Wednesday – Rats, I've Got a Stigma

[ninanevermore]

.
.
.

There are 3 branches to the American government – the executive (the president), the legislative (congress, also known as the opposite of progress) and the judicial. The US Supreme Court is the tippy top of the judicial branch, and once you get approved to be on the Supreme Court, you get to stay there until you're too tired to do it any more or you die. When a vacancy comes along on the court, the president nominates a person to fill it, and congress votes to either let that person sit on the court, or decides they aren't good enough and tells the president to pick someone else.

If the president is a Republican, he will nominate a person that all the Democrats in congress will say is too liberal and they will dig up every asinine right-wing comment that person ever made and hold it up as evidence that that person will make piss poor decisions based on his or her radical right wing political bent. If the president is a Democrat, the Republicans in congress will howl that the judge is a liberal loony and pull up every asinine left-wing comment the person ever made and hold it up as evidence that the judge will made piss poor decisions based on his or her radical left wing political bent.

Whatever the scenario may be, in more cases than not what ends up happening is that a fairly honorable person who has done their best will have everything they've ever done or said put under a microscope and taken out of context in order for the opposing political party to demonize the decision making abilities of whichever party has control of the White House at that time.

It's not exactly the most efficient way to choose a justice, but I suppose it can sometimes be entertaining.

This is what is currently going on with judge Sonia Sotomayor right now. Because President Obama is a Democrat, the Republicans are the ones digging up dirt on her. If a Republican had nominated her (such as the first President George H. W. Bush, who nominated her to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992), it would be the Democrats saying she was unqualified.

American politics are like sports: each side has its fans, and those fans feel their job is to support their team no matter what, and to trash the other team and anyone who dares support it.

I was kind of stunned to hear that one thing that I really found interesting about Sotomayor has been fodder for those people who don't want her to sit on the Supreme Court: the fact that she was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes at the age of 8. I was also diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes at the age of 8. Her nomination made me a little ashamed of the time I tried to get out of jury duty by using my diabetes as an excuse. The judge that time didn't buy that it would be a problem (she was right), and I had no choice but to resort to asking obnoxious questions during the voir dire in order to get thrown out of the jury pool, but that's another story.

I found this interesting about Sotomayor not because I found her inspiring, but because she and I have this in common. It's just a thing we share, like having the same favorite color or both being fans of the same rock band. It's not a good reason for her to be approved to sit on the supreme court – and it's also not a good reason to keep her off of it.

Apparently, some people are worried she might die too young or somehow be too unstable because of it. To those people I have two words: shut up. I would have had four words – shut the f*ck up – but my mother raised me better than that. If Sotomayor has been healthy this long, the odd are that, like me, she is one of those people who can stay healthy with Type 1 diabetes. If it has not impaired her judgment in the 3000 cases she's tried in her career so far, I doubt it will in the cases she will preside over on the Supreme Court, should her nomination be approved.

If you disagree with her politics, that’s fine. If you think she makes lousy decisions, then I don't have a problem with you saying so. But the diabetes has nothing to do with anything.

Some articles I've read have suggested that perhaps Sotomayor will help erase "the stigma of diabetes." Here I've lived with diabetes for over 30 years and I didn't even know it had a stigma. Sure, I don't like to tell people about my diabetes until I've known them for awhile, but I always thought of that as my way of not having to deal with their ignorance about it. To me, ignorance is the thing that has a stigma, or at least should.

Perhaps stigma exists in the eye of the beholder. Fortunately, unlike diabetes, ignorance can be cured by education and those afflicted with it can make themselves stigma free if they only take the effort.


* ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * # * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *

Comments

[simplecity2htwn.livejournal.com]

I've been watching this whole process with a growing sense of frustration. Sadly, it makes me miss the days of the old fashioned snuff-chewing rabid racist conservative who wouldn't have a problem saying that he'd be dead before there'd be a woman/Hispanic/liberal on HIS Supreme Court. Instead, I'm left to watch these idiots try to throw rocks at the record of a woman who is imminently more qualified to do her job than they are to do theirs.

[georgiaskydiver.livejournal.com]

It's interesting the goggles through which you see this appointment. As you know I am extremely involved in politics and I think any appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is among the most important decisions - one that will have the most impact on our country - that exists. Period.

Yet I only vaguely recollect hearing in one early report that encompassed her entire life history that she was a diabetic. As you have said, it simply isn't relevant. And I honestly haven't heard ANYONE say that it is.

There are far too many other issues which are more relevant to whether or not she an appropriate appointee to the bench.

[neanahe.livejournal.com]

My father - a staunch conservative, for the record - who keeps track of that side of politics because he agrees with them, mentioned that "some of the bloggers" had mentioned the diabetes issue. My dad and I don't see eye to eye on much, but we agreed making an issue out of it was out of line.

From what I can see, none of the main stream voices made a big deal out of it, for which I give them kudos. Most of the talk about it has been from the blossiphere.

[neanahe.livejournal.com]

Most of her rulings fall on the side of pragmatism, from what I can see. That's actually a good thing in my book. I hope she is seated when all is said and done.

[basketcaselady.livejournal.com]

I have some family members that full of stigma. Sadly, stigma cannot be correct with an injection of insulin like blood sugar can. Too bad.