About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Bracing for a week of "Latina woman" idiocy from the press

July 13, 2009 8:59 am ET by Eric Boehlert

Over the weekend, the WSJ got a head start on the competition. Looking ahead to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, the Journal stressed how Sotomayor's now famous "Latina woman" quote would certainly become a very big deal. (Y'know, the single sentence from a campus speech given eight years ago, the kind of obscure public utterance that always dominates SCOTUS confirmation hearings, right?)

It should come as no surprise that the Journal article, which revolved solely around the "Latina woman" quote, completely failed to place it in context. It's not surprising because Beltway journalists covering Sotomayor appear to have taken some kind of solemn loyalty oath to never place the quote in its proper context. Because if anybody does, than the whole 'controversy' (she's a racist!) collapses.

FYI, Sotomayor's quotes about a wise "Latina woman" making a better decision than a white judge was made specifically in the context of race and gender discrimination cases. But the press has categorically refused to spell that out and pretends Sotomayor was talking about all decisions from the bench. That she had espoused this nutty notion that one group of judges (Latina women) make inherently better legal judgments than another (white men.) If Sotomayor had made that claim, critics would have every right to question her temperament, not to mention her sanity.  

But of course, that's not what Sotomayor said. It's just what the press, at the urging of the GOP, pretends she said. It's really an elaborate con game: Reporters and pundits know the correct context. They understand the larger point she was making. They simply refuse to spell it out.

Journalism doesn't get much more dishonest, or gruesome, than watching the "Latina woman" tale play out, yet again. That's why we're already bracing for a dreadful week.

UPDATED: Hey look, Fox News' Juan Williams thinks "Latina woman" was a racist statement because Sotomayor thinks she's "endowed in a much better, superior way, than white people." Did I mention how depressingly awful journalism is going to be this week?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mk3872 (July 13, 2009 9:18 am ET)
         
      No depth, all shiny objects this week ...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 9:21 am ET)
         
      Already heard it this morning on NPR.

      They quoted Sessions, they quoted the Latina woman comment, providing no context of course. They quoted republican strategists who were and are against Sotomayor's nomination (for no reason other than she is being nominated than Obama), and who did they not talk to?

      Yes, any democrats who might be in favor of her.

      And what's funny is that they're holding up the Latina woman comment and the firefighter case as tied together (well, republicans are anyway), and that this puts her at the fringe of something, which of course it doesn't. Why? Because there were 4 Supreme Court justices who agreed with her, 2 appeals court justices that agreed with her, and a lower court that agreed with her. Never you mind that one of the folks bringing the case against the city was a Latino man (one would think she would rule WITH him, right, since she's so racist and pre-ordained to go towards hispanics and all).

      And, they also reported that under 50% of Americans think that she should be confirmed, of course, not bothering to report that the actual number was 47% think she should be confirmed, while 39% think that she shouldn't (that's a pretty big spread there), while the remaining percentages remain un-decided.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pags2 (July 13, 2009 9:49 am ET)
        1  
        Senator Sessions was nominated for a federal court judgeship. He was rejected by Democrats and Republicans because his is racist. Sessions calling Sotomayor a racist is the pot calling the kettle black.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 10:34 am ET)
             
          I did hear about that, and he was rejected by the republicans running the committe at the time of his nomination, because he did in a previous life, hold some views that were rather racist.

          Do I think he has changed this views? Probably so, and I would hope so, and I'm sure that he has, at least publicly.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 10:35 am ET)
             
          I did hear about that, and he was rejected by the republicans running the committe at the time of his nomination, because he did in a previous life, hold some views that were rather racist.

          Do I think he has changed this views? Probably so, and I would hope so, and I'm sure that he has, at least publicly.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 10:44 am ET)
             
          I did hear about that, and he was rejected by the republicans running the committe at the time of his nomination, because he did in a previous life, hold some views that were rather racist.

