Sotomayor a racist? Oh, the stupidity!

I’m working on a longer and I hope more well-researched piece on this topic, but let me jump in with this:

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has joined Rush Limbaugh and others in attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a racist. In a recent post on Twitter, Gingrich wrote:

“White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

The sole basis of that explosive charge is a single sentence in a much longer speech by Sotomayor in 2002. In that speech, she notes that “there can never be a universal definition of wise,” then states:

“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.”

In other words, Sotomayor hopes that her life experiences would make her a better judge than someone without those experiences. On that basis, she is supposedly a racist who must now withdraw.

The stupidity of that argument is stunning.

As I noted, that single sentence comes from a major speech, available here in its entirety. The following excerpts help put the sentence in context:

“…. Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society….

I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. ….

The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.

…. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald, formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases.

…. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown (v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruling that ended segregation).

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

…. Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

Quite the racist, isn’t she?

330 comments Add your comment

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 27th, 2009
3:09 pm

I agree, it’s her ignorance of the law that should force her to withdraw.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
3:10 pm

Its irrelevant. The 60 votes to pass her through even a filibuster is already admitted by Republican consultants and strategists who are suggesting that the Republicans not fight a fight they cannot win, and keep their powder dry for fights they might be able to:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Barring shock revelations, Judge Sonia Sotomayor is likely to win easy Senate confirmation and become the first Hispanic to sit on the US Supreme Court, experts said Wednesday.

“Unless there’s something that comes out that?s very much out of the ordinary, this is likely to be a smooth confirmation if Republicans are smart politically,” said John Ullyot, a Republican strategist who served seven years as a senior Senate staffer.

President Barack Obama’s Republican critics have — so far — shown only a meager appetite for a fight. Indeed the outcome may already be written because Democrats have the 60 votes needed to push the nomination through.

And Republicans worry that overly hostile questioning could further hurt the party with Hispanic voters, who went 67 percent to Obama and 31 percent to his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, in the 2008 White House race.

“Politically, it’s better to conserve our powder and live to fight another day and not pick a fight that a) we know we can’t win, because we don’t have the votes and b) could really hurt us politically,” Ullyot told AFP.

Hispanics, the fastest-growing US minority with a major presence in key states such as Florida and battlegrounds like New Mexico and Arizona, are increasingly willing to flex their political clout….

Most judicial experts state the same thing. The conservatives in Congress will make a great show of questioning her, but in the end they will not filibuster even if they can get the votes to do so, and depending on who you ask Democrats currently have no less than 59 votes and in most analyses, 60 or more.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 27th, 2009
3:13 pm

First, no one on this blog has been accused, and wrongly, I might add, of being racist than I. I am no racist my nanny and the nannies of my children were black and klike family members, my family continues mutually benefcial relationships with with black families that started before the war of northern aggression, I have had intimate knowledge on many hygenic black women in Brasil, and our family used to employ many black people until we learned that the Salvadorans had a superior work ethic, stayed away from the bottle better, and didn’t ask to borrow money.

All that said, my life has been a model of progressive race relations. That said, it is clear thay Judge Sodmiteyor is speaking in code words. These code words let the racists pass there racist message freely without worry about being detected by those against whom they cast pejoratives.

Change black for white in her speech and she’d be out on her ear.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
3:16 pm

Not much worried about the 60 after june 1st when the Minnisota Supreme Court hears the Senate case, and is expected to seat Franken because the Republican justices on the court have recused themselve from hearing the trial because they made up a larger percent of the committee that did the recounts.

TW

May 27th, 2009
3:16 pm

Those with any hope for the GOP must cringe. All this ignorant volley does is push them farther into the white trash meth head trailer they moved into under ‘w’s leadership.

Leftwing moeny couldn’t buy better advertising than a drunken Newt shooting off at the mouth.

Joey

May 27th, 2009
3:16 pm

I hope your longer more researched piece is not limited to convincing us that Sotomayor is not a racist.

Instead convince us that she is a good Judge. Convince us that appeals and reviews of her rulings have proven that she is a good judge.

Convince us that it is not her intent to use her position to make law.

