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?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
330 comments Add your comment
mike
May 27th, 2009
8:32 pm
getalife –
Oh please. You accuse the Bush admin of intentionally wanting to exterminate the Iraqi nation and you have the audacity to be upset over the accusation of racism? Spare us the hypocrisy.
ty webb
May 27th, 2009
8:33 pm
huh?
mike
May 27th, 2009
8:34 pm
Kamchack –
“If you don’t think “uppity” is racist, you either ain’t from ’round here, or you’re standing in an Egyptian river.”
Thanks for proving my point. You guys call people racist all the time, yet get outraged when someone else does it.
If think accusing someone of racism is bad, don’t do it. Otherwise you look like a hypocrite.
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 27th, 2009
8:35 pm
A. Test was used to determine candidacy for advancement
B. No blacks pass the test
C. toss test because, as a government beurocrat (see also ; USELESS LEECH), you would rather have 10 black candidates intead of..1 QUALIFIED candidate
Yes, Judge Sotowhatever , you do have a good point there
danjonglee
May 27th, 2009
8:38 pm
The Repugs need to rollover and confirm just like Pres. Obama did when he was in the Senate for Alito and Roberts….uh…(he voted against)
getalife
May 27th, 2009
8:40 pm
Stop humping my leg mike.
mike
May 27th, 2009
8:41 pm
getalife –
Stop being a hypocrite.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
8:41 pm
Obama also supported a filibuster against Alito and I think the biggest phony charge against Alito was that he was supposed to be a RACIST because of what somebody he went to school with said.
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
8:45 pm
Enter your comments here
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
8:48 pm
hypocrite…blah blah blah hyper-partisan…blah blah blah intolerant…blah blah blah ad-hominem attack…blah blah blah…
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
8:48 pm
The stock market is watching the bond market, wary a spike in interest rates will derail a fragile economic recovery and snuff the market’s rally.
A selling spree in Treasurys pushed interest rates higher, taking the yield curve to its steepest on record as spreads between the 2-year and 10-year widened by over a dozen basis points on Wednesday alone.
Aahhh, yes, Obozo ushering in malaise, Part Duex.
Mission accomplished!
Tamye Bobyie Huntyr
May 27th, 2009
8:50 pm
Now that little Vandy Legacy Gal has a point. I just wish she would continue using her fine white girl manners that she was raised up on. Too bad her darkie nanny taught her those bad words that got her banned from this blog. I know her ancient and distinguished family of Vandy alums would never have uttered those obscene words, had to of been the darkie influence.I knowed I heard a few of those unmentionables said when I visited the darkie ladies in the evening. I will mention again that I had them wash off real well before our relations.
Blake
May 27th, 2009
8:53 pm
There are a lot of people trying to “put her remarks in context” by changing what she said.
For example, this article says: “In other words, Sotomayor hopes that her life experiences would make her a better judge than someone without those experiences.”
That is not what she said — although I could be persuaded by her that she misspoke if she states that in her testimony.
She claims that her experiences were more substantive, more rich, more full than the experiences of white males, and that makes her a “better” judge than white males. That is what the phrase “better than” means.
She will have to testify that she misspoke.
mike
May 27th, 2009
8:54 pm
Kamchak –
Yeah, that’s become your standard response when you have nothing to say.
You yourself just accused Westmoreland of racism, so why are you complaining about others saying “intolerant”? Because you are a hypocrite. It’s OK when you do it, but then you complain when others do it. Simple as that.
Care to give me your definition of ad-hominem attack? I still don’t think you know what it means, even after your admitted trip to the dictionary last time I asked you.
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
9:00 pm
Well Tammye, you sure know your racism. Bigotry is ugly no matter what the color. Useless leach and the spelling of bureaucrat is the only part of Vandy girl’s commentary that I disagree. In the words of our former great President, “Why Not The Best”. Rewarding the best should always be colorblind.
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 27th, 2009
9:09 pm
I did misspell bureaucrat..I am sometimes hooked on phonics(shouldn’t that be spelled fonix? If not, it seems to be a scam)
..and you misspelled leech
godless heathen
May 27th, 2009
9:10 pm
We just know that men are better at this stuff than women. They get all emotional and all. Aren’t rational like men. And especially those Latino women. Boy are they ever hot-headed.
Tamye Bobyie Huntyr
May 27th, 2009
9:15 pm
Them South American girls are more than just hot in the head if you know what I mean.
AmVet
May 27th, 2009
9:24 pm
Did I see the word uppity? As in Uppity One?
Crazy. If not for a geographical twist of fate, Lynn Westmoreland would be my US Congressman.
Even though that numbskull feigns ignorance, who in their right mind hasn’t seen “Blazing Saddles”?
Unforgivable.
Only in Georgia…
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
9:31 pm
Yeah Vandy, I was thinking of the verb, to draw out. A better use was you using it as a noun, THE leech. I was hooked on phonics but a twelve step program saved me.
ga native democrat
May 27th, 2009
9:41 pm
amvet, as a georgia native, i can tell you uppity was used to describe a snobby female regardless of race.
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
9:54 pm
ga native democrat, as a Georgia native I can tell you uppity was used to describe MORE than a snobby female regardless of race.
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
10:00 pm
My favorite response for the pejorative term made up by Republicans “Activist Judge was the following”
Not surprisingly, politicians debate the very definition of the term. According to judicial analyst and former superior court judge Andrew Napolitano, “There is no such thing as an activist judge. An activist judge is one whose ruling you disagree with. And if you agree with what the judge has done, you call them heroic and honest.”
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/activist-judges.html
You see, Republicans assert that only LIBERAL judges can be activist, however it is fairly obvious to those who have examined the decisions of the conservatives on the court, that they are extremely activist, massively going beyond the literal wording of the constitution when it comes to conservative issues.
A clear example is the conservative judicial opposition to Roe v. Wade. There was NO more clear “non activist” decision ever made by the U.S. Supreme Court, because it examined all law thoughout ALL of American History and found absoltely NO legal precedent or anything in the Constitution by which ANY constructionist opinion could be given by which abortion should be illegal, or even that it has ever been or could ever be considered a crime and the justices looked at ALL American law, all constitutional law, all common law, and all canon law to find ANY example by which abortion could or should be legislated at all, and yet the conservative judges have to rely on a mass of speculative personal and religious opinion to get to their stance that Roe v Wade was improperly decided. The Constitution is SILENT on the issue of abortion as it is on the nature of what constitutes a legal person when it comes to constitutional rights.
The only facts that the courts could assert is that all throughout history, before viablity or quickening, abortion was NEVER disallowed through all of recorded legal history and even after quickening or viability abortion was never considered a criminal event. EVER.
Yet these Conservative Activist judges assert that the unborn are entitled to rights at the moment of conception which is not even a constant position taken by many religions, merely some Christian denominations. That is to say, the position of Conservative justices is completely and entirely gotten to by a totally activist position.
