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
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.
RealityKing
May 27th, 2009
4:51 pm
Prejudice is a better word…
RealityKing
May 27th, 2009
4:54 pm
But as NJ correctly states, it doesn’t really matter what or who Obama puts forth because dems have the votes to ram any nominee down our throats. Exactly what Obama promised not to do last year..
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
4:56 pm
RW-(the original),
“I’m going to have to learn to quit typing in the freaking comment box around here.”
I’ve noticed comments on my Blackberry that do not appear on my computer either at home or the office. Weird.
not really
May 27th, 2009
4:56 pm
“Not to mention her extremely high rate of decisions being reversed.”
Out of 400 rulings, 2 have been reversed by the Supremes. Facts really mean nothing in this debate do they?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 27th, 2009
4:57 pm
Reality King
High rate of reversal? Really?
“out of the 380-odd opinions she penned while on the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court granted cert on just six. And of those six, Sotomayor was reversed on only three. That’s a .500 batting average, a figure even Ted Williams would have to admire.”
better pass up the GOP talking points and do a little independent study.
you could start here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2170477/
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
4:58 pm
That’s a pretty cool “analysis” Mrs. G. All one needs do is come up with a nifty new definition for activist judge and Presto!
The nerve of Justice Thomas being the #1 best at doing his job!!!
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
4:58 pm
RealityKing,
Was there ever a real chance that the Republicans were not going to universally reject whatever candidate was put forth simply as political posturing?
@@
May 27th, 2009
4:58 pm
So tell me, Mrs. G, who, in the workplace, is entitled to protection under Title VII, civil rights law? Is there a preference given and if so, what is it based on?
ty webb
May 27th, 2009
4:58 pm
DB,
No problem.
Tamye Bobyie Huntyr
May 27th, 2009
4:59 pm
I say, I say son, I have been called a racist for many decades now and I can not for the life of me figure out why. My ancient and distinguish family has kept the darkies in employment since they were emancipated by that dear unenlightened man Lincoln. Now I ask you, how can someone who lets darkies clean their toilets and suckle their children be in any way shape or form a racist? And since we started buying those darkies way back in the 1600’s we Huntyr menfolk have had intimate relations with our darkie women, and I truly believe they enjoyed it, at least the ruckess they kicked up was more than Mrs Huntyr ever did. Now I ask you again, how can a man who would lay down with a darkie ever be labeled a racist? I for one just need to let the general public on this here AJC blog know that I, Tamye Bobyie Huntyr is NOT a racist nor have I ever been a racist. Damn, I bet I have little halfbreed Huntyrs running around all over South America.
Wells
May 27th, 2009
5:01 pm
Byll
One definition of racist–a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:01 pm
RW-(the original),
“All one needs do is come up with a nifty new definition for activist judge and Presto!”
I asked Joey the same thing with no response, what would your criteria for an “activist” judge be based on?
This is theirs: “Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?
Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional is the boldest thing a judge can do. That’s because Congress, as an elected legislative body representing the entire nation, makes decisions that can be presumed to possess a high degree of democratic legitimacy.”
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
5:01 pm
I’m not a racist. I am using the forces of the free market to maximize MY profits. Tell me Byll, did you pay these immigrants the same wage? Did these immigrants live, 6-10 adults per apartment or house? As one who has worked construction since the 70’s I have seen contractors and builders put more money in their pockets by utilizing immigrant labor. And don’t tell me how bad these poor builders have it–I have helped build the homes they now live in.
booger
May 27th, 2009
5:02 pm
jewboy,
He lost his job because of his words at Strom’s party. There was no cumulative effect. The media decided to make a ruling, and he was out. No fear of the media in this case though.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
5:03 pm
I might be shallow, but TBH @ 4.59 might be the single funniest thing on the Internets ever.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:03 pm
jewcowboy,
I typed another short comment down there to try to jump start the thread and it posted so this must be one of those things where I hit one of Jay B’s secret words that keep posts from showing up. I don’t know how considering the subject matter, but it was too lengthy to recreate and probably too dry to care about.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:05 pm
DB, Gwinnettian,
“I might be shallow, but TBH @ 4.59 might be the single funniest thing on the Internets ever.”
My thoughts exactly. I nearly choked on my water.
Midori
May 27th, 2009
5:09 pm
Gee, using language like that I can tell you’ve been wronged. Did you refer to Bush as the Creamy Success?
Is Jewcowboy in rare form today, or what??
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:09 pm
jewcowboy,
It’s basically their job description to strike down unconstitutional law when presented with a case. The only time I would put that in the activist category would be if they did it outside the scope of a case being presented.
What I mainly consider an activist judge is one that will not stop at striking down an unconstitutional law but go on to say what the law must be,
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:10 pm
booger,
He lost his post as Majority Leader not his job. He lost his post from those within his own party in the Senate and the White House. The media is to blame for the Republicans weakness to stand behind one of their own?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
5:11 pm
JC, it had me at “My ancient and distinguish family”.
Pogo
May 27th, 2009
5:12 pm
If mediocrity is acceptable to you leftists (and apparently it is, considering who is now president) then this gal is perfect for you. She isn’t that smart and she certainly has no concept of “Blind Justice”. She does however carry the liberal flag proudly and loudly and she strongly believes in using the court to carry out liberal political doctrine (which is precisely why she was chosen by O’bawahwah in the first place). What would have happened if a white male would have said what she said about “life experience”? Once again Jay, you are a Hypocrit and your little facists buddies are to.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:12 pm
RW-(the original),
“What I mainly consider an activist judge is one that will not stop at striking down an unconstitutional law but go on to say what the law must be,”
And the metrics for that would be?
