McLaughlin Group further crops NY Times clip of Sotomayor's affirmative action comments
SUMMARY: The McLaughlin Group further cropped a New York Times video clip that cropped remarks Sonia Sotomayor made regarding affirmative action.
On June 14, The McLaughlin Group aired portions of a New York Times video package that cropped remarks Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made about affirmative action during a panel discussion with female judges in the early 1990s. The Times' cropped video featured the following remarks by Sotomayor, but omitted the portion in italics: "I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am a Puerto Rican, born and raised in the South Bronx, and from what is traditionally described as a socio-economically poor background. My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale -- not so far off the mark that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions" (42:00). In addition to omitting Sotomayor's reference to her "socio-economically poor background," The McLaughlin Group clip also omitted Sotomayor's statement that her test scores were "not so far off the mark that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions."
As Media Matters for America previously noted, the cropping of Sotomayor's comments in this way allows conservatives like Sean Hannity to distort Sotomayor's remarks by suggesting that she said her ethnicity was the only reason she was admitted to Princeton and Yale.
From the June 14 edition of The McLaughlin Group:
JOHN McLAUGHLIN (host): Issue two: Sotomayor or Soto-Supreme? Sonia Sotomayor is a judge on the federal court of appeals in New York. President Obama nominated her late last month to the Supreme Court. Eight years ago, she gave a long lecture at Berkeley Law School in California, and said this, quote, "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," unquote. This week, new videos surfaced in which Sotomayor describes her experience with affirmative action.
SOTOMAYOR [video clip]: I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am a Puerto Rican, born and raised in the South Bronx. ... My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale.
McLAUGHLIN: Question: Does Judge Sotomayor have a problem? Especially in view of the polling that says a majority of Americans, 55 percent, want affirmative action abolished.
I doubt Princeton gives that away.
that she has the reputation of a bully, and that her last case Ricci Vs. DeStephano/New Haven was furiously contested by another Judge--Cabrones--who said she did not give the case the sufficient attention before deciding against 20 white men. I think her idea of justice is colored radically. Affirmative action should be ended.
If reversal rates concern you, perhaps we should impeach Justice Roberts; he has a 100% reversal rate (2 for 2).
Her rep as a bully or a racial coloring justice doesn't hold with the facts either.
The true original sources on these talking points and their faults are availible on site. Look them up and get back to us.
If it took affirmative action to get Ms. Sotomayor into university, how can the result be disputed? As a white male, I'm not at all threatened by her intellect or intelligence and welcome her voice to the highest court. Deversity is always better than lock step thinking. Lock step thinking leads to goose step actions. The United States will never go down that road as long a good men speak out for themselves and the less fortunate.
I'm disappointed that McLaughlin cut her statement short. I am a long time McLaughlin watcher but I've never thought of it as anything but entertaining. To quote Shakespeare, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
I disagree with the first argument. The purpose of the law is not "two wrongs make a right" but to redress wrongs where they exist. If discrimination is occurring the law should address it not institutionalize it by allowing this other kind of descrimination.
The diversity argument works better but only functions in limited circumstances like education, politics, and yes, the judiciary. The problem with the New Haven case is the state cannot demonstrate that diversity helps extinguish fires.
I think liberal/progressive causes will be hurt dramatically by the first argument but not by the second. Ms. Sotomayor could hurt the Democratic party much more than she helps if she forgets that even a Latina judge must represent all of the citizens and not just those of her particular demographic group.
That being said. Her comments are largely taken out of context and her political opinions are far from radical.