feminist blogs

Today marks a very historic day. Judge Sonia Sotomayor has officially been confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 68-31. Despite the right wing attempts to distract from her record and focus on her personality, Sotomayor was able to overcome the bulshit and make history.

Sotomayor is the first Latina judge to sit on the bench, and the third woman justice to sit on the high Supreme Court. Although this is certainly productive, we have a long way to go. The fact that out of 111 Supreme Court justices nominated and confirmed to the bench, only three of them were women, is pretty damn indicative of the patriarchal state of order that we live under.

Considering the fact that women’s experiences and voices were absent in the construction of the constitution, I think it’s revolutionary that Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed today. It is a testament to not only the hard work of Sotomayor herself, but the dedication and courage of activist and lobbying groups througout the country (such as NOW) who fought tirelessly to defend, support and stand in solidarity with the first Latina Woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

So, I’ve refrained from posting on the confirmation hearings as of yet because of general frustration. Watching the questioning process has left me nauseated. Listening to a bunch of racist bullies call a wise latina woman a racist bully, just doesn’t sit too well with me. With that being said, I guess it’s time to talk about it.

Is it just me, or is this confirmation process literally a manifestation of sexist politics? Many senators at the hearings have been questioning Sonia Sotomayor about warrantless accusations that she’s “hot-headed” and “temperamental.” Code for: a woman with an opinion who refuses to be trampled over like a doormat. Because you know, when men in politics act with convinction and strength, they are applauded and idealized. Of course when a woman acts the same way, she’s a cut-throat, bitchy, irrational human being. This double standard that places women as either mute and subordinate, or domineering and over bearing is getting old, real fast.

Peggy Drexler is spot on when she identifies this as age old gender bias. Despite the fact that the job of any judge is to be direct, forceful, and skeptical, women are demonized when meeting those expectations. Honestly, it has alot to do with male privilege and the fear of losing power and influence over the world. Patriarchy fetishizes male characteristics at the expense of women’s experiences and perspectives. Having strong, independent thinking women step into positions of high authority and power, scares gender traditionalists. It’s no coincidence that the same people pushing women back into the kitchen, are denying them access to positions of power in politics. These strategies are one in the same; sexist attempts to sustain patriarchal order. I mean for real, women are either being ridiculed for displaying the same characteristics that male politicians are celebrated for having, or they are attacked for highlighting what they can contribute to politics as women.

A great example of that is the debate over empathy and social identity. Apparently having a comprehensive understanding of your own social location is unheard of to rich white men. Since when is it a negative thing to look at the world differently because of your own experiences? Men have been doing it for centuries; it just so happens that their experiences have inspired them to create and sustain a political structure that benefits a few at the expense of many, and effectively keeps power in the hands of rich, white, heterosexual men. So Judge Sonia Sotomayor is suppose to be ashamed and apologize for a statement about her social location? Its bullshit. Not to mention the fact that this obsession with one remark by Sonia Sotomayor is out of place and unecessary. Why aren’t we discussing her 17 years of judicial experience? Or the near 3,000 cases she has ruled on. Of course when it comes to women, their records don’t matter. Apparently what really matters is their outfit choices and their temper.

Why is it that the public shrugs off temporamental behavior by male politicians? I mean, if we are going to look to the Supreme Court for an example – don’t look further then Justice Antonin Scalia. Everyone seems to shrug off his routine outbursts, particularly his angry letters to newspapers that criticize him, as just an aspect of his political passion. This really sickens me. Its perfectly acceptable for a man to get angry, because its just an extension of his passion for the law. On the other hand, if a woman gets angry, she’s a bitch and she’s undermining her position in the legal system.

A few examples of the bitch-pushover double standard to watch out for:
Women take it personally, men brush it off. Women ask questions, men make statements. Men negotiate, women placate. Women nurture, men take charge. The litany of stereotypes that place women in ugly double standards are endless and they all have the same objective: push women out of the political sphere so that they will stay in their place.

On a less skeptical note, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been handling this process brilliantly. She has this calm confidence about herself and has clearly proved her ability to withstand the sexist criticism by Republicans. The inspiring nature of this nomination has really been lost in all the crap surrounding this process. Lets not forget that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is the first Latina woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and that is incredible. Despite what Republicans want you to believe, diversity on the bench is extremely important. This is a country that is made up of diversity, and it’s high time we stop being represented by one group: white, heterosexual men.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, attracted my attention in the spring of 1995 when she made the decision that ended the suicidal baseball strike that prevented a World Series in 1994 and threatened to destroy the 1995 baseball season. Not only is Judge Sotomayor an excellent choice for the Supreme [...]

[This is a content summary only. Click on the headline for full links and additional content. Thanks!]

Word came early this morning that Obama had made his pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.  That pick–Judge Sonia Sotomayor–appears to come in the form of a female (only the third to ever hold a spot on the bench, if confirmed) and a Latina (only the first to hold a spot on the bench, if confirmed).  So far the nomination (or rumors thereof) has provided liberals with much food for thought.

Judge Sotomayor would likely provide progressives with a voice on the bench to replace that of retiring Justice Souter’s–a calm, but consistent liberal approach.  It would also provide identity representation to two groups who are extremely underrepresented on the federal bench–women and Latinos.

But does it provide ideological security?  Her resume seems to confirm that it would:

• Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.

• Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.

• Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.

• Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.

• Sotomayor was first appointed to the federal bench in 1991 by a Republican President, George Bush, but it was a Democrat, Sen. Patrick Moynihan, who recommended her to Bush.

• In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where “policy is made.” She and other panelists had been asked by a student to describe the differences between clerking in the District Court versus in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek circuit court clerkships. She said, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.” [Duke University School of Law, 2/25/2005, 43:19, http://realserver.law.duke.edu/ramgen/spring05/lawschool/02252005clerk.rm]

Maybe more importantly for this discussion, she recognizes that disowning gender or race and ethnicity are intrinsicly intertwined in any court ruling:

• At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:

“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society….

“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others….

“Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

So what do you think America?  Is Judge Sotomayor a good pick?  And do you agree with her statements about gender, ethnicity and the law?

Related posts:

1. Elena Kagan Tapped By Obama to Be First Female Solicitor General Obama will nominate Elena Kagan, current dean of Harvard...
2. AVWP Wishes SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Speedy Recovery It just came through my e-mail that Justice Ruth...
3. Fired Up Woman of the Week: Michigan Supreme Court CHIEF Justice Marilyn Kelly Now I admit, I have a soft spot for...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.