Get ready for the Sotomayor misogyny-fest
May 26, 2009
by Amy Siskind
|Imagine a time when a female candidate for a position of power is actually judged on her merits. That moment is coming. It’s called The New Agenda.
On the back of the Sotomayor nomination, the Washington Post writes Women’s Groups Vow to Fight for Swift Confirmation. Which women’s group is the first to be mentioned? The New Agenda:
The New Agenda, a nonpartisan group formed during last year’s presidential campaigns, hailed the selection as “inspirational” and pronounced itself “thrilled” that four of the 10 women it suggested for the court were interviewed by Obama.
“It’s a great day for America and a great day for women,” said New Agenda co-founder Nancy Hopkins. “The choice of Sotomayor also shows that excellence and diversity go hand in hand. In this case, they were inseparable,” she added.
Yes, we are ready for a fight. We’re raring to go. Judge Sotomayor – We Have Your Back!
But imagine this in the future – the not too distant future – an organization with millions of members. Now that is a real voice. Then we wouldn’t be hearing “bad temperament”, “not that smart” (see video below) while of course we all knew, even the left, that Alito and Roberts were just “brilliant”. We could end this double standard in it’s tracks! Issues are fair game, sexist treatment is no longer fair game!
And to be a national organization with millions of members and real power to end the likes of the upcoming Sotomayor misogyny-fest – you know, the stuff that Hillary and Sarah had to endure – we need to build the infrastructure to become a national organization. And infrastructure requires dough – and we need your help. Remember – we are not a blog – we are a grassroots organization with a blog to keep our members informed.
Please donate to The New Agenda. We can and will make this country a better place for women and girls.
One donor from the West Coast wrote to us today to say that she was cutting into this month’s food budget to donate funds. She had been a lifelong feminist and was ready to throw in the towel until The New Agenda came along. Another donor wrote to say that TNA gives her hope for real progress for women: “If not TNA, who? And if not now, when?”
JOIN US! DONATE! WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Even our friends at Fox are joining the misogyny-fest. Who can we count on? Ourselves!
I saw the Fox interview today – I was definitely scratching my head over that one! Sotomayor is more than qualified for the Supreme Court position – that should be enough.
Her positions on the regulation of firearms could lose her some Democrat confirmation votes, those coming from very pro-gun states such as Montana and North Dakota and several others.
From what I have heard, she is an extreme liberal who will legislate from the bench. Obama picked a woman who appears likely to lose the confirmation, which is what I’ve feared from the start.
I’m very pleased with the Sotomayor nomination. Best news I’ve heard in a long time! Yes, she is liberal, but so is Justice Souter whom she is replacing (and it IS a Democratic President who is appointing her), so regardless of one’s personal politics, it’s disingenuous for conservatives to suggest her position on the political spectrum alone should disqualify her. If The New Agenda and the threat of women scorned had any influence over Obama’s pick, then kudos! ! It’s about time women stop being apologetic over demanding simple equal representation.
[...] published at The New Agenda. Read about the origins and goals of The New Agenda, which is “100% non-partisan” and [...]
an “extreme liberal”? Hardly. Sotomayor was formerly a criminal prosecutor and corporate litigator. Not exactly bastions of left-wing politics. And your “judicial activism” claim reeks of the classic conservative judicial hypocrisy. A judge is only an “activist” when they rule in way you do not approve of. How is Roe v Wade or any of the recent gay marriage decisions an act of “judicial activism” but the SCOTUS’s recent decision striking down the DC handgun ban not “judicial activism”. Your comment is pitifully transparent. Furthermore, she is a virtual shoe-in for nomination. The Democrats could possibly have a filibuster-proof majority if Franken is seated, and some more moderate republicans are sure to confirm her also.
I dont like her or her views of the court. Sotomayer is a judicial activist.She believes that the court should not simply review the law and apply it to the facts and reach a rationale conclusion based upon the facts. She is on the record as believing “a woman of color will get the right result more often then a white male”. To me, the court doesn’t needs activists, we need law appliers.Legislation should be in the legislature and the judiciary should apply not make laws. In the past we have seen conservative activists with compelling stories( ie Estrada,Bork and Thomas) rightfully attacked because of their judicial philosophy and activism.and in two cases rejected because of it. Activism shouldnt play a part.A judge shouldn’t bring life experiences towards applying the constitution. They should bring their intellect and ability to apply the law to the facts. Will Sotomayer do this- I hope so.
But even if she doesnt, notwithstanding the above- I support the nomination. Sometimes one must hold one’s nose when taking medicine. The” right” woman never will come along if we hold to our political agendas. We must use the rocks we are give to break the barriers in the glass ceilings. Men will not be free until women achieve equality- that as been the cry since the 70’s. We must toss the rocks given to us to achieve this. For this reason I support the nomination, just like in 2010 I will support Ms Whitman to be the first female governor here in Califorina, and Governor Palin for the presidency in 2012. Some may argue that they cant support this woman or that because of Political Agendas but the truth be told- to break the barrier these views in the long run must be subservient to breaking the barriers to equality.
Chris, judges are meant to uphold the constitution and to determine the consitutionality of the law; they are not to consider their own personal feelings or to create laws; they simply uphold the consitution. Sotomayor stated clearly that courts make the law, and such a statement indicates that she is clearly an activist judge.
Bruce, she is also on record as saying — in the same speech — that nine white males made what was obviously the right decision in cases that were outside of their personal experience, like Brown v. Board. Don’t cherry-pick quotes.
Yes she did acknowledge that white males got it right, but given the context she said in essence that given the circumstances a woman of color -she-would get it right more often then the white males
and her speech was presented to a Latiino group called La Raza- The Race- imagine if a” white male” had made a similar comment before a bunch of white men at a club called the race
bruce nahin:
The U.S. Constitution is a political document. Judges are titled Judges because they are expected to bring judgment to bear. The U.S. Supreme Court is an inherently and intentionally political body.
John: law students are taught to approach a legal issue as IRAC: Issue, rule application, conclusion. The Supremes are no different- it is not an inherently political body- it is more like the most exclusive law review in the world and by giving them lifetime appointments they are supposed to be above politics
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...