Monday, June 8, 2009

"You'll say what we tell you to say Sonia!"

The only alarm bells that went off for me about the Changeling's pick for SCOTUS was, well - that she was the Changeling's pick for SCOTUS. That she'd be Latina, I kind of expected. But, cautiously optimistic, I tried to find out more about her opinions and her two previous appointments by Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton, just to see what SHE was about. Now who woulda thunk it? After doing all that reading, it only took these three things to pretty much convince me she's probably just another woman - among the many it seems (Jarrett, Michelle, Hilary to name a few) - who's forfeited her voice, in exchange for a smooth ride to glory on his coattails - as long as she says and does whatever he says --

1) Giblet on May 29:


2) The Changling on May 29:

White House: Sotomayor's Latina Comment Was Poor Choice of Words. Sorry, you'll have to go to the link and then click on "an excerpt from the interview online" to see the actual video because he's already met his "number-of-times-I-want-to-see-his-face-on-my-own-blog-every-time-I-sign-in" quota!

3) Her Honor on June 2 (as told by Diane Feinstein):

Sotomayor to Feinstein: Latina remark 'poor choice of words':
She said, 'Obviously it was a poor choice of words if you read on and read the rest of my speech you wouldn’t be concerned with it but it was a poor choice of words,'" Feinstein told reporters.
According to The Post piece:
Neither Obama nor Gibbs said how they knew that she would say this, and Gibbs acknowledged, "I have not talked specifically with her about - this."
Rather, he said, he had had "discussions with people" that led him to believe that "if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word."
Come on now Giblet!!! You know damn well both of you talked to her! As Cinie says, "Lying Liars Indeed Lie."

Now I know this seems a petty litmus test, but when something hits me, it just hits me. First, the (all-male?) "handlers" marginalized the importance of what she said. Then, it looked like it might not go away so they trotted the Changeling out to further marginalize it. And the-e-e-n, she goes a courtin' on Capitol Hill in a series of supposedly "private meetings" with Senators - and, using their words, takes back her words just like those "wise men" told her. And the-e-e-n, they used a female senator to put the marginalization out into the ether. Brilliant I tell you, just brilliant!

Unless, of course, she's playing the "Undercover Hermana" role like the Changeling's alleged "Undercover Brotha" role that so many Black people keep telling me he's playing because, I ought to know he can't go up in there talking 'bout what he's going to do for us because "they" won't let him (Damn, here I am in 2009 thinkin', "we is all free ya'll!" - stupid me).  If that's the case, I have no respect for her either. I might be a helluva lot poorer than them, but trust me - I am far freer (guess it depends on what's most important to you).

I tell you, POTUS, FLOTUS and SCOTUS are lookin' more like Wynken, Blynken and Nod each and every day I breathe.

Update:  Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor breaks her ankle at LaGuardia airport.  See, God really don't like ugly!  (Okay, that wasn't nice to say.)

8 comments:

Cinie said...

You go get 'em, Woman. What you said, plus the White House sponsored, "conservatives have nothing to worry about" pr campaign make it seem like Sotomayor is just another cog in the Baracko Bama right winger in progressive clothes pushback to the fifties morality machine.

Deb said...

I know Cinie - and I'm so weary of it all.

ea said...

Well, for the moment, I choose to believe that other people are saying that she would not have said what she said, because she refuses to say she would not have said what she said. Another failed appointment might just be too embarassing for the administration, so they are going to play nice to everyone.

Have to wait until the Senate confirmation hearings for her to speak for herself. Even then we won't know how she will rule on any give case until opinions are delivered.

I can not think of a Latina equivalent to "a high-tech lynching of an uppity Black man".

Deb said...

ea...Okay, I was wrong for the "God don't like ugly" comment about her breaking her ankle. But like I said back on my To My Sisters... post, "I'm human (and a little over half-a-century old!), so I guarantee I will slip now again. When I do, check me - we'll both be better for it."

Lo siento, mi amor. ¿Usted me perdona?

Your point is well taken and as a matter of fact, I thought exactly the same thing at first, so I tried to find it - in her own words. The CNN link with Feinstein saying that she said it, was the closest I got.

I don't think she would have let CNN run that piece though, if she didn't say it - I know I wouldn't, but that's just me.

I've no doubt she'll be confirmed (kinda hard for those Republican Senators that already voted to confirm her before to back-track now, but you never know with these clowns).

True we won't know, but her opinons as a circuit court judge to-date does give some idea. My first impressions have been that she cannot be put in any particular box when it comes to the law. It appears, from what I read, that she hears each case and decides on them - individually. I could be wrong, but as you say, we will see.

I certainly don't think we have to worry about there being - a Latina equivalent to "a high-tech lynching of an uppity Black man."

They are as different as night and day when it comes to their race. Up until the alleged taking back of her words, it seemed she reveled in her Latina-ness while the "uppity Black man" continues to wallow in the self-hatred of his Black-ness. Here's a nice comparison of the two: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/politics/07affirm.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

ea said...

I don't put a lot of weight into those kinds of story, but what comes through to me is that Sotomayor recognizes that she had help to overcome prejudices and wants to help others. All I can get from Thomas is his maleness, not his blackness; i.e., he has to be right and everyone else is wrong or stupid or racist or whatever.

Es un acuerdo entonces? Cuando una o otra hace una metedura de pata, le guiara la otro hacia el camino noble otra vez.

Deb said...

Si ea, es un acuerdo. Sabía que usted era un poco caliente por su comentario. No seré siempre "noble" porque no soy perfecto, pero estoy alegre yo he encontrado a una amiga en mi viaje que me ayude a recordar ser mi mejor uno mismo. (Does that make sense in English???).

You said, "...what comes through to me is that Sotomayor recognizes that she had help to overcome prejudices and wants to help others. All I can get from Thomas is his maleness, not his blackness;"

I agree with you completely about Sotomayor, but maybe as a Black woman, I see his portrayal differently. To be sure, it smacks of patriarchy, but it also oozes with the self-hatred borne out of slavery and Jim Crow that is rampant in the Black community - particularly in South Carolina where both he and I are from.

It takes years to first name that, then deal with it so one can move forward healthily. Some of us are successful, some are not. For me, it is an ongoing journey of self-discovery and recovery.

ea said...

Entendi bien la respuesta. I think you and I both are less far from perfect today than we were yesterday, and we will be less far by a couple of steps tomorrow.

Deb said...

Bueno! :-)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...