@@
May 27th, 2009
5:13 pm
Off Topic!
Pakistan’s Supreme Court on May 26 overturned an earlier ruling that prohibited former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from running for public office. Sharif, currently the most popular politician in Pakistan, is seen as an anti-establishment politician — and one the military is likely to have problems with. The United States (Obama) has been warming up to Sharif lately, but even if he and his party were to come into power in Islamabad, Washington still would have no good choices in Pakistan.
That’s putting it mildly.
While Sharif would be willing to work with Washington to enhance the power of the civilians over the military, he has his redlines. The PML-N chief is staunchly opposed to the unilateral airstrikes conducted by U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles in Pakistan’s tribal belt. He also wants all national security and foreign policy issues to be channeled through parliament, which would complicate Washington’s dealings with Islamabad on the jihadist war. Sharif, given his own ideological inclinations and populist stance, would be reluctant to make the tough decisions in the fight against jihadism and would be more inclined to negotiate settlements with what in his view are reconcilable Islamist forces.
Midori
May 27th, 2009
5:14 pm
Pogo isn’t a bigoted slug, but he did stay in a Holiday Inn Express.
DoggoneGA
May 27th, 2009
5:14 pm
“If mediocrity is acceptable to you leftists ”
Got ALL the talking points down pat…don’t cha? Do you get them via email or fax, or are they transmitted directly to your head?
DoggoneGA
May 27th, 2009
5:15 pm
“And the metrics for that would be?”
There aren’t any. An “activist judge” is one who’s decision goes counter to whatever “you” think it should have been.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:17 pm
Pogo,
My those are some sour grapes. Were you this worked up over Scalia and Thomas? Or were those just your type of judges who carry the conservative flag proudly and loudly and who strongly believe in using the court to carry out conservative political doctrine?
S GA dem
May 27th, 2009
5:17 pm
Pogo, Where were your ‘mediocrity’ comments when you chose to elect a ‘c’ student to run our country? How many businesses did Georgie bankrupt before deciding to go into politics? How many bankrupt business ventures would it have taken for the right to acknowledge that GWB is the definition of mediocre??
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:20 pm
S GA dem,
“How many bankrupt business ventures would it have taken for the right to acknowledge that GWB is the definition of mediocre??”
Not even bankrupting the U.S. has allowed them to acknowledge his mediocrity.
I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
5:23 pm
After the wind blows down the teleprompter of Vice President Biden at the Air Force Academy graduation he joked “what am I going to tell the President when I tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?”
Bwahahahaha. good one, Plugs!
Alec Martin
May 27th, 2009
5:23 pm
This nomination is not about race or gender.
It’s about qualifications and a vow to uphold The Consitution and The Rule of Law.
Neither of which Obama or Sotomajor have any interest in-
Except to change it, shred it and remake it-because the framers got it wrong.
Republicans need to “grow a pair” and Filibuster this nominee and fight for what is right- The Constitution.
Not gender or race.
Or her “compelling life story” or empathy.
4 out of 5 of her opinions have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
She is admittedly biased- and yes, racist.
She has admitted that she is about “making policy”-not the rule of law.
Ah- sorry, I though we had a Legislative Branch for this.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
5:24 pm
Ok, RW, I see your comment now. I guess it was there earlier and I just missed it…
I can’t stand the thought of public financing and a whole new can of worms is opened there by figuring out at what level you allow a candidate to take financing, but it almost seems like the way things are going that might be the only thing that works
Welcome aboard.
RealityKing
May 27th, 2009
5:26 pm
Sotomayor has a 60% reversal rate by the high court.., not counting the lastest prejudice ruling over firefighter promotions.
Chris http://www.buffalobullet.blogspot.com
May 27th, 2009
5:28 pm
“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?”
I think I’ll go along with the “libruls” on that one. Sotomayor will make a great Supreme Court Justice. Her background, and her experience make her a lot more trustworthy than most Judges I know, especially in my city (Buffalo NY). If you take Rush and Newt (who should know better to even listen to a cartoon character like Limbaugh) at their words, you’ll be sucking your brain out your head at their convenience the rest of your life.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:31 pm
jewcowboy,
I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at with the metrics question. Admittedly part of it might because Maria Sharapova is currently playing on ESPN2HD, but let me know what you’re talking about and I’ll try to answer.
Jake
May 27th, 2009
5:31 pm
It doesn’t look like Obama will be able to radically change the makeup of the Court unless soemone dies unexpectedly. So we’ll still have Roe v Wade and several affirmative action by another name majority opinions written by the estimable Ms. Sotomayor.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:33 pm
DB,
I think Jay B went in and rescued it from whatever fault holds the offending posts. If so thanks, Jay B!
Welcome aboard what? I was more torn after I typed that than I was when it was rolling around in my head.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:35 pm
fault is a little known alternate spelling for vault too.
@@
May 27th, 2009
5:35 pm
Castro’s daughter: Cuba to reinstate sex changes
Some Cubans protested the decision last year to allow the operations, either because of general opposition to the procedure or for its high costs for a developing country with economic problems.
What? The groveling masses weren’t eager to share the wealth…the “government” resources?
The government would bear the cost of the operations because Cuba has a universal health care system.
A little research revealed that the cost of sex reassignment surgery can exceed $50,000 very quickly.
Compare that to the cost of a twinkie addiction.
