Sotomayor: ‘I am an Affirmative Action Baby’
EmailABC News’ Dennis Powell reports: Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is again finding herself in conservatives’ sights after referring to herself as “an affirmative action baby” in a panel discussion from the early 1990s.
"I am a product of affirmative action. I am an affirmative action baby. Born in the South Bronx… My test scores were not compatible to that of my colleagues at Princeton and Yale,” she remarked at the Practicing Law Institute, a continuing legal education organization. “Not so far off the mark that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions."
Wendy Long of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network said that the comments reflect an unfair bias also evident in Sotomayor's participation in a three judge panel that threw out the claims of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut who were denied promotions based on their race.
“She benefited from racial preferences, and now, as a judge, she wants to impose the quotas and preferences she favors, instead of applying the Constitution and Bill of Rights fairly to all.”
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the New Haven firefighters case.
During the panel discussion, Sotomayor expounded on affirmative action, diversity and the role of the court.
She said it’s “critical that we promote diversity” and explained what it means for fellow Latinos to see someone like them on the bench.
“I see defendants who appear before me who speak in Spanish who know because of the way that I am reacting to them that I have understood what they say,” she said.
And it’s that understanding, she said, that sends an import an important message: “These are important statements about our society and about its values and they are important to the people who participate in the system.”
She added, “It brings to the system more of a sense of fairness when they can see people like myself on the bench.”
Sotomayor turned the recording over to the Senate Judiciary Committee along with dozens of others and almost 200 pages of documents. The panel released several recordings to today.
The lawmakers are poring over her past speeches, television appearances, legal opinions and other records as they consider her nomination to the court to replace the retiring Justice David Souter.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has scheduled Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings to start on July 13. If the full senate confirms her, she will be the first Hispanic and third female Supreme Court Justice.
Santorum Clarifies Concerns on Women in Combat 
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America?
What are the libs going to say about this??
She would be TERRIBLE for the country.
Posted by: Ryan | June 12, 2009, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm
Why is she more Hispanic than me? I can claim to be descended from the first Hispanic and I have at Native American ancestor on both sides of my imediate family. It would even be surprising if I’m not descended from an African slave. I know for sure that I have as many female ancestors. She is ethically challenged but not ethnically handicaped. I am.
Posted by: Greg | June 12, 2009, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm
Ryan
Liberals are going to call conservatives the usual hate-filled names. First, they will tell us how Bush and Cheney are the devil, and then go on a diatribe about how Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.. are the devil.
All in the name of tolerance.
Posted by: enoughalready | June 12, 2009, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm
Replace Hispanic with white. Replace Spanish with English. Take a white person who brags that she got hired despite the higher scores of her Hispanic colleagues but is better qualified to help her white brethren because she understands them and besides they need someone like her on the bench. If this were the case my friends there would be demonstrations, uprisings, perhaps even riots due to the understandable outrage that such statements would bring. The ACLU, Defamation League, Southern Poverty Center, and every civil rights group on the planet would be descending on Washington right now and deservedly so. Whites unfortunately,and this we’ve seen from Sotomayor herself, are fair game because lets face it folks they got it coming and they deserve it! They need to pay for what their grand daddies did right?
Posted by: thethinice | June 12, 2009, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm
Most likely they’ll just completely ignore what the blog is about and call me a racist.
Posted by: Ryan | June 12, 2009, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm
i am an affirmative action baby also and so were my kids. they were passed over for less qualified job aplicants
Posted by: catman | June 12, 2009, 6:37 pm 6:37 pm
Yes, both Sotomayos and Obama were affirmative action babies. When in law school, they had the leisure of becoming the editor of law review journals, while Hillary Clinton had to wash dishes and clean fish in summers to earn her law school tuition. Fair enough ?
Posted by: austin | June 13, 2009, 11:38 am 11:38 am
My wifes brother who is white & I tested the goodness of 50 random businesses. He has a bachelors degree and 2 years engineering experience, I have a masters and PE (professional engineering)license 6 years experience. We would apply for the same jobe. He got 90% call backs for interviews over my 30% and it’s all documented.They would even offer to help him get a PE license before calling me. He, a stand up man, of course would always call them on it. Myself, I hold my head up while while people cry reverse descriminatiom and have no clue about real life.
Posted by: getaclue | June 13, 2009, 8:21 pm 8:21 pm
“Most likely they’ll just completely ignore what the blog is about and call me a racist.”
No, we try to have some compassion for the misguided.
Posted by: Padma | June 14, 2009, 10:34 am 10:34 am
What are the libs going to say about this??
I don’t see a problem here.
Posted by: Steve J. | June 14, 2009, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
She may have gotten her foot in the door because of Affirmative Action, but she had to perform to stay there! For those of us fortunate enough to go to a school that actually had up to date text books shouldn’t be throwing stones. She graduated suma cumlaude, that is the top 2%! No matter how you got your foot in the door, YOU HAVE TO PERFORM to stay there, unlike some who get in because their fathers, grandfathers and so on went there!
Posted by: Try the truth | June 14, 2009, 7:24 pm 7:24 pm
What’s the big deal here? She says that being judged by someone who looks more like you, speaks your language and shares a similar cultural background lends credence to the judgment. It says nowhere in here that it should bias the judge. Imagine yourself in a courtroom filled by a black judge, black attorneys, and a black jury (replace race for any but your own). Just how fair would you perceive the verdict to be? Would the same verdict delivered by a court of people more representative of you seem more fair? I’m guessing yes. If so, it seems like she was on the mark.
