June 5, 2009

Was it wise...

... to keep reusing that "wise woman" speech?


A.W. said...

Well, it is unwise in this respect: it gets very hard to argue that she mispoke.

I just keep wishing someone would notice that her conduct is a violation of canon 3 of the code of judicial conduct for federal judges. You don't have to call her a racist; all you have to say is that it creates a reasonable question as to her impartiality and that disqualifies her from a number of cases, most obvious among them Ricci. i would go as far to say that the disqualification issue should sink her nomination.

traditionalguy said...

Once more into the breach...The "latina" category is not a Race. It is a cultural tradition from caucasian Spain. They value wise women.So what? Ever heard of Mary, the betrothed wife of Joseph of Nazareth? It is about time the WASP's tradition started to value wise women too. Poor Sarah Palin was poo poo'd as another pretty dummie from the worker women, even by many WASPs who could not believe one of their women could ever be as smart and valuable as a man. So I call BS on every phoney Race Warrior getting points by their righteous opposition to this nomination.

David said...

Serial misspeaker.

KCFleming said...

"The statement was simply a poor choice of words" ...over and over and over again.

How many times does she need to repeat this before we accept that she actually means what she says?

Lem said...

In one word, NO

At some point you are expected to give up that 'identity' blanket you found so warm, cozy and indispensable.

As a pitcher matures he must learn to master as many pitches as he can so that when his fastball leaves him (and it will leave him) he’ll have other stuff to rely on.

Was Sotomayor a one pitch (identity) phenom?

KCFleming said...

Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?

knox said...

It makes a woman (and women in general) look weak when she uses her gender as a resume enhancer--especially an accomplished, powerful woman, who shouldn't need to. And the way Sotomayor does it reeks of self-aggrandizement.

I'm trying to imagine going around describing myself as a "Wise Woman"... it's an absurd way to talk about yourself. Certainly unbecoming a Supreme Court Justice.

knox said...

At some point you are expected to give up that 'identity' blanket you found so warm, cozy and indispensable.

Exactly. It's just weird that she feels the need to say it all the time. As a successful adult. By "weird" I mean "lame."

AlphaLiberal said...

Here's one conservative who decided that Sarah Palin is, most definitely,not a wise woman:

What I’m wondering is: Has Sarah Palin undergone some kind of secret lobotomy?


AlphaLiberal said...

Look at that. Nowhere in the article does it mention that she's talking about sex and race discrimination cases.

The press has failed to report this repeatedly.

KCFleming said...

" Nowhere in the article does it mention that she's talking about sex and race discrimination cases."

Probably because that would only make her repeated declaration of non-impartiality worse.

Lem said...

I think it would behoove Sotomayor to come clean at the hearings and admit that she went to that identity well one too many times.

It would Not be wise for her to try to weasel out of it.

Lem said...

Hey - there is an idea..

A weasel detector for the hearings.

Bissage said...

Her words were more well-calculated salesmanship, than anything else, IMHO.

Seems to have worked, too!

Now she'll switch to Plan B.

No one makes it to the big leagues by accident.

Beta Conservative said...

Goddamn Alpha, I re-named myself as an act of Affirative Action for your self esteem. Like Andre the Giant in Princess Bride I wanted you to think you were doing well.

But now you post a moronic comment and link to a quasi conservative who bashes Palin, because that relates so well to the topic of Sotomayer centering her entire existence on being "Hispanic", whatever that means, until it is suddenly inconvenient.

Maybe I can include a link to Ted Rall and claim that some lefty idiot wants President Jesus to resign because he's a tool of corporate America. Except it would be stupid and irrelevant.

God, you are a dope.

Sixty Grit said...

Call a Mexican woman ugly or an illegal immigrant a drunk and you will be called a racist.

Which race are you castigating? Why Mexicans, of course. Or Hispanics. They have a box to check on federal forms, so they must be a race, right?

Identity politics - get used to it, it will only get worse.

AlphaLiberal said...

