowing the affirmative action/minority quota dog whistle resonates for you, aren’t you likely to be voting for Republicans already? So what does it matter?
May 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Also, we’ve heard the Republican leadership say they’re not sure that she understands a judge has to put the law in front of her “feelings.”
That is, they’re not sure she’s got the understanding of the job of a judge that you’d find in, say, a clever eight-year-old child. Or any sentient person who has ever seen three episodes of the People’s Court, Judge Judy, LA Law, Law & Order, or any of a thousand other television shows and movies.
But I guess when the person is Latina, opposing them on these grounds should be treated exactly the same as opposing a Latino because he’s too conservative.
Whatever.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
won’t that hurt the Democrats with white Catholics?
When “white ethnic” guys from the northeast have trouble getting jobs as cops and firefighters, let us know.
Rove has sort-of-a-point: when your polling among non-white, non-male, non-old people is already lower than syphilis, there’s not much harm you can do.
(I’ll say that one of the arguments re: Estrada was that the DC Circuit appointment was, as with Scalia, perceived as a way to give him a few years of actual judgifying to smooth a future SCOTUS confirmation.)
May 28th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU RE-WRITE THE SAME POST ABOUT SOTOMAYOR
As many posts as their are stupid right-wing pundits and politicians repeating another variation about the same old crap about Sotomayor, I thnk.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
[B]ut presuming the Republicans play up her decision that screwed the New Haven white firefighter – won’t that hurt the Democrats with white Catholics? How do you wiggle out of that one?
Well, you might start with getting the facts straight. The City of New Haven decided to throw out the results of the test and not promote anyone. The District Court decided the people who did well on the test didn’t have a case against the City. The Second Circuit decided the District Court didn’t err.
So Sotomayor did not exactly personally decide to “screw” anyone–to the extent you think that is what happened, it was the City which did the screwing. The question then becomes whether the District Court, and after that the Second Circuit, was wrong to think the law didn’t provide the plaintiffs with a remedy.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“…but because they’re criticizing her in terms that imply a generalized skepticism about the qualifications of all American Hispanics…”
Really? The GOPer doubts about Sotomayor’s Ricci ruling is consistent with the opinions of 2 other hispanics involved in the case – the one who joined Ricci in the suit, and Jose Cabranes (a Clinton appointee) who issued the dissenting opinion when the case was reheard en banc.
“The argument about Sonia Sotomayor consists of the idea that we should discount her career and her degrees…”
This from someone who thought putting Oprah Winfrey on the Court might be a good idea because, after all, being a justice just isn’t that difficult.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Really? The GOPer doubts about Sotomayor’s Ricci ruling is consistent with the opinions of 2 other hispanics involved in the case.
Kafka, meet Al. Al, meet Kafka.
Why don’t you two go have a little talk? Because we’re tired of you trolls pretending the other doesn’t exist.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
As a ruthlessly political calculation, if Democrats believe that keeping this Sotomayor controversy in the news helps them electorally, I am only too happy to oblige them. I would love to see them argue in a public forum that Ricci’s reasoning was correct or that Sotomayor’s statements are a philosophy typical of liberal judges. You know how you sort of delight in the people’s economic ignorance to foist all sorts of social spending programs you like, Matt? I feel the same way about the public’s inability to accept sophisticated (but obviously solipistic) arguments of jurisprudence straight from the mouths of Critical Race Theorists.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
The primary issue is this. Most Americans, including LEGAl Mexicans, love this country. But there’s a disingenuous cabal of those who are driven by a hatred of it and a so-called “white power structure,” which really means when you parse it that they oppose those who favor civilization over sharia. Sotomayor is different from most Mexicans in that she takes this explicitly racially supremacist Democratic view, one that certain sectors of New York society want to cheer on and see elevated to the highest court of the land.
I love this country more than anyone. No society is perfect, the USA has its blemishes. Just like South Africa under apartheid and even the earlier US itself with slavery, the modern USA faces a terrible racist system known as affirmative action. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that while the former want to move us closer to a just, safe society, the latter are filled with a bitterness that makes them want to destroy the most productive members of society. It’s hard to be alive and white in the USA today without fearing for your life like it’s 1930.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I think an additional difference that hasn’t been mentioned is that Estrada was nominated to an appeals court. There are several magnitudes of difference between that and the Supreme Court.
In fact, I remember doing a story about Sergio Bendixen and was presenting a poll to Democrats on this very issue. He warned the Democrats that their opposition to Estrada was not causing them harm amongst latinos, but mostly because no one knew who he was. (One survey respondent replied, “Well he made a pretty good cop, so I figure he’d be a good judge too,” confusing him with Eric Estrada.)
