Latinos Need Not Apply

If Latinos were to believe the fantasy that is Sonia Sotomayor, we could all celebrate her implausible catapult from the slums of the Bronx to the United States Supreme Court.

We could do so in a fashion imaginable to the Left, that would entail all of us with the flags of our respective Latin American nations in tow, feasting on tacos and guzzling Coronas and Presidentes while dancing salsa in the street; the chants of "Sotomayor!" and "Si, se puede!" in unison to the back beat of the timbales.

Gracias a Dios for Sotomayor's nomination, because we, especially us young Latinos, now have a role model to follow, someone other than Alex Rodriguez or Daddy Yankee. Surely, Sotomayor alone will create an increase in the total of 4% of Latinos in this country that can call themselves lawyers.  At least that's the conclusion one could draw if they were to take heed to the words of a young student like Cecilia Lopez, who now believes Sotomayor serves as proof that the dream of becoming a prominent Latino attorney is attainable.

I'm sure there are many like Ms. Lopez that are mired in the historical delusion of Sotomayor's nomination, and if so then maybe the number of Latinos enrolling at law schools across the country will skyrocket. But it appears that once those hopeful law students are out searching for a springboard to their legal career, we should advise them to not call on Ms. Sotomayor for employment, as an Investors.com report points out:

The vast majority of Judge Sotomayor's law clerks over many years have been non-Latinas. In a letter to Senate leaders signed by the nominee's former law clerks, of the 45 signatory names appearing, only three surnames, or 6.23%, are even arguably "Latina/Latino."

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that just because this letter doesn't appear with names such as Garcia, Rodriguez, Perez, Lopez, or Arenas, doesn't mean that Sotomayor's tendency to hire Latinos is as inadequate as suggested; but what if it in fact is?

If the same woman who celebrates how her ethnicity has influenced her judicial philosophy and has adamantly espoused the necessity for more Latino representation in the legal profession, but fails to provide tutelage and employment for her own underrepresented minority group, then what we have here is another fine case of liberal hypocrisy; one that renders the ongoing case on the ambivalence of Sotomayor's liberalism in fact closed.

Ultimately, Latinos who yearn to follow their legal aspirations don't need Sotomayor's existence for their dreams to become a reality. To do so implies a defeatist attitude, one that manifests failure. If we all functioned with the belief that a path needed to be paved before we could believe in that path, then maybe we need to take a step back and remind ourselves that the country we live in lacked a model or springboard for its creation, and look where it is today.

,se puede.

J.C. Arenas is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your comments at jcarenas.com
If Latinos were to believe the fantasy that is Sonia Sotomayor, we could all celebrate her implausible catapult from the slums of the Bronx to the United States Supreme Court.

We could do so in a fashion imaginable to the Left, that would entail all of us with the flags of our respective Latin American nations in tow, feasting on tacos and guzzling Coronas and Presidentes while dancing salsa in the street; the chants of "Sotomayor!" and "Si, se puede!" in unison to the back beat of the timbales.

Gracias a Dios for Sotomayor's nomination, because we, especially us young Latinos, now have a role model to follow, someone other than Alex Rodriguez or Daddy Yankee. Surely, Sotomayor alone will create an increase in the total of 4% of Latinos in this country that can call themselves lawyers.  At least that's the conclusion one could draw if they were to take heed to the words of a young student like Cecilia Lopez, who now believes Sotomayor serves as proof that the dream of becoming a prominent Latino attorney is attainable.

I'm sure there are many like Ms. Lopez that are mired in the historical delusion of Sotomayor's nomination, and if so then maybe the number of Latinos enrolling at law schools across the country will skyrocket. But it appears that once those hopeful law students are out searching for a springboard to their legal career, we should advise them to not call on Ms. Sotomayor for employment, as an Investors.com report points out:

The vast majority of Judge Sotomayor's law clerks over many years have been non-Latinas. In a letter to Senate leaders signed by the nominee's former law clerks, of the 45 signatory names appearing, only three surnames, or 6.23%, are even arguably "Latina/Latino."

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that just because this letter doesn't appear with names such as Garcia, Rodriguez, Perez, Lopez, or Arenas, doesn't mean that Sotomayor's tendency to hire Latinos is as inadequate as suggested; but what if it in fact is?

If the same woman who celebrates how her ethnicity has influenced her judicial philosophy and has adamantly espoused the necessity for more Latino representation in the legal profession, but fails to provide tutelage and employment for her own underrepresented minority group, then what we have here is another fine case of liberal hypocrisy; one that renders the ongoing case on the ambivalence of Sotomayor's liberalism in fact closed.

Ultimately, Latinos who yearn to follow their legal aspirations don't need Sotomayor's existence for their dreams to become a reality. To do so implies a defeatist attitude, one that manifests failure. If we all functioned with the belief that a path needed to be paved before we could believe in that path, then maybe we need to take a step back and remind ourselves that the country we live in lacked a model or springboard for its creation, and look where it is today.

,se puede.

J.C. Arenas is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your comments at jcarenas.com