The article cites Rush Limbaugh calling her a racist. I guess he's an expert as one of our nation's most visible and vocal racists.

Limbaugh once told a black caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

And, don't we need more racism in our sports talk?
"The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is little hope invested in [Donovan] McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve."

Collin Powell didn't mention race, but Rushbo sure did!
"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

Lushbo on blacks:
They're 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

# Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

How does Rush Limbaugh get away with being so racist,and then accusing others of racism! You'd think the press would have some standards for who they let set their editorial agenda.

EnigmatiCore said...

Alpha Liberal, you seem to be extremely determined to change the topic to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, your pet rock, some guy wandering down the street...

Why is that?

AlphaLiberal said...

Beta Conservative you typed a lot of text but actually said very little! Low information to noise ratio.

I posted a link about Sarah Palin from a former Palin supporter who was entertainingly slashing in his criticisms of her. It's interesting!

Palin is often a subject here, but I couldn't find a Palin thread on which to share this. Here's another quote from the piece:

Since returning to Alaska, one can’t help but get the impression that Palin is a clownish, vindictive amateur.

AlphaLiberal said...

EnigmatiCore, Rush Limbaugh has been the person most pushing this characterization of her as a racist. Of course he's an issue!

And, his dittoheads* have been repeating his charges ever since.

Funny how Ann Althouse promotes Rush Limbaugh, given how much of a sexist he is:

Rush: "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream."

* - dittohead," from Greek dittocephalos = bonehead. Credit

KCFleming said...

AlphaLiberal said...
No, no! Not Sotomayor!
Look over here instead!
Pay no attention to that bias behind the curtain!

EnigmatiCore said...

So you decided to threadjack?

It gives the impression that you feel threatened here and are desperate to try to change the topic. I am pretty sure that's not what you are shooting for.

Here's a thought- you could show some restraint and wait for a thread that is germane (keep your powder dry!), show a little less restraint and wait for one of Althouse's 'coffeehouse' general threads, or show some ambition and start your own blog and try to build an audience.

Or you can keep doing what you are doing, in which it is easy to tell what things someone like me should pay more attention to, because people like you keep trying to get us to look at something else.

Either way works, I guess.

TMink said...

"But now you post a moronic comment"

I take it this is the first of AlphaLiberal's posts you have read.


AlphaLiberal said...

To be clear, the fact that Rush Limbaugh is a racist disqualifies him from judging others as racist.

He just doesn't get the concept.

The same could be said of the Republican Party, really, which has employed the racist Southern Strategy for decades. They built their house on a foundation of race-hating and baiting.

But, our dumb media quotes these guys on the subject! From the article Ann highlights:

...have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her "racist." .

AlphaLiberal said...

Aaaaah, I see. So if a Republican hurls a charge it's a "threadjack" to see how that Republican lives up to charges they hurl.

You know that makes no sense at all, right?

We know that Sonia Sotomayor has judged against the plaintiff in a large majority of discrimination cases.

Has Antonin Scalia EVER judged in FAVOR of the plaintiff in discrimination cases?

I doubt it. Or very little.And this goes to the heart of Sonia S's statement!

KCFleming said...

AlphaLiberal said:
Leave Sonia alooooone!!!1!

former law student said...

Sotomayor gave the same speech for nine years (1994-2003) and nobody complained until now. I would invoke laches and assert that the time to complain had come and gone.

This would be in keeping with the Court's decision in Lilly Ledbetter -- the statute started running in 1994, when she started discriminating against the opposite sex, not 2003 which was the last time she did so.

AlphaLiberal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EnigmatiCore said...

Alpha, did you just ask a question without knowing the answer?

This took me one second to find.


EnigmatiCore said...

And I cannot help but notice that now you are pointing at Scalia. Any place but the topic at hand. So far you have tried Palin, Limbaugh, Scalia. You next have to go to Bush.

It's a shame you don't have Tricky Dick to kick around any more. He would have been handy here, don't you think?

KCFleming said...