Convince us that she is a Jourist not an activist.

If you can.

Normal

May 27th, 2009
3:16 pm

As I said in the NK post. Anyone who takes Newt seriously need their
head examined. This is a non-issue anyway. For the majority
Party, as NJ has so aptly stated, she is a no brainer (no pun intended, Whine), she is female, minority, and self made. How American Dream is that?

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
3:16 pm

“The stupidity of that argument is stunning.”

Many things stun me about the modern Republican Party, but through their constant display of it, stupidity no longer does.

Redneck Convert

May 27th, 2009
3:17 pm

Well, seems to me she’s got it in for us rednecks and all the godly White people. I don’t care what they say, she’s a racist, pure and simple. It’s just awful the way the libruls turned our simple idea, being against Those People and Those Other People, against us. A White man lawyer shouldn’t even bother to show up in court in front of this woman.

Old Rush and Newt got her pegged. They are never wrong. Who are you going to beleive, a bunch of libruls trying to pass off this racist radical as normal or old Rush and Newt?

Have a good p.m. everybody.

Wells

May 27th, 2009
3:19 pm

People probably think that you are a racist b/c you never miss a chance to mention how you have great relationships with black people.

I am not saying that you are racist, but it seems you don’t understand why people think this of you.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 27th, 2009
3:20 pm

Dear GOP:

Again you have fallen in the trap, wisely and carefully set.

This is a fight you will not win, and the battle will do untold damage
to your already tattered brand.

She’s no racist.

As for those calling her that….well…..there’s your sign!

Normal

May 27th, 2009
3:24 pm

Well said, Miz G, well said!

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
3:25 pm

Doesnt matter. Already Orrin Hatch is making fumbling backtracks on his votes FOR Sotomayor in 1998 just a year or so after what is now being called her most “activist’ decision.

Sotomayor speaks in no more “code words” than Republican nominees have. Scalia is perhaps the most activist judge on the court, using broad and excessively stretched interpretations of the constitution when it comes to conservative issues, and extremely tight and narrow ones when it comes to liberal issues. Sotomayors confirmation is pretty much a done deal. Republicans won’t filibuster, for fear of the results it will cause in the 2010 elections less than a year and a half away. They will put up their usual stink, but the issue of the nuclear option, which they created for Roberts, remains firmly in the memory of the public right now, and polls show more approval for Sotomayor than they did for either Roberts or Alito.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
3:27 pm

Is self-immolation illegal? If so, can we arrest them and put them in protective custody until a rational conservative party can take over and actually discuss the issues?

Copyleft

May 27th, 2009
3:27 pm

I would ask Whiner what evidence he has to support his “ignorance of the law” nonsense about Sotomayor, but we all know better by now, don’t we? He never has any.

TnGelding

May 27th, 2009
3:30 pm

That first paragraph, as well as the rest of what you posted, should dispel any concern about empathy.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 27th, 2009
3:30 pm

“Dear GOP:

Again you have fallen in the trap, wisely and carefully set.”

That’s rich, in less than four months of the Ob-amateur hour: 1) a generic republican beats a generic democrat by wide margins in the polls; 2) congress won’t support Chocolate Blunder’s mishandling of Gitmo because it knows that public sentiment is very much against them; 3) the bond market portends a collapse in any hope of recovery while forshadowing a mad-max world of inflation; and 4) the narrow 4% margin that Chocloate blunder enjoyed against Sen McCain would turn negative were he put to the polls against Gov. Romney or some similarly qualified candidateon this day. The Republicans are not the one’s in need of a shoe scraping.

Dennis

May 27th, 2009
3:30 pm

Yes, she will win. Yes, she’s no racist.
But the battle should be fought. Just not over this issue.

SaveOurRepublic

May 27th, 2009
3:30 pm

First of all, the term “racist” is an overly used, grossly misapplied buzzword (usually) via the “Left” to force acquiescence to the cultural Marxist agenda. The problem with the Sotomayer comments is that if a White judge had made similar comments, he/she would be demonized by the “Left” & the (controlled) “mainstream” media. It’s the double-standard that’s the real issue. However, the larger concern is that Sotomayer will be an oligarch who attempts to legislate from the bench (thereby usurping Constitution checks & balances/separation of power).