The same thing goes for gay marriage. You CANNOT get to a position by which gay marriage can be made illegal from a strict constructionist, non activist view of the Constitution. The Constitution is MUTE on the issue of marriage. Completely. Even when it leaves the decisions on marriage rules to the states, you still cannot get to a constitutionally based position denying it through a strict constructionist, non activist position from the constitution. The Constitutions does not say that all citizens are entitled to exactly the same rights EXCEPT in the case of marriage without bringing in both personal interpretations as well as a lot of arguments that are TOTALLY external to the constitution. This is another case of judicial activism
To be COMPLETELY constructionist on the issue of gay marriage, since the Constitution does not mention it at all, but simply says that everyone is entitled to EQUAL treatment under the law, the only strictly constructionist, non activist position you can arrive at is that since everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law, that gays have the same rights under all laws as non gays. You cannot arrive at a position which denies gays the right to marriage without creating external definitions such as “the traditional marriage” and the “traditional family” and then apply a politically partisan slant to that definition.
So the conservative slant on gay marriage is a TOTALLY activist position in that it must extrapolate something from the constitution that is not even mentioned IN the Constitution.
All you can do is assert that when the states create laws on marriage, they must adhere the constitutionally required “Equal Rights Under the Law” statements that exist IN the Constitution. To get to the position of “definining marriage as between a man and a woman” is a totally activist judicial and legislative position because it takes a massive leap to go from “Equal Rights Under the Law” to “Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman” You cannot find anything within the constitution to reach that position so you have to “actively” go outside of it to get to your position.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
10:04 pm
Tamye Bobyie Huntyr
May 27th, 2009
9:15 pm
Enough, already!
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
10:08 pm
I Report
/ You Whine 
May 27th, 2009
8:48 pm
Why can’t you wealthy, patriotic folks invest in U.S. Treasuries instead of tax-free munies? Then we wouldn’t have to be indebted to China.
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
10:17 pm
COnservative almost always say that, yet Jimmy Carter has the record for the highest job creation of all presidents since the end of World War II in an economy that rather mirrors this current statement about the bond markets and the stock market. Fact is that the BEST thing that any President can do is completely decouple the main street economy from Wall Street, which was what occured between 1950 and 1979. The Stock and Bond Markets had ZERO effect on the national economy AND the growth of GDP stayed constantly around 3.9 percent per year regardless of what the markets were doing. The markets could have almost NO effect on the overall economy. The Keynesian idea that it is the private markets that are the causes of all business cycle instabilities has been proven over and over again to be correct.
If Obama plays this the way Keynes did, you can have a totally screwed up stock and bond market and a totally booming economy. In fact, that is the best way to do it. Let the rich speculate all they want, but protect actual businesses from being damaged by their personal Las Vegas on the Hudson up there on Wall Street.
Investment and capital play almost no part in national productivity. Labor creates ALL profit in the real economy. Capital is basically a passive element in any real world economic system. A block of marble does not magically reassemble itself into Michaelangelo’s David. Michaelangelo has to perform some form of labor on that block of marble to increase its value. Otherwise it it still a block of marble, pretty much worth what it was when it was purchased.
Same thing goes with cars, or anything sold on main street. All the steel plastic and other raw materials that go into making a`car do not gain a red cent in value until someone works to turn it into a car. That is where the added value to the capital and raw materials is created. Without it, there is no profit of any kind.
ga native democrat
May 27th, 2009
10:18 pm
well, i guess, you hung with the wrong crowd kam.
sorry.
David
May 27th, 2009
10:20 pm
Gingrich and Limbaugh’s comments smack of such sheer desperation that it leads them to say stunningly stupid things.
RDL
May 27th, 2009
10:24 pm
Jay, a simple question, which may have already been asked of you earlier, and if so, I apologize. If a white man had said, “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.” irrespective of the context, would you have reached the conclusion that the speaker was a racist? Quite frankly, given the liberal crap you espouse, I expect that is exactly the position you would have taken. Basically I have no problem with Obama’s nominee, and in fact, to carry it a step further, I voted for Obama. But I truly hate hypocrites, and you clearly are one.
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
10:25 pm
If by “wrong crowd” you mean family–well, yeah. “Hung”, though, implies a choice
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
10:25 pm
Lets put it this way. The primary cause of autism is a brain that has an excessive amount of testosterone. A brain totally bathed in estrogen becomes paranoid schizophrenic:
Exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb is related to the development of autistic traits. This is the conclusion of groundbreaking research published in the British Journal of Psychology on 12th January 2009, which found that levels of testosterone in amniotic fluid were linked to children’s autistic traits up to ten years later.
Psychologists Dr Bonnie Auyeung, Professor Simon Baron-Cohen and their team at the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge measured the levels of foetal testosterone in the amniotic fluid of 235 women who underwent amniocentesis during pregnancy. Years later these mothers completed questionnaires that measured their children’s autistic traits. By this time, the 118 boys and 117 girls were aged between 6 and 10.
High levels of foetal testosterone were found to be associated with high scores on two separate measures of autistic traits (the Child Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ-Child) and the Childhood Autistic Spectrum Test (CAST)) for both boys and girls. High scores on these measures of autistic traits reflected poorer social skills, imagination and mind reading but good attention to, and memory for detail.
The team followed the children from before birth during the unique longitudinal project, which was funded by the Medical Research Council (UK) and the Boston-based Nancy Lurie Marks Family Foundation.
This research goes further than previous studies which have found that higher levels of foetal testosterone are associated with less eye contact at children’s first birthday, slower language development at their second birthday, more peer difficulties at their fourth birthday, and more difficulties with empathy at their sixth birthday. What is novel in this new study is that as it also links higher foetal testosterone to autistic traits such as excellent attention to detail, and a love of repetition, as well as social and communication difficulties.
Professor Baron-Cohen said: “The study highlights for the first time the association between foetal testosterone and autistic traits, and indicates that foetal testosterone not only masculinises the body, it masculinises the mind and therefore the brain.
“We all have some autistic traits – these are a spectrum or a dimension of individual differences, like height. It is important to note that this research does not demonstrate that elevated foetal testosterone is associated with a clinical diagnosis of autism or Asperger Syndrome; to do that would need a sample size of thousands, not hundreds. Our ongoing collaboration with the Biobank in Denmark will enable us to test that link in the future.
Dr Auyeung added: “Since the male foetus produces on average twice as much testosterone as the female foetus, the present research may be relevant to the theory that autistic spectrum conditions autism is reflect an ‘extreme male brain’ – that autism is an extreme manifestation in terms of the structure and function of the male brain. This theory may also explain the higher incidence of these conditions in boys than in girls.”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/135237.php
Actually the totally male brain and rational behavior are rather mutually exclusive. The totally male brain is rather irrationally and violently emotional.
Strangely enough the excesive foetal estrogen only produced paranoid schizophenia in males. Females seem to be not only immune to estrogen moderated paranoid schizophrenia but protected from it by estrogen.
They find rather high amounts of prolactin and estradiol in serum levels in untreated male paranoid schizophrenics.
Jay
May 27th, 2009
10:30 pm
RDL, I’d say the words “irrespective of the context” are key, because context is everything in this kind of issue.
In this context, 106 of the previous 110 U.S. Supreme Court Justices have been white men, and none of those 110 have been Hispanic. Sotomayor was comparing herself to the standard expectation, the standard model.
georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky
May 27th, 2009
10:31 pm
Jay I am honored that you would respond to my earlier post. I am regretful that I was away so long and unable to see it and respond in a timely manor.