" the statute started running in 1994"

Yup, once you let someone be stupid once, you have to permit it ever after, then promote them and promote them until they are leading you based on that very stupidity.

Sounds like a standard Democrat plan.

rhhardin said...

Snerdly, aka James Golden, on the racist Limbaugh's staff forever, is black.

A.W. said...


The reason why they didn't report that it was only talking about discrimination cases, is because it wasn't clear it was.

Traditional guy,

One doesn't have to actually be sexist in favor of women to value their opinions.

Former law student

Well, since she keeps repeating the offense, maybe laches applies to some of the earlier incantations, but not to the most recent ones.

As for the concern that no one cared until now, well, bluntly didn't they say that to anita hill? and her very rational answer was, more or less, "he wasn't nominated for the supreme court until now." i can't tell you who was right in that dustup, but that was a perfectly reasonable explanation.

The fact that both you and alpha liberal keep dodging is that these comments raise a reasonable question to her impartiality, and thus disqualifies her from a huge swath of cases. The fact you don't even bother to dispute that is the most damning thing.

John said...

"To be clear, the fact that Rush Limbaugh is a racist disqualifies him from judging others as racist."

So you admit you are losing the argument on substance and now have to attack the messanger. Who cares whether Rush Limbaugh is disqualified or not. We can all read the "magic Latina" statements for ourselves.

I think Sotomayor is going to crash and burn during confirmation. You have to remember this woman has spent her whole life around beta liberals like the ironiclly named Alpha Liberal. These people have long since surrendered their testicles regarding any minority. She made these statements so many times because no one has ever questioned her. The idea that she could be racist or maybe people could be offended by an assertion of racial superiority on her part is totally foreign to her. No amount of pre hearing prep will make up for a lifetime of living in the liberal cacoon.

Synova said...

We get it, Alpha.

Rush Limbaugh is a racist, and if he calls Sotomayor a racist for saying what he'd get called a racist for, it just means that he's a racist and she's not.

Different standards for different people.

We GET it.

Synova said...

BTW, I figure she's probably not racist. I figure that like a whole lot of minorities she hasn't been attacked from every side any time she says anything even a little bit iffy.

And the thing is... she *shouldn't* have said what she said. She should have realized what she was saying but who would ever tell her so? Who would point out that what she said was pernicious and wrong?

Joan said...

Back to the posted link: Her repeated use of the phrases "wise Latina woman" and "wise woman" would appear to undermine the Obama administration's assertions that the statement was simply a poor choice of words.

You know it's going to be a good day when you can start it with a laugh.

ITA with knox. It's lame for anyone to repeatedly refer to himself as "wise." As so many have pointed out, the hallmark of wisdom is understanding how much you don't understand.

paul a'barge said...

You know they told me that if I voted for Sarah Palin we would have a blatant and unrepentant racist bigot on the Supreme Court ... and they were right!

holdfast said...

"To be clear, the fact that Rush Limbaugh is a racist disqualifies him from judging others as racist."

-Maybe he is a subject matter expert.

hombre said...

traditionalguy wrote: "The "latina" category is not a Race."

Tell it to La Raza.

AL wrote: "To be clear, the fact that Rush Limbaugh is a racist disqualifies him from judging others as racist."

But, but, what about, "It takes one to know one!"

Again -- the Repubs ought to hammer Obama for appointing a sexist, racialist, activist, and abstain on the vote out of deference to presidential whim. (He's ruining the economy and corrupting the Court.)

If she goes down he'll appoint some bigger disaster and Repubs will be in a bigger hole with Hispanics.

Sixty Grit said...

Sotomayor said "a wise latina", not that she was one.

Steven said...

elHombre —

No, they shouldn't show any deference by abstaining.

After Bork and Thomas, the Republicans turned the other cheek and voted in Breyer and Ginsburg. On Alito, the Democrats, specifically including Obama, simply took the opportunity to hit the other cheek.

