The New York Times continues its front-page advocacy of Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
An article in Friday’s paper on Sotomayor’s participation in the State of New York Mortgage Agency might have been headlined: “When the poor hath cried, Sonia hath wept.”
Sotomayor was a member of the board of an agency charged with providing mortgage insurance to contractors building low-to-moderate-income housing. The Times story depicts her as a paladin of the underprivileged — as if this was a qualification for the Supreme Court.
According to the story, Sotomayor wanted more housing units for really, really low-income tenants, and fewer for moderate income residents. Why give those who actually work for a living a break, as opposed to those who just collect welfare checks?
The Times story discloses: “But in voicing her concerns, Ms. Sotomayor offered a window into her tough and skeptical style, and into her consistent focus on the poorest of the poor, hundreds of pages of agency records show” (emphasis added). This is reporting?
The article noted that even though the apartments would be rented to those making $21,000 to $29,000 annually, Sotomayor was concerned that this would lead to “gentrification” of “historic neighborhoods.” This is an interesting definition of gentry — one who earns between $21,000 and $29,000 a year.
Her position with the agency also allowed Sotomayor to pursue her favorite obsession — race. In 1989, The Times tells us, Sotomayor demanded to know the number of black and Hispanic workers employed on construction and was dismayed to discover that just 8% of the agency’s contracts went to businesses owned by minorities or women.
Another member of the board whose service overlapped Sotomayor’s said, “She made it very clear that she was very liberal and a Democrat, and that really should have been a nonpolitical organization.”
Apparently, The Times considers hard-leftism and extreme political partisanship exceptional qualifications for the high court, which only shows how committed the paper is to the cause of judicial activism.
Related Articles
Times Plays Identity Politics with Supreme Court Nomination
NY Times Continues its Front-Page Lobbying for Sotomayor
@nytimes.com
