Taking Off The Blindfold

Posted by Larry Miller on June 1, 2009 under Why | Be the First to Comment

Apparently some ideas are only wrong if they are expressed by the wrong people. If George Bush would have said that a white male would make better legal decisions than a Latino female, he would have touched off a firestorm of protest from Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, Keith Olberman and the rest of the usual suspects that would have continued until he left Washington. On the other hand, The One who currently occupies the White House has nominated to the Supreme Court a woman who has said just the opposite… that a Latino woman should be making better decisions than a white male.

What makes one statement acceptable, even admirable, and the other despicable? Why is discrimination in one direction acceptable and in the other direction unacceptable? It would appear to depend on who is helped and who is hurt by the action. The statue of lady justice seen at various courthouses around the country has a blindfold over her eyes and a scale for weighing arguments on their merits, not on the basis of who is making them.

In appointing an empathetic Associate Justice, the President is loosening, perhaps totally removing, the blindfold, encouraging the judiciary to rule differently depending on the societal group to which they belong and which group would benefit. Can anyone say identity politics? This taking note of the person, not the legal principle, has only one word to describe it… discrimination!

Part of the process of any group integrating itself into American society is gaining the acceptance based on their actions not on their appearance. This is what Dr Martin Luther King Jr sought when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This is an ideal we all can, and should, share. It is the ideal the Sonia Sotomayor soundly rejects.

This means that we have to evaluate the judicial nominee on the basis of her statements and decisions, not being cowed by the drive-by media for bigoted remarks when we speak the truth… when in fact, the bigoted remarks come from those under their protection. We are seeing some Republicans afraid to, once again, say that the emperor has no clothes for fear of alienating Latino voters. This is not showing a whole lot of respect for these members of our society. It’s buying into racial and cultural stereotypes that are insulting and, hopefully, false. It is saying that Latinos can only see ancestry and can’t comprehend right and wrong.

It is also shows that, once again, the more timid of the group that should know better are trying to win the favor of those on the left who will never support common sense, no matter how much the fainthearted wish it were not so. Some are trying to slip by by thinking she may be pro-life. This is a false validation for her as she has made so many statements illustrating her complete inability to do the job for the good of the country that, even if it were true, would not be enough to support her appointment. Being pro-life is good but does not make up for complete idiocy in other areas of one’s thought process. It’s as if I say that I am pro-life, but wear a tinfoil hat to keep DHS from reading my thoughts. Would you trust me?

If Republicans want to appear to be standing on the moral high ground, wimping out and refusing to meet this challenge will show that it is just posturing at convenient moments and not part of the integrity guided character promoted in their brochures. Let’s help them live up to their advertising.