Ron Radosh

July 1st, 2009 4:39 pm

Judge Sotomayor and The New York Times: A Strange Omission

When Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama was announced, The New York Times almost immediately ran a major profile of the judge by Sherl Gay Stolberg, “Sotomayor, a Trailblazer and a Dreamer,” that appeared on p. Al of the paper and continued for two more pages.

Scroll down in the article to the paragraph that begins with the words “In her student thesis.” The paragraph reads:

Ms. Sotomayor wrote about Puerto Rico’s long struggle for political and economic self-determination. While [Gov.] Munoz Marin created great hope among Puerto Ricans, “the island has continued to be plagued by unemployment, absentee ownership and dependency on mainland revenues,” she concluded.

But there is a very strange and troubling omission in the online version of Stolberg’s article, when compared with what was in some of the actual print editions, and was removed from the version published online by the Times.

In the printed version- at least the version that appeared in certain editions including the one I clipped-the following sentence appears after the quote from her thesis about Muonz Marin, and the ending words “she concluded.” Here is the missing sentence from Stolberg’s article:

In the footnotes, Ms. Sotomayor wrote that she relied on books that used “Marxist-Leninist analysis”- not an uncommon tool for historians- to study the impact of colonialism on the island.

Let us examine this sentence, and particularly Stolberg’s claim that Marxist-Leninist analysis is “not an uncommon tool for historians.” As my friend the lawyer and historian Henry D. Fetter puts it, “except perhaps at the old East German Institute for Historical Studies or [Moscow's] Patrice Lumumba University in their ‘glory days.’” One must also add, of course, Moscow University from Lenin through Brezhnev. One recalls that Mikhail Gorbachev’s wife got her degree in “Marxist-Leninist philosophy.”

There are many Marxist historians and others who use Marxist analysis as a starting point for historical exploration. The most well known in America is the major historian of slavery and the Old South, Eugene D. Genovese. Although he is now a political conservative, he has never disavowed those who use Marxist analysis to gain insight into the historical process. But only in the Soviet bloc countries did anyone ever refer to “Marxist-Leninist” analysis. That very term confers credibility to a hard-line Leninist and Stalinist weltanschauung, used only by supporters of Soviet style communism. One must wonder whether Judge Sotomayor used any books that contradicted or did not use Marxist-Leninist analysis to reach her conclusion?

Page 1 of 2 Next ->

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

32 Comments

1. Pajamas Media » Judge Sotomayor and The New York Times: A Strange Omission:

[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]

Jul 2, 2009 - 1:25 am 2. David Thomson:

“And finally, again, why did The New York Times delete the reference to Sotomayor’s dependence on books using Marxist-Leninist analysis?”

The New York Times realizes this should destroy Sotomayor’s remaining hope to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. The odds are already against her winning approval in the U.S. Senate. Her Marxist-Leninist inclinations would be the last straw. Republican legislators merely need to ask her some polite and unrelenting questions. But will they have the courage? Everyone knows that Sotomayor wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell if she had stuck it good and hard to a minority fireman. Frank Ricci, however, is a white man—and the politically correct elites have declared war on this so-called cancer of the Earth.

Jul 2, 2009 - 4:07 am 3. RRT-MD:

“By any account, then, young Sonia Sotomayor considered herself sympathetic to the Puerto Rican fringe left-wing, and its campaign for independence.”

It should be noted that this “fringe left-wing” is avidly and ofter violently anti-American.

Jul 2, 2009 - 4:46 am 4. vivo:

“In the footnotes, Ms. Sotomayor wrote that she relied on books that used “Marxist-Leninist analysis”- not an uncommon tool for historians- to study the impact of colonialism on the island. ”

Uuuuuh . . . she used Marxist-Leninist analysis 30 years ago as research for her thesis. Uuuuuh . . . she’s baaad . . .

If you want to analyze a situation, you research where social and historical data are available. That’s what universities teach you: open your mind and tell the truth.