DoggoneGA
May 27th, 2009
5:39 pm
“Sotomayor has a 60% reversal rate by the high court”
Which is about the average reversal rate for all cases the court chooses to accept. 3 out of 5 cases. BIG DEAL. How many decisions did she make that never even had to go the Supreme Court? 300? 400? You need to find better nits to pick.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
5:40 pm
Welcome aboard what?
The Good Ship Public Campaign Financing, of course, if I read you right.
gotta run. Later, all. Sock it to ‘em, JB!
SaveOurRepublic
May 27th, 2009
5:40 pm
Normal @ 15:57 – I’m certainly not above being wrong & am receptive to correction. Can you specify where you believe I mistaken? Thanks.
I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
5:41 pm
By the way, bookman has no idea how he is going to defend this racist remark but he is under orders from the DNC or else! So up pops the little fishing expedition, under the guise of further “deep thinking to follow,” with the real intentions of poaching some of the ideas we offer up in our comments.
Hence, I am unable to unload the bomb on bookman because I know he will steal it and a freaking full page article will appear in the Urinal forthwith and it would probably win him the Pukelitizer.
So, na na na na, I’m not telling.
I rule.
Ray
May 27th, 2009
5:43 pm
Newt in line at a McCain/Palin rally?
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:46 pm
DB,
You read me right up to a point but you didn’t follow through to the conclusion. I kind of like the anonymous small donor through independent approval idea.
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
5:57 pm
Andy @5:41
I’ll try to contain my disappointment.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
6:18 pm
Not only that, there is a gaping hole a mile wide in prop 8. Since it is not retroactive, they must recognize 18,000 marriages that occured before it. But the catch is that means that they MUST also recognize the marriages of gays from OTHER states.
The reason prop 8 passed is that the gays and liberals did a terrible job of getting out the vote.
Democrats make up 42 percent of the vote in California and of the Democrats that voted 64 percent voted AGAINST prop 8.
Independents make up 28 percent of the electorate and 54 percent of them voted against prop 8.
Republicans make up 29 percent of the vote, and they voted 82 percent FOR prop 8.
All gays need to do to get this overturned, and they could easily do it by next year, is to get a LARGER percent of Democrats and independents to actually turnout on this issue. They were rabbit punched by the Mormon church so the Republican voters turned out in much greater numbers than the GLBT community anticipated. They could EASILY slaughter the Republicans in a revote on a new proposition if they simply raised the Democratic and Independent turnout by as little as five percent, even if every Republican in the state came out to vote and a significantly smaller percentage of Democrats came out.
The BEST thing to do is wait to get it on the November 2010 ballot. Republicans are tracking dismally in California for 2010, and there is enough outrage at the Republican Governor for a new pro gay marriage ballot initiative to ride in on the coattails of any Republican nominee. Even the best they have to offer, Meg Whitmire is fighting an uphill battle against either of the Democratic nominees. And one one of them is Governor Moonbeam, Jerry Brown, the Republicans are in serious trouble. The people in California blame their economic mess on their Republican governor, and no amount of attempting to blame the legislature is going to stick in this case. With the massive state layoffs and furloughs the Republicans can come in with no more than 45-48 percent of the gubernatorial race, regardless of who they put up.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
6:22 pm
Top Republican doubts filibuster against Sotomayor
2009 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he doesn’t foresee a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though he thinks her legal philosophy should be closely examined.
“The nominee has serious problems,” Sen. Jeff Sessions said in a nationally broadcast interview. “But I would think that we would all have a good hearing, take our time, and do it right. And then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court.”
“I don’t sense a filibuster in the works,” the Alabama Republican said, after President Barack Obama’s call for the Senate to install his history-making choice of the 54-year-old Sotomayor to succeed Justice David Souter on the high court. She would be the first Hispanic justice to serve there.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6443839.html
As I said, the Republican dont have the national positioning to even attempt a filibuster, and Sessions knows it. He is quite aware of the Republican position on Roberts and Alito, and this is not far enough in the past for anyone to have forgotten the Republican insistance on EVERY PRESIDENTS NOMINEE DESERVING AN UP OR DOWN VOTE.
In their eye.
Normal
May 27th, 2009
6:24 pm
SaveOurRepublic,
All I’m trying to point out is that I feel that you fail to see
that the Supreme Court IS the last word.
The last side of the Checks and Balances triangle, therefore they make policy.
Any ruling they make becomes law, period. The fear people have over
Sotomayor (not necessarily you) beliefs, opinions, whatever is unfounded. Her opinions are watered down by eight other opinions. I personally believe that she will be in the majority perhaps one out
of ten times. She is replacing Ginsberg, another woman and was also
picked by a very astute politician because of her race. In the long
run she will be a non-factor. My belief anyway.
Kamchak, I too think Heinlein got better with age. I’m going to un-
crate my collection and enjoy some good reading again.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
6:24 pm
Hey Jay, this post made it into the top two sets of news items on Google when you Google “Sotomayor”. Good work.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
6:24 pm
RW,
If one is going to determine something such as who is the most “activist” justice without it being simply opinion, some sort of unbiased measure must be laid out. The fellow laid out theirs based on the number of laws passed by Congress being overturned as unConstitutional. What measurement would you consider fair and un-biased? Otherwise it’s just your opinion vs. mine.
Joey
May 27th, 2009
6:24 pm
Mrs. Godzilla:
Your position is:
You accept an Op-Ed from the NYTimes as being factual, thus if I disagree I must prove that the Op-Ed that you accepted without question or doubt is not accurate or factual.
