One Wise Latina

Listening to some of the hearings on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, one marvels at a couple of things. First of all, this is a great country, with an extraordinary legal and political system. Secondly, this is a very strange, absurd and even ridiculous kind of theater. The purpose of these hearings is not clear to me.

It is well known that no nominee is going to say what she actually thinks about any issue that might come before the court, which is pretty much anything. Any time any such question is asked by the bloviators of the Judiciary Committee, who will do so at great length and with either trembling respect or barely concealed contempt, depending on their party affiliation, the nominee will parry by running through a list of important decisions by name while throwing in Latin terminology whenever possible, such as stare decisis and ex post facto, but without stating an opinion of any kind.

Nevertheless, the Senators keep on coming, trying to trip her up by getting her to admit that she has her own opinions and, in the meantime, testing her ability to recall specifics of potentially any high court case from our history. As theater it's unsatisfying because of its format: long-winded, self-serving, name-dropping questions followed by expert, extremely lawyerly equivocation, at once erudite, cautious and painfully dull. We can always hope for a Long Dong Silver surprise, but that's pretty unlikely.

As for Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, apart from the fact that it's just weird that our public figures are expected not to have any interesting thoughts or make any personal comments, ever, looking back over their entire lives, it just seems a particularly tiny straw to grab. If Clarence Thomas can sexually harass Anita Hill, pubic hairs and all, and get voted onto the Court, certainly Sonia Sotomayor can show some pride in her heritage and make a statement that pretty much anyone with the slightest poetic imagination would agree with, or at least understand in its context.

SCOTUS rules 13 year old girl should not have been strip searched

Yeah, so this school in Arizona thought it had the right to strip search a 13 year old girl, including searching her underwear, to look for...ibuprofen. Turns out, heh, that violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Says the NYT:

"Thursday’s ruling sends the case back to the lower courts to assess what damages, if any, should be paid by the school district. But, by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court held that the individual officials in the case should not be held liable, because 'clearly established law' at the time of the search did not show that it violated the Fourth Amendment."

Jesus, fine. Because adults definitely ought to rely on "clearly established law" rather than common sense when it comes to questions of "should we make this child take off her clothes while we look for Advil." On the main issue, the court ruled 8-1. Now who do you think was the dissenter?

Let's see...underage girl, strip search, underwear, stubbornly opposed to the "basic reasonableness" interpretation...ah! Thomas, of course. What is with that guy?