IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian writes:
And why not? Those of us who believe that philosophy and ideology trumps race and sex as proper measures of a person's competence to hold high office will get branded racists sooner or later, so why not get it over with?That reminds me. Rush called Sotomayor a racist. He quotes something she once said — "I would hope that 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" — and declaims "So here you have a racist. You might want to soften that. You might want to say 'a reverse racist.'" He adds that Obama is "the greatest living example of a reverse racist and now he's appointed one."
Obama got into office partially because of the success of this foul sort of racial extortion, so of course he's going to continue to use it as a political tool.
It's time for the Republicans to show that they can be as vindictive and nasty as the Democrats have been during every Republican Supreme Court hearing in the last 20 years or so. What have they got to lose?
ADDED: Here's the transcript of the show. Let me extract another tidbit:
[T]he odds that she could be stopped are long. Perhaps the biggest pitfall she faces is her own confirmation hearings. She might slip up there and might say something that would give the opposition a home run. But even then they're going to have to be willing to take advantage of it. By the way, do you know that Obama opposed both Roberts and Alito? Barack Obama opposed them both, and in both cases -- of John Roberts, the current chief justice, and Samuel Alito -- he said, "Oh, they're perfectly qualified and they've both got perfect judicial temperament. But I'm going to vote against them," because to him it's about ideology. It's about liberalism. He thought these two guys were conservatives, and it didn't matter to him what their judicial temperament or qualifications were. He voted against both of those.I thought Obama was wrong to vote like that, and I can see how he deserves to have it come back to bite him. If confirmation is about agreeing with the ideology, then Republicans might want to vote against Sotomayor. But confirmation should not be about ideology, and conservatives ought to want to prove that principle by their votes. Use the confirmation hearings to delineate what liberal judicial ideology is and why people ought to reject it. Then get a good presidential candidate for 2012 and make Supreme Court nominations an issue. Is that too hard? Does that take too long? Too bad! You say you want a Justice who will tell the truth about what the Constitution means. But here's something about what the Constitution means: The President has the appointment power.
Posts
215 comments:
1 – 200 of 215 Newer› Newest»And why not? Those of us who believe that philosophy and ideology trumps race and sex as proper measures of a person's competence to hold high office will get branded racists sooner or later, so why not get it over with?
Obama got into office partially because of the success of this foul sort of racial extortion, so of course he's going to continue to use it as a political tool.
It's time for the Republicans to show that they can be as vindictive and nasty as the Democrats have been during every Republican Supreme Court hearing in the last 20 years or so. What have they got to lose?
This is a golden opportunity for Republicans to spend more of their dwindling political capital. Unless Sotomayor's middle name is "Socialista" I don't see how they will profit.
Huh. I got the 'conflicting edits' screen that time. I guess it posted the first time after all.
She should be grilled… but ultimately not rejected.
Gee, Sonia, what kind of policy did you try to make on the Appeals court?
Given the Obama administration's brilliance in checking out nominees, this should be a fun confirmation.
"She should be grilled…"
Gas or charcoal?
Sonia Sotomayor is my uncle.
Actually, she's Harriet Meyers.
Will Republicans do it? No.
Those of us who believe that philosophy and ideology trumps race and sex as proper measures of a person's competence to hold high office
So your objection to Sotomayor is not that she's a Hispanic female, but that she's not a partisan enough ideologue?
Let's put Barbara Boxer on the bench, then.
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life."
Its rather pathetic I have to switch the races and genders to show how venomously racist and sexist this woman is. How can she possibly be fit for the supreme court?
"It's time for the Republicans to show that they can be as vindictive and nasty as the Democrats have been during every Republican Supreme Court hearing in the last 20 years or so. "
So they should give us an echo, not a choice? The same old, just from the opposite direction?
"So your objection to Sotomayor is not that she's a Hispanic female, but that she's not a partisan enough ideologue?"
No, it's that she seems to have the wrong idea about the judge's role in our system of government.
Harriet Meyers -> Harriet Meiers
My bad.
Because following Rush Limbaugh has gotten the Republicans so far!
(Note: I try to avoid has gotten 'cause it's clumsy, but I couldn't think of a better word choice).
Yes, switching the races and genders is rather pathetic. Can you tell me more about the historic struggle of white males to succeed in America, against all odds? There are only eight on the bench right now -- clearly some gross injustice has been done.
Now that Spector has defected, is there a republican on the Judiciary Committee who will vote for her? Without that vote she can't get to the floor. Obama's votes against two highly qualified judges (now justices) may bring retribution. Sadly, the Republicans rarely fight nominations of qualified people as do their Democratic counterparts, so they may down without a whimper.
the wrong idea about the judge's role in our system of government.
Which is to side with the giant corporation, be it Goodyear Tire and Rubber or ExxonMobil.
I would be curious to see if her racist/sexist remarks make her weaker than anticipated, especially nominated by a man who sat for years in a racist church.
Her comment about making policy is pretty dubious. Its been an open secret that many judges don't rule on the law but instead on their policy preferences. but even fairly liberal regular americans are opposed to that.
I wouldn't assume that the republicans will necessarily lose this issue. indeed, the dems need at least one republican to vote her out of the committee, and specter isn't there to be that one republican anymore... (legal insurrection pointed that out, just so you know it wasn't my thought first).
It hardly needs to be said, MadisonMan, that the Republicans rarely follow Rush Limbaugh's advice. Things would be different -- very different -- if they did.
"So they should give us an echo, not a choice? The same old, just from the opposite direction?"
That's exactly what I'm advocating because at this point there's absolutely no hope of anything better from our government. This tactic seemed to work well for the Democrats who, without ever actually providing a clearly different or principled platform screamed and whined their way into absolute power.
It's clear that people don't want principles. They want things that will make them feel better. Soft socialism, race and gender based notions of merit, platitudes... If blood and love taste so sweet, then give 'em what they want.
"Which is to side with the giant corporation, be it Goodyear Tire and Rubber or ExxonMobil."
Or Planned Parenthood?
I have this crazy belief that the court should rule on the merits of the case, not on the positive or negative financial wherewithal of the litigants.
"Can you tell me more about the historic struggle of white males to succeed in America, against all odds?"
Yes. The country was founded by them. But I don't expect you've gotten much American history beyond Howard Zinn.
Yes, switching the races and genders is rather pathetic. Can you tell me more about the historic struggle of white males to succeed in America, against all odds?.
FLS I think you are having some reading comprehension issues with her quote. She wasn't celebrating overcoming while male oppression but instead thinks her race and gender give her some magical ability to come to better conclusions than a white boy.
You seem to hold the belief that all us white men are given the keys to the city at birth.
former law student said...
the wrong idea about the judge's role in our system of government.
Which is to side with the giant corporation, be it Goodyear Tire and Rubber or ExxonMobil.The cases should be decided on their constitutionality, not on the social standing of the litigants or the political views of the justices. So yes, when the constitutional argument happens to favor the corporations, the SC should rule in their favor (and vice versa).
They should follow Obama's lead in how he opposed Roberts and Alito.
Now that Spector has defected, is there a republican on the Judiciary Committee who will vote for her?
Well, Orrin Hatch voted for her before.
FLS, I hope someone has sockpuppeted you, because two of the stupidest comments that have ever been typed have been typed under your name on this thread, both of which relate to a judge's proper role, which is to apply the law to the case in front of it. No case is ever "giant corporation v. poor defenseless little guy." It is rather: "what does the law say?" Not "what should the law say?," which is the authority of legislators and policymakers.
Which authority Sotomayor has brazenly stated she consciously, and unconstitutionally, usurps from the bench, of course.
"Rush Limbaugh advises Republicans to "take it to the mat" and fight Sonia Sotomayor as strongly as possible."
And God knows Americans need the wisdom and extensive legal advice of a fat, drug addict radio entertainer.
By the time the Republicans, via Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage and others, are done smearing this woman their approval ratings will plummet another 10 points.
This is going to fun to watch.
Republicans don't follow Rush'e advice, he's a conservative. For instance, in the twenty years Rush has been on the national airwaves, Republican have nominated zero conservatives to run for president and only managed to elect GWB against the stellar campaigns of Al Gore (ROTFLMAO) and John Kerry (ROTFLMAO).
He knows they won't listen, when they fail, as they often do, he gets a lot of mileage out of "I told you so".
Palladian - "No, it's that she seems to have the wrong idea about the judge's role in our system of government."
Right.
Kind of like the Supreme Court getting involved in an election?
Pot/Kettle.
It really doesn't matter what the Republicans do. They only exist as a scapegoat for the ruling party.
FLS:
Are there 8 white males on ths Court?
And do you now include Justice Thomas as a "plus 1" in your diversity scorebook?
"(Note: I try to avoid has gotten 'cause it's clumsy, but I couldn't think of a better word choice)."
It's perfectly proper to use "got" in place of "gotten."