Let the NY Times answer your question. I’ll wait.

Jul 2, 2009 - 4:47 am 5. "progressive"watch:

Which is why Barack Obama nominated Sotomayor. He is a fringe left president.

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:22 am 6. Patrick of Atlantis:

Last year, Pat Buchanan wrote a very good column on the Supreme Court titled ‘The Greenhouse Effect’. I read it on line and a week later I reread it in the Tulsa World. I noticed that the editors of the Tulsa World had taken liberties with Buchanan’s column by deleting his best points. The end result was that it was just as dull as all their own editorials.

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:36 am 7. Thomas L......:

Down the memory hole. Problem? What problem?

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:45 am 8. Joe:

Obama is a leftist and of course he would nominate a leftist for the Supreme Court! Her background, just like our esteemed president, is out there for all to see. I have a question, are we all using the term “leftist” when maybe “Marxist” would be more accurate?

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:29 am 9. savage24:

According to Obama she has all the right stuff. The truth is she has all the left stuff. That is why she was nominated.

Jul 2, 2009 - 7:11 am 10. venividivici:

Uuuuuh . . . she used Marxist-Leninist analysis 30 years ago as research for her thesis. Uuuuuh . . . she’s baaad . . .

If she used Marxist-Leninist analysis for her research, that doesn’t make her “bad”, it makes her “brain dead”.

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:04 am 11. Delia:

I’m still very curious about what was in 0bama’s ‘thesis’.

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:52 am 12. bubblehead:

Vivo – Do you mean that the only available research she might have used is of the markist-leninist stripe?

If that is not what you are saying, your post has no meaning!

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:53 am 13. Blarty Blarckleblart:

This is great stuff. You guys should definitely run with this. Call your senators.

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:02 am 14. David Thomson:

I find it fascinating that the legacy media made a big deal out of Todd Palin’s peripheral relationship with the Alaskan secessionist party. Apparently, he merely marked the appropriate box so that he could vote for one of their candidates. There is little doubt but that a white U.S. Supreme Court nominee would be severely damaged if they had a similar affiliation with such a “radical group.” But we are supposed to look the other way concerning Sonia Sotomayor’s active member of anti-white groups like La Raza. Does this make any sense?

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:38 am 15. Delia:

LaRaza also wants 0bamacare for illegals:

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=20785&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:44 am 16. samie12:

She quotes Norman Thomas…did in her year book and several instances since then that we have read…didn’t give him credit, just quoted him as her own.

OMG Norman Thomas…
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened”

SO VERY VERY TRUE, UNFORTUNATELY IT’S HAPPENING. It seems that all you have to is tell some people you’re going to “take care of them”, give them something they didn’t work for and they’ll follow you like a love sick puppy dog, then you can kick them when they’re not looking.

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:47 am 17. Adina Kutnicki,Israel:

No surprise that Sotamayor is a Marxist acolyte. In fact, Michelle Obama’s Princeton thesis was quite radical in outlook, as was Hillary’s. The big question – who knows what was in Obama’s, or did he even write one?
Anyone?
Anyway, birds of a radical feather flock together.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:05 am 18. anna/indepen:

Okay, again….

SHE QUOTES NORMAN THOMAS!!!…for pete’s sake!!!

NORMAN THOMAS>>>>

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened”

He was 100% correct!!! Sotamayor is another brick in wall…and she will get in easily. we can’t stop it.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:23 am 19. charlie4nv:

This is an interesting point. I appreciate the balance of the article, along with the poignancy of the question it raises.

Vivo’s comment:”If you want to analyze a situation, you research where social and historical data are available. That’s what universities teach you: open your mind and tell the truth.”

This makes sense. If you want to learn about a certain political philosophy, you read the information propagated by those who share that philosophy. That said, there is no doubt in my mind that the Times omitted the statement referring to Marxist-Leninist analysis because it would most likely hurt Sotomayor’s chances for nomination.

