WOULD SOTOMAYOR BE THE FIRST HISPANIC MEMBER OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?
Why it shouldn’t matter and why it does
By Clifford F. Thies
Would President Obama’s nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, be the first Hispanic member of the U.S. Supreme Court? According to one common definition of the word “Hispanic,” the answer is “yes.” And, according to another common definition, the answer is “no.” Turning to the legal definitions of the word in the United States, the answer is also “yes” and “no.”
“Hispanic” comes from Hispania which means Iberian Peninsula; so, Portugal and Spain are both Hispanic.
“Hispanic” also means Spanish-speaking, which rules out Portuguese-speaking. This meaning of the word Hispanic might have meant Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking, but Portugal was anxious to distinguish itself from Spain and that didn't happen.
According to the first of the two definitions of “Hispanic,” Justice Benjamin Cardozo (1870-1838) was the first Hispanic member of the U.S. Supreme Court; and, according to the other, Judge Sotomayor would be the first, as one definition includes and the other excludes Portuguese-speakers.
Below I have an image of a Spanish silver dollar of the 18th century. Notice, number one, the word “Hispan.” This got Portugal nervous, since this word might be taken as meaning that Spain was coincident with the Iberian Peninsula. Notice, number two, that the coin features one crown over the two hemispheres of the world. This reflects a distinctive characteristic of the Spanish empire, namely, that Spain saw its subjects throughout the world as equally its subjects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Philip_V_Coin.jpgThousands of Spanish colonists came to the New World not only to rule over the people here, but to live among them, and to share their language, culture and religion with them. The native populations of New Spain were not relegated to reservations or removed from their homelands. Rather, they were made Spanish.
I must point out that becoming a subject of Spain was not the same as becoming an Englishman. Spain did not extend many rights to its subjects, neither in the Old World nor the New. So, it was relatively easy for Spain to extend equal status as a peasant to the native peoples of this hemisphere.
Turning to the legal definition of the word “Hispanic” in the United States, the meaning of “Hispanic” has changed with every census since the word was first used in 1970. In the 2000 Census, “Hispanic” was defined as those whose origins are from Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, or the Dominican Republic.”
According to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Hispanic” includes those whose origins are Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture. Notice that Spain is included as an “other Spanish culture,” as are The Philippines and Equatorial Guinea. The open-endedness of “other Spanish culture” makes the OMB definition slightly different from the most recently used definition by the Census Bureau.
Other parts of the national government define “Hispanic” differently. The U.S. Small Business Administration defines “Hispanic” as those whose origins are persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or other Spanish or Portuguese culture. Notice that, under this definition, Portugal would be included, as would Brazil, East Timor, Angola and Mozambique. Yet other parts of the national government define “Hispanic” to include Brazil but not Portugal, or to exclude Spain.
So, according to some parts of the national government. Justice Cardozo was the first Hispanic to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court; and, according to other parts of the national government, Judge Sotomayor would be the first.
The legal meaning of “Hispanic” is important because your rights in America are sometimes determined by whether you are officially in a favored category such as “Hispanic.” Let’s say you are applying for a small business loan, and that you or your parents are from Mozambique, then you would be favored relative to the poor white bastards of this country, because the Small Business Administrations includes people with origins of Portuguese culture as Hispanic. But, if you are applying for admission to college and if the Department of Education excludes people with origins from Portuguese culture in its definition of Hispanic, you’ll be treated no better than those poor white bastards.
Being able to be empathetic to certain people, no matter that this may screw the poor white bastards, is exactly why the President nominated Judge Sotomayor. In one her more famous decisions, she threw out a civil service exam because too many poor white bastards scored well and not enough of the people who are deserving of empathy.
In a speech endorsing “identity politics,” Judge Sotomayor said a “Latina woman” would make better decisions than a “white male.” The expression “Latina woman” could be taken as indicating that Judge Sotomayor is not authentically a Latin. This is because “Latina” means “Latin woman,” and “Latina woman” is redundant.
More than the expression “Latina woman,” the idea that you should make distinctions based on race and gender is contradictory to the Hispanic practice of equality since the days of Queen Isabella. Queen Isabella served equally as monarch of Spain with her husband and Co-Regent, King Ferdinand, and not merely as the wife of the King. It was Queen Isabella who decreed that her subjects throughout the world all be equally her subjects, for which the Pope bestowed upon her the title “Catholic,” in the sense of “Universal.” She promoted the concept of universal human rights and was specifically the protector of the native peoples of this hemisphere even from certain of her nobles who were oppressors. The painting of Queen Isabella shows her in a beautiful dress, with one of her children, along with certain indicators of her power.
http://www.hartransom.org/hart_ransom/blast_09/Queen%20Isabella%20I/images/q2.jpgRecognizing the commitment to universal human rights of Queen Isabella is not to say that she was without any flaws in this regard. In our day, we are grappling with having both freedom and equality, so people of different religious beliefs, among other differences, can live in peace with each other. This was not much of a concern in Queen Isabella’s day.
In our own, North American experiment in self-government, we have involved in two hundred years of struggle on the matter of equality. Ending racism and slavery, recognizing the full equality of women, resolving the status of Indian tribes and of Puerto Rico, providing substantial equal rights to those who make different life-style choices while fulfilling whatever is the proper role of the state with regard to traditional marriage. While we have made real progress on many such issues, we still have work ahead of us. As libertarian Republicans, we stand firm in the belief that reviving distinctions in rights based on race and gender for the purpose of redressing past grievances, will serve only to undermine the cause of equality
by Cliff Thies
