Contempo Magazine Blog

by Dr. Tony Magana

Sonia Sotomayor received a private education, best described as arete, from grammar school through law school which facilitated her rise from poverty to be a leading jurist. Her compelling story is not only about hard work and struggle but also should make America reflect on the value of private education versus the failure of public education. The focus of both liberals and conservatives should be why this superbness of education is not more available to all the poor in America.

The earliest immigrants to America left England because they wanted a chance at a better life. These immigrants found new opportunities to develop land, practice religion of their choice, educate their children and prepare a legacy for their descendants to an extent well beyond ever imagined in Europe. The acceptance of wealth and poverty concordance has been tolerated by the strength of the conviction of the poor that with hard work, determination, and education their children would be afforded social mobility and an equal chance at success.

Society as a whole benefits from equal opportunity because it allows talent to be drawn from the largest potential pool of contributors. Deeply rooted in American core values, as described in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, is the concept that when these hard working and gifted individuals rise in society then there is secondary benefit for the whole country.

Certainly much of American history has revolved upon the the continuous evolution of equal opportunity The development of educational facilities, the elimination of slavery and subsequently racial discrimination were heavily motivated by not just a sense of moral righteousness but also a presumption that society would be stronger and more productive in the setting of equal opportunity.

At the same time throughout America history there has continued to be poor and rich. Coexistent with a shared trust in striving for equal opportunity there has also been a suspicion that those who achieved much often did so by luck or even unfair advantage obtained by unscrupulous means rather then by meritorious achievement. Sometimes this is only a slight spark but sometimes it becomes a raging fire.

The controversy over comments by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor that her gender and ethnic experience may be better than that of a white male to render judgment is not so much being driving by racism but by the perception of a significant portion of Americans that they remain left out of the American dream. Curiously both the left and the right have major misconceptions of what is the current state of equal opportunity in America. Even though she was poor, she was privileged in being able to attend excellent schools that many others did not. I suspect this insensitivity on her part was not intentional but still projects negatively towards others not so fortunate.

Judge Sotomayor does come from poverty and economic disadvantage but not in every way. Neither was her early life gifted by any formal sort of affirmative action. Where she received a significant opportunity early on was that she attended parochial schools instead of public schools. From grammar school, the Blessed Sacrament School of the Bronx, through high school, Cardinal Spellman High School, she attended excellent Catholic schools. This experience was the spring board from which she could achieve attending an Ivy league university, Princeton, and then Yale Law School. Had Judge Sotomayor attended public school would she have graduated from high school let alone become a nationally recognized jurist?

Access to high quality or even “elite” schools is an important factor in contributing to a true state of equal opportunity. Exposure to this environment keys in to families how to learn about success and networking that are rare in public facilities. Judge Sotomayor should humbly admit that the uniqueness of her access to such resources played a significant role in her success. This does not diminish her accomplishments.

To foster true economic opportunity and future for the poor in America we must make sure that poor children have the same chance to attend good private schools like those of Judge Sotomayor and not be trapped in the public school system. There is a tremendous hypocrisy in touting the well deserved achievements of Judge Sotomayor but not at the same time recognizing that such achievement would not have been possible if she had been forced to attend public inner city schools.

Conservatives should celebrate that diversity in the Supreme Court is being made possible not by a government run school system but instead by a total private education that was given to a person who lived in one of America’s poorest neighborhoods. They should demand that more voucher programs like the one at the school where President Obama’s daughters attend be given to religious schools throughout the country to give a real chance at upward mobility for America’s poor.

Threats to this perception of fairness whether it be “white supremacy” or “affirmative action” at first sound dissimilar but when you take the time to analyze them are really about groups feeling disenfranchised. Both concepts failed because they did not address the real issue of improving education for all.

Being poor does not require one to be of one particular race. While higher percentages of Hispanics and African-Americans are living below the poverty line the total numbers of whites in poverty are still more. There is a common thread in the experience of all poor in America regardless of race and that is that if they attend a poor performing public school the chances for upward mobility are near zero.

America needs to move beyond looking at racial discrimination as the major contributing factor to poverty and really examine the circumstances that trap generation after generation of people of any race into poverty. Going to powerful private schools early on in life remains a powerful predictor of positive life achievements while going to failing inner city schools correctly and often predicts quite the opposite.

Thanks for reading Contempo Magazine blog which discusses issues for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, and America from a conservative Hispanic point of view. Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and also writes for the American Daily Review. Follow him on twitter http://twitter.com/contempomagazin

 by Shaine Mata

President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States, Sonia Sotomayor, should be an easy layup for the President after several disasters in nominating people. Judge Sotomayor is both Hispanic and a woman, making it difficult for Republicans to give her a tough time without seeming racist or sexist.

