This Associated Press story (“Debate Over Who Sotomayor Is a Sensitive One,” 5/29/09) sure is confused. Luckilyreporter Sharon Thiemermakes at least that much clear from the very start:
There are two sides to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: a Latina from a blue-collar family and a wealthy member of America’s power elite.
The White House portrays Sotomayor as a living image of the American dream, though its telling of the rags-to-riches story emphasizes the rags, a more politically appealing narrative, and plays down the riches.
Yes, somehow the White House picked her despite the fact that she is no longer poor–and still pretended that she was the “living image of the American dream,” which as we all know is to remain poor one’s entire life.
That’s not the end of it. The AP also writes:
On ethnicity, Sotomayor herself has recognized–and contributed to–the dichotomy. She proudly highlights her Puerto Rican roots but hasn’t always liked it when others have.
The evidence:
Yet years ago, during a recruiting dinner in law school at Yale, Sotomayor objected when a law firm partner asked whether she would have been admitted to the school if she weren’t Puerto Rican, and whether law firms did a disservice by hiring minority students the firms know are unqualified and will ultimately be fired.
So she’s proud of being Puerto Rican and she takes offense at the notion that she couldn’t have gotten into Yale if she weren’t? What a “dichotomy.” The AP goes on to note that Sotomayor “won a formal apology from the firm.”
We do learn, as well, that her brother is a doctor “whose practice doesn’t accept Medicaid or Medicare– programs for the poor and elderly–according to its website.” Great–now her sibling isn’t poor anymore, either?
I think you’re being a little disingenuous here. Sure, this is typical AP horseshit – the Yale anecdote makes that clear.
But there’s a difference between being “not poor” and being wealthy, isn’t there? And of course the Obamans want to play up her humble beginnings – with people like Geithner and Summers popping in and out of the White House, it’s good spin to try to ID with that, isn’t it?
Sometimes the corpress gets it right – for the wrong reasons.
The brother thing – well, you need simply point out that she ain’t her brother’s keeper. I think many of us wouldn’t want to be held responsible for our family members’ actions, would we?
But isn’t it a legitimate criticism that her brother doesn’t accept Medicare and Medicaid patients – even if the reason for saying so isn’t legitimate?
Rolling your eyes at the mention of that fact – rather than focusing on why that has anything to do with her – is just bad media criticism to me.
As for whether Sotomayor’s more reactionary than her image – well, time will tell, but I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if she doesn’t turn out to be the liberal (forget about progressive) that she’s made out to be.
That is, if Obama’s own actions are any indicator of how he’d want a Supreme Court justice to rule.
Being an empiricist, I’d give that factor a great deal of weight, wouldn’t you?