David Brooks Tries to Bring Reason to the Sotomayor Debate
Good for David Brooks:
More than any current member of the Supreme Court, she worked her way up through the furnace levels of the American legal system. [...] She is quite liberal. But there’s little evidence that she is motivated by racialist thinking or an activist attitude. [...] When you read her opinions, race and gender are invisible. I’m obviously not qualified to judge the legal quality of her opinions. But when you read the documents merely as examples of persuasive writing, you find that they are almost entirely impersonal and deracinated.
This should be totally obvious. That it’s not obvious to so many speaks to two things. One is the deranged nature of Supreme Court confirmation battles. Consistent differences have emerged between the kinds of justices conservatives want and the kinds of justices liberals want, but it’s considered out of bounds for politicians to just say “The President has a different ideology from me, he’s appointing a judge whose decisions I anticipate disliking, and that’s one of the reasons I voted for the other guy.” Instead there are these incentives to concoct wild personality defects in the other side’s choices, or accuse them of deliberately subverting the law (”activism”), rather than of simply disagreeing about important issues.
Mix that up with this incredible race obsession held by many white conservatives, and it’s a toxic blend. Suddenly Judge Sotomayor’s participation in 1970s-vintage campus activist groups is a dire threat to the white race’s legal hegemony.
62 Responses to “David Brooks Tries to Bring Reason to the Sotomayor Debate”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 9th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The comments on that article are a hoot. “But if a white man had said [some dismembered nonsense that bears zero resemblance to what she said], blah blah blah blah ….”
Once again, we see that racists are dumb.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Paging Al on behalf of the 8%…
June 9th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
That 8% number really is stunning. You can usually get 20-25% of the public to agree to anything in a pole, but even the majority of the die-hard dead-enders still identifying with the Republican Party aren’t willing to sign on for this nonsense.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
You can usually get 20-25% of the public to agree to anything in a pole
It’s the association with Santa.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
You make it sound like conservatives are the major force behind the unreasonableness of Supreme Court confirmations. In fact, Democrats have traditionally been much harsher on nominees from the other party than Republicans. The noise coming out of conservative circles is tame compared to what recent conservative nominees have been subjected to.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“That it’s not obvious to so many speaks to two things. ”
That is just an abomination of a sentence.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Michael Tomasky mocks the politicization of the Supreme Court decision on whether it is OK to bribe judges:
– Yesterday the US Supreme Court said no by a 5-4 vote. Needless to say the four were Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito, doing their usual thing. You’d think they’d care about judicial integrity and a case in which one man quite obviously purchased a judicial seat for another who turned around and voted for his interests two times.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I disagree with this part of your post:
“One is the deranged nature of Supreme Court confirmation battles. [T]here are these incentives to concoct wild personality defects in the other side’s choices, or accuse them of deliberately subverting the law (”activism”), rather than of simply disagreeing about important issues.”
What is wrong about this is that nominees such as Roberts and Alito were sold and accepted by the Respectable Intellectual Center (see Rosen, Jeff and Taylor, Stuart) as “moderate” and “modest” when in fact they were and are indeed brazen extreme conservative judicial activists.
I accept that all judges are Legal Realists. I strongly object to the characterization of extreme conservative judical activists like Roberts and Alito as “moderate,” “modest” and minimalist.”
Your post fails to understand or address this dynamic.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Gah. You had me until “this incredible race obsession held by many white conservatives.”
I agree that she should probably be confirmed, and all of this “racialist” nonsense is cooked up as pretty thin political stew. But to identify white conservatives as the main group with a “race obsession” seems like pretty selective mudslinging.
As far as I can tell, it wasn’t William F. Buckley who demanded that I attend ridiculous “racial sensitivity” workshops when I was in college. It wasn’t Bill Kristol who was demanding that our Asian Studies Department be broken down further, so as to allow a “Southeast Asian Studies Department.” And it wasn’t George Will stumbling around campus, chalking every square inch with “Free Mumia” and “America Is a Racist State” every time a holiday rolled around.
