Sandra Day O’Connor Spoke Approvingly Of Race Shaping Thurgood Marshall’s Judging
A source sends over the full tribute that Sandra Day O’Connor, Ronald Reagan’s appointee to the Supreme Court in 1991, delivered to legendary Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1992, after his retirement.
In it, O’Connor actually spoke approvingly of the ways in which Marshall’s race-based experiences shaped his jurisprudence and even influenced her own legal thinking — almost exactly what conservatives are attacking Sonia Sotomayor for saying about herself in her now-infamous 2001 speech.
Here’s the key passage:
Like most of my counterparts who grew up in the Southwest in the 1930s and 1940s, I had not been personally exposed to racial tensions before Brown; Arizona did not have a large African American population then, and unlike southern States, it never adopted a de jure system of segregation. Although I had spend a year as an eighth grader in a predominately Latino public school in New Mexico, I had no personal sense, as the plaintiff children of Topeka School District did, of being a minority in a society that cared primarily for the majority.
But as I listened that day to Justice Marshall talk eloquently to the media about the social stigmas and lost opportunities suffered by African American children in state-imposed segregated school, my awareness of race-based disparities deepened. I did not, could not, know it then, but the man who would, as a lawyer and jurist, captivate the nation would also, as colleague and friend, profoundly influence me.
Although all of us come to the Court with our own personal histories and experiences, Justice Marshall brought a special perspective. His was the eye of a lawyer who saw the deepest wounds in the social fabric and used law to help heal them. His was the ear of a counselor who understood the vulnerabilities of the accused and established safeguards for their protection. His was the mouth of a man who knew the anguish of the silenced and gave them a voice.
At oral arguments and conference meetings, in opinions and dissents, Justice Marshall imparted not only his legal acumen but also his life experiences, constantly pushing and prodding us to respond not only to the persuasiveness of legal argument but also to the power of moral truth.
To be clear, the key line in Sotomayor’s speech was clumsily worded, and she will likely end up clarifying it at some point. But as O’Connor’s statements above show, the sentiments Sotomayor is getting attacked for — that her race-based experiences shape and sometimes enrich her judgments — simply aren’t controversial or new.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Please, Sonia, issue a clarifying statement and save us all from the repetitive posting defending unique perspectives! Greg, begging, move on — is nothing else happening?
As someone (Kinsley?) noted today, the absence of empathy is an indicator of psychopathology. And, as I noted sometime earlier, we’re a not sure why the Federalist Society hasn’t contracted the folks at Microsoft to work up a software program which strictly adheres to originalist texts and which, free of the failings of human experience, emotions and sensitivities, would provide them with the ideal SC candidate.
SBJ, right now Rush Limbaugh’s claim that Sotomayor said she’s “better” than a white guy is plastered all over MSNBC. I think it’s legit to spend a bit of time pointing out that a Reagan appointee and moderate conservative said the same thing she did.
This morning on good morning America, when Laura Ingram went on to character assassinate Sotomayor by trying to make issue with La Raza, Matt Lauer brought up Marshall being a member of the NAACP, which could be a comparison. But then, to back up whatever Ingram was insinuating, which I’m guessing is Sotomayor is a racist, she brought up some obscure quote I hadn’t heard yet and can’t remember off hand.
.
This morning on C-SPAN radio, right winger Jennifer Rubin was on and in good C-SPAN fashion, they quickly had some tape up regarding the empathy claims Rubin was making and played the tape of GWB claiming Thomas had empathy. Of course Rubin quickly said something along the lines of, well of course Bush wasn’t choosing Thomas for his empathy.
.
It’s good to get the counter evidence to point out their hypocrisy. Only the rabid right wingers will ignore it. Anyone with some common sense will see it.
I will point again that Sotomayor wasn’t referring to herself any more than Sandra Day O’Conner was referring to herself in the quote Sotomayor was referring to. I feel like I am in a bizarro world where nobody can read what she actually wrote and said. And maybe just maybe people will start to take note that she herself used, you know, actual data to point out the differences between decisions handed down by courts that were made up of only white males and those that had women and or minorities included on them.
.
F*ck it, I am just going to quit worrying about it. In a week or two the media will be parroting some other right wing talking point I am sure.
@Greg: Not saying your posts aren’t legit – just asking for some posts on anything else! There’s some “interesting” news on Pete Visclosky . . . Toomey is gaining on Specter . . . North Korea launching more missiles . . . cyber security.
*
BTW, I agree that the sentiments Sotomayor is getting attacked for are not controversial, but her particular clumsy words ARE controversial. She needs to clarify. Some others are moving on to analyze her decisions and I think you could do the same – just a thought. For instance, “Sotomayor issued an opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo that the protections of the Second Amendment do not apply to the states.” That ruling is being appealed to the Supreme Court and she would have to recuse.
Yglesias/Klein quote Cass Sunstein…
.
“Here is another way to demonstrate the point. In 1980 Stevens often operated as the Court’s median member; in many cases he (along with Powell) was the Justice Kennedy of that era. But Stevens is frequently described as the most liberal member of the current Court. If he qualifies for that position, it is not because of any significant change in his own approach, but because of a massive shift in the Court’s center of gravity. [. . .] A widely unknown fact: Between 1984 and 2000, the Court overruled more than 40 precedents, specifically rejecting the law as it was understood in 1980. And on many more occasions, the Court significantly reoriented the law without overruling particular decisions.”http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/the-courts-right-shift.php
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/the-courts-right-shift.php
wtf is the AP story on the front of MSNBC. Some ridiculous quotes from it.
.
“Analysis: The Supreme Court nominee’s up-by-her-bootstraps tale has been widely reported. But she has spent most of her life as a wealthy member of America’s power elite.”
.
Didn’t we just find out she’s got like $150k to her name? Wealthy power elite? Hardly.
.
and
.
“Still, she kept her hand in the Puerto Rican community — possibly to the point of a conflict of interest.”
.
What the hell does being involved in your heritage have to do with a conflict of interest? Seriously. What planet do these people live on. I think I need to turn off my computer…no I can’t!….must….read….more
The court and the wound.
.
‘Let’s Hope That The Key Conferences Aren’t When She’s Menstruating’
.
G Gordon Liddy yesterday (from Think Progress)
GM entering into BK – ChryCo in BK & closing dealerships… dealerships that are their customers… so now they have 700 fewer customers… wtf?? – Guess that was the problem.. not the 300K unsold vehicles they have sitting around while the plants are closes…
GM to follow suit shortly -
Who here drives a GM or Chrysler?
I picked up a G8 in March – great car.
The Repugs who who are shocked, shocked I say! that someone would dare to let their very personhood “infect” so much as a comma in a SCOTUS opinion are the very people who insisted on complete adherence to a rigid ideology in every single person they were in contact with.
If the Court had merely “applied the law” segregation would still be legal.
Of course Republicans don’t come right out and say that is their preference,but that is what the really mean when they say they don’t want “activist judges legislating from the bench”.
Reagan nominated O’Connor for the court in 1981, not 1991.
Your posts always show me that you really have some indepth knowledge about this. Quite a valuable read i must say.