Where exactly is your proof that the Opinion you accepted is factual and accurate. It is an Opinion. Your challenge to disprove an Opinion has the same validity as the Opinion.
That may seem to you to be a valid challenge, but you are wrong.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
6:29 pm
Joey,
Did you read the piece in the NYT or just Mrs. G’s post?
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
6:30 pm
There are some crazies on this blog ex; Wyld Byll Hyltnyr and Tammie whatever the Darkie.
Anyway Ms. Sotomayor is a great pick I am so proud that Pres. Obama has foresight and good knowledge and judgement. As for her comment: like usual only the Relosers would cut only a part and try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. For those who would like to be educated just read the below link to her speech in 2001 and for those who are waiting for their darkie nanny or another darkie to education them here it is: Educate Yourself it is so Liberating.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1
Title of Article: Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’ see below cut section of speech where she says that.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying 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. 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 experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
6:33 pm
DoggoneGA
May 27th, 2009
5:39 pm
Like the “high court” has never been wrong.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
6:42 pm
jewcowboy,
I pretty well laid out why their definition was about 180 degrees off in my first paragraph at 5:09. I’m not really interested in playing a game of semantics with you though. If you want to think a body whose job it is to determine Constitutionality of laws, and does just that, is working outside the scope of their job description it’s fine with me.
que
May 27th, 2009
6:47 pm
blind justice?
“I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.
Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. 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.
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, 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.”
Paul
May 27th, 2009
6:47 pm
Wow, gone for a couple hours and zing! Nearly 200 comments. Congrats, Jay, this beats the socks off the Calif Supremes slapdown on gay marriage for ginning up interest.
I’m interested in why just ‘racist’ – from Newt’s comment to your emphasis. Seems ’sexist’ could be slipped right in there, also.
I wasn’t struck as much by the comparison to the ‘white male’ thing in “would more often than not reach a better conclusion” as I was by the word “better.” That seems to me to be the crux of the issue. Better. Not as good as. Not legally innovative, brilliant, consistent. But ‘better.’
And, she never substantiated how or why. Custody and protective law cases? I wonder what appeals court numbers those cases comprise. Could a white male judge say that based upon the richness of his life experiences he’d render a ‘better’ decision on matters of corporate law than could a latina woman? It’s possible, given the decidedly pro-corporate decisions of Judge Sotomayor. Maybe those white guys are a little more practical and a little less theoretical when it comes to big business?
This couldn’t be another Newt/Rush diversion, could it? Diversion, maybe, for the farfarleft when they examine her record and find out she isn’t the flaming liberal activist judge on a broad spectrum of issues as they’d thought?
Hello RW-(the original)
That campaign financing issue strikes me as another of those theory/reality issues. I rather like your compromise position – I think it’s one that we may get to and that may pass Constitutional muster.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
6:56 pm
Paul,
That compromise popped into my head as soon as my brain felt the horror of typing words of support for public financing.
That’s why it follows what DB excepted.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
6:57 pm
Or even excerpted….
Geez
Paul
May 27th, 2009
7:02 pm
RW-(the original)
Hmmm. You’re more flexible that Spkr Pelosi! Y’know, for all the mocking by the farLeft of the religious right, the farLeft sure does endow their leaders with the same kind of omniscient, all-knowing, ‘We know the Truth and What’s Right more than you heathens do’ and ‘we will never compromise’ characteristics with which they caricature the religious right -
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
7:15 pm
Cute trick on the blog tonight. I went to the comment box to answer Paul’s comment that isn’t here anymore and a 4 step process for subscribing popped up.
Paul,
It’s a work in progress. You and I will have to hash it before the 2010 elections get cranked up.
pat
May 27th, 2009
7:16 pm
I am more concerned with the fact that she said that the judicial branch is “…where policy is made”. That shows an astounding ignorace of the Constitution in itself. Furhter the fact that she apparently uses race as a crutch and you have a bonafide incompetant activist judge.
I am hispanic too..I have never used it as an excuse or a method of expression as my lot in life as being different than anybody elses. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.
If she feels her race or sex gives her any advantage in judging cases she is unqualified to judge anybody, ever, muchless the Supreme Court.
I’ll just heap this on top of the long list of obama failures, he’s making record time.
Ghost
May 27th, 2009
7:32 pm
It’s racism.
Had the reverse comment been spoken by a white man, it would have been considered an outrage. And if we are to believe that all she meant was to express the value of diversity, why did she assert that one is “better” (her word) than the other? It’s racism. No question.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
7:41 pm
Pat: Stop just taking a clip or listening to faux news for your information. Do some research first then make judgement. Please see below statement in its entirety THEN you can blame GOD for OBAMA being BORN–what a wicked GOD for you pro-lifers. There will be a time when the dinosaurs will turn to ashes.
SOTOMAYOR: The saw is that if you’re going into academia, you’re going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m — you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating — its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you’re on the district court, you’re looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you’re always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, “I don’t care about the next step,” and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, “We’ll worry about that when we get to it” — look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that’s the differences — the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
7:43 pm
Sonia Sotomayor will be nominated and placed and the first Latina US Supreme Court Judge. Go Sonia……
Michael H. Smith
May 27th, 2009
7:43 pm
You are BS-ing all the way Bookman. That one sentence in the same totality of context given in the reverse had a white male said the same words it would destroy that man publically for life, as it “rightly should” and you know it.
Oh, the Bigotry!