As for being an affirmative action baby, so what? Affirmative action gave her the opportunity to help break the cycle of poverty, poor education and general lack of opportunity that our past racism has left us. Gave her the opportunity… it was up to her to prove that she was up to the task and she did it with flying colors. I suppose those of you who think this is an outrage would rather that she (or any like her – read unlike you) were not given the opportunities to rise to their full potential, that way you could keep filling the courts and government with people just like you. Am I calling you a racist for finding outrage here? No, but I am suggesting that you may indeed be harboring some racist tendencies.
For example, read, “She benefited from racial preferences, and now, as a judge, she wants to impose the quotas and preferences she favors, instead of applying the Constitution and Bill of Rights fairly to all.” This is the only potentially racist quote in the whole article and is so because it reads into her comments something that she didn’t say. She never said anything about applying the law, she talked about how the defendants might receive her judgments as being more fair because they perceive it as being less biased. Instead, the above quote projects the speaker’s fears (or intentional fear-mongering) onto the comments in order to rile up those who harbor such prejudices.
Whine all you want about the label of racist or of the accusation the you may harbor racist tendencies, but for all your boo-hooing a spade is still a spade
Posted by: say what | June 14, 2009, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm
we should use the Obama/Sotomayor ideal and simply use US census data to determine makeup of the Supreme Court and also one of the houses of Congress (the House.) The Supreme Court should matchly exactly the ethnic, racial, gender percentages found by the census data. That would make everyone happy. As society changes the Court, and House, would change to match. It wouldn’t be exact, of course. This rule could also apply to sports franchises like the NBA, MLB, and NHL as they have special rights due to government decrees (publicly funded stadiums, monopoly exceptions, unique labor laws, etc.)
ps: note I’m talking about using the census data of the past before it was taken over by Obama in a political coup.
Posted by: Ed | June 14, 2009, 11:59 pm 11:59 pm
A racist is a racist.
“I see defendants who appear before me who speak in Spanish who know because of the way that I am reacting to them that I have understood what they say,” she said.
Is that what we want in a Supreme Court Justice or do we want equal treatment for all?
Posted by: You Can't Handle The Trut | June 15, 2009, 12:30 am 12:30 am
Do we want someone who understands what people are saying? Yeah. It helps. Don’t be intentionally dense. She is saying that the defendant can tell by her body language that she can understand their language. DUH. Less is lost in translation, and being bi-lingual doesn’t make someone a racist. Being an ignoramus hay-maker and trying to distort someone’s comments in order to paint them in a negative, racialist light, does. So in the end, you’re right. A racist is a racist and you can’t handle the truth.
Posted by: say what | June 15, 2009, 2:11 am 2:11 am
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. Racial Quotas are bad. I’m not saying she can’t perform, but the fact remains to institute said quotas you have to cut someone, who is likely at least the equivalent of the minority subject out. How is it fair to say simply because your a minority you get to go instead? I say you sink or swim by your own actions, not by your skin color. Before anyone try’s to call me a racist or a right wing nut job; let me make it perfectly clear I hate ALL politicians.
Posted by: Matthew | June 15, 2009, 7:48 am 7:48 am
Matthew – “I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. Racial Quotas are bad. I’m not saying she can’t perform, but the fact remains to institute said quotas you have to cut someone, who is likely at least the equivalent of the minority subject out.”———————————
I understand your frustation. The fact is, before, and actually not long ago. White males had the lock. When they no they no longer could bank on the fact the job would go to them, this is when the whole “reverse racism” chant began! Racial quota’s make it hard for women and minority candidates also. No matter what your qualifications, SOME will always discount your achievements. Trust me, I and my family have lived it! Think how awful it is to be the most qualified and lose a job because, oh, your not a white male! I’m not saying AA is fair, but it wasn’t fair before! Still the majority of those in places of authority are white males! I watched in my former job, people with less education and experience got promoted. I was winning sales awards every month, but I was passed over. I’m a black female, there was one person of color in a management position, he graduated top of his class, but still every promotion went to white males or females. He finally quit. As did I. Large company, that prides it’s self on “diversity”. Funny, when the pendulum swings, white males lose their minds and scream! We’ve been screaming for years!
Posted by: Try the truth | June 15, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am
The real question that arises because of what she has said is not merely the question of “Is she a racist or not?” But rather, “Will she make racially motivated decisions?”
I believe that the injustices suffered by minorities in this country have been, and are, tragic. I believe that under the right circumstances, affirmative action plays a vital role in educating the general population on the value of people over ethnic origin.
However, I don’t believe that the realities of these issues should cloud the importance of what is happening on Capitol Hill at this time. A position on the Supreme Court is not a place from which to decide how a measure or law should be executed, but instead is a pedestal from which to look at the overall legal picture in order to decide if an action is or is not constitutional and can therefore be acted upon.
Does the action violate or infringe upon the Constitutional Laws, Rights, or sovereignty of another? The decision made here should, in a perfect world, give the Legislature the ability to hone or better craft the law in order that the Executive might be better suited to carry out just and effective laws.
This means to me that President Obama is in a position where he can, and should, be aware of the racial effects and consequences of the laws that he must execute and introduce to Congress. Sonia Sotomeyer’s position would, and should, be limited to an evaluation of the language and facts of the legislation or dispute in order to determine the constitutionality of the former, and, in the latter, whether an injury has legal and constitutional merit.
For me that is very black and white, and I do not believe in my heart that Justice Sotomeyer can separate these two actions while rendering decisions.
I firmly applaud her accomplishments, work ethic, and amazing contributions that she has made to the integration of the legal and academic societies throughout the country. But I am highly suspect regarding her ability to focus solely on the Constitution and legal precedent without the influence of race, gender, or ethnicity. Justices should tell us what the law means not change it to mean what we want. She has not yet earned my vote.
Posted by: The Bottom Line | July 20, 2009, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm