About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Reading from Lani Guinier playbook, Buchanan smears "quota queen" Sotomayor

June 02, 2009 12:31 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: Pat Buchanan referenced Sonia Sotomayor's position in Ricci v. DeStefano while deriding her as a "quota queen" who "practices race-based justice." The issue in Ricci was not one of quotas, and the court said that it was bound by 2nd Circuit precedent to rule as it did in the case.

15 Comments

In his June 2 Creators Syndicate column, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan asserted: "Like [former assistant attorney general nominee] Lani Guinier ... [Supreme Court nominee Sonia] Sotomayor is a quota queen. She believes in, preaches and practices race-based justice. Her burying the appeal of the white New Haven firefighters, who were denied promotions they had won in competitive exams, was a no-brainer for her." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, the issue in Ricci v. DeStefano did not concern quotas; the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said -- in an opinion written by one of Sotomayor's colleagues and joined by Sotomayor and three other judges -- that it was bound by precedent interpreting Title VII's employment discrimination prohibitions to rule as it did in the case.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- whom Sotomayor would replace -- made clear what he said was the bind the city of New Haven found itself in, identifying its "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation" in its efforts to comply with Title VII's prohibitions on employment discrimination.

Moreover, contrary to Buchanan's claim that Sotomayor "practices race-based justice," Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein wrote in a May 29 post on SCOTUSblog that after reviewing her record, "it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking." From Goldstein's post:

I've now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayor's race-related cases that I mention in the post below. I'll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:

Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent's point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.

[...]

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

In his column, Buchanan cited a May 29 New York Times article which, as Media Matters documented, uncritically quoted Gary Marx, executive director of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, alleging that Sotomayor's position in Ricci "brought racial quotas back as a national issue." The Times article further reported that Marx "saw a playbook" for the campaign against Sotomayor "in the successful attacks on Lani Guinier, whose 1993 nomination to a top Justice Department post was withdrawn after an outcry over her writings arguing for alternative voting systems intended to better represent minorities." Guinier was derided as a "quota queen," according to a 1993 Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting article.

Buchanan has frequently attacked Sotomayor, accusing her of favoring "race-based justice" and discrimination against "white males." For instance, Buchanan has claimed Sotomayor is "an anti-white, liberal judicial activist"; said "it appears" that Sotomayor "believe[s] in reverse discrimination against white males"; and claimed Sotomayor's purported discrimination against "white males" is similar to "what was done in the South." Buchanan has also characterized Sotomayor as an "affirmative action pick" and been criticized by Democratic strategist Bob Shrum for calling Sotomayor "that woman."

From Buchanan's June 2 column:

If the U.S. Senate rejects race-based justice, Sonia Sotomayor will never sit on the Supreme Court.

Because that is what Sonia is all about. As The New York Times reported Saturday, the salient cause of her career has been advancing persons of color, over whites, based on race and national origin.

"Judge Sotomayor, whose parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico," writes reporter David Kirkpatrick, "has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career."

At Princeton, she headed up Accion Puertorriquena, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare demanding that her school hire Hispanic teachers. At Yale, she co-chaired a coalition of non-black minorities of color that demanded more Latino professors and administrators.

At Yale, she "shared the alarm of others in the group when the Supreme Court prohibited the use of quotas in university admissions in the 1978 decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke."

Alan Bakke was an applicant to the UC medical school at Davis who was rejected, though his test scores were higher than almost all of the minority students who were admitted. Bakke was white.

After Yale, Sotomayor joined the National Council of La Raza and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Both promote race and ethnic preferences, affirmative action and quotas for Hispanics.

But why should Puerto Ricans like Sotomayor, who were never subjected to slavery or Jim Crow -- their island was liberated from Spain in 1898 by the United States -- get racial or ethnic preferences over Polish- or Portuguese-Americans?

What is the justification for this kind of discrimination?

Like Lani Guinier, the Clinton appointee rejected for reverse racism, Sonia Sotomayor is a quota queen. She believes in, preaches and practices race-based justice. Her burying the appeal of the white New Haven firefighters, who were denied promotions they had won in competitive exams, was a no-brainer for her.

In her world, equal justice takes a back seat to tribal justice.

Now, people often come out to vote for one of their own. Catholics for JFK, evangelicals for Mike Huckabee, women for Hillary Clinton, Mormons for Mitt Romney, Jews for Joe Lieberman and African-Americans for Barack Obama. That is political reality and an exercise of political freedom.