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 27th, 2009
3:30 pm

Why, when Larry Summers was Harvard president, his claim that the distribution of innate aptitude might partly explain the ratio of men and women in science careers provoked such a furor that he was forced to backtrack, grovel and eventually resign (although as director of the White House’s National Economic Council, he certainly landed on his feet).

Aahhh, yes, we forgot that, didn’t we?

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
3:31 pm

And as far as handicapping those Republicans who will LIKELY end up voting for Sotomayor:

But as far as handicapping her confirmation chances, Congressional Quarterly points out that eight Republicans still in the Senate supported Sotomayor for the appeals court: Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine.

Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Republican at the time, also voted for her. He recently switched parties and became a Democrat.

So it will most likely be Spector, Snowe and Collins who put Sotomayor over the top. Again.

S GA dem

May 27th, 2009
3:33 pm

Most of the radical right already have signs on their chest, Mrs G – they say “walmart” w/ their names underneath.

TnGelding

May 27th, 2009
3:33 pm

I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(

May 27th, 2009
3:30 pm

No, it’s irrelevant, and people say dumb things.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
3:34 pm

The south here is most decidedly unqualified to define racism in any way, shape, or form.

As is the southern the of the words “marxist agenda” Its a term that has not only lost its sting, its almost a badge of recommendation to 70 percent of the electorate. They perceive the innate lie of those who toss it around.

ty webb

May 27th, 2009
3:34 pm

Sorry guys, context aside, a republican who makes that statement but switches “latina woman” with “white male” would be branded a racist. I’m sure Jay would be rushing to their defense as well, but let’s please try to use the same standards.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 27th, 2009
3:35 pm

Activist Judges……so who really are the most “activist”

Would anybody guess Clarence Thomas?

This New York Times op-ed by Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder suggests an actual measure for what makes an “activist” judge:

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more “liberal” – Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens – vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled “conservative” vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

Bush has repeatedly praised Scalia and Thomas as model judges; one can infer, from that, that what Bush and the conservatives are really looking for are judges that “legislate from the bench”, overturning laws and overriding the will of Congress. Right?

As the editorial suggests, the entire Republican notion of “activist judges” is imprecise at best. To that I’d add silly, intellectually lazy, and more than infrequently completely dishonest. The religious right wants desperately to appoint “activist judges” who reshape laws according to religious conservative preferences. They just don’t want anyone else to point that out.

So let’s toss that Republican talking point down the nearest storm drain. Or start using it against them.

From The great orange satan

Original NYT link here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?_r=1

(Also, y’all saw where Bush praised Justice Thomas as having “great empathy”)

Dennis

May 27th, 2009
3:36 pm

Arrest them! Who is them? Maybe all bloggers here who are irrational? Those may out number the rational, but:

There is as much or more rational discussion on this blog from Conservatives as comes from Progressives.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
3:36 pm

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr,

“First, no one on this blog has been accused, and wrongly, I might add, of being racist than I.”

“Chocolate Blunder’s”

Gee, using language like that I can tell you’ve been wronged. Did you refer to Bush as the Creamy Success?

Normal

May 27th, 2009
3:38 pm

Whose REPUBLIC ARE YOU TRYING TO SAVE? The double standard here is that
you don’t understand the Supreme Court. It is the FINAL process of
Check and Balance, so their interpretation of a law, becomes that law, period. She will be one of nine, so I don’t think we will be
in much danger of her attempts to overthrow our country. Take a Civics
class.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
3:41 pm

N.J,

“So it will most likely be Spector, Snowe and Collins who put Sotomayor over the top. Again.”

Snowe was on NPR saying she had not made up her mind. Yes, she had voted for her before, but she wanted to review her rulings since. But, you are probably right.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 27th, 2009
3:42 pm

I referred to President Bush as a true American hero and one who stood among our greatest Presidents.

