Sessions, Leahy, greet nomineeSessions, Leahy, greet nomineeBy Arturo Mora, Kansas City Star Midwest Voices columnist 2009

Republican Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions never said the words “white male” during his intense questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor today. But it’s easy enough to read into his line of questioning that Sessions was playing to the conservative base of his party, and in particular to the stereotypical white male angry and obsessed about “reverse discrimination.”

Together with the flap over racial comments on the Facebook site of the new Young Republicans’ chairperson, Audra Shay, a picture begins to emerge of a party reaching for yesterday’s divisive politics. They seem tone-deaf not only to the mood of a more tolerant America, but also to the political realities of our new demographics.

It’s as if they have written off the Latino and African-American (and perhaps female) vote, retreating to a shrinking bastion that might continue to win them the Southeast and not much else.

Sessions’ questions could not have had any other goal than to play to that base, unless he thought Sotomayor was going to suddenly fall apart and yell out, “I am a racist Latina, I am a racist Latina, I’m so sorry.” That was obviously not going to happen, so why the continued pressing of the same point?

Here’s a synopsis of some of the back-and-forth on the issue, from the transcripts:

SESSIONS: You've said, I think six different times, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion." So that's a matter that I think we'll talk about as we go forward…So first, I'd like to know, do you think there's any circumstance in which a judge should allow their prejudices to impact their decision-making?

SOTOMAYOR: Never their prejudices. I was talking about the very important goal of the justice system is to ensure that the personal biases and prejudices of a judge do not influence the outcome of a case.

Unsatisfied, Sessions asks again about the inconsistency between those statements and her more recent statements trumpeting judicial impartiality. Then, a third time:

SESSIONS: …let me just follow up that you say in your statement that you want to do what you can to increase the faith and the impartiality of our system, but isn't it true this statement suggests that you accept that there may be sympathies, prejudices and opinions that legitimately can influence a judge's decision? And how can that further faith in the impartiality of the system?

SOTOMAYOR: I think the system is strengthened when judges don't assume they're impartial, but when judges test themselves to identify when their emotions are driving a result, or their experience are driving a result and the law is not.

He presses a fourth time: I just am very concerned that what you're saying today is quite inconsistent with your statement that you willingly accept that your sympathies, opinions and prejudices may influence your decision-making.

By this time, it’s obvious, bewilderingly, that he’s either trying to get her to admit prejudice (does he really think she’s that stupid?), or just putting himself and his party out there as the protector against prejudice. This is not a bad thing on the face of it, except that it slips into the stereotype of a powerful white male decrying the “prejudice” of minorities.

SESSIONS: Aren't you saying there that you expect your background and -- and heritage to influence your decision-making?.

This of course will set off alarm bells across the minority political community, as the code word “heritage” gets thrown on. The implication that will stick with minorities, right or wrong, is that he’s saying “people of heritage” (pssst, Latinos) let that background influence everything they decide.

SESSIONS: …I think it's consistent in the comments I've quoted to you and your previous statements that you do believe that your backgrounds will accept -- affect the result in cases, and that's troubling me. So that is not impartiality.

SOTOMAYOR: I do not permit my sympathies, personal views, or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases.

SESSIONS: …but you've repeatedly made this statement: Quote, I "accept the proposition" -- I "accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench, and that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see as a judge."

SOTOMAYOR: It's not a question of choosing to see some facts or another, Senator. I didn't intend to suggest that. And in the wider context, what I believe I was -- the point I was making was that our life experiences do permit us to see some facts and understand them more easily than others.

After an eight pressing of the same point, Sotomayor attempts to explain away the “wise Latina” comment: ….(It) was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge. It's clearly not what I intended in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young Hispanic, Latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process.

After a ninth fruitless attempt to get Sotomayor to fess up, Sessions moves on to more red meat, her decision in the Ricci case (involving a test for New Haven, Connecticut firefighters). He seems to want to make the point again that Latinos must be prejudiced in decisions involving white males. Besides ignoring the fact that this case also involved one Latino firefighter, it brushes’ aside Sotomayor’s solid record of impartiality in discrimination cases.

Paraphrasing a Supreme Court decision, Sessions again brings up the specter of reverse discrimination and affirmative action: When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it's not acceptable

Sotomayor’s reply is that the Ricci case was more about judicial precedent than discrimination issue.

SESSIONS: But do you think that Frank Ricci and the other firefighters whose claims you dismissed felt that their arguments and concerns were appropriately understood and acknowledged by such a short opinion from the court?

SOTOMAYOR: We were very sympathetic and expressed your sympathy to the firefighters who challenged the city's decision, Mr. Ricci and the others. We stood the efforts that they had made in taking the test. We said as much.

The political blowback among Latinos has already begun, with Lillian Rodriguez- Lopez, president of the Hispanic Federation, “baffled” as to why Sessions found it necessary to point out the shared heritage of Sotomayor and another appeals court judge.

Sessions, in one fell swoop, has managed to not only make this about his own out-of-touch views on race, but is dragging his party into that losing battle.