Testy. Difficult. Nasty. Sharp-tongued. Those are just a few of the words being used by Republicans and the media to describe Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. If they ring a bell, they should — it hasn’t been long since those code words of sexism were used against another intelligent, accomplished woman in the public arena.
Sotomayor is being described as short-tempered and her judicial demeanor is being questioned for interrupting attorneys who argue before her. I hate to break it to those critics, but based on what I know, and from Mr. PunditMom’s personal experience in front of The Big Nine, being able to do that is practically a prerequisite to being a Supreme Court justice.
And where have we heard this sort of criticism before? I have a recent recollection of the same characters using these loaded adjectives to describe another strong, bright, experienced woman. Oh, right — that’s how Hillary Clinton was portrayed during her presidential bid! If we thought we’d left that behind after Hillary got out of the 2008 presidential race, we were mistaken.
The cable networks are just as guilty as Sotomayor’s opponents when it comes to mindlessly tossing these sexist code words about, as Jack and Jill Politics blog discusses:
John King on CNN says:
“Some are saying that she is not an intellectual firebrand, someone who could compete with Antonin Scalia or Justice Alito, the conservative brains, if you will, on the Supreme Court.”
“Some“? Who are these some? CNN sadly goes on to say in another article:
But [Sotomayor] has suffered through recent stinging criticism in the media and blogs from both the left and right over perceived — some defenders say invented — concerns about her temperament and intellect.
Double eye-roll — look, Girlfriend graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, has Phi Beta Kappa on her rez, and was editor of the Yale Law Journal just like President Obama. Wanna bet the guy[s] impugning her credz couldn’t compete [themselves]?
Those sprinkling their prose with words like “testy” and “lightweight” are doing it to plant little seeds of doubt that Sotomayor is someone who can’t match the intellectual heft of the eight who remain on the highest bench.
Even a headline in the print edition of the New York Times read, “Assertive Style Raises Questions on Demeanor” (they changed the headline for the online edition but the text of the article is the same). Do you think for one minute that anyone questioned the appropriateness of Antonin Scalia’s demeanor and we all know how soft and cuddly he’s been on the bench.
I don’t like to talk in absolutes, but I’m willing to bet PunditGirl’s college fund that if a man had the exact same qualifications, those words would never be uttered. A a matter of fact, Tracy Viselli at Care2 blog notes that an article at The Guardian covers that very point:
… Sotomayor is much MORE qualified than “conservative icons” William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas. Rehnquist had NO judicial experience and [Clarence] Thomas had served less than two years as a judge. In fact, … Sotomayor’s qualifications mirror those of current Justice Samuel Alito.
I doubt that those who are afraid of a smart Latina sitting next to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have focused on those facts. They just want to rant in the code of sexism to make us afraid of what another woman on the Supreme Court will mean for their own personal power.
Postcript: After I wrote this, I found this piece by G. Gordon Liddy that isn’t sexist code — it’s just plain sexist as he “worries” about what might happen to Sotomayor’s judgment when he gets her period.
Yeah, I’m testy now.