Even something as minor as abstaining instead of voting against is a foolish concession. If and when the Democrats want a cease-fire, Obama can personally make a formal apology to Alito.

A.W. said...

mmm, interesting the silence from alpha and fls. even when directly challenged they can't even deny that Sottomayor's behavior raises a reasonable question to her impartiality.

This is a serious problem.

As for the people recommending that anyone roll over on this, bluntly, that is a political calculation and not a principled one. we are going to have to live with this decision for decades. She should not be seated. We have to stand for principle, instead of rolling over to what is supposedly inevitable.

AlphaLiberal said...

Delusional post of the day:

After Bork and Thomas, the Republicans turned the other cheek and voted in Breyer and Ginsburg. On Alito, the Democrats, specifically including Obama, simply took the opportunity to hit the other cheek.

Breyer is a moderate. Ginsburg is a moderate liberal. Neither had an easy confirmation that I recall.

Bork and Thomas are hard line right wingers. Esp Bork. Dude was out there.

AlphaLiberal said...

Aaron, I really do exist only to come here and take your bait. /snark.

Uh, the speech was at a symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."

In the paragraph before The Quote she said:
"In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males."

In the paragraph after The Quote she said:
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.

She also said she likes pig intestines.

A.W. said...


Still dodging the question.

Is it reasonable to question her impartiality?

Yes or no.

Why are you so scared to answer?

former law student said...

Sorry, I had to do actual work today.

As for the concern that no one cared until now, well, bluntly didn't they say that to anita hill? and her very rational answer was, more or less, "he wasn't nominated for the supreme court until now." i can't tell you who was right in that dustup, but that was a perfectly reasonable explanation.

A subordinate like Anita Hill wanting to keep her job, and wanting to get a good reference from her boss may rationally keep her mouth shut about any possibly sketchy things he said.

On the other hand, had Sotomayor's repeated speeches in front of a variety of audiences included tidbits like
- acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals
- films showing group sex or rape scenes, or
- her own sexual prowess
somebody surely would have complained publicly.

In fact, had Sotomayor, thirsty from speaking, commented about a proffered Coke can, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?" I'm sure a stunned hush would have fallen over the crowd. The story would have made the Recorder, at least.

And, unlike these remarks allegedly made by Thomas, in private, to his subordinate, Sotomayor's remarks were printed in a legal journal available in every law school in the US for the last eight years.

Nobody cared up till now, even though Sotomayor is a sitting judge on one of the most notable CoA in the country.

former law student said...

Is it reasonable to question her impartiality?

She has higher expectations of Latina judges than white male judges. So I would say opinion-writing Latinas had much to fear from her.

Synova said...

Alpha, it's interesting to me how liberals are always "moderate" and conservatives are "hard line right wingers."

It really is interesting.

It's interesting too, how McCain, viewed as far too "moderate" and willing to promote such things as McCain/Feingold, known for cooperating with Democrats as often as he bothered to cooperate with Republicans became a "hard line right winger" when he was running for President.

You justify different treatment because your side is "moderate" and the other side are "hard line right wingers" and all you really mean is that you chose to view them that way as an excuse for your (or Democrats in general) bad behavior.

OUR side is all moderate, so it's right that you behave toward us in a civil manner.

YOUR side is all extreme right-wing, so it's right that we behave poorly in the face of this threat.

We GET it.

Synova said...

Higher expectations of Sotomayor is that, facing a life appointment to the highest court in the land, she grow up and grow past habitual language that would destroy the career of a white male judge.

A.W. said...


then the answer is YES.

And she has no business on the Supreme Court.

Of course i wouldn't assume what form her bias would manifest itself as. it might be in the form of being harder on latinas. or it might be in the form of assuming they are right. But either one is disqualifying.

Thank you for playing, you have officially lost the debate.

Issob Morocco said...

Time to name the replacement nominee for Sotomayor.

former law student said...

Time to name the replacement nominee for Sotomayor.

Fine. How about Kimberle Williams Crenshaw? Gloria Allred? Bernardine Dohrn?