It's Sotomayor!
I'm heading out the door to my first day of work, so I don't have time to do a lengthy post about this. (Patrick, feel free to update this with your thoughts.) But I thought we should throw up a post about the recent announcement.
My two cents: the AP may think she would be the first Hispanic justice, but Josiah Bartlett and I disagree.
Sound off below with your thoughts!
My two cents: the AP may think she would be the first Hispanic justice, but Josiah Bartlett and I disagree.
Sound off below with your thoughts!
Labels: SCOTUS
posted by Dan at 7:39 AM
14 Comments:
There's an argument to be made that there has already been a non-West-Wing Hispanic justice. It's Cardozo. See
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/12/has-the-supreme-court-already-had-a-hispanic-justice/
The argument appears to boil down to the question of whether someone of Portuguese descent is "Hispanic."
I was just watching the news, and a gentleman opposed to Sotomayor's nomination brought up the fact that the SC has overturned her opinions 9-0, 7-2, and 9-0. He used these margins as evidence of her "radical" tendencies. (I assume he was referring to merely the last 3 2nd Cir. decisions authored by her that were overturned).
There's an obvious logical error here, namely that 1) decisions from the 2nd Cir. CoA are agreed upon by at least a plurality, and not just the opinion's author, and 2) it doesn't take into account the decisions the SC refuses the hear or the decisions they did hear and didn't overturn.
One other thing: isn't Alito Latino? I thought I remember hearing that.
"Hispanic" is kind of a dated classification anyway. She'll definitely be the first Latino/a justice.
Alito is Italian-American.
Depends on who you ask 2:03... Mexicans sometimes prefer "Hispanic".
isn't it interesting that her comment at berkeley, published in the berkeley la raza journal, will be one of the biggest issues? the WH says that it was one sentence that shouldn't be taken out of context from a thoughtful speech.
"Hispanic" is a term that a group of people lobbied for a while back to get the government to recognize the existence and needs of the "Hispanic" people.
It's not unlike the word "Negro." Some older folks who lobbied to get the term used acceptably maybe have clung to it for a while before it became generally thought of as offensive. Hispanic is like that and is slowly dying out like "Oriental" did before it.
They're all terms that were originally somewhere between neutral and respectful, but later lost their luster as they were misused or used to group people together who did not care to be in the same group.
The government's desire to clump people into these groups often gets these things wrong. Like how Arab-Americans are classified as white and undercounted by the Census.
Some may prefer the term because of some tradition or historical feel, but "Hispanic" is still inaccurate, outdated, and going away.
I'll be the first to admit my ignorance as to appropriate ethnic terminology. I used "hispanic" because the AP did, and I figured that made it safe. I'll happily change it if anyone is offended!
Link to Volokh's discussion of Sotomayor's comments in our very own Berkeley La Raza LJ: http://volokh.com/posts/1242399411.shtml
Interesting tidbit: she's the circuit judge who ruled in the New Haven CT firefighters case, which SCOTUS heard this spring.
*She* didn't rule on that case -- the panel (of three judges) issued a per curiam summary order.
I'm Hispanic and prefer the word Hispanic to Latino.
And someone of Portuguese descent is not Hispanic. The word Hispanic pertains to things of Spanish descent or origin.
Spain and Portugal are not the same.
Lusitanic is what you would call someone of Portuguese descent.
I don't think anyone think Portugal and Spain are the same.
"Of Spain" (and hence Hispanic) still technically extends to Portugal, however, because Portugal was once ruled by Spain.
Apparently Democrats say "latino" and Republicans say "hispanic."
http://www.slate.com/id/2219165/
Post a Comment
<< Home