FAIR Blog » Sonia Sotomayor

'Objectivity'--Sotomayor's, Sessions' and AP's

Jim Naureckas — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:31:54 +0000

In another example of how the racist record of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's top Republican questioner has gone down the memory hole, Associated Press had a whole story (7/19/09) about Sen. Jeff Sessions' assertions that Sotomayor was too prejudiced to get his vote without mentioning that the Senate Judiciary Committee had rejected Sessions when he was up for a federal judgeship precisely because of his long pro-discrimination history.

On MSNBC, the subhead of the story was "Top GOP Member of Senate Committee Still Concerned About Her Objectivity." And AP reporter Douglass Daniel would tell you, I expect, that "objectivity" required him to leave out the context of Sessions' racist background.

NYT Sotomayor 'Analysis' = What Republicans Are Thinking

Peter Hart — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:46:06 +0000

Under the headline "Future Nominations Are at Stake in Hearing," New York Times reporters Peter Baker and Charlie Savage suggested that Sonia Sotomayor's nomination is a given; the real battle among partisans and legal activists is "to define the parameters of an acceptable nomination in case another seat opens up during Mr. Obama’s presidency." Interesting, then, to see what the parameters of debate are like in this report.

The Times solicits comments from five conservatives or Republicans--Rachel Brand, Fred McClure, James R. Copland, Manuel Miranda and Kenneth M. Duberstein. The Times also quoted one law professor with a liberal reputation who has been a forceful critic of Sotomayor (suggesting she was intellectually unqualified for the court), and Nan Aron "of the liberal Alliance for Justice."

The piece goes on to say, "Several legal experts said Judge Sotomayor’s testimony might make it harder for Mr. Obama to name a more liberal justice next time." Well, if you talk to that many right-wingers, you will hear that kind of thing quite a bit.

Misty Water-Colored Memories of the D.C. Press Corps

Jim Naureckas — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:09:32 +0000

Number of stories in the Nexis news database dated today that mentioned Sen. Jeff Sessions' (R.-Ala.) questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, in which Sessions accused Sotomayor of harboring ethnic prejudices: 69

Number of such stories that recalled that Sessions was rejected as a judicial nominee in 1986 in part because of his approving remarks about the Ku Klux Klan: 2

Bias 'Packaged as "News" and Endlessly Discussed'

Gabriel Voiles — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:59:55 +0000

The Women's Media Center has a new action (7/10/09) asking you to support "Media Justice for Sotomayor" against the fact that ,"since the announcement of [her] nomination to the Supreme Court, some in the media have engaged in sexist and racist attacks against her" which are "often packaged as 'news' and endlessly discussed in mainstream media outlets":

The Women's Media Center is releasing its new video, "Media Justice for Sotomayor." It documents some of these racist and sexist comments already delivered on high-profile television programs, radio, print and online outlets.

As Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings approach on July 13, the Women's Media Center expects vigorous debate of Sotomayor's qualifications and abilities. But we call on the media to refrain from allowing sexist and racist remarks to go unchecked....

Sign on to our WMC statement....

I join the Women's Media Center in strongly opposing the use of sexist and racist attacks against Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The characterizations of her as an "affirmative action pick," “Hispanic Chick lady," "a brown woman," "an angry woman" and "a school marm" shown in the WMC's "Media Justice for Sotomayor" video are unacceptable....

Additionally, the WMC requests that, "if you see examples of sexism, racism or classism against Sotomayor in the media's coverage of her confirmation hearings, please send them to us." Also see the recent FAIR Media Advisory: "Misquoting Sotomayor: Media Let Right-Wing Critics Frame Debate" (6/2/09).