Phyllis, Clarence Thomas epitomizes the cautionary tale of choosing someone for the highest court in the land who should not hold that seat. He is a man that has HUGE identity issues, and in many ways I equate him to O.J. Simpson and others who only identify themselves and use their race when it is to their benefit.

Rest assured Clarence Thomas’s comment about him feeling like it was a current day lynching was only profound to him because HE was on the receiving end of it. Yet let it had been any other Black man being accused of those deeds and HE was in a position to judge, I doubt that he would have defined the scenario as such. To the contrary, he would have been the loudest supporter to convict as guilty.

It is possible to judge a situation or event without allowing your own race or gender to be part of your prism. I know, I do it everyday. I am close friends with people who most would suggest I not be. And I am not special, so that tells me the world is filled with people who have the same ability. Why can’t we have a supreme court made up of people capable of doing the same.  Race and gender do not have to be the center of every discussion.

Pres. Obama won not because he is of color, but because he was the most qualified. We now have someone who may be serving on the supreme court who has said and admitted to skewed thinking. She should not be in a position where she can argue law at this level. I find her pick disturbing.

People cheer when someone of a particular race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation becomes successful in a field where that person’s race, gender, religion or sexual orientation has been a barrier to success in that field in the past because it shows progress.  In some respects, its human nature to cheer for the underdog.  Why do you think there really aren’t any movies about how the rich guy got richer?

As for the american story, there’s always been the idea that america is the sort of place where everyone rises to the level their talents allow them to, regardless of class.  This is a tradition that has extended since the beginning of the country, when people fled the much more static structure of Europe (at that time) for here.  And, thus, someone who starts out poor and disadvantaged is celebrated as fitting that ideal.  Unfortunately, it’s not entirely true that a person’s success is only determined by his or her talents.  Many things come into play, which give an unequal playing field.

A person who has never had any adversity WILL have trouble understanding other people’s issues.  I was an extremely poor college student because a multitude of reasons that are unimportant.  I went to school in an area where many people were quite weathy, and in my discussions with these people it was obvious that they didn’t "get" it.  For instance, due to a paperwork snafu one semester my financial aid was not going to arrive in time to pay my tuition by the appointed time.  So, I went to speak to a financial adviser because if my classes were dropped I wouldn’t be able to get back into them given the lengthy waiting lists.  His advice was to pay the bill with my own money, and then get reimbursed when I got the financial aid.  I pointed out that if had enough money to pay it, I wouldn’t be getting finacial aid.  He then said that I should ask my parents to pay it, and then reimburse them.  I pointed out that if my parents had had enough money to pay the bill, I also wouldn’t be getting finacial aid.  Those were his only suggestions……   Now, it’s entirely possible that there was nothing the man could’ve done for me so the fact that he was completely clueless might not have mattered.  But, his complete inability to understand where I was coming from WAS a problem.  (for those interested, I covered my tuition by switching to an installment payment plan which cost me ~$500 extra that year and due to a very very awesome professor lent me a couple thousand dollars when she found me crying in the bathroom…..)

In short, it’s easy to be successful when you start successful.  It’s much harder when you don’t, and we as a people are always more interested in those who had to work hard.

I disagree with your beliefs in this regard RJB, but I understand them. Over the past week everyone I know has been speculating it would be Sotomayer. And as I voiced my concerns about her, friend after friend pointed out to me that I needed to look at her possible appointment in perspective.The Supreme court is suppose to be a court that represents the country as a whole. Back in the 60’s when Blacks were finally gaining true equality, President Johnson appointed Justice Marshall. Partly because he was qualified but more so because he was Black. In doing so he thought it would bring a different perspective to the court’s panel. 

My friends are saying because our country as every day clicks by is becoming more Latino, President Obama is under a great deal of pressure to add a voice for the Latino community. Unlike my ancestors from the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s if I am met with discrimination I take it head on. I don’t allow my rights to be denied, and I recognize this was not a priviledge afforded them back then. But we are in an era where we all (Black, White and Latino or female) should be able to say the same.

The decisions that she will be required to make 99.9% should be devoid of her personal life experiences. We have seen for decades now decisions made from justices that DO allow their personal ideology and perspectives to play a role in how they rule. That has not served us well.  With her appointment we are simply perpetuating a standard that has been taking place for countless years. The only difference is now instead of White men applying their bias and personal perspectives to their rulings, we will have a Latina who will (because as she says she has a better understanding than a White man) apply her personal bias and perspective. One is no more correct than the other.