I admire that President Obama has taken the high road and is trying to make peace between Officer Crowley and Professor Gates. What concerns me is whether he felt forced to do so by the firestorm of media coverage and the outrage of whites who felt that Professor Gates was playing the race card. To the extent that Professor Gates was playing any such card, in my opinion, he was probably playing the class card, refusing to be discriminated against based on race because he had the class clout to trump the officer's power. That Professor Gates has the ear of the President and is part of a vast network of African American elites that many whites don't know of might have been disconcerting to some.
But to watch the Leader of the Freakin' Free World "walking back" his "stupidly" comment when many like me in the African American community agreed with it? That was disconcerting to me, not because I think I'm right, but because I think the President has the right to say what he thinks like those who came before him. When was the last time you heard a President say anything approximating an apology for a political opinion?
I always thought that the President had the freedom and the right to say what he thinks, even if it's disagreeable to some, and to stand by his words merely because he is the Leader of the Freakin' Free World. Like President Bush, he could admit to no mistakes and the public would have to live with it. I thought it was the privilege of being POTUS.
Apparently President Obama isn't as free as we thought, nor does he enjoy the same privileges as President as did his predecessor. Or perhaps he simply chooses not to enjoy those same privileges of saying what he thinks, no matter what others think. I hope it's the latter. If he walked back his comments for the purpose of focusing on health care, cool. If he walked back his comments because they were displeasing to a large part of the populace, not cool. Officer Crowley did indeed act stupidly. Unless Professor Gates was a physical threat to him or others, there was no need to arrest him other than to make a point unrelated to public safety and welfare: I'm the one with power, you're not. That Officer Crowley was intransigent in his position afterwards was the exclamation mark over this point. He, as a public servant, should be held to the higher standard, not Professor Gates.
First, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has to sit there and take it during her confirmation hearings when some hick Senator told her she "had some 'splainin to do." Then the Leader of the Freakin' Free World walks back his comments about a cop on a power trip.
We ain't free yet, y'all. Don't get it twisted.
But, perhaps, in the words of a Donny Hathaway song, "Someday We'll All Be Free."
Just not this week.
Showing posts with label Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Show all posts
'Splainin', Home Trainin', and Showing One's Behind
As you know, I enforced my own personal news blackout regarding the Judge Sotomayor confirmation hearings. Couldn't bear to watch or listen, which made my morning drive to work a bit more difficult since I listen to NPR when I drive in. NPR provided gavel-to-gavel coverage. I listened to a lot of Sirius XM instead.
Wouldn't you know it that the Judge Sotomayor confirmation hearings were the spark that got my husband, Black Man Not Blogging (BMNB), paying attention to the news such that he put aside his usual ESPN radio, classic soul hits station V101.1 and whatnot to actually follow coverage of this event?
"You know, there was some Senator from Oklahoma yesterday who told Judge Sotomayor that she "had some 'splainin' to do.'"
Why is he telling me this?, I thought. The one person I could count on to be uninformed just turned into Edward R. Murrow.
I took the bait. "Do you mean 'splainin' as in the southern sense of the word, like 'let me 'splain that to you . . . . '"
BMNB, a born southerner, interrupted me. "I don't know anything about a southern use of the word, but this guy was talking like Ricky Ricardo talking Lucy."
Oh no he didn't.
Normally, when I write about news events for this blog, I read the local paper and national news websites to get all versions of the events and the proper names for all the participants. I haven't even bothered this time. You don't have to tell me this Senator was white and male. I already know. No one else could possibly perceive their rank in the social and political hierarchy of this country to be so high that they could speak to a federal judge in that manner, no matter what higher office she was seeking.
To me, such language is racist and sexist (since we don't have a word for language that is both) disrespectful, and demonstrative of a profound lack of home training. Or rather, home trainin'.
First, let me admit my bias. I clerked for a federal appellate judge, one of the few African American ones in the nation at the time. I never expected to get the clerkship, but I never lost sight of the fact that it was an extremely valuable opportunity for which I should be grateful. Added to this was the fact that I later found out that my mother knew this judge from when he was a district attorney and my mother was in charge of creating false identities for undercover officers at the DMV. Their paths had crossed long before, and my mother held this man in very high esteem. She didn't have to say a word. It was understood that, even as a grown woman and law school graduate, I was to be on my best behavior in his presence because he was a judge and someone she knew and respected. I was to work harder than the rest and give this man no trouble. In other words, I was not to "show my behind." More on that later.
I never did call, nor did I ever imagine calling, my judge by anything other than "judge" or "your honor." If I recall correctly, we law clerks for the judge spent the first few days rising to our feet whenever he entered a room until he finally excused us from this ritual show of respect. Long after my clerkship ended, whenever I contacted him, I always called him "judge," even after he took senior status. It would never enter my mind to address a judge, federal or otherwise, as anything other than "judge" or "your honor" or to assume a level a familiarity that in any way hinted at anything less than respect. I had at least that much home training.