So Rush says to Bork her just to show what the Republican's stand for and stand against. That is not going to happen. The much hated Republicans do not do viscious lying slander in public well enough tocarry off that role. And they do not give themselves a pass on the ends justify the means cop out during US Senate Judicial confirmations. Rush is wrong this time.
former law student,
It seems you believe in equality of outcome being the definition fo equality. Why don't we divvy up the court into race and gender-determined spots and be done with it. Actual determination will still be messy, though: what if someone is gay and a person of color, does that count for two oppressed seats?
"Actual determination will still be messy, though: what if someone is gay and a person of color, does that count for two oppressed seats?"
No, lefties won't have any trouble. This is the only form of higher math most of them understand.
"The much hated Republicans do not do viscious lying slander in public well enough tocarry off that role."
????!!!!! If they were to remove "viscious lying slander" from their playbook, the Republicans would have no game.
"And they do not give themselves a pass on the ends justify the means cop out during US Senate Judicial confirmations."
I don't even know what this statement means, but if you're asserting the Republicans "don't do" "ends justify the means" tactics, you obviously are blind, deaf, and, uh, d-u-m-b.
Rush called Sotomayor a racist. .
Did he also call Michael Moore fat?
"Kind of like the Supreme Court getting involved in an election?"
The Supreme Court got involved in controlling a state court that got involved in the election when litigants filed a lawsuit.
It's hard not to laugh at Rush Limbaugh, within days of announcing his "resignation" as the leader of the Republican Party...stepping right back into the fray to provide the what he perceives as the necessary strategy to fend off this nominee.
Will the Republicans ever realize Rush, Cheney, Newt and others are literally poisoning their party?
It certainly doesn't appear so.
And God knows Americans need the wisdom and extensive legal advice of a fat, drug addict radio entertainer.
This is just more of the left's same brain crap - that the truth of a statement is wholly predicated upon who said it.
Person of color or (formerly oppressed) woman says it: it must be a great pearl of wisdom.
Fat, rich, white guy says it: that fact alone removes it from the need for any further serious consideration.
It is the hallmark of the all to frequent intellectually lazy liberal – their first and last appeal, and constant measure of acceptability, is always race and gender, race and gender.
Former Law Student
Her comment is racist, sexist and myopic. She seems to think there is no discrimination but that against women and minorities. as a disabled man who was deprived of his right to an education and had to fight to get it back, i can assure you that she is wrong. the fact that i am a white male only makes it obvious how limited her vision is.
it is bigoted and wrong to say that one's race or sex makes you a better judge. And it is pernicious. For instance, it calls into question her fairness in the affirmative action case she heard that is now being considered by the Supreme Court. The mere fact she said it calls into question her evenhandedness. If she said that before considering the case, she should have recused herself.
There are many other judges, even hispanic female ones, who aren't racists or open activists. Let's find one of them instead.
And, yeah, i support the idea of a knock-down drag out fight. make it a giant mess. make the american people understand the consequences of one party rule. Make the democrats reap for once what they have sown. Both the current president and the vice president have brought our judicial nomination process to unprecedented lows. Its time for a little taste of their own medicine. And nominating an out and out racist is a perfect opportunity.
Ann, do you think the Supreme Court should have been involved in the 2000 election in such a way?
[a judge's role in our system of government] is to side with the giant corporation, be it Goodyear Tire and Rubber or ExxonMobil.Judging from her eminent domain record, Sotomayor would seem to be comfortable with that.
{previous comment deleted to clean up a sloppy copy-paste typo.}
Aaron - "There are many other judges, even hispanic female ones, who aren't racists or open activists. Let's find one of them instead."
So, suddenly the Republicans are interested in finding such a nominee?
When was the last time they proposed anyone remotely close to being a Hispanic female?
If we take the Sotomayor claim at face value, we see a claim that having been part of a "historic struggle against all odds" (in FLS's words) makes you a better judge.
Of course, there's no particular reason to believe this; it's just as possible a priori that it gives you a distorted, excessively anti-establishment view, which causes one to be over-eager to impose change without due consideration of second-order negative effects that either specific changes or the mere fact of change itself can cause.
That is, if you argue that a non-racist/non-sexist argument can be made that a Latina woman is more likely to be a good judge than a white man, you have as a logical matter conceded that a non-racist/non-sexist argument can be made that a white man is more likely to be a good judge than a Latina woman.
So, is the "Latina woman" argument unwise because it gives an intellectual fig leaf to white racists and male chauvinists to oppose Sotomayor? Or are the white racists and male chauvinists so impotent that it doesn't matter if they're provided intellectual cover? If the latter, well, then, the white racists and male chauvinists are so impotent that claims that her rise was part of a "historic struggle against all odds" are themselves ridiculous . . . and Sotomayor's comments betray a lack of comprehension of her own experience.
Accordingly, regardless of its underlying truth, Sotomayor's comment indicates a lack of wisdom and judiciousness . . . and accordingly disqualifies her for the job of Justice.
Former law student...
So you said that there are 8 white males on the court...
So are you saying that Thomas isn't black, or that Ruth Bader Ginsberg (channeling Austin Powers) "is a man, baby!"
Indeed, doesn't Clarence Thomas prove that Sotomayor is just plain wrong, as well as racist. Thomas and Scalia are practically identical in their views and voting style. its always so notable when they split because it is so rare. There diversity in skin color resulted in almost no diversity of viewpoint, and you know what? that's actually really cool. think what you will of their decisions, but i personally like what it says that they are so interchangable.
Ann, do you think the Supreme Court should have been involved in the 2000 election in such a way?.
We know you're not the brightest bulb in the pack but you do realize there was a constitutional issue involved right?
Jeremy
Sorry, why do you think i speak for republicans?
I thought Rush was only an entertainer. Have we established this?
Quayle said..."This is just more of the left's same brain crap - that the truth of a statement is wholly predicated upon who said it."
Excuse me, but isn't the headline running on this thread related to what Rush Limbaugh thinks? Ans what about all of the comments you find here that say Rush shouldn't be taken so seriously, because he's really just an "entertainer?"
Do YOU actually think Rush Limbaugh has the credibility or expertise that warrants the kind of influence the Republicans apparently feel he deserves in such matters?
The choosing of a Supreme Court Justice?
I'm certainly a liberal, and no fan of Rush Limbaugh, but in this case, I can't imagine any real Republican jumping on this Rush Limbaugh bandwagon.
Jeremy, do you honestly believe that if a state supreme court openly and blatantly subverts the laws of its state for partisan ends, the Federal courts should refuse to intervene because a narrow reading of the powers of the federal courts gives them little grounds on which to do so?
Aaron asks: "Jeremy, Sorry, why do you think i speak for republicans?"
After making this statement:
"Make the democrats reap for once what they have sown. Both the current president and the vice president have brought our judicial nomination process to unprecedented lows. Its time for a little taste of their own medicine. And nominating an out and out racist is a perfect opportunity."
Geee, hard to imagine how I would come to such a conclusion.
Steven - I'm not a lawyer, but plenty of real lawyers have certainly challenged the Supreme Court's role in the 200 election decision. Why is what I said so surprising to you?
The entire affair was mishandled and Americans deserve better.
They should have had a statewide recount and certainly investigated such irregularities as Pat Buchanan winning enough votes in areas dominated by Jewish voters to turn the election result in Bush's favor.
The Florida vote count differential was 0.0092%.
Do YOU actually think Rush Limbaugh has the credibility or expertise that warrants the kind of influence the Republicans apparently feel he deserves in such matters?
First of all, Rush garners votes every day - by the push of the radio button. So, he is a "vote getter", albeit by other means. Dollars spent, time spent listening on the radio – these are all kinds of votes in a free society
And this is what the elitist left continually wants to denigrate and invalidate.
They scoff at Fox News, and snigger and laugh, but O’Reilly isn’t king of cable news because there is some government program keeping him there. He earns the votes of the viewers every day.
Likewise, Limbaugh is no less credible or expert than the "news" people at CBS, ABC, or CNN, which are the people he most matches up with and counters.
This isn't, and never has been, Cass Sustein v. Rush Limbaugh, or even Bob Woodward v. Rush Limbaugh.
This is Catie Couric v. Rush Limbaugh. This is Jack Cafferty v. Rush Limgaugh. And in those contests, Rush takes more than his share of pelts.
But my original point was, Jeremy, that a complete dunce can make a statement that is entirely true, and need not be established by the race, gender, or "credibility or expertise" of the dunce.
palladian is on FIRE today!
Frankly his very first post above is the most lucid anddamning statement that could possibly be made against Obama, the nominee, and the left wing Democrat Party.
If a space alien did knew nothing about us but our political discourse, he would surmise that melanin was a substance of the utmost importance.
"And what I've learned from observing them is that it is extremely important that any group of them be composed of individuals with varying levels of melanin. If each individual in a group contains melanin at the same level, they believe it causes mental disorder within the group leading to inequitable, even to the point of injuriousness, judgment. This melanin, it is very important to them, at times more important than competence. In fact, it is even a leading factor in some humans selecting other humans for certain positions in society. And yet, we have been unable to detect any neurological effect that this melanin substance has as regards the traits humans general value, such as intelligence, integrity, openness, etc. Such traits seem wholly divorced from the level of melanin, no matter how high or low, within the human individual. Fascinating."
