The Death of Intellectual Honesty

Let's take a look at this résumé:

Princeton, summa cum laude
Yale Law School, editor of Yale Law Journal
Prosecutor in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) for five years
Federal Judge for 17 years, 10 of which were on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (nominated by both parties for the positions)
Unanimous "Well Qualified" assessment by the American Bar Association (highest rating)

Sounds like a pretty solid candidate for the Supreme Court. Actually, it sounds like a pretty spectacular candidate. So who's this dude?

Wait a second, she's a woman? Hold the phone buddy...uh huh. A Latina woman? Why on God's Green Earth® is the President playing identity politics?! Clearly this is some sort of Affirmative Action pick, done to fill some undefined imaginary quota for Supreme Court Justices. Why can't the President simply pick the best and most well-qualified candidate for the job?


That's a pretty good summary of the Republican opposition to Judge Sotomayor. Because she is a Latina, this is a sign that someone who was clearly more well-qualified (read: white, male) was passed over in order for the President to score political points with liberal special interests groups. Every spectacular achievement apparently is worth less than nothing if it comes from a minority--every highlight on that résumé was clearly made due to special preference given to minorities, even those that are the result of grades! I mean, they just hand out summa cum laudes like car wash fliers at a school like Princeton, right?

I'm not one to scream racism any chance I get, but every time I heard a Republican make an argument that we don't know enough about her record (besides you know, the 17 years worth of opinions) or that they're not certain Judge Sotomayor is qualified enough for the appointment, I thought I'd just explode. Even when faced with blindingly obvious facts that can't be twisted another way, they continue to maintain the same bullshit, all in the name of politics.

You see, the problem is that we have lost the ability to remain objective about the law, despite any rhetoric to the contrary. Hearings are a charade and two shams, with bogus questions aimed at one thing: will you agree with me on this particular pet issue? And for several Senators, it's only one issue (the one that rhymes with shma-shmortion), and if you don't agree, then you CLEARLY are not qualified.

And this is why I say that Intellectual Honesty has died. There once was a time when candidates with ideologies that were polar opposites would be approved by margins of 90 votes or more. Consider that Scalia was approved with a 98-0 vote by a Democratic Congress, and that Ginsburg came onto the Court after a 96-3 vote in her favor! Alas, those days are long gone.


To be fair, I can't blame this all on Republicans. Consider the nomination of John Roberts. While Roberts didn't have the same amount of experience as a Judge, he was probably the most seasoned litigator to appear before the Supreme Court, winning several high-profile cases. His writings also displayed a great intelligence and solid legal foundation. It's just that these were often based on fairly conservative principles, many of which I find to be anathema. That's why I have to admit that if I had been given the chance, I still would have approved Robert's nomination, despite the difference in personal beliefs--there was nothing in his record that showed that he was unqualified in any way. Even so, though Roberts was approved by a large majority, it was not a near-unanimous vote like his predecessors. And you could find that Barack Obama among the "nay" votes on that one. So it's no surprise that you found that today was the first time many Republican Senators would vote "no" on a judicial nominee. But that doesn't make it any less sad.

* * * * *

But Nic, what about some of the "legitimate" arguments against her? Wise Latina woman? Ricci?! Empathy?!!?

Let's take these questions one by one. The big talking point on the right was how the pick that was made solely to satisfy the liberal craving for "diversity" was herself a racist. This was due to the famous "wise latina woman" statement. Surely this is a shining example of racism--she's literally saying that one race is better than the other!

Of course, it might help to examine the quote in context--you know, that tends to be kind of important in these situations. If you look at the surrounding paragraphs, you'll notice that she's talking specifically about discrimination cases. She brought up the fact that Justices Holmes and Cardozo, though brilliant legal minds, never once found for the woman in a discrimination case during their many decades on the bench. It would seem quite odd that there was never an instance of discrimination, especially in the early part of the century. The idea that Sotomayor was expressing was that due to their societal positions, Holmes and Cardozo just could not understand the indignities of discrimination in its many forms--hence the concept of the wise Latina woman and the richness of her experiences. As a likely target, the Latina woman would know firsthand the pain of discrimination, and would understand better the victim's complaint--which is simply true for many things in life. This was the original (and best) explanation for the statement, but of course, politics rule the day so we must maneuver our way into somehow creating a misstatement. Besides, isn't a "wise" anything better than a plain whatever?



Ricci though proves once and for all that for all the calls about limiting Judicial Activism, the principle itself doesn't count for shit. No, it's about time Republicans own up to the fact that it's merely a code word for "this dude wants to give gays some rights". That's because Ricci was all about applying old precedent, and the Supreme Court reversal was all about creating a new standard. Confused? Well, let's explain the case this way: New Haven was in a position that can be described as "totally fucked", since no matter which way they went they were going to get sued--throw out the results, you get a suit from the white firefighters who passed, but if you keep the results, the minority fighters will sue. How can both sides have a case? Well, that's because of a standard called "disparate impact"--a test can be inferred to be racist if the results of the test bear this out in some kind of statistically significant way. This came about during the 70's, as many employers looked to sly means of maintaining a segregated workforce while avoiding a formal declaration, by requiring things like a college degree regardless of the position--something that was unavailable to the vast majority of minorities at the time. So New Haven decided to be proactive and avoid the lawsuit from the black firefighters, and as a result walked right into this lawsuit. The Supreme Court reversed the 2nd Circuit decision*, but what was amazing about their opinion was the lack of resolution. That's because Kennedy's opinion said that while New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the results, that even if they kept the results, the black firefighters would still be able to sue! Ricci is proof of the maxim "bad facts make bad law".**

As for empathy, well, let's just say there's more room for personal interpretation than the hearings the past two weeks would lead you to believe. In cases that rely on things as seemingly simple as a calendar date, there is STILL room for maneuverability. So that's why it makes sense for Obama to look for that quality, among others.