In more recent years, I was introduced to a local judge at a bar association function who was a childhood friend of my late mother's. When I told him who I was, he looked at me real hard, slowly beamed, and said, "Come here, girl. You're family." With that, he gave me a strong hug and a kiss on the cheek. Now, mind you, despite the fact that this judge's history with my family precedes my birth, he will always be "judge" to me. I cannot and will not call him by his first name, or "Uncle Judge," or any variant thereof. Why? Because my mother would come back from her grave, and, in her parlance, "slap the black off of me" if I spoke to him in any way that did not connote respect for him as an elder AND as a judge. I don't get to speak to him that way, because he is not my peer. My mother gave me at least that much home training.
Mind you, home training is a function of culture and class. Although African American culture is portrayed in the media as disrespectful and often lacking in self-respect, this is the image that sells but does not necessarily reflect the truth. It isn't representative of my upbringing and the upbringing of my family and friends. Respect is a big deal in African American culture, in my experience. It is why we don't get to call elders by their first names, even if they are your in-laws. To this day I call my mother-in-law "Mrs. X," and my husband calls my father, "Mr. Y." When I hear people, usually white people, address their in-laws by their first names, I flinch. To borrow a phrase from my mother, "I ain't never gonna be that grown" that I can call my mother-in-law by her first name. At best, she's "Mother X," but her first name? That's off limits to me. (Although I have to admit, there is one elder cousin my siblings and I fell into the bad habit of calling by his first name, but he was cool with it and my mother let it slide.)
I learned about the socio-economic class aspect of home training when I was a graduate student at Princeton. A local black mayor came to speak to an assemblage of us black graduate students. (And yes, there were so few of us that you could fit us all in a classroom.) History professor Nell Painter was there. I don't remember what the mayor said to us, but I do remember what Professor Painter told us when he left: "Whenever an elected official or dignitary enters the room, you are supposed to stand."
At first, I was miffed that she said this. I didn't appreciate being chided like a child, and I thought to myself, "Well, we didn't have a lot of elected officials or dignitaries coming to the south Sacramento when I was growing up, so how was I supposed to know?" Little did I know or appreciate that Professor Painter, as an African American professor, was trying to prepare us across our different socio-economic class lines for the worlds we would enter as Ivy League-educated African Americans.
Which brings me to my next point. Part of African American home training, or at least my African American home training, is not "showing your behind." "Showing your behind" means doing something that is so over-the-top in public that it embarrasses not only you but your family. The term is often used to describe children's temper tantrums or bad behavior in public venues such as stores and churches, to wit: "So-and-so's child showed her behind in church yesterday." It can also include really bad adult behavior, like parents who cuss out teachers in front of their classes or employees who cuss out their bosses in a meeting, to wit: "Sharon showed her behind up on her job yesterday and now she wonders why they're firing her." It's synonymous with "acting a fool."
What I learned in law school is that there are levels of showing one's behind. If what you've done is really bad, you've gone beyond just showing your behind; you've "shown your ass." And, as my African American law school friend from the south demonstrated by verbal example, if what you've done not only embarrasses yourself and your family, but the entire African American race, you've gone beyond just "showing your ass": You've reached the highest level of bad, mortifying behavior, to wit, "showing your monkey ass." Or, as she put it in her southern accent, "showing yo' muhnkay ahyess."
So, I don't know what the white analog of "showing your monkey ass" is, but whatever it is, that's what the Senator from Oklahoma did when he told JUDGE Sotomayor that she had some "'splainin' to do." His profound lack of home training as to how to properly address a federal judge not only embarrassed him and his family, but the entire white race. That he would even form his lips to speak to her in such a racist manner, well, that's just a hybrid of ignorance, hubris, and white privilege all rolled into one. He would have never addressed then-Judge Alito with a feigned Italian accent. I guess our white, male senators believe they can speak to a woman of color, even a woman of color as powerful as Judge Sotomayor, any which way they please.
He's lucky my mother isn't alive. On behalf of white people, she would have slapped the white off of him, just as a matter of home training.
Wouldn't you know it that the Judge Sotomayor confirmation hearings were the spark that got my husband, Black Man Not Blogging (BMNB), paying attention to the news such that he put aside his usual ESPN radio, classic soul hits station V101.1 and whatnot to actually follow coverage of this event?
"You know, there was some Senator from Oklahoma yesterday who told Judge Sotomayor that she "had some 'splainin' to do.'"
Why is he telling me this?, I thought. The one person I could count on to be uninformed just turned into Edward R. Murrow.
I took the bait. "Do you mean 'splainin' as in the southern sense of the word, like 'let me 'splain that to you . . . . '"
BMNB, a born southerner, interrupted me. "I don't know anything about a southern use of the word, but this guy was talking like Ricky Ricardo talking Lucy."
Oh no he didn't.
Normally, when I write about news events for this blog, I read the local paper and national news websites to get all versions of the events and the proper names for all the participants. I haven't even bothered this time. You don't have to tell me this Senator was white and male. I already know. No one else could possibly perceive their rank in the social and political hierarchy of this country to be so high that they could speak to a federal judge in that manner, no matter what higher office she was seeking.