Doesn't really matter what the Repubs do, the media will portray them as suits their position as Obama's (PBUH) PR arm. If they really fight it, they will be portrayed as obstructionist sexists and racists. If they acquiesce they will be portrayed as seeing the wisdom of Obama's (PBUH) choice. Just takes some choice editing, selective quotations, background "reporting" that shows only Sotomayor's wisdom and prudence, and the usual array of snide and self-serving descriptions ("Republicans attacked. . " instead of the usual "Democrats expressed concern. . .").
How they might get around the media on this is anybody's guess.
Jeremy,
So, if you criticize the democrats, you are a republican?
It couldn't possibly be because it is the truth, is it? i have watched democrats all my life destroy the nomination process. The democrats intented borking, the current president voted to filibuster alito. when have the republicans ever done anything comparable? Every downward innovation in the nomination process has been led by democrats.
And if you have to know, i am an independant saying that. And most of all, i am a vehement opponent of all bigotry. Which certainly doesn't help in my evaluation of Obama. He sat for 20 years in a racist church. He makes fun of participants in the special olympics on national TV, demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of just what fine atheletes some of these people really are. And now he nominates a bigot to the Supreme Court? Um, hell no.
"Bork" the racist, activist jerk.
Robert Cook... I said in a US Senate Judicial confirmation hearing. That is not war. This is a civil and orderly process where the truth is allowed to be heard over the viscious lying slander tactics of Saul Alinsky and associates. And thanks for personalizing the war of the commenters with your viscious lying comment.
The reason for Republicans to fight against Sotomayor's nomination is not Rush Limbaugh, it's Ricci.
Rush is just the left's favorite boogeyman. If Rush Limbaugh advocated breathing, members of the Left wing would tie bags over their heads ...
Hmm.
They should have had a statewide recount and certainly investigated such irregularities as Pat Buchanan winning enough votes in areas dominated by Jewish voters to turn the election result in Bush's favor.
Damn, Cedarford is right. It's always the damn Joooos messing things up.
Heh.
If a space alien did knew nothing about us but our political discourse, he would surmise that melanin was a substance of the utmost importance..
In the 3 posts today I didn't see one liberal mention that it was, yet all 3 posts are filled comments on melanin. Hmmm......
And please excuse my numerous typos. I am sleep deprived, and I am not fixing them.
Garage, you mean, of course, except the statement by Sotomayor?
Garage:
It's your serve after that ace by Freeman Hunt.
@Freeman, isn't Ethan letting you sleep through the night yet?
I have to say that from the perspective of a woman and as a woman who works in what is perceived as a "man's" occupation, I find her comment:
I would hope that 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
very offensive, sexist and racist.
I don't think that my richness of experiences as a woman (of any ethnicity) makes me smarter or a better stockbroker or a better financial planner than a man. Just as it should be in the law, finances are not subject to emotional persuasion. I can't make your portfolio perform any better because I'm a woman. Of course I do have, just as does any man, personal opinions and life experiences that may color (no pun intended) my decisions, but the mere fact that I'm a woman DOESN'T make my decisions any better than any other broker, be they man or woman.
The entire concept of pigeon holing people by gender, race, ethnicity is ridiculous and insulting not only to women but should also be to ALL men.
I think the ace was served by Obama knowing Republicans could never help themselves by already attacking a female latino as being dumb thus alienating a huge and still growing voting bloc that has left the GOP the past 2 election cycles. If they take Limbaugh's advice, and say win, what would they have "won"? It would be worse than "losing".
Aaron said..."Jeremy, So, if you criticize the democrats, you are a republican?"
Aaron, I just assumed you weren't a Democrat or an Independent, based on your over this top comment:
"Make the democrats reap for once what they have sown. Both the current president and the vice president have brought our judicial nomination process to unprecedented lows. Its time for a little taste of their own medicine. And nominating an out and out racist is a perfect opportunity."
You consider this to be a fairly reasonable example of being "critical of the democrats?"
Jeremy
Right, because the truth is always "bipartisan." sorry but balanced is often the very opposite of fair.
Do you admit or deny these two claims?
1. Democrats invented "borking."
2. Democrats have created even downward innovation in our nomination process.
That's the view of a lifelong independant, who has had it up to here with the democrats mucking around with the judiciary.
Garage:
Voters [even Hispanic voters) will give positive credit to Republicans if they engage, question diligently and even disparage the views of those with whom they disagree. This is a perfect opportunity for conservatives to do that.
As someone has said quite often, "we can disagree without being disagreeable".
I'm okay with Sotomayor judging cases that only affect wise latino women.
Otherwise, she's outta her league, by her own recokoning.
@garage, sometimes you seem to get it but this time you don't.
If they take Limbaugh's advice ...
Rush Limbaugh is not a leader of the Republican party. The efforts of the Left Wing Lunatic Fringe to annoint him so, don't make him so. He plays a role similar to your Keith Olbermann, except more intelligent and vastly less obnoxious.
The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are not there to be potted plants, nor to be ditto heads. Hopefully they will give Ms. Sotomayor the sort of nuanced questioning that Edward Moore Kennedy and Joseph Biden afforded to Mr. Alito.
Dust Bunny Queen said..."Very offensive, sexist and racist."
So you don't think someone who has actually experienced a specific life might not be more adept at understanding the elements relating to the actions one might take?
Does this mean that when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor — said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases...mean they were sure being "old and wise" guarantees fair decisions?
Wasn't Sotomayor appointed as a U.S. district court judge by President George HW Bush?
very offensive, sexist and racist.
But is it true? Does your past and your experiences color how you make decisions or how you gather the information you use to make decisions?
If you were paid (I'm guessing) good money to address a bunch of investment counselors on how your life experiences influence how you decide what to use when you're making professional decisions, what would you mention?
I don't think that's pigeon holing -- it's acknowledging that every person brings different analysis techniques to the table. There are strengths (and weaknesses) in anyone's way of doing things.
So you don't think someone who has actually experienced a specific life might not be more adept at understanding the elements relating to the actions one might take?.
Yes but that isn't what Sotomayor said. She claims her ethnic and gender would allow her to come to a better conclusion than a white male.
Unless you simply assume that any ethnic group other than white are automatically disadvantaged and thus are bestwowed some special dispensation by society, I fail to see how that statement could be construed as anything but racist or sexist.
...Republicans could never help themselves by already attacking a female latino as being dumb ...
Were Republicans the first to make the case that Sotomayor isn't very smart?(Note: Don't take this comment as my endorsement of that case. I don't know enough about her to make that kind of judgment. Yet.)
But is it true? Does your past and your experiences color how you make decisions or how you gather the information you use to make decisions?.
Why does everyone continually miss the point? Of course past experience will affect your decisions, USSC justicies notwithstanding. The issue here is Sotomayor's insistence that her race and gender will result in a better decision than her white male counterpart's.
I can insist my past experience will color my decision (no pun intended) but that doesn't mean it's going to be the right one.
What is interesting here is that Justice Thomas has always been considered an affirmative action baby. But despite having credentials probably better than his, she comes across as dumber and totally lacking in judicial temperament. How did she get into Princeton and Yale Law in the first place? At least Thomas wasn't repeatedly slapped down by his peers and the Supreme Court before he joined that Court as she has been.
Are there 8 white males on ths Court?
Can I borrow Freeman's sleep deprived excuse? Unfortunately I have no infant here.
Let me try this: there are eight whites and eight males, so I just took the average.
dbq: I always figured you had worked smarter and harder than your male counterparts to reach the same success. Not so?
you believe in equality of outcome being the definition fo equality.
No, I believe lack of representation indicates a systematic problem, whose root cause needs to be found out. If the employer always wins in cases brought under laws meant to end pay discrimination, there likely is a systematic problem. If oil companies deliberately choose to use giant tankers with only a single bottom, and choose known alcoholics to navigate them, then they can be penalized for their lack of prudence.
Another problem: where are the Asian-Americans? They value education, they work hard ... are they not entering the pipeline, or are they filtered out along the way?
She seems to think there is no discrimination but that against women and minorities.
I hope not. The reasonable point of view is that people who overcame hardships have a greater range of experiences than those who had much simply handed to them. Surely overcoming disability is as much or more challenging as overcoming being a woman or a low-status minority in a white man's world.
Hoosier Daddy said..."The issue here is Sotomayor's insistence that her race and gender will result in a better decision than her white male counterpart's."
In specific cases that would most certainly the case, right?
Do you think Clarence Thomas wouldn't be more qualified, as to specific aspects of a case relating to blacks than Souter or Scalia?
Why does everyone continually miss the point?
Because you're oversimplifying the point. The point is comparing experience, not skin color and genitalia.
Jeremy opined, stupidly, that Repubs would never nominate a latina female. The problem there is that any person of color, male or female, nominated by a Repub is immediately transformed into a white male by liberal ideologues.
For example, FLS asserted that there are currently eight white males on the Supreme Court and that racist statements don't count if the targets are white males.
Moveon.org and the Dems are having a tough time finding perspicacious trolls.
