creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
14 Feb 2012
The Progressive Legacy: Part II

"Often wrong but never in doubt" is a phrase that summarizes much of what was done by Presidents … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
The 'Progressive' Legacy

Although Barack Obama is the first black President of the United States, he is by no means unique, except for … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
The Progressive Legacy: Part III

The same presumptions of superior wisdom and virtue behind the interventionism of Progressive Presidents … Read More.

Equality or Pay-back?

Share Comment

Back when I was on the receiving end of racial discrimination, it was to me not simply a personal misfortune, or even the misfortune of a race, it was a moral outrage. But not everyone who went through such an experience sees it that way.

When it comes to subjecting other people to the same treatment in a later era, some have no real problem with that. They see it as pay-back.

One of the many problems of the pay-back approach is that many of the people who most deserve retribution are no longer alive. You can take symbolic revenge on people who look like them but this removes the whole moral element. If it is all right to discriminate today against individuals who have done you no harm, then why was it wrong to discriminate against you in the past?

These are not just abstract questions. These are serious, real world questions, especially when considering someone to be given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Some judicial nominees have had racial bias attributed to them, despite their years of unwavering support of civil rights for all— Judge Robert Bork and Judge Charles Pickering being striking examples. But the current Supreme Court nominee is the first in decades to explicitly introduce racial differences in their own words, along with the claim that their own racial or ethnic background makes them better qualified.

Attempts to claim that Judge Sonia Sotomayor's words were isolated remarks— a slip of the tongue "taken out of context"— have now been discredited by further information showing that she has repeatedly expressed the same ideas, in virtually the same words, at other times and in other contexts.

Moreover, her deeds— including years of participation in group identity politics— are perfectly consistent with her words. So too was her vote on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to summarily dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who did not get the promotions they had earned by passing a required test, because not enough minority firefighters passed to provide racial "diversity."

The Supreme Court of the United States found that appeal worth hearing, even if Judge Sotomayor did not.

The warm and genial image of Sonia Sotomayor presented on television, during President Obama's introduction and afterwards, is in sharp contrast with what attorneys who have appeared before her in court have said.

A poll of such attorneys showed them rating her worse than other judges in her treatment of those who appeared before her.

A tape of Judge Sotomayor's abusive behavior in court backed up the attorneys' picture. It is also consistent with someone in pay-back mode.

A confirmation decision on a Supreme Court nominee is not like deciding whether someone is innocent or guilty of a crime. It is right in criminal cases that the burden of proof is on those making an accusation, and that the accusation be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Judge Sotomayor is not in jeopardy of either criminal or civil penalties. So there is no reason why either the criminal standard or proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or the civil standard of "the preponderance of evidence" is required for determining whether she is the right person to be given a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land.

It is hundreds of millions of Americans— current and future— whose fundamental rights are at stake whenever any nominee is being considered for the Supreme Court of the United States. It is the American people as a whole who are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

One of those fundamental rights was taken away just four years ago, when a 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court gave local politicians the right to seize your home or business and turn the property over to some other private party that they favor. Just one vote on the Supreme Court can make a huge difference.

We have been told endlessly about Sonia Sotomayor's biography and her symbolism as a Hispanic woman. Is that enough to risk millions of other Americans' fundamental rights?

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Mr. Sowell,
Speaking of discrimination, did you see where California Assemblyman Paul Fong wants the state, and eventually the federal government, to apologize (meaning eventual retribution payments) because of discrimination against the Chinese immigrants in the 1800's? Balance that against the fact that, while some crimes such as murder are considered so heinous that no time limitations are imposed on them, for almost every other crime in almost every state, as well as in federal law, some time restrictions exist beyond which charges may be filed. There is less need, it is argued, for a criminal sanction against a person who demonstrates rehabilitation by remaining law-abiding for some time. I guess Assemblyman Fong figures over 100 years hasn't been enough time to guarantee that such government sanctioned offenses will not occur again. Not detracting from the horrible lack of equality afforded to those immigrants, we must, nontheless, allow a statute of limitations to keep us from discriminating against ourselves because of the sins of our forefathers. Our nation has been rehabilitated, and laws are in effect as a guarantee.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Patrick Chase
Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:26 AM
Payback, since we will never know if she is the best person for the job
because she will get the job because no one in Washington will stop her.
Remember, Washington thinks about votes above anything else and since
Washington will not enforce our immigration laws the Hispanic vote is
becoming important to our politicians.
Comment: #2
Posted by: D. Mark O'Neill
Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:49 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Thomas Sowell
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Jacob Sullum
Jacob SullumUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Alan Reynolds
Alan ReynoldsUpdated 15 Feb 2012

19 Dec 2006 The Worst Worsens

19 Jul 2011 Good Things

10 May 2011 The 'Education' Mantra