In The Blogs

→ Must Reads, Politics, Race and Ethnicity

The Conservative Soul

| Sun May. 31, 2009 9:49 PM PDT

On Friday it looked as though the conservative movement was suffering from a personality disorder. The insane half wanted to brand Sonia Sotomayor as a dull-witted affirmative action hire whose seething racist bitterness would soon turn the Supreme Court into a cesspool of radical retribution against whitey. The adult half thought that although she was obviously well qualified, her generally liberal record ought to be challenged and her judicial philosophy debated. Which side would carry the day?

It's starting to look like we've got an answer. Republican senators have been fairly restrained up until now, but by Sunday they were starting to defect en masse to the insane wing of the party:

Several of those same GOP senators said Sunday that they would now make race a focus of the Sotomayor nomination fight — and they were far less eager to criticize conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for their racially tinged critiques.

Fanning out across network television talk shows, the senators in essence pledged to ask a fundamental question: Can a woman who says her views are shaped by her Puerto Rican heritage and humble beginnings make fair decisions when it comes to all races and social classes?

"We need to know, for example, whether she's going to be a justice for all of us or just a justice for a few of us," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee, speaking on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

....Cornyn's comments were echoed in appearances by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), another member of the panel that will conduct hearings.

....The GOP senators' new tone underscored a sense in the party that Sotomayor's history of speaking about her Puerto Rican heritage had emerged as a surprisingly effective line of attack — particularly as President Obama and other Democrats try to shore up their support among working-class white voters.

Oddly enough, Cornyn has never expressed any concerns about whether a white male judge who rules against affirmative action can be a justice for all of us or just a justice for a few of us. I suppose it just slipped his mind.

In any case, they say that if you want to know what someone is really like, watch how they react under pressure. That's probably true of political parties too, and the Republican Party under pressure is finding — once again — that when nothing else works, appeals to racial paranoia are a "surprisingly effective line of attack." Imagine that.

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Comments

The first part of the quote

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 10:40 PM PDT.

The first part of the quote should be rewritten: "Several of those same GOP senators said Sunday that they would now make THEIR racISM a focus of the Sotomayor nomination fight..."

gop strategy

Submitted by supersaurus (not verified) on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 2:03 AM PDT.

'appeals to racial paranoia are a "surprisingly effective line of attack."' if they could just work tax cuts for the rich into it their repertoire would be exhausted.

Negotiations

Submitted by Godless Heathen on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 3:10 AM PDT.

I still don't understand why the GOP is being treated like the counterparty to a negotiation. Since they clearly don't know how negotiation works, I say we start negotiating backwards. Every time they drag their feet, we make their options worse. You want a white male Justice? Meet our new nominee, Noam Chomsky. Wait, what? Mrs. Sotomayor is too reasonable and moderate of a pick to pass on? Yeah, we thought so too...

Positioning outside the hard Left

Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 6:38 AM PDT.

It does pay to be clever and appear reasonable to the centrist voter who is not part of the political Left or the hard Left. Obvious brinksmanship playing to the partisan mob is after all how the US right has gotten itself into such a pickle.

The Republicans make it easy

Submitted by reino on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 3:30 AM PDT.

The Republicans make it easy to know what they are really like, since they appeal to racial paranoia when they are under pressure and when they are not under pressure.

Writing was on the wall

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 4:56 AM PDT.

Writing was on the wall when, the day of her nomination, McConnell, Hatch, and Grassley released statements saying they didn't know whether Sotomayor was capable of ruling on the law instead of her "feelings." When you open up confirmation hearings by suggesting a sitting appellate court justice who graduated second in her class at Princeton and then was on law review at Yale is treated as though she has less understanding of the law than, say, any nitwit who occasionally watches Judge Judy...well, things are only going to go downhill from there.

No one could have predicted

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 6:31 AM PDT.

tagged as:

result

No one could have predicted that a test of the conservative soul would reveal an inclination to racially-tinged attacks for political gain.

Puerto Rico

Submitted by wmmbb (not verified) on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 7:31 AM PDT.

As you pointed out the whole issue, other than Judge Sotomayor's judicial reasonings and philosophy is a distraction. She is after all an Federal appellate judge, otherwise the US and not just the Republican Party is in a worst place than most of us have imagined. The interesting, but so far unnoticed, issue is her Puerto Rican heritage and the US historic and future relationship with that island, and possibly independent country.

Puerto Rico

Submitted by Michael B. Cooke (not verified) on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 9:24 AM PDT.

