The Incipient Racism of Southern Baptists

Richard Land needs to be very careful. The incipient racism that flows so easily just beneath the surface of many southern baptists tries to rear its ugly head in his recent statement concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.  See Justice Sotomayor?—More for some, less for others?

He begins with a statement questioning the President's statement about most middle-class Americans not feeling particularly privileged.  Yet it does not take very much listening to black Americans living in the Bible-Belt or Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans living many places in this country to realize that racial discrimination is alive and well. And any time or place there is this kind of discrimination, more often than not, it is white middle-class Americans who benefit from it.

Next he parrots one of the major talking point of the right wing media about the president's pre-selection statements about wanting a judge with empathy and assumes quite erroneously that a judge cannot be both empathetic and impartial. Just for the record, a definition of empathy-the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling.  I can state from personal experience that you are much more likely to get justice from a judge who has some understanding of where you are coming from than one who doesn't have a clue about what goes on in your neighborhood.

Next he talks about the Ricci case as if she is solely responsible for it. When in fact, she was one of a three judge panel which unanimously upheld the decision of the district court and in the majority of a 7-6 decision that the case did not merit further review at the circuit court level. He also does not mention that the plaintiffs in the case were not all white, but white and Hispanic. If she is guilty of letting her "race" influence her decision, why did should rule against the Hispanics in this case. Maybe one should look at the Cabranes dissent as the one that was racially motivated.

And finally he continues to parrot the right wing talking points by taking her comments about "a wise Latina woman" totally out of the context. In fact he violates one of the clearest standards of interpretation by stringing quotes together to make his point. I have always given him credit for his bible study skills but wonder if maybe he also treats the biblical text so unfairly. For a brief discussion of what she meant in her 2001 speech, see Charles Savage's NY Times column, A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record.

I am not suggesting that Richard Land's objection to her nomination is racially motivated.  It is obvious that his objection comes from being in bed far too long with the radical right wing of the republican party. But the arguments he uses are certainly tainted by the underlying racism of the southern baptist convention. It began as a racist organization and, in spite of its proclamations to the contrary, continues to demonstrate that racism in the way it and some of its members relate to American society.

Far from being solid analysis as one reader commented, this is a hatchet job on an extremely well qualified judge.

Supreme Court Gets It Wrong, Twice. Oops, THRICE

Historically the Supreme Court has swung between the extremes of too much or too little power. Early in its history, it could make all the pronouncements it wanted to, but had no means to enforce its decisions. For the past few decades there have been many complaints about an "activist" court or "activist" judges, meaning of course that the complainer did not like the court's decision on a particular issue. Because the court had an obvious liberal slant up until the Bush appointments, most of those charges had come from the right. Now the shoe is on the other (left?) foot and the liberals are making the charges about "activist" judges. Of course, they are not using those words, but the complaints are the same.

So at this point I get to add my complaints. The court has made three critical decisions in the last few days, two along straight 5-4 ideological lines and one 5-3 with one recused. First they decided that using capital punishment for those convicted of child rape is "cruel and unusual" punishment, second they decided that the 2nd amendment includes the right of self-defense, and third they reduced the punitive damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million. It is my firmly held conviction that they are wrong on all three.

A strange thing is happening here. I am actually siding with the conservative element of the court on the capital punishment decision. Don't get me wrong. I am opposed to capital punishment. I am in full agreement with the sentiment expressed by the child who asked, "Is capital punishment when we kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?" I am absolutely convinced that violence is never an appropriate response to violence. However, I am just as convinced that if we are going to use capital punishment for any crimes, the crime of child rape ought to be included. I do not understand the logic of the majority which does not see the violence of rape used against the most helpless in our society as being worthy of the highest level of punishment. It is a rare set of circumstances which has me agreeing with Justice Samuel Alito when he said, it means the death penalty would be barred

"no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's prior criminal record may be."

Things are back to normal on the handgun decision. I am firmly in the camp of the liberal justices. Justice Scalia, speaking for the majority says, "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right." I've read the 2nd amendment many times. It is one of the shortest of the Bill of Rights, only 27 words, and I find nothing that guarantees a right of "self-defense." This is judicial activism at its best.

I am in complete agreement with Justice Stevens that "there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Justice Stephen Breyer, states it even more clearly:

"The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens _ namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But, self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment's concern.

"The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves."

And finally there is the most clear-cut example of judicial activism in favor of corporate America. Of course no one should be surprised that a Bush dominated court would protect the profits of his paymasters. The reasoning behind the decision to cut the punitive damages by 80% is that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses. Just for the record, the $500 million amounts to four days worth of profits for Exxon.

Justice Ginsburg, in dissent, declared that the court was engaging in "lawmaking" by concluding that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses. She concluded that this was a "new law made by the court should have been left to Congress."

I find it saddening that the oil-man president's court will not stand up for the rights of children to be safe from rape but will stand up for the rights of oil companies not to be held accountable for their actions.