However, before we begin to discuss your response.
Would you care to tell me how you KNOW she was talking about Supreme COurt Justice? Are you in her inner circle, cause the speech was a lil while ago and at the time she gave no indication that she was refering to them. She was speaking in general terms, and NEVER said anything to the contrary. So unless you can show me where you are in her inner group, then you are spouting BS.
It has been a tough time for you I guess, but it appears that you only care about equality if it involves those other than white guys. I am sorry you feel this type of guilt, but I find it hypocritcal.
Kinda how you feel that a 13 yr old boy should not be allowed to do with his body as he pleases but you think a girl of the same age should. TISK TISK sexist too?
Come on Jay keep picking on Andy cause this ain’t a debate you would really like.
Saw how you avoided the other part f my post about how this was not her first scrap with racism.
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
10:34 pm
And obvious truth stated by Sotomayor. At best, these white males can only IMAGINE and therefore speculate on how their interpretation of the law will actually effect the lives of real people in the real world. To them it is merely an intellectual excercise, like sending young men to die in war is an intellectual excercise for presidents who have never seen military service or combat. Which is why most generals who have seen war are rather reluctant to use it as a first choice, while those who have been career administrators at the Pentagon, buying meat and vegetable for the troops, are rather more inclined to use it as a first choice. There are TONS of generals who got to their position because they graduated in the top ten percent of their accounting classes, and rather fewer who earned it as a field commission.
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
10:37 pm
This strikes very hard at the heart of the current judially activist position taken by male judges with regard to abortion. They now state they are “protecting” women from making a decision that they might later regret. Again this is the height of “judicial activism” They are making a massive leap beyond anything that can even remotely be found in the constitution or constitutional law.
RDL
May 27th, 2009
10:37 pm
So Jay, is it your position that if a white man had made the comment I suggested, irrespective of the context, you can say that you absolutely wouldn’t have concluded that the author was a racist? Can you think of any context where you wouldn’t have concluded that he was a racist?
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
10:41 pm
Actually if a white man made it in the context that Sotomayor made it, the white man would be an arrogant, paternalistic idiot, not a racist.
Sotomayor was discussing legislation which would more totally effect women and minorities than white males, and suggested that someone who was a woman and a minority would have more experience at the things that effect a woman and a minority than a white male would. A more than obvious truth. At best, a white male can only GUESS at it, and historically, more often than not, those guesses have favored white males more than women or minorities. In the case of the males who have been on the court in this country, with regard to woman and minorities, justice has not only been blind, its been deaf and dumb.
Jay
May 27th, 2009
10:44 pm
Given how she said that — “I would hope that …. ” — I would not think a white man a racist for using the identical construction. I would think it kind of strange and would want to know more about the context, but that statement alone, phrased identically, would not be proof of racism.
I also think it’s important to note that it was one sentence in a rather extensive speech that makes her intent quite clear. Have you read that speech, RDL? In context, do YOU think it was racist?
Bud Wiser
May 27th, 2009
10:45 pm
“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.”
Substitute ‘white male’ for “Latina woman”, and put “Latina woman” in place of ‘white male’ later and what do you have?
Racist.
Case closed.
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
10:47 pm
Absolutely Jay. You cannot remove that statement from the context in which it was stated. Sotomayor was discussing legal decisions made regarding women and minorities and it asserted that those who experience being both a woman and a minority have a much more direct and totally non speculative awareness of the situation. What she stated could only be construed as racist by a racist.
Now the other statement, if the context was considering the status and condition of white males, and the term white male was inserted into this, it also would not be racist. It would be obvious. White males have a more direct awareness about how laws that effect white males alone effect them. Thats is a self obvious statement, just as Sotomayors statement was self obvious. A Latino Woman is much more aware of how laws that effect Latino women more than white males when they are laws that are written directly to effect Latinos woman rather than white males.
Bud Wiser
May 27th, 2009
10:52 pm
Lady Chadderly opines: “Actually if a white man made it in the context that Sotomayor made it, the white man would be an arrogant, paternalistic idiot, not a racist.”
So to carry the logic progressively, since Sodacracker said it, then Chad says she is a racist as well.
Libs calling libs racist.
You gotta love that.
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
11:05 pm
Lets look at ALL of Sotomeyers statement IN Context:
The larger context of the sentence is Sotomayor addressing former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s famous quote that “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”
“I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement,” Sotomayor says. “First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.”
“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,” she said. “Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. 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.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/sotomayors-cont.html
Its the exact OPPOSITE of racist. It makes an assertion opposing one made by Sandra Day O’Connor which asserted that men and female justices can ALWAYS come to the same judicial conclusions. Sotamayor states that she disagrees and that while sometimes there are people who are NOT part of a particular group that can come to a just decision regarding that group, history proves that there are cases in which they do not.
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
11:05 pm
I think that since white males almost exclusively fought in the Confederate Army, white males are inherently better qualified than minorities to decide whether or not the Confederate Battle flag should return to the Georgia State flag. I propose that a non-binding referendum for white males only be on the ballot during the next gubernatorial election. Jay I expect your support.
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
11:11 pm
In this case, Sotomayor points out cases in which white males did not make just decisions with regard to woman or minorities and then goes on to cite cases in which white males DID make just decisions with regard to women and minorities.
O Connor asserted that wise old woman and wise old men will always reach the same judicial conclusions, which is obviously FALSE when you look at the real world, and then she went on to show how sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. But she ends up stating that it is COMPLETELY possible for someone who is not a “wise latina woman” to come up with a just decision for women and minorities.
As with everything, Republicans pull a single line out of context, and then use it to assert the complete opposite of what was actually stated.
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
11:12 pm
I will remember that as I am designing my next product for market. Confederate Flag Charmin.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
11:14 pm
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
10:25 pm
Huh? You’re something else. Get some rest.
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
11:15 pm
Unless White males fought EXCLUSIVELY during the Civil War( what you have given up the southern “War of Northern Aggression”?) such a non minding referendum would still be ridiculous. Without the slaves working their plantation, their economy would be completely unable to sustain their war to begin with, and a good enough number of blacks were used in the military and for military pursposes as well as to allow them a part of the same referendum.
getalife
May 27th, 2009
11:15 pm
They are scared Jay.
All that diversity at the press conference freaked them out.
First AA President, first Latino woman SC justice and then joe blow.
White powder!
moonbat betty
May 27th, 2009
11:16 pm
more data nj! more data!
N.J.
May 27th, 2009
11:17 pm
Not really. Males are not particularly rational without the moderating effects of estrogen on the brain. This is pretty much a medical and scientifically accepted truth.
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
11:23 pm
NJ, Confederate Flag Charmin has already been done back in the seventies. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I sure wish I had come up with the Confederate Flag bikini. The royalties from the redneck chicks would have guaranteed me a house with a view of the carving on Stone Mountain.
Cuz
May 27th, 2009
11:29 pm
First African American President. Forty-fourth Caucasian President. Does anyone really care anymore. Where is Caucasia, I want to visit the homeland.
dbm
May 27th, 2009
11:34 pm
The proper definition of “activist judging” is reading the Constitution or the law as saying what the judge wants it to say, rather than what it does say. Anyone who wants to address the issue of activist judging seriously should do the work of applying this definition, not cop out with a definition that is easier to apply.