This isn’t to say that racism isn’t a problem. But to act like conservatives are the only ones with an unhealthy preoccupation is pretty silly.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Probably because the Democrats aren’t in the habit of nominating ideological nutcases and lightweight hacks.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“Mix that up with this incredible race obsession held by many white conservatives”
Agree, there are some “white conservatives” that have an obsession with race. However, let’s be even-handed here. It wasn’t “white conservatives” that pushed Ms. Sotomayor to conclude that her Latina heritage made her a better judge on certain issues than other similarly-minded individuals. Moreover, I find it amusing that as you point out a race obsession with certain parties, you specify just what race they are. Is it your contention that no one from another racial group is capable of having an obsession with race. I would posit that based upon the left’s support for quotas and other forms of affirmative action…that indeed, more often than not, race plays very heavily into their analysis on a number of issues.
Once again, you can’t have it both ways.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
It wasn’t “white conservatives” that pushed Ms. Sotomayor to conclude that her Latina heritage made her a better judge on certain issues than other similarly-minded individuals.
Well, technically, it probably was.
And individuals with different experiences aren’t always going to be similarly minded. That was the point.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
No, Sam M., it was William F. Buckley who wrote this:
Racist conservatives exclude. “Racist” liberals include. Holding them equivalent is a slur on your teachers’ names. And speaking of education:
No, but I bet he could tell the difference between England and Portugal.
Lumping Cambodia in with Japan is stupid. It doesn’t take a radical to point that out.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Well, they probably weren’t all conservatives. But yes, incompetence and bigotry can be powerful spurs to organization and accomplishment.
In fact, Sotomayor said so, in the four paragraphs that “white conservatives” are apparently too stupid to read.
Heh.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Boy, you guys just don’t get it.
What does race have to do with her experiences? She grew up in poverty, she worked her way up through the system…Is that unique in America? Again, what does race have to do with any of this.
The obsession is yours. You can’t seem to wrap your minds around the fact that what she should have said was…
‘I would hope that a person with my knowledge and experience would make better decisions than someone who doesn’t have my knowledge and experience.’
Instead, she pulled out race…WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.
Look in the mirror boys and girls. You wasting your energy trying to transfer your guilt to a strawman.1
June 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“entirely impersonal and deracinated.”
I see the next series of talking points born before me. Sounds like she’s a cold hearted bitch who fails to recognize the organic source of the law!
June 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Does David Brooks think “deracinated” is some kind of form of “not raced?” It means “not rooted.” The whole essay reads, as Brooks’s stuff always does, as a mealy mouthed attempt to either deliver or to block right wing propaganda without every admitting to acknowledging that right wing propaganda exists, or that he’s well known to be the right wing’s go to softy intellectual.
Ed Smithe, of course, demonstrates “deracinated” knowledge up above by failing to discover the obvious fact that the horrifying example of the “wise latina” quote came up in a *talk about latina/latino experiences within american law.* Incredible, she “pulled out her ethnic identity” at a talk at a conference about “ethnic identity.”
aimai
June 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
What does race have to do with her experiences? She grew up in poverty, she worked her way up through the system…Is that unique in America? Again, what does race have to do with any of this.
Pay attention, y’all. This is why Sotomayor suggested that white males could more often than not exercise worse judgment on matters relating to discrimination. This stuff right here.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
aimai,
It wasn’t a “talk.” It was actually many “talks,” not all of them about the subject of “latina/latino experiences within american law.”
Moreover, replace “latina” with “white male.” I’m sure you’d be just as supportive, no?
June 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Gee, what could RACE possibly have to do with one’s experience of DISCRIMINATION?
The mind boggles.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Yes Duvall, there is unfettered racism everywhere…So much racism that I’m shocked, shocked that she could have gotten degrees from two Ivy League schools…
The measure you guys are searching for is classism. It’s socioeconomic mobility that is a far greater hurdle than racism.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
No, I’d laugh, because a white male doesn’t have the experiences she spent so much time talking about.