          Do I think he has changed this views? Probably so, and I would hope so, and I'm sure that he has, at least publicly.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by justjoe628 (July 13, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
               
            Well, it's sort of true. You libs like things that are a little bit true but out of context or maybe just not telling the whole story. Media Matters reported in May 05 that Sessions was nominated for a federal judgeship in 1986, when clearly the Dems had control over both the House and Senate, so no "republicans running the committe" rejected him. Two republicans who did vote against him were Charles Mathias and Arlen Specter, hardly considered conservatives. Finally, his racist comments were calling the NAACP and ACLU "un-American." The comments came after trying 3 black civils rights activists for voter fraud. They were aquitted. So there are the facts, according to Media Matters itself. How dare he try black civil rights activists and call the NAACP un-American. He is obviously a racist and a bigot. Those are the names given by liberal to people who don't think exactly the way they say you should think. Oh yeah, and intolerant to.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by justjoe628 (July 13, 2009 11:59 am ET)
         
      Does anyone here really think that the media doesn't constantly take quotes out of context? You probably think that they only take democrats out of context, but never republicans. The fact is, whether or not her quote was taken out of context, that there is a double standard. If GB43 had nominated a white male for the same justice seat and he had said "...as a white male I can make better decisions than a latina..", he would have to withdraw his nomination. He would be labled a bigot and a racist and called all sorts of names. I personally don't think those comments make her a racist. I think that term is throw around way to loosely. I do however, think that she will not issue judgement based solely on the law. Justice is supposed to be blind, although we all know it is not always, but the bench is no place for sympathy or empathy, it is a place for justice. Now I know all you libs will start telling me about all the studies that show minorites get tougher sentences or get convicted more often then white, but that just emphasizes the importance of placing impartial judges on the bench instead of judges who will legislate from the bench.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (July 13, 2009 10:42 pm ET)
           
        You clearly miss the point and again divorce the comment from ints context. She didnt SAY that being a latina meant she wouldmake better decisions. She was talking about racial and gender discrimination cases and said she would HOPE that her experiences would allow her to make wiser judgements on those issues. That is saying she would hope her EXPERIENCE would give her better insight. She also said she wasnt myopic enough to miss that all white courts HAD made wise judgements on the issue. So the only REAL decent analogy here would be if GWB had nominated a white man who said he would hope his experience as a prosecuter would help him make wiser decisions on criminal cases. Your talking point about legislating from the bench is a conservative dogwhistle that means judicial decisions conservatives dont like. When she DID follow the law in Ricci you cons went nutso. Your impartiality argument is also simplistic. Legal cases arent math equations where there is only one right answer. They are often balancing acts which is why so few of them end up as a 9-0 ruling and other times past rulings are overturned. That is why it is called JUDGEMENT instead of analysis
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mdc8k (July 13, 2009 6:40 pm ET)
         
      The out-of-context cry has become tiresome. Here's a link of the entire speech if anyone's interested, and the speech, in it's entirety, seems very much to be a race-based view of judging, with a strong suggestion that Sotomayor thinks Hispanic judges make better judges.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

      The entire speech begins with a recitation of statistics of how many seats on the federal judiciary "we" -- ie Latinos -- have, suggesting a view that seats on the bench are best apportioned out on a quota basis. The speech goes on to pay lip service to the ideal that judges should divorce their opinions from their own biases and prejudices, but then immediately questions whether the ideal is attainable.

      The unattainability argument is then used as a jumping off point for why the ideal is not even desireable. The "wise latina woman" comment, was in direct counterpoint to and an explicit rejection of Justice O'Connor's statement that she hoped a wise male judge would reach the same decision as a wise female judge. In this light, I do not read the comment as being limited to employment discrimination cases; rather, Sotomayor seems to be using employment discrimination as an example of a case in which a latina judge would make a "better" decision. This was not a conference about employment discrimination, it was a conference entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."

      So, nice try on the "out of context" meme, but the media isn't picking up on it because it isn't true.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.
Eric Boehlert's New Book

Weekly Columns

Feed Icon