Last(?) Post on Sotomayor

She got confirmed. Which I support. But even so, the politics of identity and "betterness" were raised again. Consider the comments by Sylvia Lazos in the article:

Sotomayor is also a divorced woman who has no children but a close relationship with an extended family.

"She is a modern woman with a nontraditional family," said Sylvia Lazos, a law professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "She is much more reflective of contemporary American society than the other justices like Alito and Roberts."

She was referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom are married and have two children.

Now, a lot of people are divorced and/or childless. But a lot of people are married and, as many of us know, have 2.4 children. So seems like Roberts and Alito are very representative too. Just what is "average" in America today is hard to say. To say that Sotomayor is "as reflective" or something like that is fine. To say that she is more reflective is just plain wrong.

For the record, almost all current Supreme Court Justices are married and have children. Considering the more liberal judges,

John Paul Stevens is married and has four children (one of whom is deceased).
Anthony M. Kennedy is married and has three children.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is married and has two children.
Stephen G. Breyer is married with three children.
Sandra Day O’Connor (retired) is married and has three children.

Why does Lazos claim that Sotomayor "more representative" than Roberts and Alito, but not "more representative" than Stevens and Breyer? Probably because Lazos disagrees with their conservative rulings. Not because of their backgrounds.

The article adds this about Sotomayor's finances:

Even Sotomayor's personal finances look more like contemporary America as compared with her new and wealthier colleagues at the Supreme Court. According to friends, Sotomayor has struggled to pay her mortgage and her credit card bills, and her financial disclosures show she has no substantial savings or stock portfolio.

I don't want to get into this too much, but the documents of her finances show a mixed result. She was a law partner in the early 1990s, presumably making a lot of money, and currently earns close to $200,000 a year. So one might expect her to have a lot of cash or stock assets, which she doesn't. But she's has made very good money for 20 years and is hardly "un-wealthy". Few average Americans own a million dollar apartment in Manhattan and earn $200,000 a year.

Sotomayor should have been confirmed because President Obama nominated her, she is well qualified, she brings a valuable, different perspective to the Court, and her past rulings are generally good. She has made a few missteps, but so has everybody. The Senate had no just reason to reject her. Sotomayor should not have been nominated and confirmed because she is Latino, childless and struggles to pay a large mortgage.