To me, such language is racist and sexist (since we don't have a word for language that is both) disrespectful, and demonstrative of a profound lack of home training. Or rather, home trainin'.
First, let me admit my bias. I clerked for a federal appellate judge, one of the few African American ones in the nation at the time. I never expected to get the clerkship, but I never lost sight of the fact that it was an extremely valuable opportunity for which I should be grateful. Added to this was the fact that I later found out that my mother knew this judge from when he was a district attorney and my mother was in charge of creating false identities for undercover officers at the DMV. Their paths had crossed long before, and my mother held this man in very high esteem. She didn't have to say a word. It was understood that, even as a grown woman and law school graduate, I was to be on my best behavior in his presence because he was a judge and someone she knew and respected. I was to work harder than the rest and give this man no trouble. In other words, I was not to "show my behind." More on that later.
I never did call, nor did I ever imagine calling, my judge by anything other than "judge" or "your honor." If I recall correctly, we law clerks for the judge spent the first few days rising to our feet whenever he entered a room until he finally excused us from this ritual show of respect. Long after my clerkship ended, whenever I contacted him, I always called him "judge," even after he took senior status. It would never enter my mind to address a judge, federal or otherwise, as anything other than "judge" or "your honor" or to assume a level a familiarity that in any way hinted at anything less than respect. I had at least that much home training.
In more recent years, I was introduced to a local judge at a bar association function who was a childhood friend of my late mother's. When I told him who I was, he looked at me real hard, slowly beamed, and said, "Come here, girl. You're family." With that, he gave me a strong hug and a kiss on the cheek. Now, mind you, despite the fact that this judge's history with my family precedes my birth, he will always be "judge" to me. I cannot and will not call him by his first name, or "Uncle Judge," or any variant thereof. Why? Because my mother would come back from her grave, and, in her parlance, "slap the black off of me" if I spoke to him in any way that did not connote respect for him as an elder AND as a judge. I don't get to speak to him that way, because he is not my peer. My mother gave me at least that much home training.
Mind you, home training is a function of culture and class. Although African American culture is portrayed in the media as disrespectful and often lacking in self-respect, this is the image that sells but does not necessarily reflect the truth. It isn't representative of my upbringing and the upbringing of my family and friends. Respect is a big deal in African American culture, in my experience. It is why we don't get to call elders by their first names, even if they are your in-laws. To this day I call my mother-in-law "Mrs. X," and my husband calls my father, "Mr. Y." When I hear people, usually white people, address their in-laws by their first names, I flinch. To borrow a phrase from my mother, "I ain't never gonna be that grown" that I can call my mother-in-law by her first name. At best, she's "Mother X," but her first name? That's off limits to me. (Although I have to admit, there is one elder cousin my siblings and I fell into the bad habit of calling by his first name, but he was cool with it and my mother let it slide.)
I learned about the socio-economic class aspect of home training when I was a graduate student at Princeton. A local black mayor came to speak to an assemblage of us black graduate students. (And yes, there were so few of us that you could fit us all in a classroom.) History professor Nell Painter was there. I don't remember what the mayor said to us, but I do remember what Professor Painter told us when he left: "Whenever an elected official or dignitary enters the room, you are supposed to stand."
At first, I was miffed that she said this. I didn't appreciate being chided like a child, and I thought to myself, "Well, we didn't have a lot of elected officials or dignitaries coming to the south Sacramento when I was growing up, so how was I supposed to know?" Little did I know or appreciate that Professor Painter, as an African American professor, was trying to prepare us across our different socio-economic class lines for the worlds we would enter as Ivy League-educated African Americans.
Which brings me to my next point. Part of African American home training, or at least my African American home training, is not "showing your behind." "Showing your behind" means doing something that is so over-the-top in public that it embarrasses not only you but your family. The term is often used to describe children's temper tantrums or bad behavior in public venues such as stores and churches, to wit: "So-and-so's child showed her behind in church yesterday." It can also include really bad adult behavior, like parents who cuss out teachers in front of their classes or employees who cuss out their bosses in a meeting, to wit: "Sharon showed her behind up on her job yesterday and now she wonders why they're firing her." It's synonymous with "acting a fool."
What I learned in law school is that there are levels of showing one's behind. If what you've done is really bad, you've gone beyond just showing your behind; you've "shown your ass." And, as my African American law school friend from the south demonstrated by verbal example, if what you've done not only embarrasses yourself and your family, but the entire African American race, you've gone beyond just "showing your ass": You've reached the highest level of bad, mortifying behavior, to wit, "showing your monkey ass." Or, as she put it in her southern accent, "showing yo' muhnkay ahyess."
So, I don't know what the white analog of "showing your monkey ass" is, but whatever it is, that's what the Senator from Oklahoma did when he told JUDGE Sotomayor that she had some "'splainin' to do." His profound lack of home training as to how to properly address a federal judge not only embarrassed him and his family, but the entire white race. That he would even form his lips to speak to her in such a racist manner, well, that's just a hybrid of ignorance, hubris, and white privilege all rolled into one. He would have never addressed then-Judge Alito with a feigned Italian accent. I guess our white, male senators believe they can speak to a woman of color, even a woman of color as powerful as Judge Sotomayor, any which way they please.
