Today, Senator Cornyn asks the question of Judge Sotomayor to which an increasing number of Americans seem to be interested in knowing the answer… what with her recent slap-down by the Supreme Court and her past comments on the issue of race.
What say you, Judge Sotomayor?
Sen. Cornyn’s Daily Question for Judge Sotomayor
Question 15: Thursday, July 2, 2009
Is the Constitution color-blind?
Explanation: In his famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Justice Harlan wrote that “‘our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” This powerful concept reflects the essence of the Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection of the laws: The Government should not treat people differently on account of race.
Judge Sotomayor’s record raises the question of whether she agrees with this aspiration. First, Judge Sotomayor has suggested that there may be “inherent physiological . . . differences” among individuals of different races and ethnicities. She has also suggested that the vision of colorblindness is in “perpetual tension” with the value of ethnic diversity. See Sonia Sotomayor, A Latina Judge’s Voice, 13 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 87 (2002). Second, Judge Sotomayor joined the opinion blocking the New Haven firefighters’ lawsuit in Ricci v. DeStefano – an opinion that the Supreme Court reversed just this week on the ground that New Haven’s conduct was “antithetical to the notion of a workplace where individuals are guaranteed equal opportunity regardless of race.”
I think Justice Harlan was right: The Constitution is color-blind. In the upcoming hearings, I hope Judge Sotomayor will explain whether she agrees with Justice Harlan or whether she has a different view of the Constitution.
See Senator Cornyn’s previous 14 questions for Judge Sotomayor here.
Easy Answer
Idolator Thursday, July 2nd at 5:36PM EDT (link)She will say that the constitution is colorblind. That’s the way to not make waves. In truth the constitution isn’t colorblind as it makes reference to slavery. However the basis of the question is to the racial fairness in regards to the constitution with the existing amendments. In this case the constitution is colorblind as well as blind to sex.
The bottom line is: the constitution is a set of rules and therefore must be colorblind.
The rules for football are colorblind. The descision by a referee to only apply the rules to the players that don’t share his race is not.
The real question should be: Should JUDGES be colorblind?
I think that this question would be far more revealing and allow for much better follow up based on her answer.
Asking if the constitution is colorblind is the same as asking “is the constitution written” it’s always a YES answer.
Look at yourself! Have you looked at yourself?!?
Hogwash!
skorrent1 Thursday, July 2nd at 6:34PM EDT (link)The Constitution, as originally written, made no mention of race or creed when it distinguished between free citizens and “others.” The 13th Amendment did not mention race when it eliminated involuntary servitude — for everyone!
Your distinction as to whether the Constitution itself (which judges are sworn to respect) or the individual judges should be colorblind presumes that the judge has the prerogative to adjust the “living Constitution” to current circumstances/whims. That point was addressed in a previous question. An advocate of a living Constitution and of affirmative action would be forced to admit that the Constitution in 2009 is not colorblind, but may have been in the past, and may be again sometime in the future.
nice try
Idolator Thursday, July 2nd at 7:05PM EDT (link)The very sentence that you use to shoot at me (the one containing free peoples and others) contains a direct reference to Indians. The 14th amendment also mentions Indians. The references to “others” was intended for African slaves and you know it, as white slavery was not practiced, don’t be coy.
Anyway, I dont see a point in your inacurate post.
My point was that she would say that it’s colorblind to cover her own prejudices and still remain factual. The question of judges is a direct assault on her “empathy” and “Latina” commnents.
Besides the constitution is a “living document” because it can be amended. The left has perverted the words “living document” to mean that we can interpret the same words different ways to fit the situation.
Look at yourself! Have you looked at yourself?!?
Shallow response!
skorrent1 Thursday, July 2nd at 7:32PM EDT (link)The history of the Colonies included many instances of white slavery. The reference to “Indians not taxed” meant those of the tribes that had independent nation status, there were Indians that were taxed and counted. As there were “free persons” of many colors who were also counted. Your equation of “slavery” with all blacks as a color distinction is specious.
If Soto claims that the Constitution as she understands it to be today is colorblind, then she will have no basis to later say that distinctions based on color are compatible with it.
You're right
Idolator Thursday, July 2nd at 8:43PM EDT (link)She will surely say that the Constitution is not colorblind and that the constitution was designed to apply differently to different races of people. I was being silly.
Silly me.
Look at yourself! Have you looked at yourself?!?
I think it is futile...
cannedjam Friday, July 3rd at 12:13AM EDT (link)to try and use logic to extrapolate the thought process of someone who clearly holds hypocritical ideals. To believe in discriminating against one group of people to prevent the “discrimination” of another, all in the name of equality is an oxymoronic position, and thus invalidates the notion that Soto uses logical consistency in forming her positions.
http://cannedjam.com
Senator Cornyn's questions are clearly no match for the Wise Latina Woman. (nt)
George Claghorn Thursday, July 2nd at 5:57PM EDT (link)“Victory comes, though we know not when. We must be happy warriors until the end.
For those of you who struggle with what goes on, who see retreat and capitulation, and who feel like not just your political opponents, but those who hold dear all those things you hold as blasphemous — be cheerful. Be happy. Victory is already yours.
You must just have the courage to not get discouraged and have the will to fight on.” – Erick Erickson at RightOnline