You just proved her point. It’s a shame you don’t know what it was.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
There have only been 2 Democratic nominees in the last 40+ years. One of those (Ginsberg) was recommended by the ranking Republican on the judiciary commitee and had a right of center record. The other (Bryer) was considered a centrist politically. Four of the last five Republican nominees have been as far to the right as you can get. Democrats have opposed these judges mostly on the grounds that they are conservative; they didn’t just make things up like Republicans are doing now. If Republians want to oppose Sotomayor because she is too liberal, that would be reasonable (though incorrect).
The only thing close to this was the Thomas confirmation. In that case, a credible but unverifyable accusation had been made about his character. There was no choice but to explore the matter.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Hmmm. Last week, her accomplishments were supposed to be proof of racial preferences. Now, they’re supposed to be proof that racism is in its last throes.
No wonder you people can’t get any traction on this issue.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
JM,
Again…If she was so discriminated against, then how did she manage to earn degrees from not one…but two Ivy League institutions? Considering the fact that it’s difficult enough for the average Joe to make it into one of those institutions, I’d imagine that the discrimination that she apparently experienced (I didn’t realize that you guys grew up with her) was probably not as significant a factor as you’d have any of us believe.
Plenty of people in this country are discriminated against for a host of reasons. That doesn’t make it any more right to discriminate against an entire group of people…especially on the basis of race.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
JM,
Unlike you I speak for myself. I’ve always pointed out that her accomplishments were honorable. What concerns me is her infatuation with race and her decision-making ability.
And on the subject of being unable to make up your mind…just which is it today? ‘She would have said it differently’ or ’she was misquoted.’
June 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Why are you assuming that post-secondary education is the only place she could have experienced discrimination? Minorities have been winning scholarships since well before racists stopped hanging them on trees. The incidence of the one does not disprove the incidence of the other. Does this assumption reflect the weakness of your position, or the weakness of your mind?
“Average joes,” by definition, don’t get into elite institutions.
Judging by your last paragraph, I am encouraged to see that you agree with Sotomayor.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
And JM, just what were those experiences? I didn’t realize that Ms. Sotomayor’s life was so radically different than millions of other Americans. No, no one is born into poverty. No one is discriminated against. No one has to work hard. She must be the only person on the planet that could possibly understand that.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
… based on a quote the entirety of which will not fit in your tiny attention span, so you continue to get it wrong.
Both. She could say it differently today, so that even you could understand it. And, she is still being misquoted. I’ve seen examples of stupidity like yours even today.
Playing dumb doesn’t mean you have an argument. Sorry.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
If so, then her judgement wouldn’t be of use to a nation of 300 million people with completely different experiences, including the ones relevant in the cases to be brought to SCOTUS.
You didn’t think that one through, did you?
You do realize that your arguments are self-refuting? I see three examples on this thread without even resorting to close reading. You’re intent on your paranoid fantasy about Sotomayor, even though it has no basis in fact. No wonder you can’t frame an argument.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Speaking of the Supreme Court, how about some Caperton v Massey blogging.
They overturned it 5 to 4. Kennedy, Bryer, Souter, Ginsberg and Stevens thought such inordinate campaign violations demanded recusal for due process.
Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts seemed to think it was a property rights case. Once someone buys a judge, they should be allowed to use it as they please.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
JM,
I’m not assuming that at all. You said that she was discriminated against. Just what was the effect of that discrimination?
I’m not saying it didn’t happen…but so what if it did? How does adopting the philosophy of the people that discriminated against her make her more wise or knowledgeable? I’d say it makes her equally ignorant.
And I’m not entirely sure what you mean by I’m agreeing with her. I’m not. I don’t care about my race or another person’s race when I make decisions. If you care about that, good for you…you’re a racist.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
JM,
Sarcasm. Maybe you’d like me to put in parenthesis (sarcasm).
Honestly, this is the best that you have? BTW, was it taken out of context or would she like to revise her statement? Which is it today?
June 9th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Who said anything about ‘adopting their philosophy’?