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
7:47 pm
Ghost: Maybe you people need affirmative action.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
7:52 pm
Some time ago RW rote:
I kind of like the anonymous small donor through independent approval idea.
Oh, I know. I just jumped on the juicy news bit that was worth quoting.
I didn’t intend for that to be a statement about how the next SCOTUS justice’s remarks about her ethnicity / making policy have been similarly distorted by removing them from context but, what the heck, maybe there’s a bit of truth in that too.
For what it’s worth, I see your point about anonymous small donors–it always kinda creeps me out just a bit that any anti-abortion nut (for example) can look up and find out that I’ve contributed to Candidate X on his hit-list.
Jesus
May 27th, 2009
7:52 pm
She’s a racist!
Impeach Obama now!
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
7:55 pm
“Had the reverse comment been spoken by a white man”
Oh, please, just stop with this stupid meme already, conservatives. It’s obviously not the same thing. We’ve been over this a kajillion times, and while it may play well in the Moron Belt it’s still wrong.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
7:57 pm
Jesus: Let’s Impeach Jesus NOW.
Palin 2012…..
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
7:59 pm
RW-(the original),
“That’s a pretty cool “analysis” Mrs. G. All one needs do is come up with a nifty new definition for activist judge and Presto!”
“I’m not really interested in playing a game of semantics with you though. If you want to think a body whose job it is to determine Constitutionality of laws, and does just that, is working outside the scope of their job description it’s fine with me.”
Then why did you even bother responding to Mrs. G’s post in the first place?
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
7:59 pm
He statement is absolutely true. The JUDICIAL branch IS where policy is made. They look at legislation, determine if it is constitutional or unconstitutional, and it is EXACTLY at the point at which law is interrepted by ANY branch where policy is made.
The EXECUTIVE branch makes policy in the same way. It INTERPRETS the laws passed by Congress and then “CODIFIES” those laws. That is it breaks up each law and INTERPRETS how it applies to each department run by the executive branch. When the Judiciary decides how a law is to be interpreted, that is DEFINING policy. It always has been.
Only one who is PROFOUNDLY ignorant of how laws get turned into practice would make such a dumb comment.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2009
7:59 pm
White men are better at interpreting law than Hispanic women.
How you like that statement, Jay?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:00 pm
Then why did you even bother responding to Mrs. G’s post in the first place?
He’s distracted by the hawt tennis players on the tube. Duh.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
8:01 pm
DB, Gwinnettian : I agree…no matter how much factual information and knowledge you give to these people they will always try to find a way to twist it–I think they really believe the nonsense they preach–I’ve come to the conclusion that igorance can’t be changed.
The Moron Belt lives on…..
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
8:02 pm
godless heathen: Black men are better at interpreting law than white women. Yeah I said it….
Michael H. Smith
May 27th, 2009
8:03 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,” said Judge Sotomayor
Now reverse that statement as follows:
I would hope that a wise white Anglo male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a brown Latino woman who hasn’t lived that life. said Judge White Guy
Do you think if a white male judge from any court in this land had ever made that statement in his lifetime that he would still be under consideration at this moment to sit on the bench of the highest court of this land?
I’d be the first one to say get rid of that Supreme Omnipotent Bigot, right now!
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
8:04 pm
DB,
Except what you excerpted from my comment really did change the message through lack of context and nothing in that speech changes Sotomayor’s message. In fact the more you read of it the more it gets reinforced. You have to cherry pick paragraphs like Jay B did to attempt to make that sound like an isolated comment.
Anyway, Wipeout is on and that’s a train wreck nobody should miss.
See y’all
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:04 pm
Shorter stupid conservatives, today:
“White guys can’t say stuff that brown women can! Wahhhh!”
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
8:05 pm
You can’t lead a horse to water but you can let it drown.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
8:05 pm
Again Sotomayors point about the interpretation of law being the place that policy is made and created is absolutely correct. When laws are passed by Congress, you will NEVER see them in the same form in the Code of Federal Regulations even REMOTELY resembling the bill the Congress signed. Each department looks at the law and then INTERPRETS how it applies to their department. When the Judiciary looks at a law it interprets how that law actually works when it is applied to different areas of government. That IS the essence of making policy.
When the courts decide what a particular law MEANS with regard to how it is being applied by a department, it is making policy. When the SUPREME Court said it was ILLEGAL to do certain things with regard to particular terrorist detainees, it was making policy. It said the president could NOT try them in Guantanamo, but HAD to try them in U.S. Courts. THAT IS MAKING POLICY and it is a policy that the current Supreme Court made. The president had to alter policy to fit that decision.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:06 pm
nothing in that speech changes Sotomayor’s message.
If you seriously have a problem with Sotomayor’s message in that speech, then I’m seriously worried about your sense of proportion.
(ok, not seriously, more like a little more than I was before.)
demwit
May 27th, 2009
8:07 pm
Sotomayor has such a compelling story! She’s hispanic! She’s a woman! She was raised by a single parent! She’s angry! She hates white people! I’m so overjoyed, this is a first! What?
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
8:08 pm
jewcowboy,
Because had she chosen to engage she’s capable of trying to make her argument through examples and cases. You just wanted to play word games.
Midori
May 27th, 2009
8:09 pm
Sotomayor’s Reversals No Different Than Souter Or Alito
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/sotomayors-reversals-no-d_n_208362.html
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:09 pm
By the way, if you want an actual intelligent discussion about this particular nominee and what her ethnicity brings to the table? Strongly suggest you download this podcast and skip to about the 15.00 mark… I learned a lot about her background, and quite a bit about Puerto Rico’s legal status, too.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:11 pm
Demwit, if you really believe that she’s angry and that she hates white people…
Well, you may be a redneck.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
8:11 pm
HEY! The hawt tennis player won too so she’ll be back on soon.
