Well, I thought I had it in me, but I don't.
Sonia Sotomayor has been President Barack Obama's official Supreme Court nominee for only the briefest time, and I'm already sick of hearing about her. Yet, as the song goes, we've only just begun.
Sotomayor's resume has little for me to be interested in, unfortunately. Her rulings are thin in the areas of reproductive rights and sexual equality. From what I understand, one of her primary achievements was when she managed to resolve a strike involving Major League Baseball. Frankly, though, I couldn't care less about what one of the members of our highest court has done this week in the world of baseball. I have a friend or two who can at least take an interest in how her actions might affect their fantasy baseball teams, but the closest I can get to being interested is this sad degree of separation.
As murky as her feelings on reproductive rights are, though, there's one case that she has ruled on - and in a manner that some might find surprising for Obama's nominee. In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor voted to uphold the "Mexico City Policy," also known as the "Global Gag Rule," wherein the U.S. Government can deny medical aid to countries that advertise or even mention abortion. Her ruling was based on her assertion that "the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."
This ruling has ignited a small firestorm among die-hard liberals, especially those who applauded when Obama repealed that policy upon taking office.
This firestorm, I believe, is unwarranted. Despite my disagreement with the ruling, I see no evidence in it that Sotomayor performed Scalian legal gymnastics or that she is particularly anti-abortion. Her ruling seems more about federal power than anything else.
It is also noteworthy that she chose the terms "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life." In this neutrality of terms, I find nothing to be concerned about. The bottom line is that her position on reproductive rights is not clear enough to warrant either praise or derision from either side.
However, there is another storm looming on the Sotomayor front, and it is growing more insistent. Such conservative luminaries as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been attempting to cynically paint her as a racist. Seems counterintuitive? Fear not! They enter into evidence this quote from a lecture she gave at Berkeley several years ago: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Now, there is no doubt that this statement was foolish. There is further no doubt that it is egotistical. But it is not racist. Sotomayor was trying to express the role she thinks life experience - and that "empathy" that Obama spoke of - plays in the making of a good judge. Personally, I disagree with her statement, but to color it as racist when, really, it was just ill-advised is an exercise in hysterics.
Sotomayor's confirmation should go through without much difficulty. I can't imagine that there will be a sufficient rally to bork her, and so we now know our next Supreme Court justice. Only we don't really know her at all. While that gives us nothing to cheer about, it further gives us nothing to cry over either.
At 54 years old, Sotomayor probably has decades left, so I suggest that those on both sides of the ideological divide get used to her.
Eric Chianese is an English senior. His column appears weekly.