I’d say that proves you’re talking to yourself, which is why you don’t know that you agreed with what she actually said instead of what you need her to have said so you can bitch about it.
You crammed a racist, fabricated quote into her mouth so you could show us how afraid you are of nothing. Weak, ignorant, insecure. What experiences could have made you such a wretched thing?
June 9th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
The measure you guys are searching for is classism. It’s socioeconomic mobility that is a far greater hurdle than racism.
It’s actually true that class-ism isn’t acknowledged enough. But it’s also true that throughout American history, it’s been tightly bound up with discrimination based on race, such that it’s very difficult to disentangle their influence, let alone label one a “greater hurdle” than the other. How could it be otherwise, given that slaves were black, most non-white immigrants were (and are) poor, etc.?
In any case, if Sotomayor had never once in her life mentioned her ethnicity, but talked about the barriers of class she’d overcome, she’d be getting slammed right now as a Marxist and promoter of class warfare by the exact same group of critics.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Ah, first you didn’t understand, now you’ll pretend it was sarcasm.
But no. Sad to say, your hypothetic refutes your argument, which saves your argument from having to refute your argument, which it was getting tired of doing.
Even if it was sarcasm, it would only be more evidence that you don’t have a point, something that would surprise exactly no one.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
JM,
Ah, yes. Only in your world could you have it both ways. Care to explain just how she could have revised it…and how I’ve taken it out of context. Moreover, if you haven’t had a chance to review her answers, she didn’t just say it one.
As for my attention span, while I do have a short one…I can also read. And apparently so can the President, which is why he tried to get out in front of this one. I suppose you disagree with him as well…that his attention span is just far to short to understand that Ms. Sotomayor didn’t mean what she said and it was taken out of context.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Can I point out to the rest of you that this …
… is actually Smithe’s false-option which he posted here, which I have already answered, which he is now pretending is the “best that I have.” I guess he read somewhere that this was the best way to “get” liberals on this issue and he doesn’t understand why hitting himself in the face with it doesn’t work.
Yes, watching Smithe bitch-slap himself is indeed the best argument anyone could have.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
It’s clear from Sotomayor’s face that she’s a long-term, heavy drinker.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
JM,
And just what was my hypothesis? And how did I refute it?
In your case, I don’t really understand you strategy. On the one hand she didn’t make a racist remark, but on the other, you agree with her that a wise latina should be able to make better decisions than another similarly minded individual. I’m sorry, I’m missing something here…Just how is that not racist. Again, replace white male with latina and you arrive at an equally racist statement.
For all of your logic terminology, you’re failing to analyze your logic.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
It’s not “both ways” because it’s a false option. She could say it better so that dishonest and stupid people can’t pretend that a statement about learning from discrimination is a statement OF discrimination. And, in so pretending, they are still taking it out of context, proving my point. Making it harder for people to twist your words doesn’t “prove” that people aren’t twisting your words. In fact, it’s pretty good evidence of the contrary.
Shame you’re too dumb to understand that.
If you can read, Smithe, perhaps you might try reading a calendar. Conservatives were punking idiots like you with this clipped quote weeks before Obama said anything, which isn’t “getting ahead.”
… and they did it on a Friday.
Heh.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Which one? I’ve already indicated they are plural.
But I see that you still don’t know what she said, so what should I expect? You try to invert it to “prove” that it’s racist, only to show that you don’t know you’d be voiding all the factual premises that statement rested on. And, in indicating that you don’t know what she could have learned from her experiences, you’ve demonstrated why someone like her is useful in cases like these, where people like you are (as you have admitted) ignorant.
These fallacies and failure are yours.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
June 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
JM,
The best way to get anyone is with the facts…Which some of you deem to be too inconvenient to your argument.
You were wrong about her being misquoted.
You were wrong about her setting the record straight.
You were wrong that it was one time only.
And yet you continue to repeat these baseless charges as well as shy away from any serious discussion of this issue. Instead, it’s the predictable fall back pattern of ‘you’re trying to bring her down with your right wing machine.’