Choclate Blunder is funny not racist; it is a pun on a 1980s basketball player, Darryl Dawkins, who, in professing his prowess, used to refer to himself with the third person sobriquet “Chocolate Thunder.” President Obama, though his self congratulatory nation and doe-eyed appreciation of that which he has done, is euql part close to ripping his own arm out from patting himself on the back and referring to himself in a Dawkins-esque third person fasioh – hence the knickname, “Chocolate Blunder.” Nothing racist about that, is there?

Yankee

May 27th, 2009
3:43 pm

I know it must be killing you CONFEDERATES to now have to pronounce these names OBAMA, and SOTOMAYOR but don’t feel bad even the spellchecker has the same issue. “CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE “

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
3:43 pm

I’m working on a longer and I hope more well-researched piece on this topic

For God’s sake, why?

This is Silly Wingnut Talking Point Star-date 5.27.09; tomorrow it’ll be something equally moronic. Or Moranic, as the case may be.

Besides, I covered this even gooder than you did, yesterday, already. So there!

Joey

May 27th, 2009
3:45 pm

Wow!
The New York Times Op-Ed rating activist Judges.
And basing it on how often they support Congress.
And the results, who would have thought it?

Yankee

May 27th, 2009
3:45 pm

I LOVE this one. The RNC = (RUSH, NEWT, CHENEY)

Kamchak

May 27th, 2009
3:46 pm

Normal

From two floors down–Yeah that was a Lazarus Long quote–from “Time Enough for Love” the first intermission.

Brad Steel

May 27th, 2009
3:46 pm

Whiner,
Yeah, her dodgy academic background coupled with her marginal judicial experience demonstrates her obvious ignorance of the law.

Your just jealous because you went to (or claim) a 2nd rate ivy. Did you get rejected or didn’t bother applying?

S GA dem

May 27th, 2009
3:47 pm

Pres Bush is at least our 43rd or 44th best President. ;)

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
3:47 pm

a republican who makes that statement but switches “latina woman” with “white male” would be branded a racist.

And the “A white guy isn’t allowed to say n—-r but Chris Rock is! wahhhhh!” defense makes a smashing entrance. Well played!

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 27th, 2009
3:47 pm

Could it also be that there have been rumors from, I know the dreaded, unnamed sources, however these clerks who were not disclosed as rep. or dem. but however they also classified her as a racist and sexist. Also there is the whole fireman thing that she was another in a line of judges praciting reverese discrimination.

To get back to the quote, If what Jay says is to be believed and that the quote was to say she hopes and believes that her experience in life would make her a better judge. That is fine and perfect, but then why does she feel the need to say than a white male? Why not a black male, of asian female, possibly even a latino male? It is the choice of words and the type of thing in my humbled opinion would have been taken differently by many if it had been a male to say the exact same thing only substituting that a white male would make better judges than latino women.

If that was her intention to say what Jay proclaims then why interject race into it if she does not feel that there is a reason? Leaving one asking the if she does feel there is a reason what is it, does she feel that either being Latino or being a woman has something that makes them guarenteed to have a better life experience?

Why is it tolerated to for anyone, especially those seeking the highest court in the land to publically say that any race is better suited than any other for a job?

George American

May 27th, 2009
3:48 pm

If a white guy, especially a white republican, wold have made the same statements as Senora Sottomizer, he’d be run out of town.

This is reverse-racism and hypocrity at is finest.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 27th, 2009
3:48 pm

Wow! Joey can’t disprove or debunk.
No surprise there!

Mr. Snarky

May 27th, 2009
3:48 pm

In thinking about the “Wise Latina” statement, I think she’s just saying that she hopes that her experiences and background prepared her to make better decisions than others with different backgrounds. Not controversial at all.

If that’s all the right has, they’re going to lose.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
3:49 pm

Pres Bush is at least our 43rd or 44th best President.

Reminds me–you know who might have the Worst Job in the World?

It’s the guy who’s stuck writing the official Presidential Biographies that appear on the current Whitehouse.gov site. Oh, sure, some of them are cake, but then you get to GWB and you have to think of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows…

SaveOurRepublic

May 27th, 2009
3:49 pm

“Normal” @ 15:58 – I’m trying to save our Constitutional Republic (Mr.Civics guru). It supposed to be SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution (not foreign laws…ala Ginsberg’s allusion to such at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law). The legal relativist view of the Constitution as a “living document” is flawed. SCOTUS was never intended to be a de facto oligarchy.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
3:52 pm

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr,

Again, I just don’t why you’re branded a racist.

