Michael Ramzy

Facts? What Facts?



Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009

by Michael Ramzy
delusionthread.com

Another record day here in Texas as the temperature is 'only' scheduled to hit 105. That's goo
d news since I thought it would be really hot. It would be fine without the humidity, yet here in Texas we have a saying about this weather: "kind of warm, isn't it?"
It's not as hot as some places, though, and although the buildup to the Sotomayer confirmation hearing was tremendous, it really isn't hot there. Sure, she is on the confirmation 'hot seat', but watching these hearings is akin to watching the titanic. No, she isn't going to sink at the end, but we all know she will be confirmed and we all know the republicans and democrats will have their say about her record and specifically her comments.
 
Two comments have made people take notice of her. The first, that a 'wise latina woman' would have a 'better' understanding than a white male, is really a non-issue. I mean, all of us use our own past and heritage to some extent to mold our thoughts. Of course, we aren't trying out for the Supreme Court, but I can understand it.
 
The second, though, is the one that makes me wonder. It was in the same vein as her 'wise latina' comment, yet she added her heritage would make her "choose which facts of a case to see".
 
This is a little disturbing in that in a real-world application, this statement would be death to anyone. Imagine a police officer at a crime scene: he sees the gun, the body, the blood, but decides the gun is not quite relevant given the 'special circumstances'. Or imagine a teacher grading a failing pupil and that teacher chooses not to see the fact the student is illiterate.
 
Oh wait, I think some of that happens now, doesn't it?
 
Regardless, something that has been lost in the confirmation circus is that one statement about which facts to see. I know she will be confirmed; in fact, she seems to be well-spoken (except for those off-hand, oft-repeated comments) and would probably be a good Associate Justice. Also, I know many of us (most of us) will not be impacted one whit with her confirmation. For those ultra-partisans out there, we the people are really just trading a liberal for a liberal, so there won't be much difference in opinions from the Court.
 
It's just that one comment, choosing which facts to see, which bothers me. It's like a crack in an otherwise smooth wall: it won't make the wall crumble, but it's something that just shouldn't be there.
 
This Article has been viewed 2,339 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)
» left by Ken McCreless
from Event Horizon 2 years 315 days ago.
Right you are, sir, right you are. Why WOULD she say something like that? Ever?
 
Oh well.
 
Great piece.
» left by Michael Ramzy 2 years 315 days ago.
49 fans.
Thanks. Since I'm working nights this week I get to watch some of the confirmation process, and Ms. Sotomayer seems very smart and she'll probably be a really good addition to the Court. The 'wise latina' thing is a non-issue, I think, since we can all relate to things better using our past experiences. She might have worded it differently, yet there it is.
The one about the 'facts I choose to see' is a doozy, though. The republicans don't pounce on that one (gun-shy, probably), and the democrats gloss over it (of course) saying one comment can't tell everything about one person. That might be true, yet one comment can tell something about that one person, especially if repeated.
Thanks as always for your input.
 
» left by Steve Kovacs
 2 years 313 days ago.
96 fans. Follow Steve Kovacs on twitter!

Hi Mike, 

Thanks for keeping me informed about this news event, which I haven’t kept up on.  Great take on what is truly concerning and what really is going to be the same-old same-old—I appreciate the facts and the analysis—thanks.

» left by Michael Ramzy 2 years 312 days ago.
49 fans.
Thanks. If it was a level playing field I would agree it's the same old, same old. And yet . . . well, wait. It never was a level playing field, was it?
Thanks for reading and commenting.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.