If you were paid (I'm guessing) good money to address a bunch of investment counselors on how your life experiences influence how you decide what to use when you're making professional decisions, what would you mention?
Well, being a woman wouldn't be part of what I would mention. Nor would being of English and Swiss descent. But that's just me.
Former Law Student
Btw, are you a minority, and or woman, or otherwise disadvantaged?
And if not, then by your own logic, don't you have to defer to me because my opinions are made better because of my handicap? *EG*
Or gee, maybe we should recognize that this kind of silliness is just downright pernicious.
btw, for the record, handicapped people don't generally have so much trouble overcoming our disabilities. Its overcoming non-disabled persons' prejudices that presents the challenge. I am sure there are exceptions to that rule, but i haven't met any disabled people who felt they were an exception to it yet.
If she is Sotomayor, I'd hate to see what the Sotomenor is.
"I don't think that's pigeon holing -- it's acknowledging that every person brings different analysis techniques to the table. There are strengths (and weaknesses) in anyone's way of doing things."
And it's an *individual* thing.
As a few people pointed out already. It's not conferred by group membership, by race or gender. Maybe it's economic class and the experience of starting out without a privileged childhood. Maybe it's not having had the opportunity of attending Harvard or some Ivy League school. Because seriously... a minority that can do that is hardly oppressed!
"dbq: I always figured you had worked smarter and harder than your male counterparts to reach the same success. Not so? "
I always figured that dbq worked harder and smarter than her counterparts, male or female, that didn't reach the same level of success as her counterparts, male and female, who did.
Because when I look at the white men who have "succeeded" I see people who have worked harder and smarter than their counterparts. Working "twice as hard" is what people *do*. It's not some special burden.
And those of us who don't choose to work that hard have no business whining about it.
If you were paid (I'm guessing) good money to address a bunch of investment counselors on how your life experiences influence how you decide what to use when you're making professional decisions, what would you mention?
The point is that my life experiences don't necessarily make my decisions "BETTER" than those of a man (or than anyone else). That she says this is arrogance, racisim and sexism
I would never tell other investment counselors to use their own "life experiences" as a basis of financial advice. That is too subjective and investments should not be subjected to emotion or fond memories etc. I would say DON"T let your life experiences affect the way you do business.
I base my portfolio picks and financial planning upon the numbers, ratios, analysis of the underlying companies and their numbers, historical returns, weighting in the overall portfolio,stats ......just the facts Jack. And also more on my client's life experiences than mine: their goals, fears, risk tolerance, time frame, overall net worth etc. After all it IS their money.
But if you want to know, right now I'm basing "some" of my portfolio picks and strategies upon my life experiences with the horrible Carter recession and stagflation. Obama is Carter cubed!! Who says we can't learn from history. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that my decisions are BETTER than the young white guy in a different office.
So you don't think someone who has actually experienced a specific life might not be more adept at understanding the elements relating to the actions one might take?
The law is the law, just as investments are investments and the understanding that I have doesn't change the law or make your portfolio perform any better because I have some magical female/hispanic or whatever lifestyle.
This whole using emotion on what are unemotional topics is frankly....retarded. The closest I get to it in my practice are those starry eyed "green" planet worshiping idiots who insist on structuring their portfolios and investments based on a political and semi-religious ideology that is NOT going to be successful as an ivestment strategy. Be "green" all you want but don't insist that I cripple MY performance because you are some sort of zealot.
"Please sign here Mr. and Mrs. Idiot Client where it indicates that I don't endorse this strategy and that you are choosing these investments despite my advice." (So when the whole thing goes into the dumpster I can say I told you so and you can't take me to arbitration.....if I haven't already fired your ass as a client for ignoring my advice)
Because you're oversimplifying the point. The point is comparing experience, not skin color and genitalia..
Her experience as a judge or a wise Latin female? I'm sorry FLS, I'm reading the actual words she spoke and it certainly sounds like she's claiming her Latin female background gives her an edge on her white male counterparts.
In specific cases that would most certainly the case, right?
Do you think Clarence Thomas wouldn't be more qualified, as to specific aspects of a case relating to blacks than Souter or Scalia?.
I don't know. Is there a specific Constitution for blacks?
Do you think Clarence Thomas wouldn't be more qualified, as to specific aspects of a case relating to blacks than Souter or Scalia?
Ever hear the term "rule of law?" Ever hear of the notion of judges deciding cases on the basis of the evidence and the law rather than what they think they learned at their mama's knee?
Aaron, FLS is definitely disadvantaged.
Were Republicans the first to make the case that Sotomayor isn't very smart?.
Rosen is no friend of Democrats or liberals, and neither is TNR. I can respect being opposed to Sotomayor on philosophical differences. But man, Rosen and TNR are eye level to snakes. That doesn't change the fact that Repulicans are out there in force today calling her dumb which doesn't seem like good long term strategy. Not that I care of course.
dbq: I always figured you had worked smarter and harder than your male counterparts to reach the same success. Not so?
But of course. However, I don't attribute it to my gender, ethnicity or some magical life experiences that make me BETTER than my male counterparts.
Brains....pure brains. lol And a very determined personality. :-D
I know nothing about Sonia Sotomayor and she may be very qualified but her attitude that she is BETTER because of her ethnicity and gender is very offensive.
Do wise people generally refer to themselves as wise?
And what makes her think her experiences have any more "richness" than the average person's? And what makes an experience richer? I suppose that statement makes some sense when you view white people as merely little bits and pieces of The Man - incapable of genuinely experiencing life in any genuine, meaningful, Wise-Latina-Woman way.
elHombre said..."Ever hear the term "rule of law?""
Sure, but I'm also familiar with the term "discretion" in relation to deciding cases and sentencing.
And don't tell me that a black or Hispanic or white judge wouldn't be effected in any way by their background, whether it be because of their race, experience or their lives.
These people aren't robots and if aspects of their lives weren't part of the process we wouldn't even need them. We could develop a computer software program to decide.
Diamondhead said..."Do wise people generally refer to themselves as wise?"
Like this?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor — said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases
Sure, but I'm also familiar with the term "discretion" in relation to deciding cases and sentencing..
And unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to reign this in. I really don't want a white judge to be lenient with a white rapist anymore than a black judge doing the same for a black rapist.
It may be one thing to say your background will color your decision making process. It's another to claim that decision is superior to the next guy's.
And don't tell me that a black or Hispanic or white judge wouldn't be effected in any way by their background, whether it be because of their race, experience or their lives.
No one has said that.
What is objectionable is the idea that their decisions would somehow be BETTER based on their race, gender or "rich" experiences.
Different based on life experiences etc. But not necessarily BETTER than each other.
DBQ - "I know nothing about Sonia Sotomayor and she may be very qualified but her attitude that she is BETTER because of her ethnicity and gender is very offensive."
You actually think she thinks that?
She made a statement relating to someone with her background or ethnicity possibly knowing more about something because of their background and experience, versus someone who has not had the same experiences and life.
Do YOU think someone who has served in Iraq is more qualified to comment on or relate to what's going on over there...than one who has never served?
Do you think believing that makes them think they're "better?"
And don't tell me that a black or Hispanic or white judge wouldn't be effected in any way by their background, whether it be because of their race, experience or their lives..
Minorities can only be affected negatively by their background, not positively!
Jeremy
First, that "wise old man" comment was a paraphrase, not a quote.
Second, no they did not clearly indicate that they were wise.
Which, btw, is the right answer on Soto. I would have to find the quote again, but i don't think she called herself wise, either.
You actually think she thinks that?
Whether or not she actually thinks it, she has made a comment that can be interpreted that way.
I want republicans to ask her if she is a dyke.
"But here's something about what the Constitution means: The President has the appointment power."
Then why did you oppose Harriet Miers?
Shocking that Rush Limbaugh said republicans could take it to the mat.
Well the directive has been passsed.
To the mat republicans go.
I want to know if she is a carpet muncher.
MadisonMan said..."Whether or not she actually thinks it, she has made a comment that can be interpreted that way."
"Context."
"Minorities can only be affected negatively by their background, not positively!"
And yet, garage, if the argument can be made one direction it can be made the other.
Why ought we assume that minorities must be affected positively by their background? Isn't that very like assuming that they must be affected negatively by their background?
Any time we're going to make a blanket statement about an entire group, positive *or* negative... that's a problem.
I want Sotomayer crying, talking spanish and her old mother fainting during the proceedings.
She looks like she may be a tough broad though.
"Context"
Definition: A device whereby liberals can make a statement made in the past mean whatever they want it to mean in the present.
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn’t lived that life"
Fixed it for you....Is it racist now?
"Then why did you oppose Harriet Miers?"
Who was the nominee before Harriet Meiers? I don't remember who it was, I just remember that the Democrats were having hissy fits, tantrums and dramas to put any teenager to shame.
I have *always* figured that Harriet Meiers was nominated to teach them a lesson. And wasn't the person nominated *after* her approved then?
"And wasn't the person nominated *after* her approved then?"
Not by Barack Obama!
You see, Justice Roberts wasn't of the correct race nor creed.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.:
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”
Do YOU think someone who has served in Iraq is more qualified to comment on or relate to what's going on over there...than one who has never served?