He's lucky my mother isn't alive. On behalf of white people, she would have slapped the white off of him, just as a matter of home training.
Who's Afraid of a Wise Latina?
I cannot be the only one cringing at the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I cringe because I hear her backpedaling, or as they say in pundit-speak, "walking back," from her comment about a wise Latina. I cringe because although we all know the votes are all there for her confirmation, she has to go through this process where she has to become raceless, genderless, and unthreatening to the overwhelmingly white and male Senators who hold her fate, and to the voters who elected those overwhelmingly white and male Senators, to make it through. Just like many whites who cannot have a conversation about race without attaching outrage or moral blame to it, she has to act like the consideration of race or one's racialized experiences do not belong in the justice system because they subvert or taint the justice system. That justice is color-blind when in fact justice has, for most of our history, been lacking in any color but white.
Oh, so it's like THAT. When a Latina is nominated to a position that holds for her the potential to become one of the most powerful women in the United States, she has to prove that she's absolutely no different than any white male jurist and would analyze and rule the same. This despite the fact that Justice Alito was allowed to freely and positively refer to his ethnic background in conjunction with his judicial temperment and philosophy during his confirmation hearings.
Who's afraid of a wise Latina? I guess Senators Sessions and Hatch.
I call B.S. But I don't blame Judge Sotomayor.
But, to borrow from an En Vogue song, "And now it's time for a breakdown."
Have we forgotten that the majority of racial injustices cloaked in the mantle of dispassionate and unbiased jurisprudence have been visited upon people of color in the U.S. by white male jurists? It was white men who gave us the Japanese internment cases, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the Dred Scott decision. It was also a white man who, having had a hand in the internment of Japanese Americans, drew on his empathy (There, I said it. Empathy. Since when did "empathy" become a dirty word, like "liberal"?) and sense of justice and used all his might to procure a per curiam opinion in Brown v. Board of Education.
Have we forgotten that courts have adopted a reasonable woman standard in judging workplace sexual harassment of women? That recognizing a woman's gendered experience and what might be considered harassment to her, as opposed to what men might think is or isn't harassment to her, is part of applying the life experiences of others, marginalized others to be precise, to come to a fair and just result? To think otherwise is to think that a noose is just a pretty rope with a loop. Or that a confederate flag is just "heritage, not hate" when it's hung in the breakroom of an overwhelmingly black workforce.
But no, we're not supposed to consider this because that's bias, not empathy. Prejudice, not jurisprudence.
I wish with all my might that Judge Sotomayor had the power to say, "Yep, I said what I said about the wise Latina thing, I meant it when I said it, I still mean it, and I have the votes to get where I want to go. So if you have no further questions . . . . "
But she doesn't. Like many intelligent, Ivy League-educated people of color, she has the intellect, the accomplishments, the connections, but not the power. That power, unfortunately, is in the hands of a mostly white, male Senate Judiciary Committee that doesn't understand the nuanced difference between bias and empathy and that judging isn't simply a matter of fair and colorless versus prejudiced and color-considering.
I hope Judge Sotomayor makes it through this process so she can sit on the highest court on the land for the remainder of her lifetime.
And then have the power to speak her mind, freely and without apology or "walking back."
Because the Supreme Court desperately needs a wise Latina.
Oh, so it's like THAT. When a Latina is nominated to a position that holds for her the potential to become one of the most powerful women in the United States, she has to prove that she's absolutely no different than any white male jurist and would analyze and rule the same. This despite the fact that Justice Alito was allowed to freely and positively refer to his ethnic background in conjunction with his judicial temperment and philosophy during his confirmation hearings.
Who's afraid of a wise Latina? I guess Senators Sessions and Hatch.
I call B.S. But I don't blame Judge Sotomayor.
But, to borrow from an En Vogue song, "And now it's time for a breakdown."
Have we forgotten that the majority of racial injustices cloaked in the mantle of dispassionate and unbiased jurisprudence have been visited upon people of color in the U.S. by white male jurists? It was white men who gave us the Japanese internment cases, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the Dred Scott decision. It was also a white man who, having had a hand in the internment of Japanese Americans, drew on his empathy (There, I said it. Empathy. Since when did "empathy" become a dirty word, like "liberal"?) and sense of justice and used all his might to procure a per curiam opinion in Brown v. Board of Education.
Have we forgotten that courts have adopted a reasonable woman standard in judging workplace sexual harassment of women? That recognizing a woman's gendered experience and what might be considered harassment to her, as opposed to what men might think is or isn't harassment to her, is part of applying the life experiences of others, marginalized others to be precise, to come to a fair and just result? To think otherwise is to think that a noose is just a pretty rope with a loop. Or that a confederate flag is just "heritage, not hate" when it's hung in the breakroom of an overwhelmingly black workforce.
But no, we're not supposed to consider this because that's bias, not empathy. Prejudice, not jurisprudence.