But you know what, screw the facts, let's just play hungry hungry hippos, I mean, politics. We'll just call Judge Sotomayor a racist, even though there's volumes of evidence that prove just the opposite. We'll try to make an issue that Sotomayor has been overruled on multiple occasions, even though by doing so you completely misrepresent the process of Supreme Court review and its meaning. We will lament the fact that by making this token pick in the name of diversity we are clearly leaving out some unknown "superior" candidate, i.e. white and male. We will bitch about the pronunciation of her name. We will continue to spew bullshit.

Let it be said that I am in no way a total supporter of Sotomayor--she's a former hardass prosecutor, and I tend to be very wary of those types, since they tend to exhibit, ahem, less empathy. But just because I'm sure I'll disagree many times with Sotomayor, that doesn't mean she is unqualified for the job. And even though we can now see that Intellectual Honesty has abandoned us, I will still cling to that principle, even if I have to do it alone.



*It's amazing how an unsigned, unanimous opinion gets singularly attributed to Sotomayor. Just think about that.

**I have my own issues with the facts of the Ricci case. Much has been made about the fact that Ricci spent several thousand dollars of his own money on private classes so that his dyslexia would not be a problem for the test. This raises two issues: 1) Why was a promotion to be an officer in the Fire Department dependent on a test that would be affected by dyslexia? One would think that this hindrance would be irrelevant to the tasks associated with the job, yet it was a factor on his performance on the test (he had scored worse before). Yet if it IS a factor, why should this one-time performance be the standard--do we need to fear the instance where the dyslexia plays a factor? And 2) The paying for expensive classes is an example that is played out in the High School level with the SAT, and is evidence of the Cultural Bias of the standardized test--the more well-off students (the majority of them white) pay thousands for classes that help them in essence game the system, while the poorer ones (of which many minorities fall into) get left behind. This is the exact same thing, yet I haven't heard a pundit mention this.

Everybody Loves To Play The Blame Game

You might have vaguely heard something about the economy in the past couple of weeks. Like the whole thing is in the shitter, basically. At least, that's what you might think after watching the news and seeing images of these guys all the time. On the one hand, banks are still up and running, on the other your retirement fund might have the same value as wampum. We haven't begun cracking open each others' skulls and feasting on the goo inside, but we might be three days away from doing exactly that.



So we of course have to figure out who exactly got us into this mess. And if you're a Republican, the targets might not be so appealing. I mean, it only happened on your watch, when you were controlling the three branches of government for 6 of the past 8 years, so chances are you're going to have metaphorically plead the 5th on this. Unless of course you can go to your old standby and live up to every single awful stereotype of the Right and blame the current economic crisis, on that's right, poor people and minorities.

It's fucking genius I tell you--I mean, let's find a thirty year old piece of
legislation that apparently only became effective two years ago, and pin the blame on that. Let's not look at the fact that no one was compelling the banks to offer ridiculous "no income/no job" loans, or that somebody thought it was a great idea to roll all of these bad mortgages into securities commit fraud in rating them as safe investments. I mean, that's not at all EXACTLY what happened. I mean, logic would dictate if it was just an issue of poor people and minorities being the nogoodniks that they inherently are, then this crisis would have ended up just affecting the housing market. That sounds like what happened.

But we here at WDR are willing to recognize the heroes that walk among us. These heroes are the people that cut through the malarkey and go straight to the source of the problem and attempt a market correction of their own. Like this guy, who punched the CEO of Lehman Bros. in the face. Sir, we do not know your name, but the whole crew would like to buy you a beverage made of barley and hops if we ever meet you.

ASEVoIS: Race And The Media

Or: Geraldine Ferraro is apparently quite the moron

Continuing our "A Slightly Educated View of Important Stuff" series, Nic Ouzo takes a careful look at one of the big political controversies of the day, Geraldine Ferraro's racist comments and their subsequent coverage


To be honest, I was hoping to hold out on any and all political talk until next week, when I was planning on a blitz of posts that would promote Our Candidate Of Choice. But then this story hit, and I felt I had no choice but to write about it when it was still fresh.