June 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Smithe, you don’t have a single fact to your credit.
You’ve already proven me right repeatedly. You’ve done it right on this thread, so not only is the evidence that you’re wrong right in front of you, you produced it.
Sad.
Since it was a hypothetical, you don’t know what the word “wrong” means, which would explain a lot.
I didn’t say that, I said she’s right. If she’s said it more than one time, great. Maybe you’ll eventually get the point.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I guess Smithe ran off to get more talking points.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Rea,
When did she go to school? During pre-Civil War America? Are you really going to compare the days of slavery to the 1970s?
Moreover I never said I was discriminated. And what does my being white and straight have anything to do with our discussion? You don’t know me, nor do you know my experiences. To be honest, I’ve probably had more experience with your discriminated classes than you’ve had. Have you ever been to Northern Manhattan? Have you ever spent a moment with a single mother trying to balance her education with her children? Don’t lecture me about being oblivious to society’s ills…you guys are the ones that want to continue this country’s sick tradition of dividing Americans based on race (and now sexual orientation). Just why do you think it is that people started that practice in the first place?
JM,
I have no idea what this means:
“If you can read, Smithe, perhaps you might try reading a calendar. Conservatives were punking idiots like you with this clipped quote weeks before Obama said anything, which isn’t “getting ahead.”
If by that you mean that Conservatives are the ones that caused Obama to say that she would revise what she said…then I guess we ought to be successful in getting Obama to say that all of his government spending was a terrible, terrible idea. What power!
June 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
No. I don’t.
Jesus Christ, you’re stupid.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
JM,
Not really sure how you intend to prove that she was misquoted. She hasn’t come out and said that…So you continue to be wrong.
Not responding to her not setting the record straight. She hasn’t said anything in public about her quote, which according to you, is both wrong and taken out of context. Poor, poor, deflection.
Finally, you implied that it was one time only when you said:
“based on a quote the entirety of which will not fit in your tiny attention span, so you continue to get it wrong.”
It’s not just a single quote. She said it 3 (or more times) in different speeches, in different settings.
You’re wrong on all three. I do understand what that means.
Stop going ad hominem and refute those points.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
JM,
Not stupid, you’re just a poor writer…in addition to a poor logician.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
It’s only a matter of time before some conservative gets hold of the secret liberal fascist message and decoder ring so we just as well let the cat out of the bag.
The specific plan for the elimination of the white race is as follows
The sterilization of all white males is…………….
(fade out)
June 9th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Non sequitur. You continue to misquote her, therefore she is being misquoted.
QED.
I see you still don’t know what “hypothetical” means.
No, I was referring to a specific statement of yours, a paraphrase of the now-famous quote that you still don’t understand that showed you don’t understand it. Again, the evidence that you are wrong comes from you.
It’s not “ad hominem” when you’re an idiot, because ability is always relevant. I have refuted each of these points, more often than not with your own words. You have responded by repeating what has already been answered, paraphrasing what you do not understand, and attributing to me what you had said yourself, any one of which would mark you as a moron, but you had to go and win the anencephalic trifecta.
Your inferiority is now a matter of public record. Deal with it.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
JM,
The only people arguing that she was misquoted are you, a couple of fools that visit this site, thinkprogress, and kos. Apparently, having repeated a similar comment again and again doesn’t seem to factor into your analysis…nor does the reality that she won’t set the record straight. I can only assume that a person means what they say or else why would they say it…again, and again, and again.
QED
I understand what “hypothetical” means. What you don’t seem to understand is that these facts do not lend themselves to your hypothetical. Hypothetically, maybe she said that she hates African Americans. Since neither you nor I were there, we can’t truly know what she said…See, we can both play that game. Advantage me (and the facts) again.
Finally, the quote. Fine. You acknowledge the facts. We’re in agreement, she’s said a similar thing 2 or 3 additional times (I’m not entirely sure how many). Common ground finally.