I wish with all my might that Judge Sotomayor had the power to say, "Yep, I said what I said about the wise Latina thing, I meant it when I said it, I still mean it, and I have the votes to get where I want to go. So if you have no further questions . . . . "
But she doesn't. Like many intelligent, Ivy League-educated people of color, she has the intellect, the accomplishments, the connections, but not the power. That power, unfortunately, is in the hands of a mostly white, male Senate Judiciary Committee that doesn't understand the nuanced difference between bias and empathy and that judging isn't simply a matter of fair and colorless versus prejudiced and color-considering.
I hope Judge Sotomayor makes it through this process so she can sit on the highest court on the land for the remainder of her lifetime.
And then have the power to speak her mind, freely and without apology or "walking back."
Because the Supreme Court desperately needs a wise Latina.
To Every Thing There Is A Season
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven . . . .
I’m no Bible scholar. I only know of this verse because of the Byrd’s song, “Turn, Turn, Turn.” It’s a reminder that the things we wish for don’t necessarily happen when we want, but in their season.
My friend Sheila in Denver is a living example of this verse. Whenever something doesn’t go her way or she doesn’t get something she longs for, she simply says, “It isn’t my season” and moves on. That’s it. No whining, no complaining, nothing. She surrenders to God’s plan for her and gets on with life. I wish I were more like her.
I’ve done something I never do on this blog: Included a photo. This is a photo from my garden of one of the rose bushes I brought with me to my new home from my previous rental. I had my doubts they would bloom, even after one of the groundspeople where I work told last winter to cut them back severely. “Are you sure?”, I said, with trepidation. “Yes.” He reminded me that they will come back like gangbusters, in their season.
And they did.
I was reminded that “to every thing there is a season” yesterday when I happened to be home and saw a commentary by Roland Martin on TV 1 regarding Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. He bemoaned the fact that African American women judges weren’t considered for the nomination and suggested that we hold President Obama accountable for his future choices for the Court.
I just shook my head and thought, “It’s not our season.”
Mind you, I’d love to see a sistah judge on the highest court in our land. But what would it have said about President Obama and African Americans in general if, at our first turn at governing the nation, we looked out only for our own interests and not the interests of all the other groups who helped bring President Obama to the White House? African Americans are no longer the largest minority in the U.S., and we need to get with that new reality. We need to forge alliances across racial, ethnic, and other lines to be able to secure our interests down the line with the support of others. We already have an African American justice on the Court (for what he’s worth – and don’t forget, there were black folks who actually supported Justice Thomas’ nomination), and he’s the second African American to have occupied a place on the court. What we need are women of all races sitting on the Court, not just women of two races – black and white. I have faith that, when the proper opportunity arises, President Obama will appoint an African American woman to the Court. However, I want to see all marginalized groups represented on the highest bench in the land, not just my own people.
Plus, the “black for black’s sake” argument doesn’t resonate with me given how conservatives have been teeing up Judge Janice Rogers Brown to be the first African American female justice on the Supreme Court. A former justice on the California Supreme Court who opposed racial set-asides and race-conscious relief in general, Brown was appointed by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is well known as a feeder circuit for the U.S. Supreme Court. This was the same court Justice Thomas was appointed to for a little more than a year before ascending to the Supreme Court. In the words of my former judge, “He wasn’t there [the D.C. Circuit] long enough to write his name on a paycheck, much less author any significant opinions.” If Roland Martin were to go shopping just for black female judges qualified for the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown is more qualified than Thomas was when he was nominated. But I wouldn’t want her on the Supreme Court.
Just as the roses bloomed in my garden in their season, I believe we African American women will have our season, too, when it comes to nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. It just isn’t now.
Ecclesiastes 3:1
I’m no Bible scholar. I only know of this verse because of the Byrd’s song, “Turn, Turn, Turn.” It’s a reminder that the things we wish for don’t necessarily happen when we want, but in their season.
My friend Sheila in Denver is a living example of this verse. Whenever something doesn’t go her way or she doesn’t get something she longs for, she simply says, “It isn’t my season” and moves on. That’s it. No whining, no complaining, nothing. She surrenders to God’s plan for her and gets on with life. I wish I were more like her.
I’ve done something I never do on this blog: Included a photo. This is a photo from my garden of one of the rose bushes I brought with me to my new home from my previous rental. I had my doubts they would bloom, even after one of the groundspeople where I work told last winter to cut them back severely. “Are you sure?”, I said, with trepidation. “Yes.” He reminded me that they will come back like gangbusters, in their season.
And they did.
I was reminded that “to every thing there is a season” yesterday when I happened to be home and saw a commentary by Roland Martin on TV 1 regarding Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. He bemoaned the fact that African American women judges weren’t considered for the nomination and suggested that we hold President Obama accountable for his future choices for the Court.
I just shook my head and thought, “It’s not our season.”