Jeremy, do YOU actually think this is analogous? I'm afraid I don't see any racial or gender references here as were included in Sotomayor's statement.
Additionally, if Sotomayor didn't mean "better," why did she say "better?"
Thank God we have plenty of "wise white man with the richness of his experiences" to handle our Banking and Wall Street dealings.
"That's exactly what I'm advocating because at this point there's absolutely no hope of anything better from our government."
Here is what I think the Republicans should do. The fact that it is what would appeal most to this specific voter is purely a coincidence, I am sure.
They should focus almost entirely on two things: the video clip of Sotomayor talking about how policy is made from the bench, and her comment about how a latino woman would make better decisions than a white male. Their ads should be only on those two things, and the confirmation hearings should center around exploring if those are representative of her views.
Then Republican Senators should vote against her on those grounds, as clearly she does believe in legislating from the bench and that was an unbelievably racist and sexist statement. They should avoid grandstanding- simple declarations of intent should suffice.
They should not, however, filibuster.
Then, let the public decide. If the public finds her comments as deplorable as I do, then some Democrats will also oppose her nomination. If the needle does not move against her, then the public will have spoken both through their election of President Obama, their election of a Democratic majority in the Senate, and through their lack of pressure (assuming there is not sufficient pressure) on said Senators.
All of the above can be done in an adult fashion. If the GOP would behave that way, it would be an indication, to me at least, that they are growing up. Instead, I bet we will get half of the GOP afraid to stand up for any identifiable principle, which will only reinforce the belief that I have, and so do many voters, that the Republicans have no identifiable principle. The other half? Some of them will undoubtedly be doing what I suggest. But others in it will probably grandstand and undercut the argument that theirs is a serious party.
I have another question: Who here could possibly refer to themselves as a "wise Latina woman" without breaking out in hysterical laughter at the surge of intense embarrassment engendered by such a stupid, arrogant pretentious statement?
I'm going to start referring to myself as a wise Latina woman, just for fun. Since my boyfriend is actually a Latino, maybe I'll call him that too, since one out of three accurate labels isn't bad.
Professor, you wrote I thought Obama was wrong to vote like that, and I can see how he deserves to have it come back to bite him. If confirmation is about agreeing with the ideology, then Republicans might want to vote against Sotomayor. But confirmation should not be about ideology, and conservatives ought to want to prove that principle by their votes.
Were you out of the country in the summers of 1993 and 1994? Despite the disgusting treatment meted out to Clarence Thomas, Republicans did accept the principal that confirmation should not be about ideology, and consequently Ginsburg and Breyer were confirmed overwhelmingly. Then came the Roberts and particularly the Alito nominations.
Barack Obama is a thug. Edward Moore Kennedy is a thug. The only way to treat thugs is to hit back hard. Otherwise you will always be treated as a patsy.
Don't feel too down Palladian, Scalia has said and done some pretty stupid things that dwarfs anything Sotomayor has said or done to date. And he duck hunts with Dick Cheney.
Jeremy wrote:
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.:
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."
Teddy Roosevelt said (of Holmes):
"I could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that!"
So?
Thank God we have plenty of "wise white man with the richness of his experiences" to handle our Banking and Wall Street dealings..
And this is relevant how?
elHombre, she didn't say SHE was a "better" person or that SHE herself was "better."
Her quote:
“I would hope that 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.”
Her comment was related to reaching a "better conclusion" because of her experiences in life.
Unless the judge is literally required, via Federal or State guideline, why would you think a judge shouldn't consider such experience before making a decision?
You really think life experiences do not effect judge's opinions or decisions?
Hoosier Daddy - "And this is relevant how?"
It was a play on: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor's notion that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
Palladian said..."I have another question: Who here could possibly refer to themselves as a "wise Latina woman" without breaking out in hysterical laughter at the surge of intense embarrassment engendered by such a stupid, arrogant pretentious statement?"
You don't think there are any wise Latina women?
I'm not elHombre, but the idea that a latino woman would more often come to a better conclusion than a white male is a racist, sexist idea.
There is any easy hypothetical to test this. Simply take the mirror image...
“I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
Such a statement would be repugnant and disqualifying, at least as far as I am concerned. It is troubling to me that my opinion in this regard is not shared by more, including that of our gracious host.
EnigmatiCore,
I agree with your proposed strategy, but the Republican party seems to screw everything up. They had a potential killer ad with Pelosi's nonsense and they tried to be cutesy and muddled it up. I have no confidence that they can do anything, even something as seemingly self-explanatory as this, correctly.
The other problem is that a lot of people, including the huge number of illegal immigrants that will presumably be voting in our next elections, actually believe and would support Sotomayor's braindead "wise Latina woman" schtick, just as they believed in the inherent wisdom of our historic mixed-race President. And plenty of white people, intent on patronizing and infantilizing anyone with skin tone darker than Desi Arnaz, would eagerly embrace the wisdom of the wise Latina woman, regardless what her actual views, qualifications and temperament might be. Well, as long as they're approved liberal views. If she was the same person but with libertarian or conservative views of law and judicial philosophy then they'd be making fun of the "wise Latina woman" and calling her a race traitor.
Welcome to the new politics! Change has come to America!
"You don't think there are any wise Latina women?"
I know several. And none of them would ever describe herself as a wise Latina woman without laughing hysterically.
Again, not Palladian, but I'll take a swing at that pinata, Jeremy.
"You don't think there are any wise Latina women?"
I think there are plenty of wise Latina women; probably in the same percentage to the Latina population as there are wise white women to the white population and similar to black men and women and white men and Latino men.
I think that the set of wise people who call themselves wise is pretty close to the empty set, however. A pretty sure indicator of wisdom is understanding that it is definitely not wise to call oneself wise.
"Scalia has said and done some pretty stupid things that dwarfs anything Sotomayor has said or done to date."
Yes, people of great accomplishment generally have had many more opportunities to make mistakes.
"And he duck hunts with Dick Cheney."
When you duck hunt with Cheney, it doesn't mean you're hunting for ducks, it means you spend all your time ducking. :)
"Again, not Palladian, but I'll take a swing at that pinata, Jeremy."
Will you be Palladian for a while? I've got work to do.
I thought Obama was wrong to vote like that, and I can see how he deserves to have it come back to bite him. If confirmation is about agreeing with the ideology, then Republicans might want to vote against Sotomayor. But confirmation should not be about ideology, and conservatives ought to want to prove that principle by their votes. Use the confirmation hearings to delineate what liberal judicial ideology is and why people ought to reject it.While I generally tend toward "taking the high road," the principle is based on mutual respect and equivocation. There doesn't seem to be a lot of that going around Washington right now.
"The other problem is that a lot of people..."
There are always going to be a lot of people on both sides of almost any issue. 30% of the population is a lot of people, but a 70-30 election is a landslide.
My point is, the GOP is unlikely to derail this nomination. Instead, the GOP should use the process to show itself to stand for certain ideals- such as judicial restraint and a color blind society. If the GOP cannot and/or will not make that argument, then what argument can the GOP ever hope to make?
@EnigmaticCore: Nicely done. Evidently, the point is obvious to all but Jeremy and the other apologists.
I think Republicans should not roll over without a fight, but it is very important *how* they oppose her. They cannot attack on the basis of her intelligence; they would get laughed out of D.C. Nor can they attack her purely on ideology; she was, after all, appointed by Bush 41. The whole “I’m a Latina and I’m better than you” is aggravating, but what can Republicans do besides make attack ads, which would only make them look like jerks?
I think one serious weakness is her alleged lack of collegiality. The SCOTUS is not a one-person show. It is nine people, with varying beliefs and personalities, who must work together day after day, for eight to nine months a year. There have been fairly consistent reports that Sotomayor is not terribly collegial, and has had trouble building working relationships with colleagues. She in fact was rebuke by another Hispanic judge. These are not anonymous attributions by Rosen, but named sources. I would raise questions such as these.
Republicans also should elicit (very carefully) from Sotomayor if she thinks she is superior to working class and middle class white *women.* As long as Sotomayor is pitted against stereotypical white men that the media can frame as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity types, then Sotomayor will win every time. But if Sotomayor is pitted against soccer moms and NASCAR moms, then the possible implications for Democrats in 2010 and beyond may well give them pause. DBQ makes some excellent points on this issue. I don’t think the Dems are locked up as tight with the female vote as they think they are; Sotomayor is potentially a wedge.
@former law student “Another problem: where are the Asian-Americans? They value education, they work hard ... are they not entering the pipeline, or are they filtered out along the way?” Gee, great question. Where ARE the Asian-Americans? Is there a single group that has suffered more from affirmative action in the last 10 to 15 years?
According to Daniel Golden in “The Price of Admission,” Asians are routinely discriminated against. “But overall, Asian Americans are the odd group out, lacking racial preferences enjoyed by other minorities and the advantages of wealth and lineage mostly accrued by upper-class whites. This second-class status stymies Asian aspirations to join the country’s inner circle of political, economic, and social leaders; limits that leadership circle’s exposure to bright minds with fresh ideas; and breeds cynicism among Asian students and parents who emigrated here in search of opportunity.” (page 200).
