What Sotomayor should have said

As the Senate prepared to act on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a New York Times editorial (July 21) expressed disappointment that, at her confirmation hearings, "she continued what is becoming an unbreakable habit of nominees dodging controversy…. At times, she too willingly conceded ground to her conservative questioners. We wish she had spoken out forthrightly…."

A valid point, to be sure. But the Times editorial provided no answers to the obvious question it raised: How does a nominee speak out forthrightly without jeopardizing her nomination? Perhaps I can offer some guidance, based on the questions Judge Sotomayor fielded before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Racial preferences

Question: Now that the Supreme Court has overruled your judgment in the New Haven firefighter case of Ricci v. DeStafano, how do you feel about racial hiring preferences?

Answer: As most employers will readily attest, racial preferences offer a useful method for streamlining an otherwise complicated hiring process. This is so because, if only by virtue of their past cultural experiences, some races perform better in certain fields than others. For example, if you need basketball players or jazz musicians, the black hiring pool is the first place you should look. If you need baseball players, turn to Hispanics. For hockey players, head for Canada. For classical musicians, you want Asians. For construction workers on bridges and high-rises, Native-Americans (they seem unafraid of heights). If you need bankers, foxhunters, embezzlers, flaky state governors, Ku Klux Klan members, arrogant talk-show hosts and genocidal dictators, whites are your best bet.
These guidelines aren't engraved in stone, of course, but for right now they can save employers a great deal of wasted time and aggravation.
Next question.

The right to bear arms

Question: In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms. Yet you and your colleagues on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that this right overrides the right of state governments to restrict guns. How do you stand on this issue?

Answer: Let me respond to your question with a question of my own: Why are you so preoccupied with guns? I myself have managed happily for 55 years without one. Who needs them? Do you expect guns to compensate for your own sexual inadequacies?
Let me assure you, Senator: Penis size is vastly overrated! It's certainly not worth jeopardizing everyone's safety so guys with tiny dicks can walk around carrying Saturday-night specials. Contrary to the junk e-mail messages that bombard Americans every day, most women couldn't care less about size. Tenderness, attentiveness, a daily backrub— these are the things a woman really wants and needs.

Unrestricted abortion

Question: From 1980 to 1992 you served on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a group organized in part to support unlimited abortion rights. Do you still support unlimited abortion rights for women?

Answer: You're damn right I do. I support unlimited abortion rights for men, too. As I'm sure everyone in this room is well aware, one of the gravest threats to the smooth operation of government today is the profusion of male Senators and Congressmen who can't keep their peckers in their pants. If we placed restrictions on abortion, can you imagine how many little bastards would be running around the floors of the House and Senate, disrupting debates and roll calls while shouting, "Where's my pa?"?

Rights of private property

Question: Didden v. Village of Port Chester concerned a case in which the city condemned private land for public use because the owner refused to pay off a politically connected real estate developer. When the owner sued and the case reached the federal appeals level, you voted to uphold the city's condemnation. How can we expect you to vote on private property issues after you're on the Supreme Court?

Answer: This ruling turned, as so many legal rulings do, on a technicality. Frankly, I don't have strong feelings on this issue one way or the other. But I do very strongly want to sit on the Supreme Court. So just tell me where you stand on this issue, and I'll be happy to vote your way, you big old powerful Senator, you!

That "'Wise Latina' remark

Question: In a speech you gave in 2001, you remarked, "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." Are you biased against white men?

Answer: In the course of our lives, all of us make statements that we wish we could take back. This was one such whopper, and I've regretted it ever since. In my defense I would simply say that I was only kidding and never dreamed anyone would take such a ridiculous comment seriously.
I ask you: Who on Earth would ever think that a poor Hispanic girl from a public housing project in the Bronx who made it into Princeton and Yale Law School and bootstrapped her way onto the bench with minimal connections could possibly be brighter, more experienced and more resourceful than a good old country cracker like you, Senator?
Next question.â—†


To read responses, click here.