So far on this thread NJ at 10 PM seems to be the only person using this definition. NJ deserves credit for this, although the remarks on abortion need more work. (If the Constitution is silent on abortion, why can’t the states legislate however they see fit? NJ needs to address the issue of whether the Constitution actually does imply a right to privacy as used in Roe v. Wade.)
ElreyJones
May 27th, 2009
11:40 pm
The whole Obama Bin Biden regime are liars, thiefs, and racists. They are liars because they say one thing and do another. They are thiefs for stealing money they don’t have and buying votes. They are racist for Obama and his ties to racist black clergymen and to the Bolshevik anti-Americans who are numerous in his staff.
Cuz
May 28th, 2009
12:02 am
NJ are you saying in your 10:41 post that if a white man had said what Judge Sotomaytor said he would be Lester Maddox? And I thought he was a racist. Lester Maddox, arrogant, paternalistic idiot, not a racist. Judge Sotomayor, arrogant, maternalistic idiot, not a racist. I am convinced, put her on the court. We need more idiots, not racists, on the Supreme Court. Jay, I am sure you will agree.
TnGelding
May 28th, 2009
12:03 am
ElreyJones
May 27th, 2009
11:40 pm
Don’t you just love it? Only in America.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
12:23 am
NO, in full context Sotomayor states that wise white males are just as capable of arriving at just decisions as a “wise latina woman” She simply refutes Justice O Connors assertion that they ALWAYS do.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
12:30 am
Oh yes, its absolutely true. The United States is finally seeing huge amounts of its own agriculture being outsourced by farmers who are SICK of the Republican illigal alien position. They are LEASING land in Mexico and taking their farming operations OVER the border, while in other states like Oregon, Colorado, Arizona tens of thousands of acres of fruit and vegetables are rotting on the ground and vines.
When was the last time YOU saw a Georgia peach in Publix?
Or much American fruits or vegetables at all. Reason, so much is rotting on the ground, unpicked, that the only way the farmers can make money is to hike the prices of what they are ABLE to pick, pack, and ship.
These are the FACTS for 2008:
Today across the United States, there are not enough agricultural workers to do the pruning, picking, packing, and harvesting of our country’s crops. With an inadequate supply of workers, farmers from Maine to California, from Washington State to Georgia, have watched their produce rot in fields, and have been forced to fallow close to half a million acres of land, and billions of dollars are being drained out of our economy as a result.
Farmers are downsizing their operations. Many are buying or leasing land in Mexico. Others are going out of business. Quite clearly, the labor situation facing the American farmer is an emergency.
So some ask: Why don’t American farmers hire Americans to do their work? The unemployment rate is high. People are looking for jobs. So why don’t they hire Americans?
The fact is, they have tried and tried and tried. But there are very few Americans who are willing to take the job in a hot field, doing backbreaking labor, in temperatures that often exceed 100 degrees. That is a fact.
The other fact is that immigrant workers are the backbone of America’s agricultural industry–a huge industry and a proud industry, which is now dying due to the lack of steady labor supply.
Farmers are departing the country in order to stay in business, leaving devastated farm communities behind. In California, in the Great Central Valley, farmers who once tended “America’s breadbasket” are now standing in bread lines, with unemployment rates in their communities that are as high as 45 percent. Topsoil from fallowed land turning into dust now blows up in sandstorms and has caused periodic shutdowns of Interstate 5, the State’s main north-south freeway.
As a result of Congress’s inaction, between 2007 and 2008–1 year–1.56 million acres of farmland, once rich with crops, are now dormant. That is 1.5 million acres dormant in a year. In California alone, in the past 5 years, that amount–1.5 million acres–of production has been lost.
American farmers have moved at least 84,155 acres of production to Mexico. This is what we know of: Over 84,000 acres of farm production now in Mexico. This has resulted in the growth of farm labor jobs in Mexico; namely, 22,285 jobs to cultivate crops that vary in diversity from avocados to green onions to watermelons.
This shortage of workers is devastating American agriculture, and we need to wake up and understand what is happening. In the next 1 to 2 years, the United States stands to lose $5 billion to $9 billion in agricultural sales to foreign competition if Congress does not act to provide a workforce for the American farming community.
California has already lost almost $1 billion from 2005 to 2006. It is estimated we will lose between $1.7 and $3.1 billion in the next year. The California farm industry–the largest in America–was almost a $40 billion-a-year industry. It is deteriorating every year.
We are witnessing nothing less than the slow vanishing of American agriculture.
Ayron Moiola, the executive director of the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association, predicts that California’s asparagus crops will disappear completely in the Imperial Valley if their demand for specialized asparagus planters and harvesters is not met.
Colorado farmers have estimated their State’s fruit and vegetable industry will disappear completely in the next 5 to 10 years without some program to provide a sustainable workforce.
As of February 2008, 35 to 45 New Hampshire farm operations have been at risk of going out of business or being forced to severely cut back operations due to labor shortages.
This reduction in farm production would result in an estimated loss of 22,000 acres of farmland and $58 million of agricultural production for New Hampshire alone. In addition, over 600 full-time farm jobs and 4,300 jobs in agriculture-related businesses could be in jeopardy.
****************************************************************
Republican immigration fear is like all the other fear mongering they engage in. Non reality based, and massively damaging to the economy.
My favorite study was done this year, 2009, in California, a state with almost 11 percent unemployment.
Jobs for agricultural workers. paying between 18 and 20 dollar an hour were advertised. Not a SINGLE average American applicant. Not a LEGAL applicant. Every applicant was an illegal from Mexico or Central America.
Cuz
May 28th, 2009
12:31 am
Elrey, maybe you should have sung a few verses of Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves. Cher would be proud.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
12:35 am
Republicans destroy ANOTHER American export industry. Good job guys.
Pretty soon America will be behind El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatamala in export GDP. And shortly after that, in standard of living.
In 2000, at the Republican Party Platform, the policy position was “How can we make Americans workers more like third world workers” That is, how can we eliminate their health care, pension, vacation, sick leave, benefits as well as lowering their salaries between 50 and 75 percent.
Good job guys.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
12:37 am
Then perhaps a confederate flag bedpan for hospitals. Did you see what Wooten’s blog had to say about one of the hospitals here in Georgia?
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
12:46 am
It completely possible to be an arrogant paternalistic idiot without being a racist. I see a lot of them here. Or at least they assert they are not racists.
Republicans are amazingly paternalistic. However instead of a nanny state, where tax payers get something back for their taxes, The Republican concept of government is to completely control almost every aspect of private life. Like the Roberts/Alito interpretation of the constitution that says there is no right to privacy in the U.S. not anywhere, except perhaps the right of married couples to obtain contraception.
Simply put, Republicans and Republican justices beleive that all taxpayers should get for their tax dollars is a government mandate to interfere in personal life, but not economic life.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
12:49 am
Or have we forgotten the Republican “Terry Schiavo” bill. Amazing interference in a private decision, that was best left in the hands of the courts, rather than the legislature. And of course, only in the case of the parents footing the bill. In a case at the same time, a poor person who faced the same situation with regard to their child on life support was told exactly the opposite. That the hospital could pull the plug.
