diversity is a good thing: why sonia sotomayor is a good pick for supreme court

Ever since President Obama made his first Supreme Court pick last week, both sides of the political aisle have been discussing whether or not she is a good choice.

Here's a little info on Sonia Sotomayor, provided by Wikipedia:

Sonia Sotomayor is a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On May 26, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. If confirmed, she would be the court's first Hispanic justice and third female justice.

That last sentence has caused quite a bit of controversy. Before she was even nominated, The New Republic published a hit piece on Sotomayor which was quickly distributed through the conservative community and became the meme when the issue was raised in debate. She was called the "affirmative action" nominee by Pat Buchanan. Bill O'Reilly and his panelists called Sotomayor's record "disturbing." But the worst condemnation of Sotomayor has come from something she said in 2001 when discussing gender and national origin:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

The White House is trying to play it off as "poor word choice," but she meant what she said. And it doesn't make her a racist in the slightest, as Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh would have you believe.

It isn't that hard to figure out. Diversity is a good thing. How could a group of nine white men always come to a decision for us all? The Supreme Court should be just as diverse and colorful as the United States- the people that represent us should look like us. It's not affirmative action and it's not choosing someone less qualified because of race or gender.

An American from Puerto Rican descent and humble beginnings may bring a world of different experience to the table when discussing an issue before the Court. She may not always have a better decision than a white male, but she could have a different take on it that could make someone look at it differently. And in a country with so many Hispanics, doesn't it only make sense that on a court of nine justices, at least one would be there representing the Hispanic community and their collective interests? The same goes for her being a woman: we've had women on the Court for years now, but it's because it only makes sense.

By all means, choose the most qualified candidate. But yes, I want a woman on the Court. And yes, I want blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, and Muslims to serve as well. There are plenty of highly-qualified minorities out there willing to serve in that capacity, and kudos to President Obama for choosing one of them. We need as many American voices in the mix as possible to find the truly American answer to any given question.

So yes, Limbaugh. et al. In some cases, your experiences that amass from not being a white male sometimes do make you uniquely more qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Burgess Argues for Flat Tax

The News Connection ran an article in this week's paper that has been circulating by Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michael Burgess in favor of the flat tax.

The complexity of today's tax code is a consequence of countless deductions and exemptions aimed at promoting a variety of congressionally determined policy agendas. The result is federal law loaded with opportunities for avoiding taxes and exploiting loopholes at the expense of fellow Americans. Behind every loophole there is a lobbyist.

Very well said, but we'll come back to this.

No argument for GOP policy is complete, of course, unless it invokes the memory of the mythical one.

When President Reagan cut taxes in 1981, several good things happened. The economy grew, revenues increased, and jobs were created. It's hard to think of better medicine for our ailing economy than replicating successful reform of the tax code on an even greater scale. How do we do it? Flatten tax rates; simplify the code; and, shift the burden away from our families and small businesses.

This argument is a little hard to follow. Is the congressman implying that a tax cut is tax reform? If so, we have just experienced the most sweeping tax "reforms" in recent history. President Bush's tax cuts for the rich, which Burgess wholeheartedly supported, have been roundly condemned, adding trillions to our staggering national debt. We simply can't afford any more reforms like this.

The optional flat tax that Gingrich and Burgess propose would establish a deduction somewhere above the poverty level to exempt poor families, and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. So far, so good. Remember that first paragraph? Now consider this statement.

And if a person had twice as much income as another, he or she would be taxed twice as much. Furthermore, a single rate tax structure would eliminate taxes on savings, capital gains and dividends.

The flat tax targets income, but the rich don't make their money through salaries, they make it through investments. There's the loophole. The crisis in the subprime mortgage sector left thousands on the brink of foreclosure, but one hedge fund manager made over three billion dollars shorting the housing market. Under Burgess' flat tax proposal, he would not pay one cent of taxes on that money. According to Robert Reich, Clinton's former Secretary of Labor:

The 25 highest-paid hedge-fund managers are earning more than the CEOs of the largest 500 companies in the Standard and Poor's 500 combined. While CEO pay is outrageous, hedge-fund and private-equity pay is way beyond outrageous. Several of these fund managers are taking home more than a billion dollars a year.

Under the current tax code these fund managers pay a reduced tax rate of 15 percent. Burgess and Gingrich think that's too much. Burgess' entire tenure on capitol hill has been one huge valentine to the ruling class, but at least he is consistent. Gingrich is hoping no one will remember that when he was running for president he criticized fellow candidate Steve Forbes, who made the flat tax the central theme of his campaign. Consider the following quote from 1996.

Gingrich was particularly dismissive of the part of the Forbes plan that exempts interest and other unearned income from taxation while taxing wages and salaries at 17 percent. "That's nonsense," Gingrich said. "That's not going to happen."

Gingrich suffered from a failure of imagination. He couldn't conceive that a policy so flagrantly biased toward the wealthy would ever be seriously considered in the public discourse. What a difference a decade makes.

Bill Clinton once said of the 80's:

“The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

That was just a test drive. The current occupier of the oval office no longer even tries to hide the GOP's agenda. With loyal servants like Burgess to do his bidding, why bother?

The last sop in the Gingrich-Burgess proposal is for the business world. Their proposal "dramatically" reduces the corporate income tax rate. Now ask yourselves, if the poorest people, the richest people and corporations are all paying less taxes, who makes up the difference? Logically, the flat tax may mean a larger tax bill for the middle class, or additional debt due to reduced revenues. The authors were hoping you'd be so dazzled by that reference to the Gipper that you wouldn't notice.

Update: Whosplayin insists this proposal is a tax hike for the middle class. Click here for more.