Can someone explain why we spend so much time worrying about Spanish speaking people, who comprise perhaps 350 million people, mostly in narco-democracies (or close facsimiles) and we flip off a group that is in excess of 3 *billion* people, including one of the world’s superpowers?
So yeah, that is another card that should be played. And don’t think Democrats aren’t worried about Huntsman and Jindal in 2016, or even 2012.
What Al Franken said.
What Al Franken said.
What did Althouse like about Palladian's comment? They seem to be taking opposite positions:
Palladian:
[I] believe that philosophy and ideology trumps race and sex as proper measures of a person's competence to hold high office...
Althouse:
But confirmation should not be about ideology, and conservatives ought to want to prove that principle by their votes.
That leaves a candidate's philosophy, I guess.
Who was the nominee before Harriet Meiers? I don't remember who it was, I just remember that the Democrats were having hissy fits, tantrums and dramas to put any teenager to shame.
CJ Roberts was nominated for O'Connor's seat. Then Rehnquist died, and Roberts was put up for CJ, and Miers nominated for O'Connor's seat.
The only hissy fits I heard -- before Rehnquist died -- were lamentations that a man was replacing a woman.
I still think the Republicans should characterize her consistently in the media as a "sexist, racist, activist judge," with examples. They should brand Obama as divisive (and pandering) for nominating her, and, finally, abstain on her appointment.
It is Obama who should be discredited here. The Dems will confirm this woman no matter what. She ought not to be pilloried in committee. She should become the bit player.
It would require some scripting and I don't think the current Repub "leadership" could pull it off.
Calling her a racist judge would turn me off.
On the other hand, quoting her and saying that her views are "inconsistent with the type of color-blind society for which we all should strive", strikes me as fair and right.
Palladian on "wise Latina women"
"I know several. And none of them would ever describe herself as a wise Latina woman without laughing hysterically."
What does that mean? That the Latina women you know don't think Latina women can be wise or that they just would never say it?
And if so...why would you possibly think that??
"Can someone explain why we spend so much time worrying about Spanish speaking people, who comprise perhaps 350 million people, mostly in narco-democracies (or close facsimiles) and we flip off a group that is in excess of 3 *billion* people, including one of the world’s superpowers?"
Asians just aren't "authentic" enough. I mean, hispanics make that great pottery and you know... They're like Castro! Just, you know, cool and authentic!
Asians just study and wear glasses. So not authentic.
"But confirmation should not be about ideology, and conservatives ought to want to prove that principle by their votes."
Maybe the Republicans would make sufficient political hay by voting *for* her but doing so with a whole lot of quoting of Obama and his voting against Roberts and Alito.
A whole lot of "Watch: This is out the ADULTS do it."
What was it George H. Bush didn't understand when he appointed Sotomayor as a U.S. district court judge?
Palladian - "I mean, hispanics make that great pottery and you know... They're like Castro! Just, you know, cool and authentic!"
Not a real big fan of American history are you?
"What was it George H. Bush didn't understand when he appointed Sotomayor as a U.S. district court judge?"
I'll take a wild stab that George H. W. Bush did not understand that she thinks that being a Latina woman makes her inherently wiser than a white male, or that the bench is where policy is made.
Just a guess.
"It was a play on: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor's notion that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases."
And Ginsburg and O'Connor were clearly making a statement that gender didn't determine judicial wisdom.
Sotomayor was *disagreeing*.
Democrats like people who are angry and authentic. I mean, not too angry because then it's sort of scary, but just... you know, angry at the injustice out there! With like beards and stuff. Brown people! That's it! I mean, not the kind that read and study all the time and wear striped shirts. You know, the earthy, authentic ones! They make all the pottery and have all the authenticity. And guitars! And they drink! That's cool! Asians don't drink and their floor guitars sound out of tune. You know, those Japanese floor guitars that the women play? The women that paint themselves up like white women so they can be accepted enough to play the floor guitar? So not cool. It's like... it's so repressive! Spanish people let it all hang out! So loud and emotional and authentic, like the blacks!
"No, I believe lack of representation indicates a systematic problem, whose root cause needs to be found out."
formerlawstudent,
The SC was never intended as a representative of some portion of the electorate--that's the Congress and Senate.
As for Rush, I heard that bit, and he said that she's a racist, then qualified that to "a reverse racist." So in that form, I agree with the statement. It's just that haut opinion accepts that form of racism today and not the other.
Repubs cannot stop her unless some unforeseen offense is uncovered; they should instead use this as an opportunity to teach the American people exactly what a conservative jurist is.
Don't forget gays, Palladian.
LOL @ Palladian
So nobody is asking the ugly question today, here goes: What is Sonia's position on the rights of babies en ventra sa mere? Are they citizens? How about 3/5s of a citizen after 6 months from conception? Or are they only inconvenient flesh blobs to remain without champions on a Supreme Court with its first unaborted hispanic women Justice? Stay tuned.
"Don't forget gays, Palladian.
The gays can go either way. I mean, they're not really authentic like the black and brown people. I mean, but they're so oppressed so I guess that makes them sort of cool. But sometimes they have bad ideas. You can't trust them like you can the blacks and the browns. They don't always do what they're told. I mean, I don't mean it like that! Haha, that sounded bad! Telling people what to do is what Republicans do! Hahaha. No, I mean, they're unpredictable, like when so many of them voted for that white woman against Barack. So awful. A lot of the gay people are so racist. But I mean, they have to be sort of good because they upset Repukes and everything. But you have to be careful... I mean, they're cool and all and I'm all for them kissing and having sex and having marriage and all that. I mean, I wouldn't want them to do it in my living room! Just like you wouldn't want a bunch of brown people being angry in your living room. But I'd certainly have them over to decorate and sing show tunes, just like I'd have the browns and blacks over to play their authentic rap music and guitars because that would be so hip. Actual black people in the living room being authentically black! Keepin' it real, you know? The gays don't always keep it real...
Steven @ 12.30.
Excellent comment and worth reading again.
LOL, Palladian.
And actually not at all funny. They've been showing a documentary about Chinese in America on television (I'm not sure if it's on one of the nation-wide History channels or on local PBS) and the oppression and prejudice that Chinese went through... vilification by labor unions and being denied citizenship... it's amazing both in a horrible way, and in an admirable way to see everything that so many individuals were able to overcome as they made a place here in this country.
And the reward for that? Even bigger penalties to college admissions than whites face. Getting lumped together as if "asian" is all the same thing. And definitely NOT getting to be one of the "authentic" or "cool" minorities.
Synova said..."And Ginsburg and O'Connor were clearly making a statement that gender didn't determine judicial wisdom."
But age does?
EnigmatiCore said...I'll take a wild stab that George H. W. Bush did not understand that she thinks that being a Latina woman makes her inherently wiser than a white male, or that the bench is where policy is made. Just a guess."
Well, he is a BUSH.
I think Limbaugh is right. Right now, the entire Supreme Court appoint process is irrelevant and so is Obama. The Republicans need to be able to use this as "a teaching moment", this and other things they can't control, or the Republican party will become irrelevant too.
Thanks for the reply, Jeremy. You have proven beyond a doubt that the posters here who have derided you as inane, mindless, and juvenile have attained the wisdom previously believed to only be reachable by Latina women.
My life experience tells me that people who say I'm the kind of person who..., usually aren't.
teach the American people exactly what a conservative jurist is.
In Wisconsin, conservative jurists (the ones elected lately) are people, some of dubious ethics, bought for by the business lobby.
The SC was never intended as a representative of some portion of the electorate--that's the Congress and Senate.
So, PatCA would have no problem if the USSC comprised nine Latinas -- he'd have no worries that they might not give an aging white male an even break.
*Applause*
Frodo Potter - Republicans also should elicit (very carefully) from Sotomayor if she thinks she is superior to working class and middle class white *women.*.
It would also be helpful to point out that, unlike patriarchial hispanic society, Sotomayor believes that the "richer life experiences of a (unmarried, childless) Latina woman" make her a superior pick to Latin men in matters of judgement.
And to frame this as a discussion of "affirmative action bomus points" as a structural discussion.
As in, "If you believe a female hispanic is automatically better and more empathetic than a black man, a white woman each cursed with only one "bonus point" - as being more diverse and more empathetic, wouldn't a gay Latina be even better in gov't appointments?"
"Would you consider in addition to white men - Jews and Asians overrepresented in the professions - as a sign of overprivilege that must be fought by an empathetic judiciary."
"Regarding the "Ricci" case, why did you ignore the harder work of a white man with disabilities he overcame, in preferring an equal racial outcome instead?"
=============
Frodo Potter - Can someone explain why we spend so much time worrying about Spanish speaking people, who comprise perhaps 350 million people, mostly in narco-democracies (or close facsimiles) and we flip off a group that is in excess of 3 *billion* people, including one of the world’s superpowers? .
