Not all “Compelling Personal Stories” are Equal

Since when did securing a Supreme
Court seat become a high hurdles contest? The White
House and Democrats have turned

Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor
`s nomination
into a personal Olympic event. Pay no attention to her
jurisprudence. She grew up in a Bronx public housing
project. She was diagnosed with childhood diabetes at 8.
Her father died a year later.

And, oh, by the way, did you hear
that she was poor?

It`s a
"compelling
personal story,"
as we heard 20,956 times on
Tuesday. Sotomayor`s a
"real"
person. Why, she even read
Nancy
Drew
as a young girl, President Obama told us. She`s
"faced down
barriers, overcome the odds and lived out the American
dream that brought her parents here so long ago,"

Obama said. [Full
text
]

If Sotomayor were auditioning to be
Oprah Winfrey`s fill-in host, I`d understand the
over-the-top hyping of her life narrative. But isn`t
anybody on Sotomayor`s side the least bit embarrassed by
all this liberal condescension?

Republicans are not allowed to
mention Sotomayor`s ethnicity lest they be branded
bigots, but every Democrat on cable television harped on
her multicultural
"diversity"
and
"obstacle"-climbing.
Obama made sure to roll his r`s when noting that her
parents came from

Puerrrrto Rrrrico
. New York Sen. Charles Schumer
stated outright:
"It`s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme
Court."
Color-coded tokenism dominated the
headlines, with blaring references to Sotomayor as the
high court`s potential
"first Hispanic."

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill—one
of the leading Democrats tasked with guiding Sotomayor
through the nomination process—carried the
"compelling
personal story"
talking points
to the tokenist
extreme in an interview on Fox News:

"If you look at
what this woman has been through, and the obstacles that
she has had to overcome, I think she does have a richly,
uniquely American experience that makes her incredibly
qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important
cases in our country,"
McCaskill asserted.
"Overcoming incredible odds, and I think that is an experience that is
new to the courts. There have been a lot of privileged
people that have landed on the Supreme Court. The fact
that she has lived the life of the common American,
trying to grow up in public housing, reaching for
scholarships, reaching for the courtroom as a courtroom
prosecutor, all of those things will make her a better
and wiser judge. And I don`t think that is identity
politics. I think that is the American experience."

Clever. Challenging Sotomayor`s
credentials and extreme views on race and the law is not
merely anti-Hispanic. It`s anti-American!

More significantly, McCaskill waved
the high-hurdle card after being asked to defend
Sotomayor`s infamous statement at a 2001 University of
California at Berkeley speech asserting brown-skin moral
authority: "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."
McCaskill actually denied that Sotomayor had
made the remarks, then argued the words were taken out
of context.

You want context? It`s even worse
than that sound bite. As
National Journal
legal analyst Stuart Taylor reported,
"Sotomayor also
referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial
as a mere `aspiration because it denies the fact that we
are by our experiences making different choices than
others.` And she suggested that `inherent physiological
or cultural differences` may help explain why `our
gender and national origins may and will make a
difference in our judging.`"
[Identity
Politics And Sotomayor,
May 23, 2009]The full
speech was reprinted in something called the

Berkeley La Raza
Law Journal
.
"La Raza" is
Spanish for "The
Race."
Imagine if a white male Republican court
nominee had published in a law review called
"The Race."

The selective elevation of hardship
as primary qualification demeans the entire judiciary.
If personal turmoil makes one
"incredibly
qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important
cases in our country,"
let`s put reality-show couple

Jon and Kate Gosselin
on the bench. Millions of
viewers tune in to watch their
"compelling
personal story"
of life with eight children on
television. It`s a
"richly, uniquely American experience" of facing obstacles and
overcoming the odds. Get them robes and gavels, stat.

The lesson is that not all
compelling personal stories are equal. McCaskill`s
assertion that
"overcoming incredible odds"
is
"new to the
courts"
is ridiculous. Is she arguing that Thurgood
Marshall, Felix Frankfurter and Sandra Day O`Connor
faced lower hurdles than Sotomayor? And how about
Clarence Thomas, a descendant of slaves who grew up in
abject poverty in the South without a father? His crime,
of course, was embracing the wrong ideology. So his
incredible set of odds and obstacles don`t count in
left-wing eyes.

Democrats are eager to celebrate
diversity, you see, as long as the diversely pigmented
pledge allegiance to the Left for life.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
.

Michelle Malkin [email
her] is author of

Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists,
Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores
.
Click

here
for Peter Brimelow`s review. Click

here
for Michelle Malkin`s website.
Michelle Malkin is also author of
Unhinged:
Exposing Liberals Gone Wild
and
the forthcoming

Culture of
Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks &
Cronies
.