Had GWB nominated him to court and he received this level of attention it would have been a very different story.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
She is different from most Mexicans in that her family is from Puerto Rico.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Sotomayor is different from most Mexicans . . .
. . . by being Puerto Rican.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
“Just like South Africa under apartheid and even the earlier US itself with slavery, the modern USA faces a terrible racist system known as affirmative action.”
Yep, modern USA is “just like” those other places. Just the other day I was chased by a bunch of black people trying to lynch me for looking twice at one of their daughters.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Another difference between Estrada and SS is that Estrada was not, AFAIK, a member of a far-left, pro-illegal activity, anti-assimilation group.
Even worse, the group she was a member of gave an award to someone who’d made eliminationist comments years before.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I would love to see them argue in a public forum that Ricci’s reasoning was correct or that Sotomayor’s statements are a philosophy typical of liberal judges.
All fucking day, bro. When you’re right on the merits you don’t have to run.
I haven’t read the Ricci case, so I’ll refrain from commenting on it. But addressing your second point, take a look at Chet’s hypothetical @ 11:
Is he right? Would an all-black Court rule differently on a case like Dred Scott. If so, then aren’t you kind of forced to admit that varying racial and socioeconomic backgrounds affect people’s reasoning?
And if so, isn’t it beneficial to society to have those in power—particularly those deciding issues of law—represent a variety of racial and socioeconmic backgrounds, not just one?
I’m waiting…
May 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Once again, I enthusiastically endorse this strategy by Republicans, and I hope they continue to believe that this Estrada dodge will be as convincing among Latino voters as it seems to be among Republican ideologues. Bra-VO, Karl!
May 28th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
ooo!!! ooo!! Can I play too???
Sotomayor is different from most Mexicans …
Because her name isn’t Maria
May 28th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
So Sotomayor did not exactly personally decide to “screw” anyone–to the extent you think that is what happened, it was the City which did the screwing. The question then becomes whether the District Court, and after that the Second Circuit, was wrong to think the law didn’t provide the plaintiffs with a remedy.
This is true, but since the original point was if the it will hurt politically with blue collar white voters, and this is getting into a level of detail that is not likely to penetrate for mass consumtpion it might not matter. Same as the reason presented above as to why the Estrada thing didn’t have much blowback, that few people even know about judical nominations to anything less than the Supreme Court.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Have they released the video yet of Sotomayor yelling “Kill Whitey!” at the Porter-Rickan / Messkin / Aztlan conference? I hear it’s coming soon.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
The next election cycle is a long way. By that time, Ricci will probably not be the primary issue for blue-collar white voters. If it is the primary issue for a particular voter, that’s probably a voter who won’t be in the Democratic camp no matter what. If some specific politician specifically insults blue-collar white voters, they may pay a price for it, but I don’t see how this attaches to the Democratic Party in general, not if they pass healthcare reform and manage to stabilize or improve the economy and job creation overall. That’s what Democrats have to worry about; that they won’t get healthcare done and the economy will tank even further and they won’t be able to pass off the blame to the Republicans and/or the Bush legacy.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
One point about the Ricci case and how white people will look at it. Whatever one thinks about whether it was decided correctly, I believe (everybody makes mistakes) that the city had already made the decision to alter its hiring practices and the court agreed that the city could do this. It’s not as if Sotomayor and her colleagues ordered the city to do something as judicial activists. I do not think this point is too subtle as long as everytime some right-wing talking head mentions it, some left-wing talking head emphasizes that she did not directly force the city to do anything. (Of course this goes against my joke in this thread about Yglesias posting about Sotomayor endlessly, but whatever).
May 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
The argument against Estrada was that he was hispanic, and thus that it was important to stop him before he could be promoted. That’s all the argument was–it wasn’t based on anything more than his ethnicity. Nominees as conservative or more conservative were confirmed, but Estrada was singled out for harsher treatment solely on the basis of his ethnicity. Matt’s indifference to this and his insistence on lying about it is evidence that he has no problem with destroying particular hispanics if they step out of line.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
LOL at Thomas@40!!!
Evidence, clown?
May 28th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
This is true, but since the original point was if the it will hurt politically with blue collar white voters, and this is getting into a level of detail that is not likely to penetrate for mass consumtpion it might not matter.
We already hit that level just by bringing up a specific case. And from prior experience, most non-lawyers who get this far will watch a minute or two of back-and-forth between the lawyers, throw up their hands in disgust, and draw absolutely no conclusion at all.
So basically, my point is that if there wasn’t a defense to these charges on the merits, maybe there would be something to be gained by pressing on this case. But since there is a defense to these charges on the merits, the likely net effect of the whole back-and-forth is minimal.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Nominees as conservative or more conservative were confirmed, but Estrada was singled out for harsher treatment solely on the basis of his ethnicity.
