Ethnicity on the Courts

Most people have heard Judge Sonia Sonomayor's statement about reading the law as a Latina versus a [white] man. This has been construed to mean that she will legislate from the bench (because of, also, a butchered joke) and is a reverse racist.

It is impossible not to be an impartial judge. I know that that is a radical thing to say, but if you think about it, it is not that absurd. Everyone is different. We all have biases. We all have inclinations. We all see things differently than everyone else based on our intelligence, upbringing, culture, race, religion, experiences, affiliations, and etcetera. So, of course, we will use our individuality in deciding.

Last night, on Anderson Cooper 360, John King asked that if a judicial nominee said that he would read the law in terms of a white man, would the person be confirmed. The politico said that no judicial nominee would have a history of such statements. Before I went to sleep last night, I thought about this topic. If you say "White man," an image of some type of dominance comes to mind. Similarly, if you say "black man," one would think of someone who was once marginalized. There are so many stereotypes that this plays for:

Latino

lazy

blond

dumb

Irish

drinker

Asian

good at math

red-head

angry

southern

racist

north-easterner

conceited

person wearing glasses

smart

I know that this sounds bigoted, but realize that society has somehow (I'm no sociologist, so I don't know how) implanted these thoughts in our heads. Of course, however, most people know that these stereotypes are not true. What I think Judge Sonomayor was meaning by her statement was merely an embrace of her ethnic background. Embracing one's heritage is nothing of which to be ashamed. Tell me, what high school did not have an Asian-American club, an African-American club, an Irish-American club, a Polish-American club (you get the point)?

Rename Swine Flu?

Yesterday, listing to a local New York radio show "John Gambling in the Morning," one caller asked why the Swine Flu is not being called "Mexican Flu" (or for that matter, why Bird Flu is not called "Asian Flu"). The (obviously racist) argument was that since the viruses originated in a certain area, it should be named as such and the reason it was not named that way is because of political correctness.

There are two problems with the argument:

1. They are named the way they are because the virus came from certain types of animals. Swine = pig or hog or boar. Bird/Avian = birds. The viruses somehow moved from being limited to a certain genius of animals to humans (which, coincidentally, is what is believed to be the basis of HIV/AIDS). It just so happens that it started in certain areas outside the United States.
2. The last big outbreak about Swine Flu was in 1976 (and, before that, in 1918) and it was not related to Mexicans.

Honestly, what was that caller thinking? In the contemporary society we live in today, it is not smart to be overt in one's racist beliefs (or leanings).