Linda Chavez, chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, testifies against Sonia Sonomayor today. Her written testimony is here (click on the View Testimony link); read the whole thing.
It begins as follows:
My message today is straightforward, Mr. Chairman: Do not vote to confirm this nominee. I say this with some regret, because I believe Judge Sotomayor’s personal story is an inspiring one, which proves that this is truly a land of opportunity where accidents of birth and class do not determine whether you can succeed. Unfortunately, based on her statements both on and off the bench, I do not believe Judge Sotomayor necessarily shares that view. It is clear from Judge Sotomayor’s record that she has drunk deep from the well of identity politics. I know a lot about that well, and I can tell you that it is dark and poisonous. It is, in my view, impossible to be a fair judge and also believe that one’s race, ethnicity, and sex should determine how someone will rule as a judge.
And that’s only the beginning.
*Quote of the day from Chavez testimony*
*But this whole way of looking at the world is deeply troubling. If some groups are “underrepresented” in certain fields, then logically, others are “overrepresented.” But who decides how many is too many? According to a study by the National Science Foundation, Asian Americans earn almost 7 percent of advanced degrees in science and engineering and more than 8 percent of the undergraduate degrees in those areas, despite being only about 4 percent of the population. Should we limit the number of Asian Americans who may go into these fields in order to ensure that more Latinos and blacks be represented? And if we adopt proportional representation as our goal, how do we achieve it short of setting racial, ethnicity, and gender quotas? And in this era when increasing numbers of Americans are multi-racial, who determines when a person “counts” as black or Latino or Asian or white?*
Too bad that Linda Chavez has herself drunk from the “poisonous well of identity politics” by defending mass immigration from Latin America without assimilation, and without regard to taxpayer costs.
In this NRO piece, she compares opponents of Hispanic illegal immigration to anti-Semites. However, most Jewish immigrants have historically not demanded bilingual education, affirmative action and welfare. Furthermore, most have gone out of their way to assimilate e.g. Irving Berlin. Chavez might also consider that a 2007 ADL survey show Hispanic immigrants are three times more likely to be highly anti-Semitic than native-born whites.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2UxNmQ0NDBjYmU3MjkzYzc1ODAzMzFhYmY3ZjFlNTc=
“Should we limit the number of Asian Americans who may go into these fields in order to ensure that more Latinos and blacks be represented?”
The Latino caucus in the California legislature is trying to do exactly the above — and their power stems from mass Latino immigration since the 86 amnesty. Even a former liberal newspaper editor points out as much. Peter Schrag observes in
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/ktxl-news-issues-ucoped0608,0,2245625.story
“Still, it’s generally in the Legislature that the pressure originates. Most recently, it was the powerful Latino caucus, which pushed hard to make it easier for more minority students to be admitted after race-based preferences were eliminated.”
Note that by minority, Schrag does not mean Asian or White, who are both minorities in the K-12 California population, but Latinos. The immigration policies favored by Linda Chavez will make preferences a way of life in California for decades.