Mind you, I’d love to see a sistah judge on the highest court in our land. But what would it have said about President Obama and African Americans in general if, at our first turn at governing the nation, we looked out only for our own interests and not the interests of all the other groups who helped bring President Obama to the White House? African Americans are no longer the largest minority in the U.S., and we need to get with that new reality. We need to forge alliances across racial, ethnic, and other lines to be able to secure our interests down the line with the support of others. We already have an African American justice on the Court (for what he’s worth – and don’t forget, there were black folks who actually supported Justice Thomas’ nomination), and he’s the second African American to have occupied a place on the court. What we need are women of all races sitting on the Court, not just women of two races – black and white. I have faith that, when the proper opportunity arises, President Obama will appoint an African American woman to the Court. However, I want to see all marginalized groups represented on the highest bench in the land, not just my own people.
Plus, the “black for black’s sake” argument doesn’t resonate with me given how conservatives have been teeing up Judge Janice Rogers Brown to be the first African American female justice on the Supreme Court. A former justice on the California Supreme Court who opposed racial set-asides and race-conscious relief in general, Brown was appointed by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is well known as a feeder circuit for the U.S. Supreme Court. This was the same court Justice Thomas was appointed to for a little more than a year before ascending to the Supreme Court. In the words of my former judge, “He wasn’t there [the D.C. Circuit] long enough to write his name on a paycheck, much less author any significant opinions.” If Roland Martin were to go shopping just for black female judges qualified for the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown is more qualified than Thomas was when he was nominated. But I wouldn’t want her on the Supreme Court.
Just as the roses bloomed in my garden in their season, I believe we African American women will have our season, too, when it comes to nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. It just isn’t now.
Git To Work!
First, I hope everyone had a wonderful Memorial Day weekend and kept our fallen servicemen and women in their thoughts and prayers.
Second, I have to acknowledge a comment made about my last entry that didn’t address President Obama's plan to indefinitely detain enemy combatants without trial. With this, I do not agree. Indefinite detention without charges is not acceptable. What if Iran had indefinitely detained Roxanne Saberi without a trial, even a sham one? What if North Korea indefinitely detains Laura Ling and Euna Lee without trial? We can’t lead if we don’t lead by example and under the rule of law, namely habeas corpus. President Obama needs to rethink this. I can’t go for that, no how, no can do.
Third, I’m pleased beyond words at the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court (see my May 1 blog entry). Now, to the Democrat senators: Git to work. Now is not the time for bipartisanship – great if you can get it on this nomination, but if you can’t, you better act like the big dogs you are and make this happen. Judge Sotomayor is more qualified than either Justice O’Connor or Justice Thomas (talk about a waste) was when they were nominated, and her voice and experience are sorely needed in the white male bastion that has been the U.S. Supreme Court. In the words of Tim Gunn, you need to “make it work.” Or, in the words of RuPaul, “You better WORK.”
Finally, as to the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding Proposition 8, well, I’m disappointed but not surprised. This was a totally different legal issue before the court – whether the proposition was an amendment to the California constitution or a revision requiring a constitutional convention. I didn’t read the decision thoroughly, but I can say that the decision wasn’t interpreting the California constitution per se, but the means by which it can be legally changed. The court held that Prop. 8 was indeed a legal means to change the California constitution.
That said, my message to my LGBT brothers and sisters is this: Git to work. I believe that Prop. 8 passed because of ignorance as to what the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding same-sex marriage meant. I even spoke to a devout African American Christian woman who said she was supporting Prop. 8 because she didn’t want to have gay and lesbian couples getting married in her church. I had to explain to her that no state law requires a church to marry folks outside of its faith or anyone it doesn’t want to marry. I also explained that all same-sex marriage does is treat people equally under the law, period – that she didn’t have to agree with or like same-sex marriage, but that same-sex couples pay taxes, work, and have families just like heterosexual couples, and all that they wanted was the opportunity to secure the exact same rights as heterosexual couples. I also explained that we African Americans need to be the last folks advocating discrimination against anybody.
So, here’s what needs to be done:
1) Educate folks. There was no clear explanation from the LGBT community of what the California court decision upholding same-sex marriage meant and what Prop. 8 would mean. Mind you, if the woman I spoke to thought that same-sex marriage meant that her church had to let same-sex couples get married in it, how many other people thought the same? No one, to the best of my knowledge, made clear the case for same-sex marriage – why LGBT couples want it, why it’s different than civil unions, and what it would not require of the straight community. And you can’t be afraid to go to churches, synagogues, etc. and talk to people who oppose you. Come respectfully and explain same-sex marriage is an “equality under the law” issue, not a religious issue – you know, the whole “Render unto Caesar” thing. Prop. 8 is as discriminatory as requiring polygamy would be and is based on the same rationale – allowing the government to discriminate based on religious beliefs of the voting majority. But you have to educated people as to why same-sex marriage is a legal issue that does not erode heterosexual marriage, especially since we straight folks have done enough to erode the institution of marriage all by our damn selves, thank you very much.
