Sotomayor Belongs to All-Female Club

200px-Sonia_SotomayorAmong the material release this week by the White House is the disclosure that Judge Sonia Sotomayor belong to a private women’s-only group. The membership raises an interesting question given the controversies in the past over nominees who belong to men-only club. Should the standard be different for women or should exclusive club membership no longer be an issue in nominations?

The Sotomayor documents also reveal that her controversial comment about Latina judges giving superior opinions to white males was not a one time slip — but used repeatedly by her in speeches, here.
Sotomayor agreed to join the Belizean Grove — the female reaction to an equally secretive all-male club called the Bohemian Grove. It is a fascinating dilemma. Feminists would like object to a nominee who belonged to the Bohemian Grove, but this nominee joined a female club designed on the model of the gender-discriminatory club.

The Belizean Grove has about 125 high-ranking members and is based out of New York.

The group describes itself as “a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, nonprofit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same.”

The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was attacked for having a restrictive covenant in his deed, though he insisted that he knew nothing about it, here.

Liberals insisted that Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV, a Bush nominee for the trial court, should be denied confirmation over his belonging to a club with a discriminatory past and only one known black member, here.

Nominee Vaughn R. Walker was also opposed on the basis of his membership in an all-men club. He was eventually confirmed after passing through the committee with heavy opposition.

Reagan appointees were also opposed on the basis of discriminatory clubs like Francis A. Keating 2d.

Notably, one of Clinton’s high-ranking nominees was opposed for membership in a racially exclusive club. Indeed, when Eleanor D. Acheson joined the club it did not grant female members full rights.

What is fascinating about this latest story is that Sotomayor has a profile that would normally not thrill liberals. Not only does she belong to a discriminatory club, but she voted against discrimination claims in 78 out of 96 cases. I happen to agree with many of those rulings, but there is a question of the response of some of these same groups if this were another nominee with this voting record and such a membership. As I have noted in my criticism of both the attacks from the left and right (as well as my review of Sotomayor’s decisions), there is a disconnect between the rhetoric and record of this nominee from both sides. I do not believe that Sotomayor’s record shows bias. Indeed, I find it quite impressive in a lack of bias. Moreover, her voting record should be welcomed by conservatives in a number of respects. If she continues to vote as a justice as she did as an appellate judge, the left will lose ground with her nomination in some important areas. Nevertheless, this nomination continues to be argued on the basis of robotic soundbites from groups on both the left and right — often in direct contradiction of their earlier positions.

For the full story, click here.

53 thoughts on “Sotomayor Belongs to All-Female Club”

  1. Jim Byrne wrote, in part:

    Jim Byrne
    1, June 20, 2009 at 11:23 am

    Sotomayor resigns from women’s club


  2. mary, rather than simply regurgitating a Weekly Standard diatribe, why don’t you favor us with your own thoughts on the issue of the Abu Ghraib photographs? Perhaps you could also explain why Sens. Graham and Lieberman are so adamant on the subject.

    For my part, the history of tyranny and repression convinces me that those who most strongly oppose disclosure of the truth are those most likely to be harmed by it. In this case, that means men like Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Graham, both of whom mindlessly supported the policies that resulted in the atrocities which so concern you. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are running for personal cover, an example of moral cowardice that nicely complements the ethical and legal failures that accompanied the commencement and execution of the war in Iraq.

  3. Mr. Riddle, you have apparently decided that repeating the allegations of others is preferable to doing your own research. That unfortunate choice is reflected in your comments. Should you adopt a more radical approach, such as actually reading some of Judge Sotomayor’s opinions, you will find that she is quite moderate. Indeed, she is not nearly as liberal as many of us might prefer. The balance of your criticisms are merely juvenile.

  4. We should all know that racist and close-mindedness applies to white males only, especially conservative ones. Sotomayer has made repeated racist statements, joined a sexist club(women only), and decided for Reverse Descrimination. It amazes me how much Obama loves his bigots(Sotomayer and Jeremiah Wright).

  5. Anonymously Yours
    “Well so whats the problem, she is like I a member of one of the oldest professions.”

    You’re FARMERS!

  6. Well so whats the problem, she is like I a member of one of the oldest professions.

  7. mary; mespo, you are a disgrace here.

    hahahaha that’s pretty rich, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest most sane, rational, reasonable people(i.e. not you) would think yourFred Phelps schtick to be the disgrace

  8. JT:

    “We do not allow personal attacks or juvenile insults.”

    I seem to have more than my share of personal detractors lately. Without trying to sound like Richard Pryor, “Is it something I said?” Though I find the parrying stimulating, I sense I am not being inclusive. I will tone down the sarcasm, but it is a chore when responding to some of these unlettered posts. I awoke to a shudder tonight that I am being positively Republican!

  9. Lotta You wrote: Most likely no one would have known about their faith or cared what it was if they had just had the courtesy to keep their mouths shut about it. I never cared what my co-worker’s religion was until they just had to belabor me with it. Same with their politics. Once they opened those doors though, they were fair game for my ‘ridicule’ which was generally no more than a reasoned argument in opposition. Still, any opposition was too much for some of them. I’m sure they too felt ridiculed.

    Me: true enough. no one would know and no one would care. I don’t get why the hyper religious think that their have the corner on the spirituality counter in the marketplace of ideas.
    Okay, so I’ll give them this: in the 1st century CE, the only way to get converts to their fledgling religion was to put on their shoes and go door to door. That was then, and while the gospels still urge them to do this, there is no good reason for this kind of proselytization. It isn’t like there are not churches on any corner that any questioner can wander into, christian bookstores in every mall, christian tv on cable 24/7, christian rock station and christian talk radio. what bothers me is the notion that only one path to god, if you believe in that particular deity ( I do not) is their way and all others are damned and so save your soul and mine they persist in ringing our doorbells, chatting us up at work, passing out tracts to kids getting on school busses and insisting that the world is anti-christian for rejecting this shameless promotion of their world view.

Comments are closed.