It wasn't for lack of effort by Ruling Elites to try and get cheap labor in to enrich themselves and lower domestic wage rates for blue collar jobs, and further widen the gap between the very rich and everyone else. If the Clinton Globalists and Bush Corporatists had China on our border, they would have waved in 50 million Chinese instead of 35 million unskilled and semi-skilled hispanics.
Then we would have been talking about a mandatory Chinese jurist.
----------
Of course the root of this is two liberal Jewish lawyers that Nixon asked to set up the EEO and who created artificial races that fit perfectly into Democrats new idea of "identity politics", 40 years ago.
1. Native Americans only exist north of the Mexican Border, except for Aleuts who are classified as "Pacific Islanders". And they are who tribes say they are...even if they are 100% white or black.
2. Native Americans south of the Mexican border were classified by the Jewish attorneys as "hispanics", even full blooded Inca and Maya.
3. Pacific Islanders include native Micronesians, Hawaaians, Aleuts, and Australians - who get "bonus points", but exclude native Filipinos, Japanese, Indonesian Pacific Islanders - who are "Asians".
4. Hispanic, a creation that Latins themselves never endorsed, prior to the American EEO officials proclaiming them such - believing Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, etc are quite different..accept the designation if they come to America, because it advantages them. Down in Latin America, though, they think it is ludicrous.
As it is.
You see, people is Spain are Europeans, but a 100% ethnic Spaniard born South of our Border is an automatic hispanic. As are any native americans, blacks born there. Though black hispanics, but not NAs, can claim "Two-fer" status, according to courts.
5. Nixon's lawyers came from an elite, so the whole direction of affirmative action was towards preferences in elite education, gov't contracts and appoinments for the very well off.
Which is why the son of black billionaire Franklin Raines was accepted at Harvard law based on "overcoming discrimination" while the the unskilled "hispanic only" Mayan Indians from Guatemala are stuck cleaning toilets at "real Indian" casinos.
6. Nixon's lawyers who set up our affirmative action classifications never anticipated "race mixing" or people dredging up any past hispanic or NA in their family history to get them a career advantage.
The Tiger Woods phenomenon was not anticipated.
Or people like my friend who is 1/4th Filipino, with freckles and green eyes with a hispanic and German admixture, with a hispanic name of a Peruvian who ended up in the Philippines in the 19th Century, born in Hawaii and married to a white American who was born in Brazil...learned his kids are racially classifiable only as white or Asian..
EnigmatiCore "Thanks for the reply, Jeremy."
No problem.
The nice thing about you and many of the others here is that I can basically post the exact same response to damn near everything, because you ALL say the same things over and over.
As to Sotomayor; (even though King Rush throws his fat ass behind her "failure"), she'll be confirmed and, much like most of the red herring silliness via the Republicans, the controversy will soon fade and they'll move on to their next hope for some kind of traction with Americans.
This probably won't help the cause:
1. U.S. consumer confidence soared in May to its highest level in eight months as severe strains in the labor market showed some signs of easing.
2. The index of consumer attitudes jumped to 54.9 in May from a revised 40.8 in April, the biggest one-month jump since April 2003, even as economists had been looking for a much smaller rise to 42.0.
3. Fewer Americans said jobs were "hard to get," the survey found, with that measure slipping to 44.7% from 46.6%.
4. Those saying jobs were plentiful climbed to a still meager 5.7%, but that was still higher than April's 4.9%.
5. And consumers are considerably less pessimistic than they were earlier this year.
A vast majority of Americans realize Obama is doinyet all you hear here is gloom and doom whining about literally everything he says or does.
If you can keep it up, the Democrats will end up with about 70 Senators and hold the White House for decades to come.
Jason (the commenter) said..."I think Limbaugh is right. Right now, the entire Supreme Court appoint process is irrelevant and so is Obama."
Could you expand a tad on Rush's dramatic blather?
Which part of the Supreme Court process is "irrelevant?"
And how would the court not have a lasting effect on American life?
"So, PatCA would have no problem if the USSC comprised nine Latinas -- he'd have no worries that they might not give an aging white male an even break."
I think that suggesting, as this does, that nine Latinas, or Latinos, or nine African-Americans, male and female, (or even nine very much un-cool undifferentiated "Asians"), would not judge FAIRLY, is outrageous and insulting, and if this is the world you live in then maybe we ought NOT have minorities or women on the court since we can count on them not to judge fairly, but to judge with bias.
Stop feeding the troll, bitches!
I mean, it won't do any good, but at least you won't waste your considerable intelligence on a fruitless activity. It's like spending 1000 dollars a month in repairs to keep an AMC Pacer on the road.
"But age does?"
Age is indiscriminate.
We all get there.
And while we don't all get "wise" with age, viewing the elderly as a source of wisdom gained from observing life over many many years is a common thing across a multitude of cultures.
since we can count on them not to judge fairly, but to judge with bias.
Am I just too cynical? I assume every judge is judging with some sort of bias. I don't begrudge them that -- it's human nature. I hope that, if I ever am before a judge, the bias shown is in my favor.
The idea that Republicans like Hatch, McCain, Lindsey, and Lugar will oppose her is insane.
She was appointed by Bush I to the Federal Bench and confirmed by a Republican Senate to the Court of Appeals.
The Senate Republicans hate this kind of stuff, they want to get back to the stuff they really care about - bailouts for Wall Street and deregulation.
Oh-oh...Palladian's got his panties in a bunch...again.
This could get rough.
"Then why did you oppose Harriet Miers?"
As I said at the time, the President needs to pick someone with excellent credentials (education, experience, ability, character, etc.). If he skimps here, he deserves a fight. But if he picks someone excellent, such as John Roberts, confirmation should follow.
MM, why do you assume that the bias a person has is based on gender and ethnicity?
Of course people have bias, and opinions, and points of view. The idea that those things are determined by group membership... that a panel of nine Latina justices will have the SAME biases and will uniformly stick it to a white man because he is a white man...
That's pernicious.
MM, I suggest: "Because following Rush Limbaugh has taken the Republicans so far!"
"As I said at the time, the President needs to pick someone with excellent credentials (education, experience, ability, character, etc.). If he skimps here, he deserves a fight. But if he picks someone excellent, such as John Roberts, confirmation should follow."
How do we know that this woman possesses all these necessary characteristics? Didn't the confirmation hearings used to be the venue for these issues to be discussed and discovered?
The Democrats had been refusing to confirm the highly qualified previous appointee... I imagine Bush going to his friend Harriet and saying, "I need a favor. You'll hate it, but I need you to do this for me."
Althouse said: "I thought Obama was wrong to vote like that, and I can see how he deserves to have it come back to bite him. If confirmation is about agreeing with the ideology, then Republicans might want to vote against Sotomayor. But confirmation should not be about ideology, and conservatives ought to want to prove that principle by their votes. Use the confirmation hearings to delineate what liberal judicial ideology is and why people ought to reject it."
Republicans have been doing this for some time and all it has gotten them are votes like Obama made when he was in the Senate.
Christian theology is to "turn the other cheek" and perhaps this is good for the soul. Game theory suggests that "tit-for-tat" is the most effective strategy for mutual benefit.
why do you assume that the bias a person has is based on gender and ethnicity?
I'm not sure I made that claim; I'll say the experiences of someone's life drive their biases. Their experiences are driven by gender and ethnicity. A black woman will experience a different life than a white man, and vice versa. That life they experience influences their respective biases. This is strictly my own reasoned opinion. I think the possibility of nine latina judges of similar background (that's an important qualifier) having similar biases is far greater than those latina judges having similar biases compared to nine white men. The assumption being that the nine white men have different backgrounds than the nine latinas.
Incidentally, where did the meme that Miers resulted from Roberts not being confirmed originate? It seems demonstrably false to me, as Miers was nominated after Roberts was confirmed as CJ.
My point is, the GOP is unlikely to derail this nomination. .
I agree mainly because she's just replacing another liberal.
Instead, the GOP should use the process to show itself to stand for certain ideals- such as judicial restraint and a color blind society. If the GOP cannot and/or will not make that argument, then what argument can the GOP ever hope to make?.
That is pretty much the argument the GOP has been making for years. Ironically it's conservatives that actually follow MLK's wish to judge the content of one's character rather the color of their skin. Liberals on the other hand seem to think ethnicity and gender are simply boxes that mist be checked when making these kinds of decisions. Someone's race or gender should never be a consideration when choosing any kind of candidate unless of course MLK was just full of shit.
Lady justice really needs to take off the blindfold since empathy is now one of the criteria.
I should amend my previous comment. I think it's human nature to judge groups by your own preconceived, probably erroneous, notions. Failures arise when you don't alter those pre-judgements in the face of evidence for individuals that you come across.
Time for dinner. Pork Loin, Parsnips, Mangoes, Kiwi, Salad. I am annoyed that, even though I walk 40 minutes every morning now, I still gain weight.
I want her dykiness to be explored.
Specifically, has she eaten pussy before?
Does her breath smell like anchovies?
Has she strapped on a dildo? Or has another dyke strapped one on and pounded her pussy. If so did she reach orgasm?
Does she summer in Northampton?
Hoosier Daddy - Someone's race or gender should never be a consideration when choosing any kind of candidate unless of course MLK was just full of shit..