Note to self: Bookmark the French Open schedule.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:13 pm
HEY! The hawt tennis player won too so she’ll be back on soon.
It’s a hetero thing. JC wouldn’t understand.
Later, all.
mike
May 27th, 2009
8:15 pm
Newt’s accusations of racism are pretty hateful.
That being said, plenty of the folks on this blog regularly call Republicans racist and that is equally hateful. Jenene Garafalo recently accused all of the Tax protesters as being racists. Jay himself made a big deal over Westmoreland’s use of the term “uppity” and dismissed his rebuttal that there was nothing racial intended in his remarks.
If you think accusing someone of racism is wrong, then don’t do it yourself. Otherwise you come off looking like a hypocrite.
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 27th, 2009
8:19 pm
“I would hope that a wise white woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a jewish / puerto rican / mullato mix who hasn’t lived that life”
I agree, she isn’t racist.. I think the same thoughts everyday
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
8:22 pm
Score one for Vandy.
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
8:26 pm
If you don’t think “uppity” is racist, you either ain’t from ’round here, or you’re standing in an Egyptian river.
mike
May 27th, 2009
8:29 pm
jewcowboy –
“Was there ever a real chance that the Republicans were not going to universally reject whatever candidate was put forth simply as political posturing?”
Well, the last time there was a Democrat nomination it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg and she sailed through the Senate 93-3.
Contrast that to the nominations of Bork, Thomas, Roberts and Alito and the Democrat’s response.
getalife
May 27th, 2009
8:29 pm
It’s getting tough for Keith to come up with the worst person in the world when all the cons are losing it.
So many choices.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
8:30 pm
A slave woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a free woman who hasn’t lived that life.
Ask a slave how hard life was under the slavemaster “harsh” then asked a free woman and she will tell you “it was great”.
Sonia Sotomayor spoke the truth..only someone who has lived a particular life whether it be due to social, emotional, mental, gender, race, ethnicity….only they can answer truthfully and honestly.
jt
May 27th, 2009
8:31 pm
I’m just so glad to live here in the land of the “FREE”.
http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/metro/gwinnett/gwinnett-police-check/
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.
Bud Wiser
May 28th, 2009
8:09 am
I fight stupidity wherever it arises.
Perhaps I should re dub myself the Caped Crusader.
Nah.
kato
May 28th, 2009
8:14 am
She is not a racist, but she made racist comments and has a racist interpretation of the law and Constitution. Just like Obama says he is not pro-abortion but voted against the born alive bill 3 times, and support pro-abortion groups, and enacted Federal funding for abortion.
So Jay or whoever, a candidate can portray whatever image they want, but once their record is made public, we can interpret where they actually stand. I am a minority and she essentially wants unqualified people to hold positions they are not qualified for meaning they will eventually be fired or QOS is diminished.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
8:18 am
Perhaps I should re dub myself the Caped Crusader.
Given your fondness for a particularly revolting feces-on-a-snack metaphor, I’d say “The Caped Cracker” would be more appropriate.
I rule Andy
May 28th, 2009
8:25 am
A little word play seems especially apropo…
“AND, I see you cannot refute my statements about how republicans herd and pet their little religious 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.”
Change two words and viola! an untruth becomes rock solid truth!!!
Adittohead
May 28th, 2009
8:27 am
So, in reading some right-wing bloggers….the CONSERVATIVES should just roll over & play dead….Point of fact, there are 25 million conservatives without a leader with a voice to lead them…
If you are being bullied..& know you can’t win, you still put up a fight …if nothing more than to bloody the bullys nose.
Mutts-R-Stupid-especially-journalism-majors
May 28th, 2009
8:30 am
N.J. is clearly an Emory liberal arts student seeking to pass it’s self off as an expert in the human mind. Why do so many Emory liberal arts grads become psycho-babblers? Because they can do nothing else with their worthless degree. Liberal Arts students and grads should not be allowed to read scientific papers, as they are unqualified to understand the material, let alone write a summary of the findings. Embryonic development is influenced by many factors that are not reflected in a mere correlation between the measured hormone levels and the subjective opinion of the mother as to her child’s autistic traits. If it is a gender war that N.J. wishes to initiate, I am ready, willing, and able to return the fire.
Corey
May 28th, 2009
8:32 am
A bi-racial president in the oval office makes the conservative lunatics go bonkers just thinking about it. The juvenile name calling of the president is hilarious. I’m absolutely ecstatic watching them foam at the mouth. Even their favorite minority, Gen. Powell, has turned on them. Condi will never say who she voted for, but even she found it hard to contain herself when the young man from Chicago was elected the 44th president of these great United States. Name call all you want. It only makes you look like a jackazz.
the truth...
May 28th, 2009
8:33 am
Soon you will be unemployed as the AJC liberal rag goes the way of the other dinosaurs of the written press. That will be a great day for Atlanta as we no longer will have Mr. Bookman to support the liberal cause of left wing ignorance and incompetance.
Had that statement been made in reverse by any of the white males who had come before her….say Scalia, Alito or Roberts…the outcry would have been raucous and universal among the left wing press and politicians alike.
Schumer, Leahy, Franks, Biden, et al would have been screaming their phoney rightous indignation….and Mr. Bookman would have echoed it in the written word.