My recollection is that no one was concerned that Judge Alito would rule unfairly in favor of people from New Jersey (full disclosure, I'm from New Jersey). It's my understanding that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States (with its own Federal District Court, mind you) whose people are American citizens who vote in federal elections (but don't get electoral votes) and who have the same rights and privleges as all American citizens (other than their federal election votes actually, you know, counting for something). What exactly is everyone worried about? Is the GOP REALLY concerned that Sotomayor is going to favor one geographical part of the US over another? Hey, don't confirm Granholm, she may send extra cake to Michigan. Really!?!?

Can we be real here for a

Submitted by John Hansen (not verified) on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 10:59 AM PDT.

Can we be real here for a moment. Appointee Sotomayor's previous statements that a "wise Latina" could make better decisions is what fuels this controversy. I have never heard anything such as "a wise Italian Catholic..." from Justice Alito. IMHO, judges should recognize they are imperfect beings with biases and then try to rule in an unbiased manner. Sotomayor seems to claim her bias is not a bug, but a feature. This is a problem. I don't think it disqualifies her, but it is a problem.

Perfect rope-a-dope

Submitted by bleh (not verified) on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 3:02 PM PDT.

I was thinking about why the White House had been basically silent during all the fuss about Sotomayor, and this occurred as one possibility. I'm very happy it's been borne out. Lacking a Democratic foil against which to play "reasonable centrist," the Senate Republicans have caved into the crazies, and now they're gonna look just as crazy. "Holy frothing fundamentalists, Batman, it's a wingnut tsunami!" "Yes, Robin, and it will sweep those paleolithic pontificators right into Davey Jones' locker."

What Is Said Takes A Back Seat To What Is Reported

Submitted by Gryphonisle (not verified) on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 3:08 PM PDT.

As I watched the media froth over Reverend White's now notorious "God Damn America" sermon, I noticed that anyone who cared could hear exactly what the Reverend was saying, as the clip was played over and over again (and what he was saying was not actually God Damn America, rather condemning our hypocrisy in calling for God to Bless America when act so ungodly) or one could listen to what the commentators were saying about what the Reverend said. It goes without saying that our national bigotry was perfectly willing to assume that black Americans would sit quietly in church while their pastor condemned the nation in such vivid terms. And here we are at Ms. Sotomayor's remarks. She didn't actually say a latina woman would make a better decision than a white man, she said she hoped that a latina woman in a given circumstance would make a better decision than a white man who didn't have that perspective. When you look at what she actually said, her remarks aren't even controversial, let alone racist. Again, we choose to listen to what we are told about what someone says, and what that person actually said. The subtext of course is that the comments of Reverend White and Ms. Sotomayor are useful to those who couldn't possibly vote for or support a black man for president, but who nonetheless don't want to be called racist. With the assistance of conservative talking heads, people like my mother have alternate talking points that show, in their minds at least, that the President is a tainted character, by virtue of the people with whom he surrounds himself. It's a fairly pathetic, transparent ruse, but for a lot of people, it works. Sadly, given the ineffective nature of the left to ward off the hysterical attacks from the right, those deluded bigots can cause a lot of damage, and hold up a lot of good works, with these talking points.

Can she uphold the Law?

Submitted by MarkH on Mon Jun. 1, 2009 4:20 PM PDT.

It can't be easy to uphold the Constitution when your previous experience has been at the grittier district court where individuals lives are at stake and facts must be discerned. How do you shift to upholding Concepts as are expressed in the Constitution? Not only would I be curious to know if Judge Sotomayor can do this, but I wonder about every nominee if they're ready -- ethnicity isn't at all relevant. Certainly when it comes to being capable of such things there isn't much precedent for any one group to be significantly better at it. Maybe a Nixon could argue that Europeans have had more history of doing this, but since America has been a melding pot for several hundred years and many of these 'ethnics' are born and raised here and many of them are super-patriotic, isn't likely that there are many individuals of both groups who are NOT fit for the job and that there are a handful of individuals of both groups who ARE fit for the job. Look at her record and see if there are many hints at anything other than the Law coming into view. I'd want to do that with ANY nominee.

Doesn't surprise me a bit

Submitted by Suki (not verified) on Tue Jun. 2, 2009 4:16 AM PDT.

>>... "We need to know, for example, whether she's going to be a justice for all of us or just a justice for a few of us," said Sen. John Cornyn ... Funny statement coming from a senator who has consistently espoused values which are typical of a white Republican guy from Texas - it never seems to bother him when the Court sides with the values he and his cronies embrace as rich white wingnut men which are certainly not the majority of the population at large ...