We can argue whether Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter, would be the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court. It's beyond dispute that she would be the first Puerto Rican. Sotomayor was born and raised in the Bronx, but her parents migrated to New York from Puerto Rico, and Sotomayor retains a strong ethnic identification with that Caribbean island. "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging," Sotomayor said in a 2001 speech whose mild endorsement of identity politics provoked a ridiculous fuss on the right. A more salient criticism would fault Sotomayor's implied suggestion that her "national origins" are any different from those of, say, Potter Stewart. In the speech, Sotomayor called her parents "immigrants," but the island they departed has been an American territory for 111 years. Why it has remained so longer than any other overseas possession (save the odd atoll or guano deposit) is an enduring historic puzzle.
Puerto Rico is often described as the world's oldest colony, having recently entered its sixth century under off-island rule. Spanish settlers seized Puerto Rico from the Taíno Indians in 1508, a decade and a half after Christopher Columbus "discovered" it. It remained a Spanish colony until the U.S. chased Spain out of the neighborhood in the Spanish-American war. That was 1898, the same year the U.S. acquired the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii became a state. Puerto Rico did not. (Another island acquired in 1898 is Guam, which would share Puerto Rico's 111-year record as a U.S. territory but for its seizure by Japan during World War II.)
Puerto Rico is often described as the world's oldest colony, having recently entered its sixth century under off-island rule. Spanish settlers seized Puerto Rico from the Taíno Indians in 1508, a decade and a half after Christopher Columbus "discovered" it. It remained a Spanish colony until the U.S. chased Spain out of the neighborhood in the Spanish-American war. That was 1898, the same year the U.S. acquired the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii became a state. Puerto Rico did not. (Another island acquired in 1898 is Guam, which would share Puerto Rico's 111-year record as a U.S. territory but for its seizure by Japan during World War II.)
Almost from the beginning, the U.S. was at a loss about what to do with Puerto Rico. An 1899 book by Frederick A. Ober titled Puerto Rico and Its Resources rhapsodized about the new colony's ability to provide sugar cane and coffee to the continental U.S., which in turn could sell Puerto Rico machinery, flour, cotton, and wool. But Latin America was awash in sugar cane and coffee, and the Puerto Rican population was too poor to provide much of a market for manufactured goods. (The island wouldn't industrialize in any significant way until 1935, when President Roosevelt created the Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration.) Ober made a more compelling case for the island's military value, "with numerous excellent harbours for the assembling and refitting of our fleets." Various military installations would be built there, but after World War II the island became strategically negligible. Today only one Army base remains. More from Slate here.
9 comments:
It's a great place to catch a cruise ship !
A position to serve on the supreme court is NOT an invitation to a special interest club where you can litigate US law according to your ethnic/political/religeous back ground. It's about Interpreting the law of the land. So it makes no difference where this woman or her parents or her entire family comes from. Does She Possess the Qualifications to Interpret our laws and serve on our highest court?
honestaby
Considering 50 percent of her cases that have been heard on appeal at the Supreme Court have been overturned and another one may well be I would say no, she does not possess the qualifications to be on the nations highest court
This is a life term people... We need the best of the best... She is not
She doesn't pass the qualifications for Supreme Court,
and when were Puerto Ricans immigrants, she knows nothing about
her own heritage. Unless her parents were born before 1898, no wait that would make her about 70 years old. She's 55 and her mother still lives so therefor her parents were never immigrants she is a disgrace to her own colony.
I visited PR back in the 90's and most of the San Juan area around the ports was depressing-alot of beggars with signs saying they had HIV and needed money.
Judge Sotomayor is reportedly more qualified than many of the current Justice were when appointed. While one might take issue with how she expresses the value of experience in perspective, her rulings are what should be considered. If we consider ideology, then surely those who object to Sotomayor's tribute to diversity would be outraged by Scalia's stated and demonstrated allegiance to a foreign government, AKA The Holy See, and his sworn obedience to the Pope via his membership in Opus Dei. The truth is, that USSC justices usually disappoint all of us. They are idiots when we disagree and they are brilliant when we agree.
Sotomayor's ruling in Firefighters is disturbing, but certainly less disturbing than the Justices of the USSC selling out all of us on the Fourth Amendment rulings. Prioritize people.
BTW, Puerto RIco is a voluntary commonwealth. They can vote to pursue becoming a state or they can vote to leave the commonwealth. They have voted to remain in the current status.
As for the use of immigrant- it can be applied to those moving from Puerto Rico to the US States. If you will visit the GHOTES website or any genealogy site, then you will see that the first ancestor in any family who moved within the British realms to Virginia Colony and Maryland Province are commonly referred to as "the immigrant".
Sotomayor is not too good to be criticized, but for your own reputation find a valid point to make on the subject before sharing it with us.
Did any of your Conservatives, who seem to have a problem with Sotomayor saying that her background and history would have an impact on her rulings, have a problem with Judge Alito being confirmed? Just wondering.
Post a Comment