“one who stood among our greatest Presidents.”

After a comment like that I would just brand you delusional.

Keep those dreams alive for the GOP. That inclusiveness will have all the young voters swarming in.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
3:52 pm

Aas usually someone who knows nothing of the law speaks of Sotomayors lack of knowledge of the law. All of the Republicans who voted for her to the appeals court spoke of her encyclopedic knowledge of the law.

Also Sotomayor has been rated more highly in her current position than the Bush appointees were by various legal professional organizations.

Of course Sotomayor has years more judicial experience than either Roberts or Alito had at their nominations. Roberts had barely been on the bench at all before Bush nominated him. It was only his policitical conservativism that got him nominated.

Normal

May 27th, 2009
3:53 pm

Kamchak, I thought so, Heinlein was a hellofa writer. “My generation
ate up Stranger In A Strange Land”. Common ground in strange places, huh?

IMBILLY

May 27th, 2009
3:53 pm

Sotomayar and Obama are awesome recruiting tools for the likes of the Aryan Brotherhood.

S GA dem

May 27th, 2009
3:54 pm

Maybe his biographer can just post a picture of him chopping wood at his ‘ranch’ in TX. After all, isn’t that what he did for 8 yrs??

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
3:54 pm

“That is fine and perfect, but then why does she feel the need to say than a white male? Why not a black male, of asian female, possibly even a latino male?”

Why not say purple people-eater? Why not say brown wookie? Why not say orange Fraggle?

Normal

May 27th, 2009
3:57 pm

SaveOurRepublic, I like what you’re thinking, but you still have it
wrong.

Brad Steel

May 27th, 2009
3:58 pm

DB,
Your hypothetical little world is funny. Why don’t you go live there and try to defend your transparent racial slurs?

The adults are running the country now. Please don’t annoy the adults while you make noise and break things.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
3:59 pm

“This is reverse-racism and hypocrity at is finest.”

Doesn’t feel good does it? Prop 8 in Cali was just a Constitutional correction and not a revision. Watch out old white Republican men, you’re out numbered. It could be your rights next.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
4:00 pm

Why don’t you go live there and try to defend your transparent racial slurs?

Ok, I’ll ask–what slurs? Where? Serious question.

George American

May 27th, 2009
4:02 pm

Our rights will not be run over by your wrongs.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
4:02 pm

DB, Gwinnettian,

Oh my…sunshine and roses is right. That link was terrific. Thanks for the giggle.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
4:03 pm

George American,

“Our rights will not be run over by your wrongs.”

Right back at ya big guy.

Joey

May 27th, 2009
4:03 pm

Mrs Godzilla:
I submit that the reliability of data coming from the Times Op-Ed pages is comparable to what comes from the commentary of FoxNews.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
4:03 pm

Or as a recent new broadcast points out:

Sotomayor has worked at every level of the judicial system and has more experience than did any of the current Supreme Court justices when they were appointed. She brings more federal judicial experience than any justice in 100 years. And she has more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed to the court in the past 70 years. This will, without a doubt, enrich the judgments of the court.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104607634

Actually she has more judicial experience that the two Bush choices did put together when they were nominated and has MORE judicial experience than either Alito or Roberts do NOW with their time on the Supreme Court.

None of the Republican nominees actually have ANY lower court level experience at all.

Most idiot conservatives are unaware of the fact that the one time Sotomayor made a pro-choice, pro-life decision she found in favor of the pro-life side:

AUL notes that Judge Sotomayor also upheld the pro-life policy by rejecting claims from a pro-abortion legal group that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Republicans of course are against her position on the baseball strike, because of course, Republican oppose the concept of collective bargaining completely. No worker should have the right to bargain as a group for the conditions of their employment according to conservatives, however employers DO have the right to collectively decide how much they will pay employees as well as how much they will sell their product for.