Cuz
May 28th, 2009
12:51 am
No I missed it NJ, please enlighten me.
I read your commentary on illegals doing farm labor. Very hard to refute anything you say except for one thing. Georgia may be known as the Peach State but South Carolina produces more peaches. The area outside of Augusta in SC is the major peach producer in the South. And yes the peaches are being picked by people who no habla English.
Oh and the great Central Valley of California is losing countless acres to urban sprawl, you cannot overlook that info.
Bedpans may have been done, how about tampons? Again, the redneck chicks will make us millionaires. Swimming pools, movie stars.
mobyss
May 28th, 2009
12:52 am
Well, regardless of whether or not she gets confirmed, as a wise white male, I’m very sure that I am better than a latina woman that hasn’t lived my rich life experiences in every way that counts.
That’s not a racist statement by the way, just an “expression of diversity”.
JP
May 28th, 2009
1:04 am
Although I think Limbaugh and Gingrich would jump on anything to sack this appointment, I think you are missing how crucial that statement is coming from a potential supreme court justice.
Clearly, from her statement, she feels the experience of a Latina female is a richer experience than that of a white male, which is at best, racially insensitive and uninformed thought. I am white, true, but I am of German and Irish heritage, growing up with the music, stories, traditions, etc., passed down from my family. In a way, I am an everyday American, but I also love the uniqueness of my heritage. It’s a part of who I am. Many of my also-white friends have completely different religious, ethnic, socio-economic backgrounds, which make them unique from me, and of course my friends from other racial/ethnic/religous backgrounds have another set of experiences, any of which I would never say qualify them more or less than a Latina female. How sad that on one hand, her speech which I have read in full, paints such a compelling picture of her own heritage, and yet within that one line, she makes the – i’ll say it – racist – prejudgement that the ethnic and cultural experiences of a person with white skin have no value.
Cuz
May 28th, 2009
1:09 am
I guess I am just old fashioned. If you are not harming me by your actions, I don’t care what you do in your own home. I don’t see a right to privacy in the Constitution, I see it more in the Declaration, our God given rights, which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If smoking dope makes you happy, go for it. Not my cup of tea.
For the record, I was against the Schiavo bill. I guess I am a Libertarian on social issues, Conservative on National defense. I would have skipped waterboarding and gone straight to cattle prods. If they can cut off our heads, slowly. A little electroshock therapy could be just what the doctor ordered.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
1:32 am
No, nitwit is the nitwit. As the facts and figures above indicate, a single state alone, California, is losing large amounts of one of its major economic sectors, agriculture, due to the Republican nitwit opposition to what amounts to between a quarter and a half a percent of the American population. And that is just California. Colorado, Arizona, Oregon and a number of other states with large agricultural sectors are seeing large percentages of their entire crop rotting on the ground, because there is no one to pick, pack, load and ship a large percentage of their produce. In the last 4 years, the cost of the average supermarket bill has increased by 100 percent (doubled) Go looking in Publix for a Georgia peach. This state has also been effected by lack of available agricultural workers.
A simple fact. If the agricultural industry COULD get American workers at wages that these workers would be willing to work for, the price of a head of lettuce would be ten dollars, with no adjustment to the non agricultural workers wages to allow them to afford it.. Or to put it simply the average grocery bill as spent today, would exceed the annual salary of almost all but the wealthiest Americans. As it stands, right now, of the average price of any food item grown in the United States, labor costs, because of illegals, amounts to ten percent of the retail price of the item.
There have been MANY experiments offering American workers high salaries for agricultural work. Even salaries ranging between 20 and 30 dollars an hour. All of these studies produced exactly the same results. No average American workers, or even LEGAL immigrants even APPLY for the jobs. The latest one was done in the United States, in California, offering 20 dollars an hour, in 2009, in a state where slightly more than one in ten workers is now unemployed.
Again the crisis in American agriculture has a new bill before Congress to make most of these workers legal, pushed for by American farmers, not the large industrial farms:
Hope in Sight for U.S. Farms
Farmers and migrant workers may soon receive a long-awaited break as new legislation aims to relieve the agriculture industry of a nationwide labor shortage.
The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Securities Act (AgJOBS) was reintroduced to Congress on Thursday by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Representative Howard Berman (D-Calif.), and Representative Adam Putnam (R-Fla.).
Another 16 senators have signed as co-sponsors and more than 200 national and state agricultural organizations have signed on in support.
Farmers across the country are finding their situation increasingly difficult due to a lack of workers. A slew of other farmers have been forced to decrease the size of their crops to accommodate the dwindling workforce, resulting in more than 1.5 million acres of farmland being closed in the United States between 2007 and 2008 alone.
Due to the hard labor and low pay, few U.S. citizens have stepped forward to take the jobs. Migrant workers are often the lifeblood of the agriculture industry, yet state, local, and federal crackdowns on illegal immigration are leaving farmers dry.
If passed, the AgJOBS legislation could fill the labor gap by reforming the federal government’s current H-2A visa program.
Under the new bill, undocumented workers would be eligible for a “blue card” after working in the U.S. agriculture industry for at least 150 days. After another three years working in the industry, they would be eligible to apply for a green card and permanent legal residency.
The number of blue cards issued would be limited to 1.35 million over five years. Applicants for a green card also have to prove they pay taxes and undergo criminal background checks.
*******************************************************
Of course Putnam co-sponsored because the Republican idiocy has left Florida’s agriculture in a complete shambles.
As usual its the nitwit calling someone a nitwit. Completely IGNORANT about the state of agriculture in the United States, which until the Republican morons started ranting about illegals was our LARGEST export industry, their abject racism defies all economic reason
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
1:42 am
And lets look at the LATESTS info about the relationship between the agricultural sector and the current economic crisis:
****************************************************************
American agriculture is being attacked from every direction. While staunch competition from other nations is an external pressure facing American farmers, internal problems such as rising farming costs, restrictive legislation, unpredictable and catastrophic weather and declining soil quality are further compounding the concerns of America’s farmers. In America, farming is becoming an increasingly stressful business.
In many cases, American farmers are faced with far more political, legal and economic restrictions than farmers in most other nations. These restrictions are driving the cost of American farming higher and higher. Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, identified this concern for U.S. farmers several years ago: “The concern over wage rates and other labor costs like workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance and housing requirements would be immaterial if our global competitors also had to comply with a similar set of labor standards,” he said. “The top five U.S. importers of fruit—Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras and Guatemala—have no corresponding set of labor requirements or costs” (Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, Sept. 29, 2000).
The result of higher production costs is an increase in the price of the produce itself. Many Americans have probably noticed this at their grocery store. But while it is possible for American grocers to pass the increased cost on to the public, the consumers of American agricultural products abroad oftentimes cannot afford the higher price. In this predicament, the importing nation has two main options. It can either shop around for a cheaper supplier of produce, or it can put pressure on American farmers to reduce the price of their produce. Since this last option is not economically viable for the farmer, the American government will oftentimes step in and make up the difference to the farmer. Many American crops are sold to less-developed nations at a price cheaper than what it cost for the farmer to produce the product. This monetary assistance from the government is called an agricultural subsidy, and in the case of many American farmers, this is what is keeping them in the farming business.