Be careful when quoting Saint Martin, Hoosier. The guy stood for things conservatives who never read him much past their "favorite quote".....would not like at all.
1. King specifically wanted racial apportionment of municipal jobs, demanding blacks at all levels of employment be given those jobs at percentages of their actual population in Memphis and Atlanta - leading protests to demand it - and calling for other cities to do it, "or trouble would come".
Absolutely no doubt where he would stand on the New Haven case about denying 60% Black New Haven residents "their fair share of those firefighter jobs"
2. King believed that quotas should be established not just in municipal jobs, but also at universities that favored blacks in higher numbers than their demography - to "give the Negro justice for past injustice in walking through those school doors".
3. Holy wise man MLK also strongly believed in slavery reparations. By direct redistribution of wealth or law that allowed blacks to pay little or no taxes "until the loss of money and interest on it for the children of slaves is paid in full".
4. King also believed that "though the Yellow Man and the Jew, and the wetback were oppressed elsewhere - they came to the US voluntarily" and deserved no tax break or redistribution - "that the Negro in chains gained for his descendents by unwilling toil."
Because you're oversimplifying the point. The point is comparing experience, not skin color and genitalia.SOTOMAYOR brought up race and gender. Not the commenters here.
You know, it should be a little bit of a concern that somebody who is apparently inept at explaining things well is going to be named a Justice. I don't suppose basic literacy is too much to ask.
Can you tell me more about the historic struggle of white males to succeed in America, against all odds?Can you discuss the racism faced by Hispanics? The Italians and Irish faced far worse than Hispanics.
Now that Spector has defected, is there a republican on the Judiciary Committee who will vote for her?
Well, Orrin Hatch voted for her before.Alito and Roberts were put into lower courts by unanimous votes or near-unanimous votes in the past.
When was the last time they proposed anyone remotely close to being a Hispanic female?Given the Dems burial of Estrada because, and this is a direct quote, "He's Hispanic", they have hard times getting the only party that ever openly supported segregation to sign on board.
They should have had a statewide recount and certainly investigated such irregularities as Pat Buchanan winning enough votes in areas dominated by Jewish voters to turn the election result in Bush's favor.So, let's just re-write the Constitution on the fly. Any ideas how to overcome the lack of ANY known legal justification for your idea?
But is it true?Maybe YOU personally are too racist to understand the situation of anybody different than you.
That speaks more of you than of others, though.
Shall we have blacks-only, Hispanics-only, white-only, and Asian-only courts? It's the only way to be "fair", right?
So you don't think someone who has actually experienced a specific life might not be more adept at understanding the elements relating to the actions one might take?So, should she hear cases ONLY dealing with Hispanic women? Or is SHE able to understand all people in a way white guys just cannot do? And I wonder how she knows, with her not being a white male and all and not being able to understand them...
That doesn't change the fact that Repulicans are out there in force today calling her dumb which doesn't seem like good long term strategy.Can you name who is doing this?
Were you out of the country in the summers of 1993 and 1994? Despite the disgusting treatment meted out to Clarence Thomas, Republicans did accept the principal that confirmation should not be about ideology, and consequently Ginsburg and Breyer were confirmed overwhelmingly.Let's not even forget that a Republican pointed out that, using Ruth's own standards, her law firm was quite guilty of racial discrimination.
Yet they still voted for her.
It's time to stop giving all of the far-left justices these huge vote totals for approval.
What was it George H. Bush didn't understand when he appointed Sotomayor as a U.S. district court judge?Why do you repeat this as if it were remotely relevant?
Lower court judges are usually patronage picks and the Senators from the state in question have almost total control. Moynihan asked it and he and D'Amato agreed that Al wouldn't oppose it.
Ambitious Hispanic women in our country more often complain that the sexism endemic in their culture is a greater obstacle than any prejudice in ours. That's what I was told by several successful Hispanic women. But maybe the story varies according to the audience.....I grew up in a housing project. I learned no useful lessons there and have spent most of my adult life trying to unlearn the habitual distrust of human beings that I learned there....Sotomayor, God bless her, thinks that being a Latina from a poor background gives her some special insight into the woes of humanity. Let her have her myth. The current Mayor of Chicago and the former President probably both thought that their father's experience gave them an edge in doing their jobs. A lot of voters tacitly agreed with that assumption. If you don't have the advantages of birth, you pretend that the hard knocks of your childhood gives you some special edge in sagacity or toughness. As we are complicit in the legends of Daley and Bush, let us be forgiving of the delicate delusions of Sotomayor.
Does she enjoy going Whale Watching?
Can Limbaugh see his penis when he is standing up?
Let's picture Limbaugh naked for a moment.
Or bent over, as he said, taking it up the ass. Gross, I am cured. No ex-gay counseling needed for me.
The framing of his hog surrounded by all the fat makes the penis look very small. Also, generally fatties only have like one or two long pubes that actually are longer and bigger than the hog. I used to be in Drum Corps and when we showered all the fatties had a little thimble for a penis (think just a head, no other length) with a few strands of long pubes that segued into cottage cheese legs with dimple fat and zits on their fat thighs.
I would do a woman before I would do some man that looked like that.
Titus promotes thinness by ruining readers' dinners.
I'm going to start referring to myself as a wise Latina woman, just for fun. Since my boyfriend is actually a Latino, maybe I'll call him that too, since one out of three accurate labels isn't bad.
I hope you meant two out of three, or he may soon be an ex-boyfriend.
The real question is will the Republicans do to her what the Democrats did to Alito- conduct a vicious, outrageous, hate filled smear campaign. What was done to Alito was disgusting and inhumane.
Of course the Dems can get away with that. The media will never criticize their sub human behavior.
"Incidentally, where did the meme that Miers resulted from Roberts not being confirmed originate? It seems demonstrably false to me, as Miers was nominated after Roberts was confirmed as CJ."
I don't know about Roberts. And I don't know if anyone else has said so, but it seemed to me *at the time* that Democrats were putting such a roadblock up to anyone, and savaging those nominated to such a degree, that Bush gave them Miers knowing (my guess) that she wouldn't be confirmed.
I honestly don't remember if the Democrats managed to block anyone, or if it was that anyone even *suggested* was savaged and rejected, or if it was all just so nasty that anyone who got a call from the President screamed "Hell, No!" and hung up on him.
It seemed to me that after Harriet had her turn that the *next* confirmation was far FAR more civil.
The nice thing about you and many of the others here is that I can basically post the exact same response to damn near everything, because you ALL say the same things over and over..
Which further illustrates that you need to work on your reading comprehension. Considering you can't keep a straight thought for more then 5 seconds is further displayed by your inane babbling about consumer confidence.
If you can keep it up, the Democrats will end up with about 70 Senators and hold the White House for decades to come..
Jeremy are you over the age of 20? I'm only asking because only a 20 year old or someone deliberatly obtuse about politics knows its cyclical. Conservatives said the same thing about Democrats 15 years ago when your party was run out on a rail. Then lo and behold the GOP overreaches, alienates their base and lose the Congress and White House. Big shocker there. Now if you want to believe that the Democrats won't end up doing the same thing 5-10 years down the road and be tossed out on their ass then you're either a) 20 years old or b) ignorant of politics or most likely c) all of the above.
Aaron at 2:02pm said: "Former Law Student
Btw, are you a minority, and or woman, or otherwise disadvantaged?
And if not, then by your own logic, don't you have to defer to me because my opinions are made better because of my handicap?"
Aaron wins the thread. Close second: Steven at 12:30, with a mathematical proof of Sotomayor's unfitness for SCOTUS.
Once again that GOP shill, Palladian, is ready with his instant take 2 seconds after Althouse posted. And once again he's front-paged.
Well, let's see. Palladian supported McCain's use of gender politics with Sarah Palin.
And, since Palladian is on the internet posting comments 24/7, I highly doubt he has carefully studied the record of Sotomayor yet. So, he's exposing himself as a knee-jerk, foolish partisan, calling for the Republicans to be as nasty as possible immediately after Obama anounced his pick, nothing more needs to be known about he pick first.
Palladian also shows that his philosophy doesn't include respecting that the president was elected by the people to have the power to appoint judges, but he'll pretend he's forced (instead of eagerly rushing) into such hyper-parisanship because people on the other side have been like that in the past.
Whatever. I'll wait and see before I endorse or attack Sotomayor. Silly partisans like Palladian are so tiring.
Wow, that PinchingLoaf sure holds a grudge! She's so bitter that no one likes her!
But you're right, Loafy, I'm on the internet 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, watching for you, ready to pounce! There is nowhere you can hide from my omnipotent glare. And it is only I who can command Sarah Palin's pussy to release its painful grip on your leg. So bow down before me. Because I can also call upon Sotomayor's pussy to chew your other leg off.
Althouse, won't you quote PinchingLoaf on the front page for once? It would make her feel so much better about herself.
Maybe you could find one of his comments from the end of last summer when he was advocating forcibly inserting a medical speculum into Sarah Palin's pussy and publishing the results in the New York Times.
Post a Comment