Joel

May 27th, 2009
4:05 pm

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr: the fact that you claim you aren’t racist doesn’t square with the fact that you also claim the reason you hire one ethnic group over another is because they have “a superior work ethic, stayed away from the bottle better, and didn’t ask to borrow money.”

Choosing individuals of one group over individuals of another based on a race-based prejudgment is practically the definition of racist.

CJ Max

May 27th, 2009
4:05 pm

As joey stated,lets judge Ms Sotomayor based her complete body of work. It should be everyones goal to see that the most qualified person is confirmed.No one should be named purely for political reasons. Right is Right and for all else there’s the left(kidding)

Jay

May 27th, 2009
4:05 pm

The Lucky Floridian ask:

“why does she feel the need to say than a white male? Why not a black male, or asian female, possibly even a latino male? It is the choice of words and the type of thing in my humbled opinion would have been taken differently by many if it had been a male to say the exact same thing only substituting that a white male would make better judges than latino women.”

I would suggest it’s the fact that of the 110 Supreme Court justices we have had to date, 106 have been white males. No Asian females. No Latino males. Just two black males, and two females.

In other words, she compared herself with the standard-issue judge.

ty webb

May 27th, 2009
4:08 pm

DB,
Now now, I’m not defending anyone. Of course using the “N” word is racist. But all to often, Republicans are held to a different standard when race is involved.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 27th, 2009
4:09 pm

Joey

Okee dokee,I accept you have a private and personal opinion of the NYT, but if you can’t prove the stats wrong……you’re just
another member of the peanut gallery.

They stand, you remain seated.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
4:09 pm

S GA dem,

“After all, isn’t that what he did for 8 yrs??”

Nah, just 897 days. That’s only 2.5 years ;)

Kamchak

May 27th, 2009
4:10 pm

Normal

While I enjoyed “Stranger” it did not speak to me like it did my friends. I had become disillusioned by organized religion and wasn’t looking for an “answer” to it. “I Will Fear No Evil” ranked as one of my faves–ironically he was ashamed of the effort, unable to be in the editing process and thought it wordy. But everything written from “Evil” to his death–jaw-dropping.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
4:11 pm

Joey,

And what would your criteria for an “activist” judge be based on?

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
4:12 pm

Not worried about the decision on prop 8 at all with its assertion that is was not a judgement on the merits of gay marriage at all. This simply means that in a few years, another amendment can reverse the very close decision in California. All it would actually take is convinncing a few tens of thousands of voters to change their minds to get a 50 percent plus one person vote.

RW-(the original)

May 27th, 2009
4:13 pm

Jay B,

Not to butt into your snarking at georgian/floridian, but I don’t think she was talking about Supreme Court justices in that 2001 speech, although I haven’t read it all yet.

There was a pretty interesting paragraph right between the last one you excerpted and the next to last one though.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

She started out just a little sexist there but a little further in she let the black men out of the box of people that need to figure out why they’re so deficient in her eyes.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
4:17 pm

And beyond this of those Republicans NO longer in office, Frist, Santorum AND Jesse Helms supported her previous nominations.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
4:19 pm

N.J,

“simply means that in a few years, another amendment can reverse the very close decision in California.”

To me, that is the very scary thing about their ruling. If the majority can take away a civil right from one group of people by choice, what is to prevent the same from happening to another group?

If I were a Californian, I would be worried about this ruling regardless of my sexual orientation.

@@

May 27th, 2009
4:23 pm

I don’t know, jay, Sotomayor may be a racist of the worst kind if she engages in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al.

booger

May 27th, 2009
4:24 pm

I do not believe that she should withdraw or fail to be confirmed over this, but I know for sure had a white male said anything remotely like this he would be dead meat. There is a double standard.

You point out this was a couple of lines in a much longer speech. I would point out that Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond at a going away party and lost his job over it. It was not a speech, simply a pleasant thing to say to an old man retiring.

There is a double standard.

GayGrayGeek

May 27th, 2009
4:24 pm

Mrs G @ 4:09 – SOP for the followers of the G.NO!.P., isn’t it? Attack the messenger, ignore the message?

