1) "SIMPLY" because of racial identity?
Sotomayor has an impressive, lengthy resume with a solid paper trail of opinions. The Republicans were unable to find anything very damaging which is why they tried to hang their hats on her wise Latina comment. It didn't work, because most people interpreted it as the idea of bringing different views to the table, not a claim to superiority. Or hey, maybe they agreed with her.
No one should be nominated on the basis of ONLY gender or race, or being good friends with the Pres. (Sorry, Harriet)
2) Affirmative action was necessary. For a long time, minorities were struggling for jobs and education and against extreme prejudice. As in segregation, a legal kick in the pants was unfortunately needed. It would have been nice if we were capable of correcting our own crappy behavior, but we weren't.
It is no longer as necessary as it was, and I am hoping that the courts will begin addressing the cases of reverse discrimination.
3) Sotomayor is a highly qualified jurist. You may not like her rulings, but there is no question about her qualifications equaling and perhaps even surpassing those of some of the other justices. Do you have another liberal name in mind you think would have been "far more qualified"??
Harriet Miers on the other hand was a stunningly inferior and unqualified choice- rejected by both sides. I don;'t care if she was a woman; she had no business being nominated. Which leads us to:
4) Yes. I think S. was chosen mainly because she is highly qualified, along with being a woman. That she is Latina is a plus, but it is hardly the only reason.
I am pretty sure that the people here would be tough on a nominee who didn't have the legal chops to do the job, regardless of gender or race. |