As to ad hominem, many thanks again for calling me both an idiot and inferior. I see that you share the latter with Ms. Sotomayor.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“No, Sam M., it was William F. Buckley who wrote this: ”
Sure was. I understand he later regretted his position. You might add that he once called Gore Vidal a “queer” on national television and threatened to “sock you in the goddamn face.”
So you have established that at least some white conservatives have come down on the wrong side of racial issues over the past few decades. Congratulations for that. The world owes you a huge debt of gratitude.
Of course, my point was not that white conservatives are never wrong about race issues. I suppose if i wanted to, I could trot out some of Robert Byrd’s quotes from his pointy-hooded days. But that would also be beside the point.
Rather, my critique was that when commenting on a contemporary “racial” issue like the current brouhaha, it seems pretty silly to identify one side of the issue as “preoccupied.” Anybody who lived through the 1990s Culture Wars knows that there were plenty of shit heads to go around.
But by all means. Keep criticizing Bill Buckley if it makes you feel better.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Actually, Ed, only 8% of the country agree with you. You’re the fringe minority here, whose reading of the quote is at odds with the vast majority of Americans.
BTW, you managed to argue that 1) Sotomayor could not possibly have experienced racial discrimination because she got into Ivy League schools and 2) that she experiences class discrimination. Smoove
June 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
The measure you guys are searching for is classism
Yanks do not do class. This is why they are obsessed with “race/ethnicity”. Something has to fill in the void.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
It’s hilarious that Brooks stoops to using the made-up word “racialist” (which is randomly defined as one who takes race into account either in making policy or simply in the act of thinking) and still doesn’t agree that it applies to Sotomayor. The only reason anyone even took the word out of the basement and dusted it off was to oppose her nomination without saying “reverse racist” which has gotten a little tired.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
This is why they are obsessed with “race/ethnicity”.
That, and race and ethnicity have always been a central part of American culture. You know we fought a civil war over this stuff, right? We haven’t had that many.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
You see what they just did to you Ed Smithe? Disregarded your opinion because of who you were, you couldn’t have anything valid to say because of your “privilege” or whatever?
That’s what they want to do to all of America. They want to introduce their academic angst into every employment decision, every political discussion, every offhand remark so you can’t say anything because someone else’s experiences trump yours.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
That’s the new liberalism. Beggar thy oppressor.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:29 am
I have some issues with David Brooks’ Op-Ed. Yes, he continues like other conservative commentators to construe the infamous “Latina vs. White Male” sentence entirely out of context. Yes, he calls Sotomayor unspectacular (where’s your U.S. Appeals Court judgeship, Davie?), intellectually unambitious (who knows, maybe she studies quantum mechanics in her spare time), and unimaginative (did he expect U.S. Court of Appeals opinions to read like a Pynchon novel?).
Anyway, what perturbed me the most was his claim that during her career, she “picked up a patina of 1970s race-, class- and gender-consciousness”, that her time at Princeton and Yale Law somehow left the “scars” of multiculturalism and race-awareness upon her. David Brooks obviously does not know many Puerto Rican people. Sotomayor’s views of her race preceded her time in the Ivy Leagues. Puerto Ricans are a proud people, proud of their language, proud of their culture, and proud of the fact that they are Latinas and Latinos. (Come, David, to NYC next week for the Puerto Rican Day Parade and you’ll realize that people can actually be proud of being Puerto Rican.). Sotomayor is proud to be Puerto Rican, as her parents probably were, and this was probably instilled in her as a child growing up in the East Bronx. Also, through most her childhood, Sotomayor was brought up by her mother (after her father died), who managed to send her children to private schools, despite being uneducated. This probably accounts for her strong views on being a women – in particular a Latina woman – not an exposure to some new-fangled liberalism that Brooks claims cropped up in the Ivy Leagues during the 70’s.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Of course it is was some new-fangled liberalism. That’s why you have so many “scholars” of ill-repute hired during that time at universities that traditionally incubate more leftists than is the norm. Chicano studies, African-American studies, that kind of bullshit.