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
4:25 pm

No what is MOST in favor of gays in this case is that the court ruled that proposition 8 did NOT change the California constitution, but amended it. Leaving this for future change, OR subjecting it to a higher court for review. If the constitution had changed, there would be no hope of a federal appeal, but a state amendment can be found to violate not just the federal constitution BUT the states own constitution as well.

These justices made a political move, because of their being elected, but the fact is that nothing prevents this amendment being overruled by a higher court because of the nature of the ruling.

Now its merely up to the gays to get these judges out of office. They were afraid of the Republicans electing them out of office, but did not consider that the reverse was also possible. California is poised to toss out its Republican governor as well as other Republican elected officials.

retiredds

May 27th, 2009
4:25 pm

The stupidity of Rush and Newt doesn’t surprise me in the least. They are $$$$$$ hungry for headlines, and their loyal base sucks it up so they can get paid their millions. Let’s face it ANYONE Obama would nominate would not be supported by the Republican minority. So as one wise person once said, “consider the source”. In this case the ignorant, but greed-savy, R & N score a victory for their bank accounts. It is most enjoyable seeing the pseudo-conservative base in such a twitter. I do hope they continue to have trouble sleeping at night (probably for at least the next 8 years).

getalife

May 27th, 2009
4:26 pm

cons have to out crazy each other to get attention from their kooky base and the corporate media..

dick trumps them all by criticizing economic policy after not seeing the melt down coming.

cons are very gullible and not that bright.

S GA dem

May 27th, 2009
4:28 pm

Did anyone notice what Eagleburger had to say about Cheney? Wonder how Rush will spin that one.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
4:28 pm

And the court ruling does just that. It sets the stage for eliminating or changing the conditions of voter referenda in California. Your fears here are the greatest hope because the U.S. constitution does just that. It FORBIDS rights to be removed by a majority from a minority.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
4:30 pm

booger,

I’m sure Lott’s opposition to the renewal of the Voting Right Act, continuation of the Civil Rights Act and creating the Martin Luther King Holiday did not quite help his image of not being a rascist. Strom Thurmond had a better record on those than Lott did.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
4:33 pm

None of the Republican nominees actually have ANY lower court level experience at all.

I haven’t gone back and verified this, but something I heard yesterday was that NONE of the seated SCOTUS justices have any experience as a trial court judge.

How is that even possible? I could see a couple slipping by, but none? That’s kind of ridiculous, isn’t it? Or am I expecting too much of SCOTUS justices, that they should have done time doing such lowly things as hearing ordinary court cases at some point in their lofty careers?

Mrs. Godzilla

May 27th, 2009
4:35 pm

@@

or she may have a full and complete understanding of Title VII….

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
4:35 pm

The same justices who ruled that the marriage laws in California just ruled something that can easily be seen as being unconstitutional at the federal level. They said that they did not question the issue of the rights of gays to marry, but the California constitution that allows the public to hold refernda. However this sets up the legal catch 22…was the California referendum USED in a way that referenda are not intended to nor is legal to use in this way.

They have paved a very smooth path for gays to take this to the federal courts to rule an unconstitutional misuse of the referenda process, because the California constitution itself was not changed, and the referenda constituted a violation of another section of the body of the California constitution which prohibits any sort of discrimination of any kind. California would have to rewrite their own constitution to REMOVE the anti-discrimination clause, which would then subject it to federal approval.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 27th, 2009
4:36 pm

Joel 4:05 pm

Where the mush-minded world view of the liberal admits it or not, sterotypes are often rooted in realities.

In this instance, we had black people in our service for well over two hundred years. In recent years, really since the 1970s, we noticed that the black men suffered from alcohol depletion all too often and needed a cash advance every week due to poor money management skills among those individuals. When we hired our first Salvadoran, we found greatly increased productivity and no days hungover or requests for cash advances. We hired that Salvadoran boy’s friends and family when jobs became available and each person we have hired has outperformed each of the colored that used to work for us. Hence, we look first to the Salvadoran community when we have openings. Its sorted like folks who owned Chrysler, but now reflexively buy Totoya.