In 2002, the U.S. government paid American farmers over $15 billion in agricultural subsidies, and more than $18 billion in 2003. Recent economic studies indicate that the average American farmer subsidy is $16,000 per year. At the end of the day, it is the American taxpayer who is paying these subsidies.
Why then does America even bother selling agricultural commodities to other nations at such a low price, forcing the government to intervene? It is simply because agriculture, which is one of the largest sectors of the American economy, relies primarily on the export market. Farmers must produce more than the amount needed just for U.S. consumers in order to justify their investment—otherwise they would go out of business. U.S. farmers must export their food for the American agriculture industry to remain alive. If American agribusiness were to die, it would drastically impact the U.S. economy as a whole.
But that process is already underway. “In perhaps the sharpest sign that American agriculture is stagnating, the combined acreage dedicated to the nation’s major crops slipped this spring despite the broadest rally of farm commodity prices in decades” (Wall Street Journal, op. cit.). Something is drastically wrong here!
American farmers receive more money now for their crops than they have in decades, yet this is not encouraging more crop production. Despite the higher income being received for their produce, farmers still can’t cover their rising costs. For the most part, agriculture is simply not a profitable business to be in anymore. This sector of the American economy will soon face a crisis!
*****************************************************************
Now who do you think is now making a fortune in their own agricultural sector?:
Today, America supplies little more than one fifth of the world’s wheat exports. Waves of grain have become patches growing in the soil between the shining seas. And in many cases, government subsidies are what hold farmers back from bankruptcy.
China is now the world’s leading wheat producer, with more than 90 other nations also producing wheat. Adding insult to injury, many of these nations are producing wheat less expensively than U.S. farmers and with seeds and technology designed and produced in America.
Russia, in one of the greatest agricultural comebacks in history, has re-established itself as a major producer of grain. During the 20th century, famine, political instability and economic hardship devastated Russia’s once-booming wheat industry. In the late 1980s, 18 percent of Russia’s wheat was imported from America. Nowadays, “wheat is once again pouring out of Russia in volumes rarely seen since the days of the czars” (ibid.). Ironically, the resurrection of Russia’s wheat industry has largely been fueled by America’s preparedness to remove trade barriers and American farming technology. The usda reports that over the next year, Russia, together with neighboring Ukraine and Kazakhstan, will supply 11 percent of global wheat exports. “Using mostly American equipment, a farm in Ukraine set the record last year for the most acres of grain planted in a day (1,413)” (ibid.).
*********************************************************
China has pushed the United States OUT of first place, and Russia is coming up fast behind. One of the largest reasons. Lower labor costs.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
1:47 am
Another AG industry in economic crisis…
Dairy Crisis Demands Radical New Thinking
5/26/2009
“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” –Rahm Emanuel, Obama White House Chief of Staff.
Emanuel’s words on the U.S. financial crisis apply equally as well to the crisis in the dairy industry.
Everyone in this industry knows what a mess we’re in. But from where I sit, it seems that producers who are struggling—and failing—to meet cash flow are the only ones with a real sense of urgency. It took months to organize the 7th round of the Cooperatives Working Together herd buyout. It’ll be June before significant numbers of those cows start heading to market.
And it was only two weeks ago when the National Milk Producers Federation announced the formation of a Task Force to address the national dairy crisis. The Task Force won’t even be organized until the NMPF Board meeting June 10 and won’t have its first meeting until after that. That will be a full six months after the 2009 Dairy Forum in Florida, where speaker after speaker laid out the crisis the industry is now facing.
In the absence of action, numerous grass roots efforts have bubbled up. First, there’s the Specter/Casey bill , which dairy lobbyists dismiss as too radical and too cumbersome—and perhaps, a little too goofy—to have much traction. It would require USDA to collect cost-of-production data from the across the country, and then set minimum manufacturing prices at $17 or $18/cwt.
From the AgWeb Blog
********************************************************************
Yes you are a nitwit, nothing to do with N.J.
Republicans, particularly those on this board, could easily take a group photo to be placed next to the definition for the word “IGNORANT” in just about any dictionary in the world, in any language
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
1:55 am
It was amusing. The person was noting how in one of the more conservative counties in the area, he brought a relative into the hospital and basically they killed him. Primarily because the hospitals in Atlanta have been blocking their efforts to bring a particular department into their county where none exists. In order to be treated, anyone brought into the emergency room in a life/death crisis, has to be medivac’d to an Atlanta hospital:
Great article, Jim. I am an avid supporter of brining open heart services to Gwinnett. Even I was not aware that so many cardiac-related deaths had occurred right here in Gwinnett. Surely some of those people could have been saved if we’d had the ability to serve them here
http://blogs.ajc.com/thinking-right/2009/05/22/gwinnett-deserves-better/?cxntfid=blogs_thinking_right
Casey
May 28th, 2009
2:01 am
In response to the claim that a white man could not have made the same comment, let us turn our attention to a different – yet not altogether unrelated – subject. Generally, the idea of reverse-racism and, specifically, black history month.
All my life I have heard the annual cry of the common southern man – “where is white history month?” Not a completely unreasonable suggestion on its own merits, but it neglects the context in which race is a part of our society. Yes, if all things were equal and blacks had a month of their own then that would be racist, but these things don’t exist in a vacuum. To say black history month or affirmative action is a racist reaction to the racist past is to say that the history didn’t matter, or that it has no effect on us today – an inescapable falsehood. The history has created a situation where it is important to point out the significance of a particular group, as they have been held down and discriminated for their differences. The history has created a situation where it is important to give opportunities to people who were stripped of them by racism.
We can’t pretend the residual problems of racism don’t exist, and we can’t pretend like we live in a world of color-blindness and equality because the state no longer discriminates on color. My entire family was born and raised in Georgia and even though most of us are progressive or moderate on most issues, hispanic or black culture is something which is unfamiliar, daunting, or even uncomfortable for us, as I know it is for some I know and it likely is for others. Yes, we white people listen to rap (sometimes) and laugh with Carlos Mencia, but don’t pretend like we don’t make assumptions about others based on their skin color. You may not discriminate with actions, but you may with words or feelings or votes. It’s a sad reality of the human condition but most if not all of us do it. So impartiality does not exist in terms of demographics – as Sotomayor says in her speech – because we all bring a different history with us.
So where does that take us in respect to Sotomayor’s comment? Firstly, it shows that it is not “reverse-racism” because what she said wasn’t racist anyway. Putting her quote in the proper context, it’s clear that she’s simply arguing that the wisdom of a judge comes from their experience in life, not just in the experience of judicial affairs.
Secondly, it shows that it isn’t “reverse-racism” because we don’t live in a color-blind world. If a white person says one thing and a hispanic says the same thing, anybody should expect that the implications are different. We need to accept that, and it isn’t because of some need for minorities to get back at whitey. They have a different perspective and experience which completely alters the context of what they say, and that is what Sotomayor is saying here. What good is the judicial branch if there is only one way to interpret the law? We know all too well that the 14th Amendment was interpreted in entirely different ways because of the people who interpreted them. The way a judge interprets is not only by their judicial experience, but by their experience as a person.