This choice is one more step in the slide to socialism that this Socialist president is taking our country…
danjonglee
May 28th, 2009
8:33 am
La Raza…..
willie
May 28th, 2009
8:35 am
Ok which laws do I get to break and not get charged as a white male. I mean I should have the same rights as a illegal. How about making me a judge or some high value government official because I am white. If I can not do a mediocre job then you can promote me out of that job.
Zeik
May 28th, 2009
8:49 am
This is the problem I have with gays and same sex marriage. Its governmental interference with policies of the church which does not allow such action based on the bible and tradition of marriage. Now there are churches that allow such marriages however.
I have no objection to civil union as you will have the same rights as married couples, except you will push the issue and lose. Once people understand that the government can essentially force the church to accept this policy you will really see how powerful Christians are except one thing, you forget other religious groups such as Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish. Next will be forcing the church or religion not to talk about sin which is the case in Canada and same sex marriage is sinful behavior however you fail to face reality, humans were not designed for this type of behavior. This is where we get the term sodomy, from the actions at Sodom and Gomorrah if you want to believe that biblical story.
Your actions will polarize the masses, its not about the Mormon church. 75% of blacks and over 80% of Latino voted for prop 8 defining marriage as between a man and woman just like Webster defines it and society has since this institution was established. You actually target a minority group in the US, the Mormon church.
Your supporters are either very ignorant or scared to challenge a major voting block for the Democratic party.
Let civil union be your marriage, however my church does not allow it either and ministers that perform this are deflocked and ousted.
You liberals always talk about separation of church and state but in this case you want the state to force the church to accept sinful acts since the time of humanity. Nobody in society can do whatever they want, Rednecks in Georgia can married their cousin.
A dad
May 28th, 2009
8:52 am
I find the issue questionable, but Bookman’s defense predictable and on cue. Can’t help but wonder how Bookie and all the other libs would react if the speaker were Scalia, and he said a wise white man might rule better than a black/hispanic/gay man/woman, etc.
What a wonderful double standard at play. Bottom line, regardless of context it was a stupid thing to say. Inappropriate to say the least. And somewhat telling, given the fact she’s going to be reversed on the “reverse discrimination” white firefighter case. Leaving the issue of racism behind, she’s simply not a good jurist who equally applies the law, and that’s what we need on the Court.
RDL
May 28th, 2009
9:01 am
Jay, I did read the entire speech, or at least what purported to be the entire speech. And the truth is, I don’t know whether I would call the comment she made one that defines her as a racist, because one sentence out of a speech, or a lifetime of speeches, really doesn’t necessarily define a person in my view. However, with that said, she clearly presupposed that a Latina woman would make a “wiser” decision about some point than a white man without such experience. Even in context, the statement didn’t seem to address any decision point where rational people would agree the the statement was correct. Unlike me, however, you did reach a conclusion that she wasn’t a racist, and the point of my comment, and my question to you, was whether you would have reached the same conclusion if the facts were as I originally stated them. You are offered up a liberal and I just wanted to learn whether your statement regarding this person was based on rational thought, or a knee jerk reaction to those other irrational people who do want to define her based on one sentence.
zeke
May 28th, 2009
9:15 am
Here is the thing! SHE WILL VIOLATE HER OATH IMMEDIATELY BY RULING ACCORDING TO HER LIFE EXPERIENCES, HER AGENDA, HER RACE, HER GENDER AND OTHER THINGS INSTEAD OF RULING ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN! HER LIBERAL AGENDA, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT SHE THINKS POLICY AND LAW IS MADE IN THE COURTS INSTEAD OF IN CONGRESS, AND, AT HER AGE SHE COULD BE ON THE COURT FOR 30 OR 40 YEARS IS REASON ENOUGH TO VOTE HER DOWN!
oldmac
May 28th, 2009
9:27 am
True, the confirmation battle will be lost. The fight against should be taken up if not for anything but to link her incompetency back to Obie as one more piece of evidence of his incompetency.
ml
SaveOurRepublic
May 28th, 2009
9:40 am
Normal @ 18:24 (5/27) – Agreed on the SC being that last point in the checks & balance process. I’m a strict Constitutionalist, and therefore hope/pray that all SCOTUS justices rule strictly by the Constitution (although that isn’t always the case). I also believe that Congress & POTUS should have unyielding loyalty to Constitutional adherence.
BTW, I don’t buy into the whole “racism”/”racist” label because it’s so misapplied & grossly overused. While I disagree with Sotomayer’s comments, they don’t “bother” me & I’d not label her “racist” (although I question her commitment to the BoR). What DOES bother me is the double standard…..had a White male judge had made similar comments, he would have been demonized to the n’th degree! Our culture has been come overly sensitive (thanks to Marxist spawned “political correctness”).
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
10:10 am
Zeke: If you can predict the future so well, why haven’t you won the lottery yet?
Well Digger
May 28th, 2009
10:24 am
Jay reminds me of a horse without the horse sense.
number1write
May 28th, 2009
11:50 am
I must be stupid. So many words here. It’s simple, ‘La Raza (THE RACE) is the Hispanic equivalent of the KU KLUX KLAN.
Sonia Sotomayor is a member of ‘THE RACE’ hate club. Bob Byrd was a member of the KU KLUX KLAN hate club.
IS IT OKAY TO GRANT OUR MOST POWERFUL POSITIONS TO HATE CLUB MEMBERS???
“…She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza.”
