The same speech showed an appreciation for racial colorblindness:
She observed that anyone in the world watching television on Sept. 11, 2001, "could not miss the diversity of colors and hues" of the New Yorkers scrambling to evacuate the destruction of the World Trade Center. She said "on September 11, we stood as Americans and as human beings and saw past our ethnic differences and responded to a common threat with a complete giving of heart, soul and for some, of life."
Posts
33 comments:
Me like Sonia. She pretty.
we stood as Americans and as human beings and saw past our ethnic differences and responded to a common threat with a complete giving of heart, soul and for some, of life.
Not only did we do that, but we also saw clearly that attention and focus on ethnic differences is a spectacularly stupid way to view the world.
Good and evil is the better way, remembering, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, that the line between good and evil does not divide races, religions, classes, or gender - it runs through each person's heart.
Which is why we should stop speaking in terms of races and gender, and return to speaking of things in terms of good and evil.
Quayle - "Which is why we should stop speaking in terms of races and gender, and return to speaking of things in terms of good and evil."
Yes, not what we have that race and gender problem solved here in the good ol' U.S. of A. we need to tackle that "evil" thingie.
Tell me, Quayle...who are the "evil" ones and who are the "good" ones?
Yeah Jeremy we can NEVER get past the race problem because people like you insist that it is never possible! Self-fulfilling prophecy!
Pretty Latino. Sounds like standard issue wisdom to me.
Here's my angel, Princess Jeremy. Hello, dear! I love you so much, it hurts but GET MOMMY'S FUCKING SMOKES ALREADY!
You all watch and see. My baby will respond to every one of you who doubts him. He will make you all feel very stupid, and he will prove this is all about my baby. My special, angel, semi-retarded Princess Jeremy!
The same speech showed an appreciation for racial colorblindness:
The more I hear, the more I think her stupid comments about minorities judging better than whites (however many times she may have made them) were probably just pandering to the academic mob. I think she deserves to have her face rubbed in it (along with her oral argument comments in Ricci, perhaps), but on the whole, she actually seems to be about as good a choice as one could have expected from this President.
Ethnic differences are ineradicable. For that reason there can never be a universal nation. A universal dystopia, yes. Thanks in large measure to the social engineers who cannot, will not! abide sentence one.
What I want to know is John Ensign's staffer he did it with a male or female.
Female I am ok with it. Male I am disgusted.
Combine this with SoSo's other comments and you quickly realize that she swings from both sides of the political plate.
She's bright and she knows how to milk that affirmative action cow.
Is this what you want on the USSC?
John Ensign has spoken very clearly in the past about the sanctity of marriage...just not his, yours.
Right-wing commentariat embraces Sotomayor in 10, 9, 8, .....
I love it when sanctimonious, holier than thou republicans, get caught with their pants down.
It just proves that the entire "family values" crap they speak about is a bunch of bullshit to woo ignorant social conservatives who believe their garbage.
Is this what you want on the USSC?
Hey, I'm not Latino. From my perspective, yes, it's better than a hardline Latino racial chauvinist, which is what she looked like at first, with her "wise Latina" remarks and her links to La Raza. Latinos, I suppose, would have been better off if she were standing there with her thumb on the scales in favour of Latino interests. But the rest of us are better off if she doesn't consistently do that, even if she's not quite convinced of the virtues of impartial judging -- the instinct to atavistic tribalism is quite powerful, after all.
Is she my ideal justice? No, of course not. But elections have consequences -- we elected Obama, and now we get to reap the consequences of our choice. One of those consequences is the kinds of judges he'll try and stick on the court. On the spectrum of judges that the President is likely to nominate, Sotomayor seems to me pretty clearly preferable to some of the out and out loonies he could nominate.
Balfegor, David Brooks wrote a column last week saying pretty much the same thing.
It just proves that the entire "family values" crap they speak about is a bunch of bullshit
Titus, I love you but it proves no such thing.
For some that use it as a means to meet their other ambitions (including getting in other's pants) it is B.S. when they speak it.
But that doesn't invalidate the value and results of families being loving and staying together.
