The New York Times did better at making such distinctions, seeing fit to delineate—in an article about GOP response—that
while conservative activists and some Republican leaders outside the Senate are calling for a strong effort against the nomination, the reaction from some senators — who will actually vote for the nomination — has been notably measured, suggesting that they are not necessarily looking for a fight, barring some revelation in the weeks ahead.
Basic stuff, but it helps sort out demagoguery from more pragmatic (and yes, political) assessments of Sotomayor, and that’s always a good thing.
On the productive front, let’s also get more stuff like this article from the Times, which looks, albeit limitedly, at some of Sotomayor’s past appellate decisions concerning business and speaks with law scholars about them—in the process helping to characterize her actions and tendencies as a judge. After all, while the politics of this nomination are unavoidably prominent, that last is ultimately among the most important sort of coverage the press can provide.
Isn't the debate between the truth and the lie? Just because congressional and right wing hacks want to take one sentence from a ten minute speech out of context, doesn't mean the media has to honor their desire. They are creating the window, and you are all looking out through it.
#1 Posted by Jaime Omar Yassin, CJR on Fri 29 May 2009 at 01:23 PM
On Friday, Obama personally sought to deflect criticism about Sotomayor's comment in a 2001 lecture that "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."
Out of fairness, let's change the conversation to reflect that of a white male: "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a conclusion than an Hispanic female who hasn't lived that life."
If a "white man" has stated what Sotomayor stated, it would be racism and sexism...which is inexcusable and not appropriate for a potential Supreme Court Justice. She simply didn't misspeak.
As a tri-racial woman, who fought for equality for women in the 70s, I believe true freedom and equality only comes about when it is applied to all. With her bias toward white males and her obvious view of the world from a "black/white" or in this case, "brown/white" axis, she is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.
#2 Posted by Linda, CJR on Sat 30 May 2009 at 05:40 PM