This is false: the Democrats obstructed a bunch of Bush’s Circuit Court nominations, several successfully, not just Estrada. In fact, just ask any GOP partisan, at least when they are not trying to score a bank shot by claiming Estrada was the only person who got “harsh treatment” in the confirmation process.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
If you think I’m kidding when I urge you Republicans to keep making this argument in the hopes that Latinos / Hispanics will be even slightly convinced, I’m not.
I really, really, really want you to seriously dedicate yourself to this, along with keeping up the current critique of Sotomayor as a dumb affirmative action chick.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
it was important to stop him before he could be promoted.
I think that’s right, from a political standpoint. It had nothing to do with him being Hispanic, though: it had everything to do with him being able to point to a couple of years of bench work for the DC Circuit instead of focusing on the unseen memos and arguments he’d provided to various Republican administrations, i.e. the fast-track strategy used when Roberts was nominated.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
it was important to stop him before he could be promoted.
I think that’s right, from a political standpoint. It had nothing to do with him being Hispanic, though: it had everything to do with him being able to point to a couple of years of bench work for the DC Circuit instead of focusing on the unseen memos and arguments he’d provided to various Republican administrations, i.e. the fast-track strategy used when Roberts was nominated.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Sotomayor is different from most Mexicans in that she takes this explicitly racially supremacist Democratic view
…and in that her heritage is Puerto Rican.
Jackass.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
This debate is driving home the fact that Republicans are still the non-reality-based party. They still think they can make something become true merely by repeating and believing it enough.
They can keep saying Sotomayor is a racist; that won’t make her start disliking white people, or cause a record that suggests such a thing to spring up.
They can keep saying the the objection to Estrada was based on his ethnicity; that won’t make his lack of bench experience and the refusal of the Bush administration to release his legal memos disappear.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
And also, too: Sharia?
WTF?
May 28th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
And also, too: Sharia?
WTF?
Well, when you’re busy stoking your hatred of brown people, you don’t have time to make distinctions.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Way too nice a pic of Rove. Use pics that make him look like a fat, slimy pig. This one makes him look merely like a fat slimy pig dressed up to go to interview for some job in adult film video distribution industry.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:30 am
The whole majority decision in Ricci was pretty substandard according to Clinton appointee Cabranes.
Judge Jose Cabranes said that the three-judge panel’s ultimate decision “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination.
This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”
May 29th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Wow, thanks, Josh, no one has waved around Cabranes before! And yet, the whole majority decision in Ricci was pretty standard according to the vote of Clinton appointee Sotomayor. Weirdly, the opinion of the judge who agrees with your pre-existing views of the case isn’t the only one on the court. (Though if you were a member of the Judge Cabranes Fan Club long before Ricci hit the airwaves, my apologies, and I would in fact be interested in purchasing your bridge.)
Here’s a little hint: determining whether the City of New Haven acted reasonably and in good faith when presented with a potential Title VII violation isn’t necessarily the weighty constitutional question that Cabranes intones. Though perhaps they should have wrestled more with the possibility that Mayor DeStefano and the city’s lawyers just hate whitey. If, however, they agreed with the District Court’s determination in that matter, they need only accept the District Court’s opinion without further modification. Of course, any non-perfunctory attempt to get into the weeds on the Civil Rights Act and the Bushey precedent would have also triggered the same outcome. It’s that it involves affirmative action and Title VII that led to cert being granted, not procedural minutiae.
But yes, I’m sure it will be time for the conservative majority on the Supreme Court to pull Equal Protection back out of the toilet they normally relegate it to, such as when a woman is subjected to years of gender-based wage discrimination.
May 30th, 2009 at 10:44 am
So wait, the main objection to Estrada becoming a judge is that he has no experience as a judge. Wow.
How could he ever get to be a judge? Democrat logic. I guess I would need a lobotome to understand.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:06 am
“Weirdly, the opinion of the judge who agrees with your pre-existing views of the case isn’t the only one on the court”
Yes they don’t agree that hiring preferentially based on race is racial discimination. Or in other words they don’t believe that 1+1=2. Obviously we are wrong to expect that judges should be sane. From now no we need to learn to be tolerant of democratic based insane law and decision making like the ridiculousness of Roe vs Wade. We need to be tolerant of those who believe 1+1=3.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
There is an easy way to see that the New Haven case was decided wrongly: reverse the races. In fact in all these type of decisions that is usually the best thing to do.
Imagine all the people who passed were black and the result were thrown out because too many black people passed. There is no way in hell the decision would have been what it was.
BTW, I looked at the ridiculous district court decision. The decision was that throwing out the results is not racially discriminatory. But it is. I can get any result I want by repeatedly rejecting results I don’t like because they don’t fit a preconceived criterion. In statistics they call this data mining. Maybe here we should call it race mining.