Wash. Post, WSJ omit context of Sotomayor remarks, despite reporting WH "out of context" statement
SUMMARY: In articles on the political "battle" over Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal omitted the context for remarks she made in 2001 and 2005, even though both articles included a response from the White House saying Sotomayor's comments are being taken "out of context."
In May 28 articles about the political "battle" over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, both The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal omitted the context for remarks Sotomayor made in 2001 about "Latina" and "white male" judges that conservatives have criticized, even though both articles included a response from the White House saying Sotomayor's comments are being taken "out of context." In addition, the Post omitted the context of comments Sotomayor made in 2005 about the role of appellate judges in making policy. As Media Matters for America has documented, the media have widely misrepresented both Sotomayor's 2001 and 2005 comments.
The Post reported that "conservatives have seized upon Sotomayor's unscripted moments to make the case that she is outside the mainstream. The two most often quoted are a statement she made about how appellate judges make policy and her observation about how being a Latina affects her role as a judge: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' " Similarly, the Journal reported, "Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' " Both reports included the White House's statement that the remarks are "being taken out of context," and repeated former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-GA) assertion regarding Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment that "[n]ew racism is no better than old racism." In fact, when Sotomayor made the "wise Latina" remark, she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining "race and sex discrimination cases."
Moreover, when Sotomayor said at a February 25, 2005, Duke University School of Law forum that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," she was responding to a student who asked the panel to contrast the experiences of a district court clerkship and a circuit court clerkship. As Media Matters has documented, numerous legal experts have stated that Sotomayor's 2005 comment was "the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning" and "thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue," in the words of Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman. Indeed, the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) notes that federal appellate courts do, in fact, have a "policy making" role.
In a May 27 article, The Washington Post similarly omitted the context for Sotomayor's 2001 remark, even though it included the White House's response that her comments are being taken out of context.
From the Washington Post's May 28 article:
Meanwhile, conservatives have seized upon Sotomayor's unscripted moments to make the case that she is outside the mainstream. The two most often quoted are a statement she made about how appellate judges make policy and her observation about how being a Latina affects her role as a judge: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The White House has said the remarks are being taken out of context and reflect only the obvious point that Sotomayor's life experiences affect her outlook. Press secretary Robert Gibbs reacted sharply to a Twitter post from former House speaker Newt Gingrich that said, "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism."
Gibbs said Americans will make up their minds about Sotomayor based on "more than just the blog of a former lawmaker" and added: "I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they decided to describe certain aspects of this impending confirmation."
From the Wall Street Journal's May 28 article:
Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw?" asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. "New racism is no better than old racism."
White House aides said the comment was being taken out of context, and predicted it wouldn't put the nomination off course. Indeed, the White House believes the president is operating from a position of strength, and officials emphasized that a pitched confirmation fight isn't inevitable.
Apparently she wrote an editorial for WSJ with questions she thought Ms. Sotomyor should be asked. She repeated all the Republian Talking Points including out of context quotes. There was no one to challenge any of her statements therefore continuing to spread the smears. C-Span needs to be called out. They did the same thing with John Woo, Grover Norquist, etc. Brian Lamb did work for Nixon and it shows.
I responded to Sotomayor's comments on my blog as seen below and although my first response was that her comments were at best ignorant, at worst racist, after reading the full quote I've changed my mind. http://jayhammers.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayors-statements-and-natural-bias.html
Sotomayor:
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
Based on what I've read of Sotomayor I am hopeful that she will see beyond the curtain of bias we all have. I would agree that for most people, her statement probably applies. It's the same reason that so many women have a problem with men's rights - they only see the issue from their own point of view.
They are guilty of bias.
However, if one recognizes his or her own tendency to be biased in this way, one can teach oneself to look honestly at an issue from an opposing viewpoint. I have done this, but I'm a bit of an oddball in that I don't take society's fundamental assumptions about how the world should be for granted. Many men snicker at the men's rights movement because they accept the classic male role as disposable hero unquestioningly.
They are guilty of being sheep.
I am disappointed that Sotomayor assumes nobody out there can see past their natural bias but I am hopeful that she can make efforts to see past her own.
Correction:
I didn't even read the whole thing: "I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."
Sotomayor doesn't assume that nobody out there can see past their natural bias. She acknowledges, "Many are so capable." I think she gets it. And if that's the case then it's a damn fine day for the neo-progressive movement.
Let's place some context to this for comparative purposes. It's 1962, United States of America, and President Kennedy is appointing a supreme court justice; this judge is found to have written in an essay, " I would hope that a wise white woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white (or black) male who hasn't lived that life."
If that doesn't do it for you let's make it easier. It's 1920, and Woodrow Wilson is appointing a supreme court justice that is quoted as to have written, " I would hope that a wise white woman with the richness of her ecperiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Am I missing something, does anyone think that these comments by a supreme court nominee would survive the appointment process or that such a perspective represents impartial judgment of constitutional law and intent?
Have we as a nation devolved to a point where such blatant racial and gender bias can pass for objective interpretation of constitutional law in the early 21st century?
I'm deeply concerned' revisionism is not a description of historical academics, it also describes the social phenomenon where the minority gains the ability to take vengful action over those once perceived as the cause of minority subjugation. Such a mind has no place on the bench of the highest court of the most enlightened system of governance that human kind has ever known.
And our media is hiding the issue. I am very concerned.