Let’s be realistic, though. As I said in my own post about this (at http://www.beatreid.com), with Al Franken winning the senate seat in Minnesota and a overwhelming democratic majority, Sotomayor will be a shoe-in.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:54 am 20. independent 100%:

Again, i will try …

Sotamayor is a quoter of Norman Thomas, therefore.. follower of Norman Thomas…look him up. it does not matter what we think, she will be in the office no matter what is said or shown.

You will never see the thesis as you will never see the birth certificate..the “fix” is in ..

Obama is a “puppet president”..someone else is pulling that man’s strings and we will pay a price..

Jul 2, 2009 - 2:33 pm 21. Patrick of Atlantis:

Delia # 11,
I haven’t read Obama’s thesis, but I imagine it is chock full of quotables like: “America is not a Christian nation”, “America is one of the largest Muslim nations”, “my muslim faith”, “turn back the rising sea”, and “Inflating your tires to the proper pressure will solve the energy crisis”.

Jul 2, 2009 - 2:53 pm 22. Oscar the Grump:

Sotomayor quotes Marxist/Leninist things, boy, this is bad. Its like me quoting the new testament.

Jul 2, 2009 - 3:53 pm 23. Emphasis:

Obama like Castro and Chavez among others is a man that resents his origin. These individuals actually resent their fellow citizens, they find them worthless because of whatever slights they might have experienced during their upbringing, or just because of the nature and conditions of their birth.

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:58 pm 24. Alex Bensky:

God knows I wouldn’t want to be held up for what I wrote when I was a senior in college and although I was never much of a leftist (similarly to the old Jewish joke the punchline of which is “by me you’re a captain, by you you’re a captain, but by a captain you’re no captain.”).

However, if I were nominated for something and asked about what I said and wrote back then, I could do so, explain why I had certain assumptions and political ideas and how those changed by experience, (some) maturity, further reading, etc. So if Judge Sotomayer can explain why she said one thing then and another thing now, let her do so.

I understand there’s a fad among the lunatic left for eschewing “American” to describe this country. But “North American” isn’t any more correct, since it includes Canada. She could have called it the “US Congress” but didn’t.

I still want to find out what rich life experiences a Latina woman has that I haven’t, or a Polish autoworker here in Detroit, or a rural farmer in Arkansas haven’t.

And since she went to an expensive private high school and then got her degrees from two Ivy League schools, at what point did she stop having Latina experiences and start having privileged experiences?

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:36 pm 25. Linguist:

You are certainly correct in that when we are young we tend to “explore” ideologies that the experience of age teaches us are at best questionable and at worst shudderingly dangerous. And so what we think and believe and act upon evolves and there should be no shame in having such exploration be a part of one’s personal history.

But in the case of Sonia Sotomayor, to ask the question “How does that, if at all, color what stance she would take towards questions of affirmative action, and other legal issues that come before the court?”

Ricci vs. DeStafano is your answer.

But by the slim thread of sanity to which this country still tenuously clings, overturned by the Supreme Court 5-4.

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:10 am 26. venividivici:

21. Oscar the Grump:

Sotomayor quotes Marxist/Leninist things, boy, this is bad. Its like me quoting the new testament.
Jul 2, 2009 – 3:53 pm

Really? How?

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:26 pm 27. Hanoi Paris Hilton:

I’m afraid that Bensky’s reference to the Jewish captain joke is too obscure and too oblique to make much sense.

The full “narrative”, as they say, is that Hyman Moscowitz makes a killing in the market, and buys himself the grand yacht he’s always wanted, along with a blue blazer, white flannel trousers, and a classic captain’s hat. In full regalia, he brings his mother to see the new boat, saying, “look Mama, I’m a kepten.”

She responds, “Hyman my son, by me you’re a kepten, and by you you’re a kepten. But by keptens you’re no kepten.”

It happens I had just told that joke earlier today while out on the water with one of my old buddies who last week dropped nearly three grand on his sea kayak.