If you are still clueless as to what I'm referring, here's a quick refresher course: former Congresswoman (and VP candidate in the most lop-sided race in Presidential history) Geraldine Ferraro made the following comment about Obama's campaign:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Now, if your first reaction was "that's practically the definition of 'bongtarded'", you'd be on the right track (this would actually qualify under the definition of "kongtarded"). You would have deduced that Ferraro believes that the ascendancy of the Obama campaign was due only to his race--clearly another example of the Black Man Getting Ahead, as we have seen so often in our nation's history. I mean, look at all the African-Americans that have reached the Presiden...oh that's right, that's never happened. In fact, Obama is only the THIRD African-American to become a SENATOR, and the only one who is currently serving. But let's break it down some more.


1. Obama is ahead because of his race--I mean, all the black people are voting for him!

Well, let's look at an electoral map of the United States. Cut it right down the middle, horizontally. Notice where Obama has a lot of support. That's right, Obama has almost the entire NORTH covered. Iowa, Maine, Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho...tons of black people over in these states!

I mean, with a country that has a black population of only 13%, is it any wonder that the man can be ahead in the popular vote, in states won, and in total delegates? He's got a built-in advantage! I mean, Hillary being a woman in a country that is mostly women, that's not an advantage at all!

And of course, black people ONLY vote for their own kind. I mean, Hillary wasn't leading the African-American vote 80-20 in South Carolina until a couple of weeks before the primary...oh wait she was. Sorry about that. Did they change their minds because they just found out that he was black, or maybe because they began to hear his message and ideas and believed in those? Nah, impossible.

2. Geraldine Ferraro may not be a racist But what she said was unquestionably racist, in and of itself. The implication is that Obama's campaign has nothing to do with merit, and everything to do with some sort of...I don't know exactly, but apparently massive white guilt amounting to Affirmative Action?

Of course, Ferraro attempts to protect herself by stating that she herself was not qualified to be the VP candidate, which leads to...

3. Geraldine Ferraro's situation was exactly like Obama's Except that it wasn't. You see, Ferraro was appointed to her position. Obama has systematically won more contests, won more votes, won more delegates. Obama has had to prove himself to the ultimate judge: the people (void where prohibited, i.e. Florida 2000). While Obama may not play the "decades of experience card" (certainly overrated, and to be discussed much more in-depth next week), this isn't his first rodeo. I mean, he only has more experience in elected office than his opponent Hillar...oh sorry for that intrusion of fact.

Now let's take a quick look at the coverage of the story. Here is a statement that I actually heard today:



4. We shouldn't care what Ferraro said, because she said it to random local newspaper Because apparently it's okily-diddly-okily to be racist, as long as no one is there to hear it (corollary: How to find out if a person is racist--talk to them in private; man, it's depressing when the truth comes out). At least that is what this argument is DIRECTLY implying. But let's face facts--a lot of people get their daily news from these local sources, and what this argument is stating that we shouldn't care about the quality of news in these sources. The fact that it tends to be the older folk who read these only adds to the issue, considering that these folks are generally pro-Hillary. I mean, what's the point of a fair representation of the facts?


5. This is clearly an example of "Attack The Hildog" strategy that the Media has employed At least according to Ferraro now. You may remember that Hillary was able to brilliantly orchestrate the media coverage in the week leading up to Ohio and Texas. She was able to play both the Bully AND the Victim, in a tightrope walk that would make The Great Blondin proud--claiming that all the media was proverbially licking the Obama's campaign lovepump with their entirely slanted coverage (another topic to be examined in-depth in the future), while at the same time employing her now-famed "Kitchen Sink" strategy, in which in the same week we saw Obama Is A Muslim, Obama Can't Answer a Phone, and Obama Makes A Deal With The Dirty Canucks Over NAFTA, all practically unchallenged by the media. Of course, if you were keeping score at home, the answer to the three-front Clinton campaign war: Bullshit, Bullshit, and Bullshit. And she wants him to be her Veep!

While it's true that there may be some political benefit at some point to pointing out the flaws of the other campaign's supporters (though that may prove to be blunted long-term), one must say turn-about is fair play--after all, Obama supporter Samantha Power immediately resigned for deeming Clinton a "monster" (though it must be pointed out, it should have been off the record (Mr. Zhuang, we're going to have to get a ruling about this in the comments)).


6. Geraldine Ferraro has the right to free speech And she also has the right to be told that her speech was dumb. Nobody is saying that she should not have the right to speak; just that it may not have been the wisest thing to do. Especially considering that she has repeatedly not apologized for it, and in fact continues to compound the problem by claiming to be persecuted because she's white. But we have a responsibility to point out to others when they are in error, and persuade them in correcting their views. Apparently we have failed in that job to some degree, because Ferraro still seems to not get it.

****************

In the end, even though Obama may score some political points right now for pointing out some of the faults of the other side's supporters, this may be a hindrance in the long run. Part of the appeal of the Obama campaign is their effort to rise above the petty mudslinging politics that have turned off half of this country, and to be above the fray. But their reaction to this event may end up being used to prove some sort of hypocrisy on the part of the Obama campaign, and hypocrisy is something that American voters don't tolerate. Obama will have to continually walk the line between this positive strategy and having to deflect the occasional immoral broadside from the opposition, or else his fate may end up mirroring that of Dukakis.



In the end, I hope you realize at least this one point: it's no surprise that Ferraro was able to lose 49 states in 1984, considering evidence like this.