In a recent article, I read about how she considers her judgment better than that of a white male judge. I think it is admirable that a Hispanic woman has come so far as to become a federal judge and Supreme Court nominee. I do not think that her personal background ought to be tauted as a plus. Even President Obama stated that, “what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through, that will make her a good judge.” While this may be a good thing for a Federal judge, it is not so good for the Supreme Court, which is more academic in their work.

The Supreme Court does not hear fresh new cases where an attorney can bring in mitigating circumstances to lessen the sentence of criminal, or reduce an award by a civil court. By the time cases arrive at the Supreme Court, they are argued on very narrow subjects. Supreme Court cases are the final word on matters that are gray rather than black or white. The Court’s job is to make those gray matters black or white.

A Supreme Court Judge’s experience only matters in their view of the constitution. A judge either views the constitution as silly putty or a rigid form that requires some effort to change. The uproar about Judge Sotomayor’s comment only distracts from the more important issue, which is her view of how the Constitution should be interpreted.

We cannot have Supreme Court decisions colored by personal experiences or an “understanding of the struggles” of the people before them. Courts of original jurisdiction have this freedom because they are taking existing law and applying it to a specific case for a specific person. In the Supreme Court, a specific person’s situation cannot be used to make law for all 300 million Americans. We tend to forget that in their decisions, the Supreme Court is making law. Though they do have that power, it is not granted to them for the sake of being an additional legislature; rather, they have that power to adjust legislation that oversteps the bounds of the Constitution.

Therefore, we should focus more on whether Judge Sotomayor’s view of the Constitution makes her likely to try to legislate from the bench or interpret the law. Personal experience influences legislators; law influences a judge. Is she a legislator, or a judge?

Thank you for reading Contempo Magazine blog with Shaine Mata who writes about politics, technology, and social media for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, Texas and America. He is a co-founder of Advantj Media Consortium

by Dr. Tony Magana

The Republican party self handicapped their ability to contest the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama comes as no surprise to the Hispanic community. Frankly if he had failed to nominate a Hispanic to this opening the moderate dissatisfaction that had been brewing in the Latino community following the paucity of Cabinet appointments would have grown significantly.

No one can argue that the Judge’s record of achievement is equal or exceeds that of any current sitting Supreme Court justice. Coming from a poor background in New York City she was able to graduate from Princeton with honors and then serve as editor for the Law Review at Yale. Her career as a tough New York City prosecutor and private practice attorney litigating intellectual property rights before she became a judge is not typical for a standard liberal.

She was initially appointed to the lower Federal bench by President George H. Bush, however her appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals was made by President Clinton and was challenged by some Republicans.

Supreme Court appointments are always opportunities for the party out of power to rally and unify. This is a part of the American way of politics. However the Republican party is well advised to tread carefully in the examination of Judge Sotomayor.

The Republican party was significantly damaged in the last election cycle by the voluminous anti-Hispanic rhetoric coming from members like Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter that resulted in major swing of Hispanic voters away from the Republican party to the Democratic party. The growing demographics of America indicate that the Hispanic vote will likely continue to be a potential deciding factor in future elections where the margins are only a few percentage points.

Just recently the Republican party had a chance to begin to vindicate itself by giving former Florida Speaker of the House, Marco Rubio, a Miami born Cuban American, legitimate recognition to run in the Florida primary for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Mel Martinez. The charismatic Reaganesque conservative is much more in line with the party base while at the same time in touch with the Hispanic community then the somewhat liberal governor Charlie Crist. The Republican leaders of the Senate decided to quickly endorse Charlie Crist without so much as a giving Rubio any respect.

If one were to compare the political views of Charlie Crist and Judge Sotomayor there would probably be little difference. Had the Republican party recognized and supported Marco Rubio then they would be on much stronger ground to possibly oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. Now they have put themselves in a no win situation.

Presidents and political parties are not always correct at assuming how the future decisions of a judge will go. Clearly Judge Sotomayor has shown some strong law and order decisions, protection of religious freedom and expression, and a hint that government can limit at least the discussion of abortion. On the other hand she has made some controversial statements about the rule of judges in “setting policy” and also appears to not have an ethic neutral approach to the law.

The Senate will rightly need to inquiry into these two areas of concern, however, barring a unforeseen statement of belief beyond that normally accepted by the majority of contemporary jurists I suspect she will be confirmed appropriately.

Thanks for reading Contempo Magazine blog which discusses issues for McAllen, the Rio Grande Valley, and America from a conservative Hispanic point of view. Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and also writes for the American Daily Review. Follow him on twitter http://twitter.com/contempomagazin