That is not to say that this nomination occurred just to get a Hispanic in the court. Look at what she says; “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” and “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.” She’s not simply saying that only hispanics see this while whites see that. She’s saying that people can make wise decisions because of their experiences, and she feels her experience as a Hispanic woman helps her in that way.
Finally, I will definitively say – as I have alluded to before – that a white man cannot say what Sotomayor said. That is because there is nothing distinctive about being a white man. It’s the default race and gender, and that’s the way our society has been built. Talk all you want about how you haven’t discriminated anybody, but the reality is that we are institutionally the default. You couldn’t say that you hope your experience as a white man would lead you to a better conclusion than a latina woman’s experience would because there is nothing about a white man’s experience which would lead to that conclusion – we don’t have to struggle against institutionalized racism or sexism. Therefore what you’re really saying is that being a white man should be enough for your conclusion to be superior.
Casey
May 28th, 2009
2:25 am
Just as an addendum to my previous post, I’d like to say that anybody can say whatever they want to. Whether it’s racist or whatever I don’t much care, personally. But the “getting away with it” part is what’s really at issue here, I suppose.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
2:42 am
With regard to the number of cases that the Supreme Court has reversed from Sotomayors ruling she has one of the lowest rates, 60 percent. The average rate at which the Supreme Court has reversed the OTHER Federal Appeals courts is 75 percent.
Along with this, of the 300 total cases that appellants tried to take to a higher court, that is they decided they didnt like Sotomayors decision and wanted it to go to the Supreme Court, the higher court decided to NOT accept those cases at the Supreme Court level and sent them back to Sotomayors court or simply stated that Sotomayors court was the appropriate place for the case to have been heard and would not hear it at the Supreme Court level. Out of a total of 300 cases that were sent from Sotomayors appellate level to the Supreme Court, only 3 were overturned by the Supreme Court. They decided to only FIVE of the 300 deserved a hearing at there level, they overturned three, supported two, and decided the other 295 had been handled by the correct court, in the correct manner and therefore they were not accepted by the Supreme Court. What this means is that the Supreme Court has accepted 99.7 percent of her decisions:
Sonia Sotomayor ‘Reversal Rate’ Attack Debunked
Posted: 05/27/09
There was some general chatter on Twitter yesterday about heaps of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s cases being overturned by the high court. I turned up a link to a CNN story that listed her cases that had been reviewed by the Supreme Court.
It sure looked damning, but I immediately figured that this was one of those deceptive things, like how most car accidents occur within 2 miles of your house. (That’s where most of your driving is done.) I was talking with a lawyer friend about it this morning, and suggested that the reversal rate was probably not atypical, and tied to the court’s requirements for cert.
Sure enough, in response to a Washington Times article this morning, Nate Silver at 538.com reports just that, saving me a bunch of research I wasn’t going to do:
There are two fairly obvious problems with this. Firstly, only five of Sotomayor’s opinions have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. That’s hardly enough to reach a statistically sound conclusion. Moreover, as a matter of semantics, most people don’t begin quoting percentages until the number of instances is significantly higher than five…
But secondly, a 60 percent reversal rate is actually below average based on the Washington Times’ criteria. According to MediaMatters.org, the Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon.
To put it another way, Ted Williams was denied a hit 60% of the time in his best season.
The reason that the reversal rate is so high, of course, is that the Supreme Court has a lot of discretion about which cases it chooses to review and rule upon, and is generally not going to be inclined to overturn law dictated by a lower court unless the legal reasoning is substantially questionable and has a strong chance of reversal. The better metric would probably be the number of decisions that the Supreme Court overturned out of all of Sotomayor’s majority opinions — whether the Court elected to review them in detail or not.
When you look at it that way, Sonia Sotomayor is more like a judicial Ozzie Smith.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/27/sonia-sotomayor-reversal-rate-attack-debunked/
Simply put, the Supreme Court decided to NOT hear 295 percent of the cases that were sent up from her court to the Supreme Court because she handled those cases completely following the law as the Supreme Court determines and made the correct decision in those 295 cases. That is to say, the court decided that her judicial decision was extremely good and there was no chance that the Supreme Court would REVERSE those decisions. SO out of a total of 300 cases, they decided to see five, reversed three and decided that there was no chance of reversal on the other 295. This is one of the best records in the last 70 years.
Again another example of Republican lying by telling partial truths. This party does its public relations model, Joe Goebbels proud.
Bud Wiser
May 28th, 2009
6:10 am
What’s the matter Lady Chad? Your ‘medical’ license get pulled, so now you cut and paste to your heart’s content all night long again? You are pathetic.
Now to the subject at hand;and the answers are:
Sarah Palin
Alberto Gonzalez
Clarence Thomas
Question: Can you name 3 minorities nominated for high government positions absolutely attacked scathingly time and time again by the democrats and the media, just because they were Republican oriented nominees, and not little democrat libtard nominees?
Since the democrats pretty much proved that they have the black vote locked up in chains in perpetuity, now they go for the Hispanic bloc as well. The arrogance and sense of superiority of the party elite is a foul stench indeed. Since they figure most blacks are either too stupid or lazy to do their own individual research into candidates, and will vote based on color alone, they now as well lump the Hispanics into that category.
Talk about being taken for granted….
Sad and oh so pathetic, the minorities in question never ask “why”, they just ask “who”, and “is he/she one of ours?
If the blacks and Hispanics ever face the reality of how badly they are being used by the power hungry elite, the whole democrat party base will crumble. If they, however, do not take some individual responsibility or initiative to actually look beyond skin color of ANY candidate, then I suppose they are actually as stupid and lazy as the democrats have presumed all along.
Bill
May 28th, 2009
6:25 am
Yes, yes, white males blah, blah, blah. “No white contruction workers” etc. As long as the paralell society continues to pay the bills and keep the lights on, we can continue to enjoy these “statement makers”. Remember the once popular “Back To Africa” movement?, ever wonder why that vanished so quickly? I know the answer, and so does Sotomayer, and Obama and a whole bunch of other folks. That, is EXACTLY why she is a judge here, not in Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic etc. Think Obama would stand a chance at the presidency of Kenya?, think again. When these affirmative action lifers talk smack about white men, like they knew jack about the subject, I just have to shake my head and wonder what this country has become…but please, DO keep paying those taxes, without them we’d never have such rich “diversity”
Jay rules Andy
May 28th, 2009
6:40 am
Gee, I wonder if she’ll accept fully paid duck hunting trips from lobbyists and go with individuals that are part of cases before her court??? You know like Scalia and Cheney???
One thing that’s readily apparent is Democratic activist judges=BAD
Republican activist judges=GOOD
Jay rules Andy
May 28th, 2009
6:45 am
Lets see:
Sarah Palin – “I can see Russia from my front porch” and “this is where real Americans live”, got a little baby momma at home with a high school dropout for a baby daddy, and a Meth dealer for baby Grand momma… I could go on all day, don’t cha know… wink wink…
Clarence Thomas – Sexual harrassement & “Long Dong Silver”
Alberto Gonzales – “Torture isn’t illegal”
There you have it. 3 GOP members who are minorities, and thier own words and actions.
