If you caught even a snippet of the Senate Judiciary Committee's marathon confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, you might think being a "wise Latina" is a punishable offense.
Republican senators pummeled her so relentlessly that she disavowed the phrase as a "failed rhetorical flourish" that miscommunicated her true feelings.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Wednesday, July 22, 2009 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 4 National Desk 1 inches; 52 words Type of Material: Correction
Sandy Banks: Sandy Banks' column in Saturday's Section A on the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor referred to Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) is the committee's chairman. Sessions is the ranking member, the committee's top Republican post.
But did it fail because she didn't deliver her message clearly enough, or because we all hear things differently?
What she said was straightforward enough: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
That was one sentence in an eight-page speech Sotomayor delivered at UC Berkeley in 2002 at a conference of Latino law students. It was intended, she explained to the judiciary committee this week, "to inspire them to believe their life experiences would enrich the legal system."
Could she have been less provocative? Certainly. That "better . . . than a white male" phrase landed like an insult in some quarters. And like a blow to the gut of those with "Master of the Universe" fantasies.
But I got what she meant, and I agree.
I only wish as much attention had been paid to her preceding sentence: "There can never be a universal definition of wise."
In other words, we all have something to learn and something to teach.
::
The issues the senators' queries raised this week were not unimportant: Will Sotomayor's ethnicity and upbringing influence her legal decisions? To what will she owe the higher allegiance, her Latino heritage or the facts in the cases the court hears?
But parts of the proceedings seemed more political theater than earnest legal inquiry. And often, the commentary of "experts" hardly matched what I was hearing. I heard CNN commentator John King characterize South Carolina's Lindsey Graham as a "gentlemanly" inquisitor, who softened his complaints with folksy charm. I thought the GOP senator patronized Sotomayor, cutting her off mid-sentence and scolding her in a condescending tone.
Is that my gender bias showing? Or did King have his male blinders on?
Sen. Tom Coburn drew a laugh while questioning Sotomayor about gun control, with his Ricky Ricardo impression that cast the judge in the role of Lucille Ball. Sotomayor plowed ahead, brushing it off. But I thought his "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do" remark was more insulting than amusing.
