There’s been considerable commentary about whether the statements of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich regarding Sotomayor are too strident, but I haven’t seen any commentary that seriously disputes the duo’s central contention: That had a white male nominee said “a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life” — that nominee would be finished. (The fact that this isn’t seriously disputed is a sad measure of society’s cynicism regarding racial politics).
For decades, one of the explications (heard in ethnic studies classes on campuses across the country) for this double standard was the claim that minorities could not be racist because minorities are not in positions of power; i.e., functional racism presumes the power to oppress.
Regardless of whether that contention had any validity when first widely promulgated in the 60s and 70s, its foundation has all but evaporated in the years since. The most powerful man in the world is black, the last three secretaries of state were either black, female, or both, minorities head some of the largest corporations in the world, the most powerful media personality in the country is black, etc. Moreover, should she be confirmed, Sotomayor will herself be one of the most powerful individuals in the U.S. Her “prejudices and sympathies” could have a profound impact on millions of Americans.
Given her declaration that she is, at best, agnostic about whether she should restrain her “prejudices and sympathies” while on the bench, senators have a duty to examine whether and to what extent such prejudices and sympathies, unchecked by appellate review, may impact her jurisprudence.