@@
May 28th, 2009
7:00 am
In this context, 106 of the previous 110 U.S. Supreme Court Justices have been white men, and none of those 110 have been Hispanic.
I beg to differ! This white woman is here to tell you, jay, a white man, that Benjamin Cardozo was the first hispanic appointed to the SC….1932-33 (?).
Bud Wiser
May 28th, 2009
7:17 am
Your words, except for Palin, who in my opinion was, and still is, an idiot. The other accusations against Thomas were proven to be jealousy an vengeful in motivation, and what Gonzalez said, it the factual context and wording, was true. If it were, he’d have done time someplace other than a judicial bench, so go stuff Anita Hill and any other liar you can rely on as your ’source’
I was making the point that unless the libtards groom their own liberal woman or racial minority for a nomination at any level, anyone else is a hunk of meat to be thrown to the wolves.
AND, I see you cannot refute my statements about how democrats herd and pet their little minority clans, taking them for granted as much as a breath of air. No problem though. I am 100% correct on that assertion until proven wrong by statistics or polling data to say otherwise.
Next.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
7:19 am
Benjamin Cardozo was the first hispanic appointed to the SC….
Well, kinda-sorta.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
7:21 am
I am 100% correct on that assertion
I’ve never known you to be even within spitting distance of 25% of the truth whenever you’ve posted, Bud, and today is no exception.
Referring to the advocacy of minority rights as “herding and petting” is contemptible, and par for your course.
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 28th, 2009
7:25 am
In writing his decision (Maryland democrat Supreme Court Justice) Taney used what Sotomayor calls the “richness” of his “cultural experience” as a white slave owner to describe Dred Scott and his fellow African-Americans as ” beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations.” Indeed, Taney went on to say that blacks were “so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
So unremarkable did Taney believe his beliefs to be that he ascribed his racial views as “fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race…regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.”-AmSpec
democrats, things that make you go eewwww
Jaun Carlos Diego Raul Sanchez
May 28th, 2009
7:25 am
she is not a racist my brown sister only hates white men. Poor ole Jay – anyone that does not agree is stupid?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
7:33 am
Obama also supported a filibuster against Alito and I think the biggest phony charge against Alito was that he was supposed to be a RACIST because of what somebody he went to school with said.
Interesting distillation. I can tell you that I’m pretty sure the former Democratic speaker of the house wasn’t calling Alito a “racist” the day after his name was put into the ring.
Actually, I would love to compare and contrast the Democratic opposition to Alito–the way in which it unfolded, and how the Republicans played it–to how Sotomayor’s confirmation plays out, once it’s over.
Seriously, I’m setting a reminder to post about it when this thing’s done (which, I heard, averages about 73 days, putting us into… August? Crikey.
zip
May 28th, 2009
7:39 am
Who cares? We are replacing one left wing activist judge with another. Straight swap ideologically. Next.
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 28th, 2009
7:42 am
And of course, the 2008 victory of Barack Obama, who rose from community organizer to the presidency, would seem to support the argument that Democrats gain the most from the full mobilization of those not otherwise well connected to society. Maybe that’s why almost all of the numerous allegations of vote fraud in 2008–in Missouri, California, Washington, and Nevada, just for starters–involved Democrats.
democrats, things that make you go eewwww
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
7:42 am
Since nobody’s bothered to bring this up yet I will:
That speech over which every hypersensitive white man is throwing fits, was a 2001 symposium. Sotomayor was asked to deliver an address fitting under the umbrella of–quoting here:
“Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation”
Can someone please tell me what is inappropriate about her remarks, even isolated as some twits insist upon doing, given that this was the topic?
Keep Her in the South Bronx
May 28th, 2009
7:47 am
Obama thinks just because you hate white men and roll your R’s you’re qualified for the Supreme Court. Consider the source. Now, time to go to work without being mugged,car-jacked and beforee I leave out the door…hopefully not home invaded; typical day in Atlanta.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
7:48 am
anyone that does not agree is stupid?
No, troll. Anyone who goes along with a force-fed talking point that this eminently qualified, experienced trial and appellate court judge (and prosecutor, and corporate lawyer!) with a long history of decisions for experts to comb through is somehow “racist” because of a grotesquely out-of-context quote that only seems remotely wrong if you insist upon substituting “White” for Latina and squint real hard, is stupid.
Clear now?
Pizen
May 28th, 2009
7:49 am
Racist? No. Parlaying her race and gender to her advantage? Sure. Disagree with her and you’re a racist/sexist. PrezBO gets his Hispanic and someone who will choose empathy/emotion over the law. Sounds like a genuinely Democratic pick to me.
Scooter
May 28th, 2009
7:52 am
“reason of law” rather than “rule of law”… that says it all. Rationalizing the application of laws based on a judges personal perceptions and experiences reflected onto the defendant. Sounds like a supporter of the “pity party defense” Yeah, nothing can go wrong there.
Pizen
May 28th, 2009
7:54 am
Happy to, DB. Her gender and her ethnicity do not alone create an environment in which superior reasoning and application of the law will take place. To suggest otherwise is bigotry and sophistry. The title of whatever conference she was speaking at is irrelevant.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
7:58 am
Her gender and her ethnicity do not alone create an environment in which superior reasoning and application of the law will take place.
Well, yeah, in some situations they do. Like, say, strip searching a 13-year-old girl. To suggest otherwise is bigotry and sophistry.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
7:59 am
Also, for the record? I love how conservatives are now united against empathy.
They are now officially opposed to trying to understand how another person perceives stuff.
Brilliant!
Bud Wiser
May 28th, 2009
8:02 am
As usual, the libtards are unable to rebut my assertions, just resorting to the same old tired and worn out name calling, spitting and drooling. Never changes with you idiots, does it? Not that I expected an intelligent response or redirect from a dribbling moron.
Sigh.
Get some new material, libtard.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
8:04 am
Hi, Bud! so you’re replying to my messages!
How long did your promise not to respond last–about three days, is it?
Typical.
Mutts-R-Stupid-especially-journalism-majors
May 28th, 2009
8:05 am
As a white male, I am highly offended by her comments, especially since we evil white males built the educational institutions that gave her a free ride on her education. As a matter of fact, Porta Rica gets a free financial ride from the American taxpayer, and has for more than 60 plus years. FYI, I voted for Obama, and gave money to finance his election. I certainly hope that the lady in question can grow enough to at least partially fill the shoes of the white male she replaces.
Bud Wiser
May 28th, 2009
8:07 am
“Referring to the advocacy of minority rights as “herding and petting” is contemptible, and par for your course.”
It is what it is.
Once again, no factual rebuttal.
And as I said yesterday, if Obowo were to crap on a cracker, you libtards would be fighting to see who gets to eat it. Not that you haven’t already, of course. Take the economic free fall into mind-boggling (except for me) debt, you libtards are on that sinking boat with the rest of it.
The exception is that you have that ignorant smile on your face as imminent destruction approaches, while the rest of us are looking for a lifeboat.
Idiots all.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
8:08 am
And as I said yesterday, if Obowo were to crap on a cracker, you libtards would be fighting to see who gets to eat it.
Well, I sure am glad you don’t resort to any of that “same old tired and worn out name calling, spitting and drooling”, Bud.