Republican nominee and deportation enthusiast Donald J. Trump’s recent remarks about an ethnically Mexican judge—and member of mestizo racialist organization La Raza—being likely to judge him unfairly in the ‘Trump University’ lawsuit have drawn widespread condemnation from the left and right, and usual charges of racism. Reflecting the current-year presentism that pervades American political discourse, anti-Trump commentators, especially on the right, are aghast that someone could suggest: 1.) identity influences a civil servant’s decisions, and 2.) someone born in Indiana to Mexican parents is a Mexican. Pat Buchanan offers an excellent rebuttal.
But given the history of diversity-proximity friction in this country and its subverted institutions, can anyone sincerely find any controversy in the idea that a judge’s background influences his decisions? Certainly, the case has been made that a person’s identity matters more than ever before in the last eight years. We know for example from progressive sermonizing that White males are unqualified to run a diverse America’s institutions because of their implicit biases, white privilege, male privilege, etc. In other words, liberals already believe that identity is relevant to one’s political positions, which is correct. Identity politics for everyone but Whites and criticism of Whiteness and masculinity as being anti-progress are part of their canon. Conservatives have no response to this than crying that identity politics is racism, but as the moral authority-setting left has also explained, people of color cannot be racist, only Whites. Who are conservatives siding with when they call Trump a racist? For voicing concern that a judge who belongs to an ethnic group that he plans to deport a sizable chunk of might be biased against him on the basis that he is part of said group? Sounds like common sense to me.
Identity has mattered in the judiciary for a long time. Justice Antonin Scalia (PBUH), a Silent Generation-born Italian-American Catholic and member of the Knights of Columbus, was an extremely conservative judge who stuck to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He also expressed concern that Protestants were not represented on the Sanhedrin (SCOTUS), which at the time of his death was and remains entirely benched by Jews and Catholics. Obama’s chosen liberal candidate to replace Scalia, (((Merrick Garland))), is a mischling and would be the second Jew appointed to the Sanhedrin by him. Trump’s current list of potential Court nominees is all White (and conservative). It matters who decides court cases; only liars dispute this.
People seem to have already forgotten about the most powerful mestizo judge in the country’s views on identity and the judiciary. One of Obama’s first-term Sanhedrin appointees, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, made the case way back in 2001 at an academic networking event for mestizos that as a Spanish-speaking woman of color she was inherently a better judge than a White male. Speaking at the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture and published a year later in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal as “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” the Senate-confirmed Sotomayor made her infamous “wise Latina” remark that only the alt-right seems to remember:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
There are plenty of other snippets throughout the speech which confirm what everyone who isn’t viciously delusional already knows, that collectivism is rampant among the constituent nations of any diverse empire and that tribal loyalties matter to people and their politics. What makes this empire truly bizarre is that identity politics is tolerated and actually encouraged among the supposedly oppressed minority groups:
I intend tonight to touch upon the themes [mestizo ethnic networking] that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.
Well look at that! I guess it’s not e pluribus unum, it’s still many. Have another:
Who am I? I am a “Newyorkrican.” For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.
Puerto Rico is part of the United States. So is New York. But she considers herself an ethnic Puerto Rican who resides in New York, NY. Not a deracinated American. More:
Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge.
We. Our. Spoken like a collectivist taking over a soft and effete egalitarian society. Have another:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Again, a mestizo is saying being mestizo will change the way a judge does his or her job. Come on, get this through your heads:
America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between “the melting pot and the salad bowl” — a recently popular metaphor used to described New York’s diversity – is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences.
Oh, so in other words, diversity makes the United States inherently unstable and leads to conflict over what it means to be an American. We need to both celebrate diversity and ignore it? All the while considering it desirable for people to “maintain and promote [non-white] cultural and ethnic identities,” an explicit form of factionalism—recognized in the Federalist Papers as a grave threat to the Republic—if there ever was one. No, what is quite clear is that this a collectivist speaker talking to an audience of co-ethnics. And it’s the future. Well actually, these words were spoken in 2001. It’s the present! None of these issues have been resolved; they have only accelerated.
Trump is right about the mestizo judge. So is Sotomayor. And she said it first. Republicans who deny the role of identity in politics are doing themselves a disservice in the long-run, assuming they aren’t just filthy liars being loyal to ((((an anti-conservative faction)))). They’re also cucking for the anti-gringo La Raza organization by not supporting the Republican nominee, who many of them pledged to support months ago. And as we already know, liberals calling Trump—or Whites broadly—racist for playing identity politics are pure distilled scum. They don’t even blink about doing it themselves.