The Sotomayor Bubble: Much media ado about nothing

But you'd never sense that from the war-fogged vantage point of today, as evidenced by the media's saturation coverage of a sparse collection of questionable quotes and precisely one judicial decision, and their even greater concentration -- offered with all undue solemnity and respect -- on the ravings of frankly fringe conservative groups who obsess over linguistic inventions.

These groups have only two constituents: direct-mail donors and Republican senators, the former of whom, without the latter on board, are merely consumers of hate and hysteria. Their currency as political-pressure squads is wholly without value if the pols aren't listening -- and despite the thunderous media and their catering to ratings-boosting loudmouths, that happens to be the case in the otherwise quiet case of Sonia Sotomayor.

Every Obama-allergic crackpot of 501(c)(3) ignorance is managing to elbow his or her way onto the airwaves -- although the elbowing isn't too strenuous, given the media's eager reception -- while the one constituency that really counts -- those GOP senators -- has already slammed shut the doors of cooperation.

"The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill," related a "top Senate Republican aide" to the Politico. "If there's no 'there' there, we shouldn't try to create one."

There isn't, and they can't, nor do Republicans want to at this dicey juncture of demographic disfavor. And the hell of it is, the nation would have known there was no there there from the get-go, if only the news media had invested their time in actual information-delivery and analysis rather than just flinging open their studio doors to the crackpots.

From whom we've endlessly heard three principle objections -- public concern over which, by the time hearings commence, will have been thoroughly dispatched.

First, Sotomayor's vote on the Ricci v. New Haven case, in which white firefighters were denied promotions after passing a controversial promotions test. Here, there's no need to engage whatever the case's intrinsic merits or demerits, because Sotomayor decided on the basis of judicial precedent -- in other words, precisely that concept which her exercised critics claim that she as a judge endangers. So much for that.

Second, the looping video of an impaneled Sotomayor saying "the Court of Appeals is where policy is made." Forget for a moment that she instantly added, but "we don't 'make law,' " and ponder instead that she was merely being accurate. "She's not wrong," says, for one, Stony Brook University law professor Jeffrey Segal. "Of course they make policy.... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."

Which Sotomayor herself explained at the time, but has since gone largely unreported. "The Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It's interpretation, it's application." So, so much for that, too.

Third -- and yes, here it comes, for the 1,000,001st time -- Sotomayor's 2001 speech in which she commented that "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." Shocking, except it isn't, given its contextual setting.

The preceding and subsequent lines -- also largely unreported -- were: "[T]here can never be a universal definition of wise," and "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society." That was the all-important context -- gender and racial discrimination cases -- in the absence of which Sotomayor's otherwise lone comment would of course raise eyebrows.

You tell me, or better yet would some idle Journalism 101 professor please tell me how the meaning of an observation can be reported without reporting the meaning of the observation? -- which Sotomayor further amplified in her speech:

"I ... believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.... However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand.... Others simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."

Hell, I learned that incontrovertible reality at least no later than in an undergraduate jurisprudence class. It's basic psycho-socio-legal stuff. Sotomayor also added the obligatory disclosure that naturally as a proper judge she tries to "check" her personal "assumptions, presumptions and perspectives," but some are humanly bound to leak out, and that ain't always entirely bad.

So, so much for that, as well.

Only the Lord and Limbaugh know what the powerless right-wing pressure groups will come up with next. And although Republican senators by and large still won't listen -- see above -- I'm sure it'll be of the most amusing whopperdom, delivered 24/7 by the Pavlovian, uninquisitive news media who care a whole lot more about shareholders than informed customers.