Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post deliberately leaves out some important facts in his latest column to make his case for Supreme Court Justice candidate, Sonia Sotomayor.

“Republicans’ outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor’s musings about how her identity as a “wise Latina” might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any “identity” — black, brown, female, gay, whatever — has to be judged against this supposedly “objective” standard.

Thus it is irrelevant if Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. talks about the impact of his background as the son of Italian immigrants on his rulings — as he did at his confirmation hearings — but unforgivable for Sotomayor to mention that her Puerto Rican family history might be relevant to her work. Thus it is possible for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to say with a straight face that heritage and experience can have no bearing on a judge’s work, as he posited in his opening remarks yesterday, apparently believing that the white male justices he has voted to confirm were somehow devoid of heritage and bereft of experience.”

If in his view Republicans see “whiteness and maleness” as some sort of neutral condition, Democrats view diversity alone as the personification of neutrality. Is there really a difference? Or does one perspective score more political points than the other?

Robinson then goes on to make the argument that her Puerto Rican heritage alone is really the main reason why her critics are not feeling her. He goes on to bolster his point by mentioning how Justice Alito also mentioned the impact of his heritage (Italian) on his career and how he did not receive any criticism.

Here’s the difference.

While Robinson is accusing White, Right-wing justices of using their “Whiteness” to make judicial decisions, he provides no evidence. Cases like Powell v. Alabama, Shelley v. Kraemer, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, Loving v. Virginia, and others which benefited Black folks were all decided by a bench made up of mostly White justices. Had these cases been decided on the heritage of these justices, they would have never passed as many Whites in that era tolerated the unfair treatment of Blacks.

Second, Robinson neglected to mention that Sotomayor was a member of both La Raza (“The Race”) and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Actually, both organizations have aggressively pushed for legislation that would ultimately usurp current immigration laws here in the US. From extending health government health benefits to illegals, relaxing driver’s license standards, to pushing for law that would require taxpayers to foot the bill for illegals who want to go to college. Make no mistake about it, the only “illegals” they are concerned about come from our southern border (and both their name and record proves that). While many people may not have a problem with this, what they do not realize is that this type of legislation forces millions of Americans to compete for resources (bought and paid for by the US taxpayer) that are now being doled out to non-US citizens. One only has to look as far as the Los Angeles Unified School District to see how the bending of US immigration law has helped plummet that district to a embarrassing low national ranking. Sotomayor’s association with these organizations and the comment she is now trying to water down:“I would hope 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.” shows that she is clearly putting race above the law. And let’s not forget her belief that the “Court of Appeals is where policies are made“.

The whole notion that suggests that if someone is either of your race or close to it will automatically have your best interests at heart has been proven false from the street to the White House. Yet Blacks and Hispanics in on this particular issue continue to play the role of “Buggin Out”, believing that “more brothers on the wall” alone will make the world a much better place. Based on Sotomayor’s beliefs and record (not the “beliefs” that she is spouting off now, but what she has said repeatedly over her career), would she stick to the rule of law if a case between a Hispanic and Black American came to the bench? We already know how she ruled in the case between White and Black firefighters (and even that was turned over by the Supreme Court). Again, it is Sotomayor who has credited much of her career and her decisions based on her racial perspective (something she has boasted repeatedly).

Robinson’s argument for Sotomayor is based on the same twisted logic he is accusing White Supreme Court Justices of using. He just doesn’t realize it.