2) Make it personal. None of the anti-Prop. 8 commercials I saw had LGBT people in them. WTF? As much as folks don’t like to admit it, everybody – and I mean EVERYBODY – has a LGBT family member. I have at least two that I know of, one of whom I urged to hurry up and get married before the right to do so was taken away. He didn’t listen. Regardless, you need to make this issue personal – would folks want their gay Uncle Larry or Cousin Tina to be treated differently under the law than them? Next time, have commercials with LGBT folks and their straight family members. People forget that LGBT people pay taxes, work, raise families, and die for this country. Don’t let them. Truman couldn’t justify continuing discrimination in the military when black soldiers were dying alongside white soldiers for this country. Make it personal, and don’t let folks forget your humanity.
3) Get ugly. Yes, you need to boycott and sit in. Now, I’m not advising sitting in at an LDS church, but anything related to Marriot hotels would be fair game, as would Deseret Industries. There should be no gay pride parades in California until the law is changed. There should be no gay tourism in California until the law is changed. Every dollar that leaves the wallet of an LGBT person in California should have written on it, “I’m LGBT and want to be treated equally under the law.” Every company and organization that donated funds to the Prop. 8 campaign should be outed, targeted, and boycotted. Black organizations boycotted Arizona for not adopting a Dr. King holiday. You need to boycott California.
4) Get on the ballot and don’t give up. I wouldn’t let up on this issue. I’d get it on the ballot as often as possible until I prevailed. People expect the LGBT community to give up and walk away because the numbers aren’t there to vote in same-sex marriage. Well, the numbers aren’t there yet. But if you do what I say, they will be. What if Dr. King had given up? And who helped bring the idea of non-violent protest to him as well as the idea of the March on Washington? Bayard Rustin, a black gay man. And black folks didn't have the numbers on our side for decades until Dr. King, Rustin, and others came along and won hearts and minds.
So, git to work!
Second, I have to acknowledge a comment made about my last entry that didn’t address President Obama's plan to indefinitely detain enemy combatants without trial. With this, I do not agree. Indefinite detention without charges is not acceptable. What if Iran had indefinitely detained Roxanne Saberi without a trial, even a sham one? What if North Korea indefinitely detains Laura Ling and Euna Lee without trial? We can’t lead if we don’t lead by example and under the rule of law, namely habeas corpus. President Obama needs to rethink this. I can’t go for that, no how, no can do.
Third, I’m pleased beyond words at the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court (see my May 1 blog entry). Now, to the Democrat senators: Git to work. Now is not the time for bipartisanship – great if you can get it on this nomination, but if you can’t, you better act like the big dogs you are and make this happen. Judge Sotomayor is more qualified than either Justice O’Connor or Justice Thomas (talk about a waste) was when they were nominated, and her voice and experience are sorely needed in the white male bastion that has been the U.S. Supreme Court. In the words of Tim Gunn, you need to “make it work.” Or, in the words of RuPaul, “You better WORK.”
Finally, as to the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding Proposition 8, well, I’m disappointed but not surprised. This was a totally different legal issue before the court – whether the proposition was an amendment to the California constitution or a revision requiring a constitutional convention. I didn’t read the decision thoroughly, but I can say that the decision wasn’t interpreting the California constitution per se, but the means by which it can be legally changed. The court held that Prop. 8 was indeed a legal means to change the California constitution.
That said, my message to my LGBT brothers and sisters is this: Git to work. I believe that Prop. 8 passed because of ignorance as to what the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding same-sex marriage meant. I even spoke to a devout African American Christian woman who said she was supporting Prop. 8 because she didn’t want to have gay and lesbian couples getting married in her church. I had to explain to her that no state law requires a church to marry folks outside of its faith or anyone it doesn’t want to marry. I also explained that all same-sex marriage does is treat people equally under the law, period – that she didn’t have to agree with or like same-sex marriage, but that same-sex couples pay taxes, work, and have families just like heterosexual couples, and all that they wanted was the opportunity to secure the exact same rights as heterosexual couples. I also explained that we African Americans need to be the last folks advocating discrimination against anybody.
So, here’s what needs to be done:
1) Educate folks. There was no clear explanation from the LGBT community of what the California court decision upholding same-sex marriage meant and what Prop. 8 would mean. Mind you, if the woman I spoke to thought that same-sex marriage meant that her church had to let same-sex couples get married in it, how many other people thought the same? No one, to the best of my knowledge, made clear the case for same-sex marriage – why LGBT couples want it, why it’s different than civil unions, and what it would not require of the straight community. And you can’t be afraid to go to churches, synagogues, etc. and talk to people who oppose you. Come respectfully and explain same-sex marriage is an “equality under the law” issue, not a religious issue – you know, the whole “Render unto Caesar” thing. Prop. 8 is as discriminatory as requiring polygamy would be and is based on the same rationale – allowing the government to discriminate based on religious beliefs of the voting majority. But you have to educated people as to why same-sex marriage is a legal issue that does not erode heterosexual marriage, especially since we straight folks have done enough to erode the institution of marriage all by our damn selves, thank you very much.