Jul 3, 2009 - 9:00 pm 28. misanthropicus:

RE #2/David Thomson: [...] Frank Ricci, however, is a white man—and the politically correct elites have declared war on this so-called cancer of the Earth. [...].

With all due respect: it’s Susan Sontag (who certainly appears more than a few times as footnote in Barry Soetoro’s academic work), who decreed what Thomson says: “[...] the white race is the cancer of human history. [...]” (Partisan Review, Winter 1967, p. 57.

Anyway, can’t we talk about a… hotbed of tolerants?

Jul 3, 2009 - 11:05 pm 29. misanthropicus:

RE #4/vivo: [...] she used Marxist-Leninist analysis 30 years ago as research for her thesis. Uuuuuh . . . she’s baaad [...] If you want to analyze a situation, you research where social and historical data are available. That’s what universities teach you: open your mind and tell the truth. [...]”

Pauvre Vivo, you simply can’t get a thing straight – the fact that the so-called “marxist-leninist philosophy” was deemed, even at that time (Sotomayor’s incandescent student years) simply a heap of garbage unusable for squeezing out from history or economic facts constructive explanative & predictive theories, doesn’t lessen a iota the gravity of invoking and practicing it on academic or judicial scale. Sotomayor’s done it, and sure this murderous communist scaffolding is well alive in her mind today, and Soetoro, her soul mate is in the same disposition – we see this day in day out, and the consequences are uglier and uglier.

Vivo, can you understand this simple thing?

Jul 3, 2009 - 11:16 pm 30. misanthropicus:

RE #14/David Thomson: [...] I find it fascinating that the legacy media made a big deal out of Todd Palin’s peripheral relationship with the Alaskan secessionist party. Apparently, he merely marked the appropriate box so that he could vote for one of their candidates. There is little doubt but that a white U.S. Supreme Court nominee would be severely damaged [...]”

Since my drift from liberal to conservative was triggered, amongst a few other facts, by the hysterical opposition against judge Bork’s nomination, I’ll suggest here the use of the same playbook:
* we need Sotomayor’s list of outside job readings -
* since we’re dealing with a woman of an unusual wisdom who, at 200k a years is consistently having less than two grand in her bank account, we need her bills, to see how does she channel her wisdom in financial matters -
* since we’re a living in the transparency age, we need also Sotomayor’s grocery bills, to see what procent of her expenses goes in special ethilical studies – rumors have it that Sotomayor is a big time tippler, having been seen several times clearly unable to carry on her judicial duties (or at least not in a, well… traditional manner).
* etxc. etc….
[NB: “rumors have it” – gosh, and that look of Central Station, puffy-faced, dazed wino…

Jul 3, 2009 - 11:32 pm 31. vivo:

12. bubblehead:

“Vivo – Do you mean that the only available research she might have used is of the markist-leninist stripe?”

No.

“If that is not what you are saying, your post has no meaning!”

I said: If you want to analyze a situation, you research where social and historical data are available. That’s what universities teach you: open your mind and tell the truth.

27. misanthropicus:

Oh my god! You have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re so confused it’s not worth getting into it.

28. misanthropicus:

You are so ridiculous it’s unbelievable.
You’re joking, right?

Jul 6, 2009 - 12:24 am 32. DavidN:

Does anyone else think this is no different from Obama going to the burger joint and asking for the spicy brown mustard? When it was broadcast on MSNBC, the commentator intervened and began a voice-over as he began ordering his mustard, so you couldn’t hear him. Similarly, here, Judge Sotomayor’s embarrassing Marxist-Leninist historical analysis (certainly, from what I’ve read, not uncommon on a university campus) is really nothing. People on the left, however, think that everyone else is stupid. After all, the smart people are all Democrats, right? So deleting something like this from what she said some time ago will go off without a hitch, and those of us with silly hang-ups about socialism, resisting it because we believe it to be the beginning of the demise of our government…well, those people will never figure out what she said, because it was left out of the article. Simple, really…

Jul 7, 2009 - 12:48 am