Ref: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
Now what if it said:
“…He is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Men’s Bar Association, the White European Bar Association, the Arian National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Arian Heritage, and the Ku Klux Klan.”
…Member of The United States Supreme Court?
Kamchak
May 28th, 2009
12:03 pm
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2009/05/28/horse_driver_crash.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxat=13
Are you saying horses are a paragon of intellect?
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
12:08 pm
Number 1: And if it were true that La Raza is the equivalent of the Klan, they might even have a point!
Of course, it’s not, and they don’t. But don’t let that stop you!
Rachel Maddow Zaps Rush Limbaugh’s “reverse racist” remark ::
May 28th, 2009
12:25 pm
[...] read a viewpoint opposing Rush’s go here. Categories : Current [...]
N.J,
May 28th, 2009
2:26 pm
I remember George HW Bush, when he nominates Clarence Thomas for his position on the Supreme Court, citing his “empathy” as one of the primary reasons for nominating him. What a difference a generation makes.
My favorite is the current Republican judicial blather about having empathy for women who have abortions and how it might effect them later, and so it is necessary to protect women from these emotional consequences by banning the procedure entirely.
N.J,
May 28th, 2009
2:30 pm
Difference between La Raza and the KKK is that they dont wear hoods or commit terrorist acts against non hispanics. La Raza is rather more like the “Daughters of the American Revolution” than the KKK.
N.J,
May 28th, 2009
2:53 pm
Actually wrong again. The largest single demographic of hispanics in California, between 18 and 29 voted AGAINST prop 8 by 59 percent:
By age:
59% of Hispanics age 18-29 voted no; 61% of 18-29-year-olds voted no.
60% of Hispanics age 30-44 voted yes; 55% of 30-44-year-olds voted yes.
57% of Hispanics age 45-64 voted yes; 54% of 45-64-year-olds voted yes.
There was not enough data to compare Hispanics 65 and over to all voters 65 and over.
The average age of ALL Americans is being slowed by two groups. Hispanics and Asians, who have a much younger average age than that of other populations. The median age of Hispanic Americans in the United States is 27.7 years of age. The median age for the ENTIRE population is 36.5 years old. Almost a decade difference between the average age population we are looking at.
This means that HALF of the Latino population in the United States is BELOW 27.7 years of age, and 59 percent of that HALF voted AGAINST prop 8.
There is no way Republicans can somehow twist non support of prop 8 into a plus for their ability to attract Hispanics NOR turn it into an issue that will make them LEAVE the Democratic Party. A rather LARGE chunk of that 64 percent of Democrats who voted against prop 8 (64 percent against it) are Latino.
The Demographic for Latino Democrats since 2004:
Latino voters comprised 30 percent of California Democratic primary voters, an increase of 17 percent from 2004
This growth occured largely in the bottom half of the Hispanic Demographic. That is the part that is BELOW the age of 27.7. and also the portion between 27.7 and 29 years of age.
Simply put the same portion of the Latino vote that is now Democrat rather than Republican voted FOR prop 8. There were not enough Hispanic voters older than 65 to actually COUNT in the prop 8 votes and exit polls.
What is occuring is that the Hispanic vote is slowly abandoning the Republican party as the younger voters register as first time Democrats. Once a party affiliation is established, it is pretty rare that an individual will switch affiliations. This is the reason that California’s share of Democrats is so much larger than at the national average. Younger Hispanics are registering Democrat, voting against conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage, and lets face it, those at the other end of the scale are getting closer to handing over their voting rights to the Grim Reaper.
N.J,
May 28th, 2009
3:01 pm
Everyone who says they are a “Strict constitutionalist” tends to really not be so. Because a strict constitutionalist pretty much has to legislate and make judicial decisions based on what is IN the Constitution and if its not mentioned there, it isnt to be legislated at all, but remains a private right to be kept by the people. Even when it comes to STATE legislation, the states can have POWERS not granted to the federal government in the constitution, but they cannot pass laws that address the giving or excluding of rights not MENTIONED in the constitution at all.
That is, the States can make marriage laws, but they are constrained to make them under the terms and rights given to the people in the constitution and cannot make laws that deny rights that are specifically granted to the people IN the constitution.
So the idea of gay marriage is NOT at all discussed in the constitution, but neither is the idea that you can totally EXCLUDE a particular group from having that right. The best a state can do is set parameters around a right, based on traits share by ALL individuals. They can set age barriers. You cant get married until the age of. But they cannot set other barriers that deny one group TOTAl access to the legal condition and allow it to others.
will
May 30th, 2009
3:57 am
It’s time we throw out the white guys like Jay Bookman and get some minority perspectives in the mainstream media. Too often these white bread male journalists are able to cling to the white male power structure even while they pretend to espouse a political perspective that’s (oh so condescendingly) sympathetic to the struggles of true minorities. Step aside Jay and let’s let some people of color have a turn. You guys have had your chance and look what you’ve done with it. Step aside!
Political Jib.com » Elizabeth Hemmerdinger: Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten
June 3rd, 2009
9:56 pm
[...] From that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a “racist.” [...]
Sotomayor Buzz, Week 2: Sexist Media Times Ten - D.Gray-divinityNET
June 5th, 2009
5:34 pm
[...] that reasoned set of observations, we have talk radio, columnists and T-shirts, for all we know, calling Sotomayer a “racist.” All this is only the beginning. Some groups are now demanding a filibuster, while Professor Adia [...]
Tynyrxym
June 22nd, 2009
1:44 pm
dl3jEr comment4 ,