By your logic, the benefits of getting savings interest is disproved by a man that claims that getting interest is better than paying interest, then ignores his own statement and goes into huge debt.
That's illogical.
Ensign ignored his own stated goals and now he is going to pay a heavy price for it. It doesn't say anything about his stated goals.
Alex said..."Yeah Jeremy we can NEVER get past the race problem because people like you insist that it is never possible! Self-fulfilling prophecy!"
I didn't say anything of the kind.
I inferred we haven't gotten past "race and gender problems" here and that concentrating on what Quayle feels are the "evil" ones is simplistic at best.
You notice he didn't come back to tell us exactly who these "evil" or "good" ones are.
*You should practice reading more so you can actually understand what was written.
Sotomayor showed an ability to react appropriately and perhaps even passionately to the most traumatising day in American History since Pearl Harbor.
eh! let's see
Do you feel any pain here?
Breath deeply for me and hold it.
Are you sleeping ok?
So, what do you think Doc?
Everything looks normal ;)
The colorblindness comments I like a lot. Not sure about the other comments.
I think Judge Sotomayor will make a fine Justice overall. I expect to be disappointed in some of her rulings but think, overall, she can help this country from going further from the rightward extremes.
Hope we can tip the balance soon.
Quayle rewrites history:
but we also saw clearly that attention and focus on ethnic differences is a spectacularly stupid way to view the world. .
You know, I'm betting Arab Americans have a different experience.
And all the cries from cons for profiling Arabs. Was that "spectacularly stupid," too? Or did you guys shoot that history down the Memory hole, too?
The only problem with Satomayor is that she's a racist.
She believes, and has said so many times in front of many different audiences, that Latina females because they are able to live the kind of life that white males cannot live, make better decisions.
They're smarter than white men, you see, because they're Latino. And they're women. They make better decisions than white men.
You know, in the same way Jews are smarter with money because they're Jews.
Or how blacks are more likely to be better ball players because they were bred to be tough workers.
You know, racist shit like that.
But, other than being a dyed-in -the-wool racist, I'm sure Satomayor's pretty fun to be around.
Ask any of her lawyer friends who've been nodding sympathetically when she spouts off her racist comments.
I'm sure they find nothing offensive about her.
Florida...You are stuck on stupid. Her stated "hope" that a wise latino's background would lead to better decisions on discrimination cases on appeal than a white (read Anglo)man's judging that type of case is not a Racial issue. White men and hispanic women are in the same race. It's called Caucasian. The Catholic/Spanish ruled culture of Caucasians is being contrasted here to the Anglican/Scots Irish ruled culture of caucasians in our 13 original colonies. You are ruining the meaning of the "Racist" word just to win in a tit-for-tat battle resurrecting the bitterness from 40 years of affirmative action favors legally given to blacks and women. Meantime you are unnecessarily giving back a gift of the hispanic swing votes to the Democrats. Is that your real intention?
It's funny that no matter what the post is about, as long as it's about Sotomayor someone is going to bring up her being a racist. With that out of the way, I think calling Sotomayor's wise Latina comments racist are like Barney Frank calling Justice Scalia's Lawrence dissent homophobic. Just because someone talks about race in a way that upsets people (conservatives) doesn't make them racist. Just because someone writes about homosexuality in a way that upsets people (liberals) doesn't make them homophobic. If we can't talk openly and honestly about the intricacies of human identity (including in ways that are often unpopular) without being tagged racist or homophobic than the only conversations we'll ever have about those issues will be shallow.
Sotomayor might hate white people. Scalia might hate gay people. But for me to believe either I'm going to need more proof than dissents in Lawrence/Romer and a wise Latina comment/white firefighter scenario.
Jeremy: you didn't infer that we haven't gotten past "race and gender problems" here. You implied it. You should practice reading more so that you can actually understand and correctly describe what you said yourself. The difference may be subtle, but in terms of quality of thought, it's significant.
As for getting past race and gender issues, those who keep insisting that we haven't gotten past them yet are making themselves into the biggest obstacles to doing so.
@Traditionalguy
It was Satomayor who made the racial distinction between herself and those "white males."
