Uh oh. We now have more proof of Sonia Sotomayor’s empathy, care of — surprise — Stuart Taylor. Even back in 1976, Sotomayor believed it was wrong to ransack the dorm room of admitted homosexuals! From a letter to the editor to which Sotomayor was a signatory:
No matter how much one may disagree with the Gay Alliance or the policies they are advocating, no matter how repugnant one may find homosexuality, the manner of expressing this opposition should be intellectual. At this university we are dedicated to persuasion by reason, not by brute force.
Intimidation of those courageous enough to express their views, violence directed against unpopular associations, midnight criminal assaults on private residences — these speak for themselves. The entire university community should be angry, and disgusted, that this kind of action has occurred at Princeton.
But a negative response to the violence is not enough. A positive response — a university-wide support for the right to dissent on any issue — is necessary. It is precisely such extreme situations which measure the willingness of this community to encourage bold new ideas by tolerating dissent.
For me, this is a nice insight into her likely views on LGBT equality, the value of dissent, and the aims of the First Amendment. For those on the Sotomayor attack, this is but one more piece of evidence of her empathy (read as a bad thing).
And if you must read Taylor’s inane piece, please follow-up with Adam Serwer response at TAPPED.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political editor at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, The American Prospect, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
That’s a great find! I’m still a little concerned about her regarding 2nd amendment rights. Unlike a lot of “teh gayz,” I’m pro 2nd individual right with minimal government intervention at either state or federal level. I know the gun rights groups are worked into a lather about her, but I’m not a fan of blindly believing rhetoric. Do you know anything about her on this issue, Chris?
In fairness, we should consider the arguments against the judge.
The fact that Sotomayor apparently believed in 1974 that gay people were “repugnant” does not make me more comfortable about her being the sixth Catholic on the Supreme Court, nor does the fact that her ruling in the 2002 Mexico City Policy abortion rights case is virtually identical to Scalia’s hateful, anti-gay dissent in Lawrence v Texas. I see no evidence that she would not have upheld sodomy laws.
Landon,
“her ruling in the 2002 Mexico City Policy abortion rights case is virtually identical to Scalia’s hateful, anti-gay dissent in Lawrence v Texas.”
I don’t even see how this virtual identity between the two cases can be possible. One is about the exercise of the federal executive’s prerogative in foreign policy when that may contradict Congressional funding measures. The other is about a statute passed by a state legislature that singles out same-sex couples’ sodomy for criminal penalty (hetero sodomy was legal in TX).
Perhaps instead of bitching about how Sotomayor ruled on abortion in order to decide her “Catholic” position on gay equality, maybe we could consider the cases in which homosexuality was actually an issue? So far, I know of only a few, two of which actually dealt with pedophilia, and in neither of those cases did Sotomayor single out homosexuality as any worse than heterosexuality. In both pedophile cases she ruled against the defendant, but she treated him respectfully. I personally would have had trouble not getting snarky about the defendant in Doe v. Menefee, a guy who confessed to pedophiliac sodomy and hanging out with a group dubbing itself Boy Lovers, then tried to retract his statements, or even Farrell in Farrell v. Burke whose own concept of pornography encompassed the book he owned.
In immigration cases where asylum was requested because of persecution on the basis of sexual orientation, Sotomayor accepted that one should be able to have an openly gay lifestyle without fear, and essentially ruled based on the facts: if persecution was systemic throughout the country (as in China) she ruled for the immigrant; if it was regional, committed by private individuals and not sanctioned by the government, she ruled against him. (See Kin Wan Tso v. United States DOJ; Benitez-Pena v. Keisler; Zhong Xing Zhan v. Gonzales; Xiao Biao Li v. Gonzales).
In a case where anti-gay messages were put up on billboards in NYC and taken down for violating the city’s ordinances, Sotomayor ruled against the anti-gay group’s First Amendment claims. While waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Romer, District judge Sotomayor anticipated the same substantive rational basis test for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that Kennedy would end up applying, and stated, “A person’s sexual orientation, standing alone, does not reasonably, rationally or self-evidently implicate mess hall security concerns.” (Holmes v. Artuz, 1995). In contrast, Scalia’s application of rational basis to state action that discriminates based on sexual orientation has been that any wacky pretext the state can make up is sufficient to meet the test.
Sotomayor may not be particularly sympathetic to LGBT folks, but I’ve seen nothing from her that is comparable to the open contempt Scalia has displayed. There’s a nasty tinge of knee-jerk anti-Catholicism in your assuming that because of her religious background, she must be a homophobe.
Hmmmmm…just heard some disturbing 2nd amendment news from Sotomayor: she apparently has ruled that the 2nd is NOT incorporated against the states. Definitely not my opinion. Fortunately, for me, many states have 2nd rights incorporated into their state constitutions.
I suppose it’s not the end of the world for her to replace Souter since he dissented in Heller. I guess I’ll just have to schedule a chat with her when I move back to DC. Yeah, right!
Landon, I think you’re misreading the letter. It’s saying that even if those who ransacked the dorm room apparently held the belief that homosexuality was repugnant, that “the manner of expressing this opposition should be intellectual.”