2) Make it personal. None of the anti-Prop. 8 commercials I saw had LGBT people in them. WTF? As much as folks don’t like to admit it, everybody – and I mean EVERYBODY – has a LGBT family member. I have at least two that I know of, one of whom I urged to hurry up and get married before the right to do so was taken away. He didn’t listen. Regardless, you need to make this issue personal – would folks want their gay Uncle Larry or Cousin Tina to be treated differently under the law than them? Next time, have commercials with LGBT folks and their straight family members. People forget that LGBT people pay taxes, work, raise families, and die for this country. Don’t let them. Truman couldn’t justify continuing discrimination in the military when black soldiers were dying alongside white soldiers for this country. Make it personal, and don’t let folks forget your humanity.
3) Get ugly. Yes, you need to boycott and sit in. Now, I’m not advising sitting in at an LDS church, but anything related to Marriot hotels would be fair game, as would Deseret Industries. There should be no gay pride parades in California until the law is changed. There should be no gay tourism in California until the law is changed. Every dollar that leaves the wallet of an LGBT person in California should have written on it, “I’m LGBT and want to be treated equally under the law.” Every company and organization that donated funds to the Prop. 8 campaign should be outed, targeted, and boycotted. Black organizations boycotted Arizona for not adopting a Dr. King holiday. You need to boycott California.
4) Get on the ballot and don’t give up. I wouldn’t let up on this issue. I’d get it on the ballot as often as possible until I prevailed. People expect the LGBT community to give up and walk away because the numbers aren’t there to vote in same-sex marriage. Well, the numbers aren’t there yet. But if you do what I say, they will be. What if Dr. King had given up? And who helped bring the idea of non-violent protest to him as well as the idea of the March on Washington? Bayard Rustin, a black gay man. And black folks didn't have the numbers on our side for decades until Dr. King, Rustin, and others came along and won hearts and minds.
So, git to work!
Justice Sotomayor: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Justice David Souter is said to be retiring. We should all thank him for his service to our country. But it's time to look forward.
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is an idea whose time has come.
If you look at the federal judiciary, it is overwhelmingly white and male. When a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was asked by one of my law students the career path to becoming a judge, he gave the pithy reply, "It helps if you know your U.S. Senator."
Mind you, as a professor, I had hoped for an insightful answer -- that perhaps he had toiled as a prosecutor or public defender or rose through the ranks at a law firm to make partner. That he had argued x number of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. That he had been attorney general for his state.
"It helps if you know your U.S. Senator."
How many women or people of color can say that? When you add to that the dearth of women and people of color in the federal judiciary -- although it's getting better, the numbers aren't what they should be given the advances made during the Carter and Clinton administrations -- of course it comes down to not much more than social ties, assuming all the qualifications are in place.
It shouldn't be that way.
I don't know Judge Sotomayor other than knowing that she was on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. When I Googled her this morning, I found out that clearly I wasn't the only one who had the same idea: It's time to put a woman of color on the U.S. Supreme Court. Because race and gender do matter.
When I think of how Justice Ginsburg has stood up for the rights of women and people of color precisely because she has been discriminated against because of her gender and religion, I know that when issues of race and gender come before the court -- issues of marginalized people in general -- that she is going to give these issues a fair hearing AND a different perspective based on her own life experience, a life experience not shared by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Stevens, Alito, Souter, Breyer, and even Justice Thomas, to a certain extent.
Judge Sotomayor's got all the goods: A summa cum laude graduate of Princeton, Yale Law School graduate, editor of the Yale Law Journal, U.S. District Court judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit judge. She's enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, and I can't imagine that she wouldn't this time around.
A Latina on the U.S. Supreme Court: An idea whose time has come.
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is an idea whose time has come.
If you look at the federal judiciary, it is overwhelmingly white and male. When a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was asked by one of my law students the career path to becoming a judge, he gave the pithy reply, "It helps if you know your U.S. Senator."
Mind you, as a professor, I had hoped for an insightful answer -- that perhaps he had toiled as a prosecutor or public defender or rose through the ranks at a law firm to make partner. That he had argued x number of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. That he had been attorney general for his state.
"It helps if you know your U.S. Senator."
How many women or people of color can say that? When you add to that the dearth of women and people of color in the federal judiciary -- although it's getting better, the numbers aren't what they should be given the advances made during the Carter and Clinton administrations -- of course it comes down to not much more than social ties, assuming all the qualifications are in place.
It shouldn't be that way.
I don't know Judge Sotomayor other than knowing that she was on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. When I Googled her this morning, I found out that clearly I wasn't the only one who had the same idea: It's time to put a woman of color on the U.S. Supreme Court. Because race and gender do matter.
When I think of how Justice Ginsburg has stood up for the rights of women and people of color precisely because she has been discriminated against because of her gender and religion, I know that when issues of race and gender come before the court -- issues of marginalized people in general -- that she is going to give these issues a fair hearing AND a different perspective based on her own life experience, a life experience not shared by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Stevens, Alito, Souter, Breyer, and even Justice Thomas, to a certain extent.
Judge Sotomayor's got all the goods: A summa cum laude graduate of Princeton, Yale Law School graduate, editor of the Yale Law Journal, U.S. District Court judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit judge. She's enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, and I can't imagine that she wouldn't this time around.
A Latina on the U.S. Supreme Court: An idea whose time has come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)