Understanding the sterotype of these peoples has been very helpful to us. Never did I say all the colored were poor workers, dunks and deadbeats as applying the sterotype to every individual of a race would be prejudiced. But, based on our experience the Salvadorans are far superior to the colored and there is nothing racist about that.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
4:39 pm

he he he…does anyone know what the Reagan cabinet member called Cheney and most of the Bush cabinet years ago…”The Crazies”

At almost every Reagan cabinet meeting, Reagan and the cabinet members use to wonderingly joke about “What the crazies were up to this week” refering to Cheney and the other guys Bush took on board.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
4:40 pm

N.J,

I definitely see your point. Actually, I think the legal challenges in court now against DOMA will ultimately lead to its reversal. It’s fun, though, to point out to those who support Prop 8, that they just opened the door for their own rights to be put in jeopardy.

joke

May 27th, 2009
4:43 pm

That the statement-at-issue was a joke is obvious… it was followed shortly by:
“I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.”

Doesn’t sound like a “latina woman racist to me.” Not that anyone cares.

N.J,

May 27th, 2009
4:43 pm

One of the unnoted reasons for the current collapse of our economy is directly related to attempting to keep “illegals” out of the United States. It has put a serious dent into the amount of agricultural produce available for export which is causing even more of a trade deficit with the rest of the world. In places like Colorado, crops were left rotting, unpicked, in the ground and many agricultural businesses went under.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
4:43 pm

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
May 27th, 2009
4:36 pm

WOW!

RealityKing

May 27th, 2009
4:43 pm

In picking Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit. Sotomayor may exemplify the American Dream, but she would not have even been on the short list if she were not Hispanic.

getalife

May 27th, 2009
4:45 pm

Yes.

He called dick benighted.

Nice word and description.

RealityKing

May 27th, 2009
4:46 pm

And if Democrats insist on playing identity politics, What was wrong with Miguel Estrada? You know, the Honduran immigrant with his own rags-to-riches story whose nomination to the D.C. Circuit Democrats successfully filibustered preventing George W. Bush from naming the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice??

thought

May 27th, 2009
4:46 pm

“Sotomayor may exemplify the American Dream, but she would not have even been on the short list if she were not Hispanic.” That’s silly. She’s more qualified than any sitting justice was when appointed.

RW-(the original)

May 27th, 2009
4:47 pm

DB,

Having declared the thread sufficiently dead I laid out the whole campaign finance thing downstairs. As of now it hasn’t posted and around here there’s no telling if it ever will. I’m going to have to learn to quit typing in the freaking comment box around here.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
4:47 pm

Ty @ 4.08, two things:

1) to be honest, I wasn’t really aware of who I was quoting in my original bit o’ snark @ 3.47. In retrospect that was a tad harsh given that you’re usually pretty level headed. my bad.

2) However, I wasn’t making a point about how white guys should or shouldn’t be able to use the “n-word” (in theory anyone should be able to, so long as the history of the term is given due respect, yadda yadda). Rather, I was trying to (crudely?) assert that prejudice/bigotry by a minority against a majority culture, while deplorable, isn’t equivalent to the reverse. (morally equivalent? maybe. but not practically so.)

If that makes sense, and it probably doesn’t, but time is short…

RealityKing

May 27th, 2009
4:48 pm

But of course, it is Sotomayor herself that has already shown that she is willing to dictate policy based on sex and race. Not to mention her extremely high rate of decisions being reversed.

RealityKing

May 27th, 2009
4:49 pm

Not that she’s a “racists” or anything like that…

N. J, is a Nitwit

May 27th, 2009
4:50 pm

The current collapse of our econcomy is directly related to illegals not being available to pick crops before they rotted in Colorado?!!?? You sir, are a moron.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
4:51 pm

RW, I just checked, I guess it mighta gotten eated, all right.

I’ve tried to get into the habit of selecting everything and then ctrl-c’ing the sucker prior to posting if I care about losing it. Only workaround I can suggest really.

Until I see RW’s Unified Theory of Getting Campaign Finance Unstuck in Time, I’ll just have to imagine it.