But tribal justice is un-American.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rtwmd1230 (June 02, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
      6  
      "Quota queen" (with its echo of "welfare queen"), "tribal justice," etc. Pat's given up any attempt at hiding his bigotry, hasn't he?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mk3872 (June 02, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
        4  
        Explain to me why networks like MSNBC allow this guy to come on to their programs. It is shameful.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mrhebert74 (June 02, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
          4  
          That's why -- because it's shameful. They'd rather have us throwing our shoes at the TV when Buchanan's on than getting bored.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 02, 2009 1:29 pm ET)
      5  
      So the "KKK King" doesn't like the "Quota Queen."

      Cry me a river. (Crimea River?)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by twseattle (June 02, 2009 2:03 pm ET)
      2  
      "Now, people often come out to vote for one of their own. Catholics for JFK..."

      Now?? I think you'd have a hard time finding soldiers who died for their country in the last ten years who were even born when Kennedy was elected. It was almost fifty years ago Pat but thank god we have you to remind us that the civil rights work started in that era will never be done.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by manofmystique (June 02, 2009 6:44 pm ET)
        4  
        If a man is a racist or bigot it is hard for him to hide it, especially when asked to give his opinions on issues dealing with race. Pat Buchanan is notorious for his insenitive, downright racist comments, yet MSNBC continue to welcome him as a guest.
        Pat called Sonia Sotomayor success nothing more then "affirmative action". What Pat is saying is no matter how hard people of color work to achieve their goal, they will always be part of some kind of quotas system. This is why Pat call Sotomayor a "quotas Queen". It is unfortunate that MSNBC continue to have Pat on Hardball, when clearly Pat would be more suited for FoxNews.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by my4cents (June 02, 2009 9:33 pm ET)
      3  
      I used to like Buchanan, till I realized he is in it for himself (and personally thinks only white guys can be in charge of US). He can appear on NPR's On Point and Jay Severin (in boston) and can say things both audiences can sympathize with.
      He and newt are the same class, sore losers. Except, in releasing their frustration (venom), they do not (intentionally or not) realize how much they are influencing their true believers.
      The only comfortable thing about guys like this is that they are an 'older' lot. At some point, they become irrelevant.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by skeptical247 (June 03, 2009 8:48 am ET)
        6
      a.) 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.

      b.) I would hope that a wise Aryan man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Jewish male who hasn't lived that life.

      c.) 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 black male who hasn't lived that life.

      d.) None

      e.) All

      Pick the racist statement.


      Report Abuse
      • Author by NG_Officer (June 03, 2009 10:39 am ET)
        5  
        f) Not enough information. All quotes sited without context.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (June 03, 2009 10:46 am ET)
        6  
        Sorry, not without the context.

        "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26, NASB) Sounds pretty bad without the context, doesn't it?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 03, 2009 11:02 am ET)
        4  
        f) Insufficient evidence to reach any conclusion at all.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (June 03, 2009 11:31 am ET)
        4  
        I would hope that a wise ass white woman (myself) with the bitchness of her experience would tell you to STHU when truncating a quote to fit your agenda.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (June 03, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
          2  
          I would hope that anyone with a life experience that speaks of tolerence and love of their fellow human beings would tell skeptical to STHU without providing context. Just wanted to second your comments!!!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by pbg (June 03, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
        4  
        None of the above.
        "I would hope that a wise _________ with the richness of () experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a ______________ who hasn't lived that life."
        is not a racist statement.
        It is a HOPE that someone's personal experience , applicable to the topic under discussion, would be an advantage to a wise person.
        Absolutely nothing racist about it.

        You, of course, only saw "_________Latina________better_______white male_________"
        and reacted accordingly.

        It's a dishonest, stupid AND racist approach.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by change equals facism (June 03, 2009 8:10 pm ET)
        1
      all these comments are hateful and emotion based as is most PROGRESSIVE drool that spews out of media and the District of Corruption from Dems and Republicans on Capital Hill and the White House.America is a Republic but the citizens have been dumbed down over the last several generations by grade schools, high schools, and universities. All you Marxists should read PRAVDA, they have supremely and accuratly evaluated the path of CHANGE the POTUS wants to lead us CHANGE IS FACISM
      Report Abuse