Archives About Staff BagNews is dedicated to visual politics, media literacy and the analysis of news images.
May 28, 2009

That ‘Latina woman’


Okay, here we go.

What we see here is the right-wing entering the media bloodstream (courtesy of CNN.) Pairing an almost eight-year-old quote with this photo fished from the file, you can see how the media, channeling Gingrich and Limbaugh, can suggest Sotomayor as someone angry, bitter — even “racist.” (You can also see how this plays just by consuming the image with the beginning of the headline, ‘Latina woman,’ which is as far as some people get.)

And then, look how much assistance you can offer with just a “may,” a “could” and a “but.”

  • Steve

    Eye-roll inducing, especially coupled with the pic they chose of Ms Sotomayor looking somewhat vacant, wistful, “I wish I hadn’t said those things seven years ago…”-ish.

  • Danny Guam

    It’s still the same old shit.
    Since their opposition is pretty much of a racist nature the logical way to go about this is to call her a racist.
    It’s all they got.

  • Rhodo Zeb

    That’s fine by me, as I am reading she is all but a lock.
    Would that Obama gets another bite of that apple.

  • DennisQ

    I can hardly wait for the Republicans to start calling her a spic. They’re already making her out to be a female Ricky Ricardo, prone to gaffes and unable to hold her temper.
    Republicans ought to have learned something about voter backlash by now. This may play in the red states but it certainly won’t go over in places where people know and work with Hispanics.

  • stevelaudig

    CNN stands for “Crappy Not News”. but they have a lock on the 20%. they’ll lose market share in the Hispanic community. Scalia is the one without either life experience or judicial demeanor, not to mention questionable ethics.

  • BooksAlive

    CNN’s constant commentary: “clips” from legal cases are among the details streaming across the bottom of the screen. Gotta keep hammering away, viewer be damned.

  • Johanna

    Um, the remark she made was not thoughtful. Didn’t she know it would come back to bite her? She should have known that. Among her life experience is NOT having been a parent. Doesn’t that make her experience thinner than everyone on the court except Souter? Yet she praises her experience as “rich.” Her life is missing that which most citizens across racial and ethnic divides have in common: raising children

  • g

    Um, the remark she made was not thoughtful.
    Sorry, I disagree. The remark she made was part of a longer speech, and if you read the whole thing it was very thoughtful indeed. It was a multifaceted point she was making, that we bring our natural biases and personal experiences to the decisions we make, and therefore judges must make sure to examine the how they came to the decisions to make sure the decisions weren’t a result of bias.
    In fact, the larger meaning what she said was exactly the opposite of what she’s being accused of.
    It’s as if someone said, “I have a natural impulse to prefer candy over vegetables, so I am always careful I don’t eat too much candy,” and you picked out the first half and triumphantly crowed – “Look, she admits she thinks candy is better than vegetables.”

  • Johanna

    Except that isn’t what she said. She did say that her judgments would, she hoped, be better than those of a white man…. She never spoke of being sure her decisions weren’t the result of bias, and she hoped those of others wouldn’t be either, etc. That would have been a harmless (though exceedingly trite and simplistic) thing to say. You would have to demonstrate, not just assert, that the context overturns what she apparently said. Even what she said is not in its content so bad, at least, to me. So she thinks she has more judicial wisdom than a white man. So what? It’s more the mouthing off and intemperate boasting that bother me. Where is the discretion? It doesn’t seem like the behavior of a mature personality.

  • Johanna

    To continue, the administration has tried to get out in front of this today. They did not use the line g proposes — that the remarks were taken out of context. Because they knew that wouldn’t withstand scrutiny. They seem to be saying instead that if she had thought about it she would have worded it differently. Hard to tell if this is a good strategy and will put it to rest, or if they should have just let it blow over.

  • mon_oeil

    What a strange comment! There is a multitude of lousy parents and just as many great aunts and mentors. This is the first time that I have read that a professional woman should be judged on her maternal history. Perhaps she was not able to have children. Should Condoleezza Rice, Oprah Winfrey et al, be scrutinized for their “childless” status. I suppose you are a good mother… and I imagine that your other life experiences are equally rich? Shame on you.

  • spriche

    Obama won the election, Sotomayor is his choice, she will sail through the senate, get used to it. Your side lost. There remain several racists on the court, so you can take solace in that. However, Obama’s got seven more years. I’m sure at the end of his tenure the racists will be gone from the court, or rendered moot my executive fiat. The constitution is a living document. And at any rate, it has been superseded by the penumbra. Sotomayor is committed to making rulings under the penumbra.

Refresh Archives

Random Notes