She made it racist.
You may not believe there's a racial difference between a wise Latina women and white males. But Satomayor sees a racial difference. And she has stated so many times.
Satomayor is a racist and also an avowed member of an organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.
You know, like the KKK; only her private group is for women, by women and with those dirty, dirty white men excluded.
She's a racist, and a card-carrying sexist, in directy violation of her oath as a judge to avoid membership in such groups.
She's unfit to be a member of a Supreme Court that would putatively represent all of us; because she frequently has stated, in many ways by her words and deeds that she doesn't believe we're all equal to start with. She believes as a woman and as a Latino that she's superior. And she's open about that belief. She's not ashamed of that belief.
I find her words, her actions and her memberships in offensive organizations to be disqualifying and beneath the dignity of the Court.
She creates the appearance of impropriety at every turn; and this disqualifies her as an impartial judge.
Jeremy: you didn't infer that we haven't gotten past "race and gender problems" here. You implied it. .
One would think that half a century after the civil rights movement and the first African American President elected, we could say we have moved beyond race problems. Then again if we acknowledged that the majority of people in America are not really racist I suspect the the perpetual victim and race grievance industry would be begging for their version of a TARP bailout.
This solidifies my belief that she was one of the better options to be on the Sup. Ct., but for that pesky problem that she has disqualified herself.
I won't call her a racist. there is no need to get that ugly. but she has raised a question to her impartiality to say the least and that means she cannot be a supreme court justice. this is a matter of principle for me and not politics. We cannot allow lady justice's blindfold to be ripped off, or even just to wonder if it has been.
Obaam should withdraw her nomination.
Florida wrote "putatively". You got that right - that ol' racist latina is puta-tive.
gaywrights
give me a break. expressing the superiority of one race/gender over another is bigotry.
By comparison Scalia merely said the constitution doesn't protect gay sex. There is not one scintilla of evidence in that decision that Scalia hates gay people; indeed all he was really doing, was following the clearly established precedent and let's be blunt, the most natural reading of the constitution. The idea that the evangelical christians who passed the 14th A intended to legalize gay sex doesn't even pass the laugh test. indeed, much of kennedy's opinion doesn't pass the laugh test.
And to flippantly pretend that the two are the same just because people don't like what they said is silly.
If we can't talk openly and honestly about the intricacies of human identity (including in ways that are often unpopular) without being tagged racist or homophobic than the only conversations we'll ever have about those issues will be shallow.
Sorry, but those issues are shallow. If women want to navel-gaze about being a woman, they can count me out. I have a friend who does this, and it's boring. Ditto for anyone else who wants to wax on about identity politics.
One's race or sexual orientation doesn't mean nothing--of course it informs a person's identity. But it shouldn't mean everything. There's more to people. There's more to life.
traditionalguy said...
"Florida...you are unnecessarily giving back a gift of the hispanic swing votes to the Democrats. Is that your real intention?"
the hispanic swing vote isn't really in doubt thanks to some attention paid to them by democrats, so stupid stuff by republicans and the likes of 'florida"'s utterances. if there was ever a walking poster boy for what democrats dream misguided republicans will say and do, ... well...there you have it.
She creates the appearance of impropriety at every turn; and this disqualifies her as an impartial judge.
Based on their dissent in Caperton v. Massey, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would cut her some slack.
Roberts: There is a “presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators.” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47 (1975). All judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution and apply the law impartially, and we trust that they will live up to this promise. See Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U. S. 765, 796 (2002) (KENNEDY, J., concurring) (“We should not, even by inadvertence, ‘impute to judges a lack of firmness, wisdom, or honor’” (quoting Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 273 (1941))). We have thus identified only two situations in which the Due Process Clause requires disqualification of a judge: when the judge has a financial interest in the outcome of the case, and when the judge is presiding over certain types of criminal contempt proceedings.
And the mere appearance of impropriety wouldn't bother Scalia: he invited Cheney to go duck hunting with him even though Cheney was a party in a case coming before the Court. Scalia refused to recuse himself even after he accepted a ride to the private hunting preserve on Air Force Two.
Post a Comment