Sotomayor is a racist

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

You just don't like that picture because you think you look better in yours

Wendy P.

Hey. Don't gang up on me with Keely. This aint a 3some.

Is this one of those "don't" really means "do" things that girls sometimes pull?

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

*sigh*

I just read the speech. I should have done that first. The premise of this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone who has not read the speech in its entirety should do so before forming an opinion: Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.

As I stated ealier, I question her ideology. But, this topic is not near as disturbing as her comments regarding courts setting policy. Scarey shit

What do you think of this statement then?

Quote

This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well.

Guess who said it?

[lawrocket 3]

It was Scalia who said it in 2002. It's why I don't necessarily disagree with Sotomayor because what she is saying is pragmatic. Judges do make policy announcements.

Interestingly, the opinion was in a case where Minnesota prevented a candidate for the judiciary from announcing his or her views that could come before them. The 5-4 majority found that the law constituted a prior restraint on free speech - mainly because they are elected in Minnesota. The minority found that judges shouldn't be talking about how they would decide things.

An interesting note - this was a case and a statement that shows a tremedous difference between state courts and federal courts. The statement about the "common law" is what is fascinating. Most non-lawyers don't know this, but there is no such thing as federal "common law." It was abolished in the Erie v. Tompkins. So federal judges have little business announcing common law and defer to the states for opinions on such things.

Thus, in a sense, this statement is inapplicable in the Sotomayor debate.

Of course, my philosophy on the judiciary is consistent with this statement by the great Learned Hand:

Quote

For myself it would be most irksome to be ruled by a bevy of Platonic Guardians, even if I knew how to choose them, which I assuredly do not. If they were in charge, I should miss the stimulus of living in a society where I have, at least theoretically, some part in the direction of public affairs. Of course, I know how illusory would be the belief that my vote determined anything; but nevertheless when I go to the polls I have a satisfaction in the sense that we are all engaged in a common venture.

This is why I so disliked Douglas.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[likearock 2]

Quote

It was Scalia who said it in 2002. It's why I don't necessarily disagree with Sotomayor because what she is saying is pragmatic. Judges do make policy announcements.

Interestingly, the opinion was in a case where Minnesota prevented a candidate for the judiciary from announcing his or her views that could come before them. The 5-4 majority found that the law constituted a prior restraint on free speech - mainly because they are elected in Minnesota. The minority found that judges shouldn't be talking about how they would decide things.

Also interesting how Scalia concedes that judges not only set policy but create law (albeit "common" law as distinguished from statutory law, it is law nonetheless) when it bolsters his argument. That's a far cry from Robert's "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them."

[lawrocket 3]

Federal judges - don't make the rules: they apply them.

State court judges - apply rules and occasionally make them.

State court judges can give advisory opinions. Federal judges cannot.

Think of it like American League versus National League baseball. Scalia was basically discussing the designated hitter.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

I haven't been about much as of late - work and life have me busy as hell - but this issue caught my eye. Is Judge Sotomayor a racist? I don't think she is. Did she make racist comments? Without question.

“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.” - Judge Sotomayor

Once again, the racially prejudiced bigots of the democratic party show us all how racist they really are. It’s without question that a white male or female making a similar statement regarding any other race would be instantly branded a racist immediately - and I’d agree with those branding them as such. Here, however, Judge Sotomayer is branded a racist neither by the leftists nor their sycophant media. The discriminating criteria leftists use to exonerate her of racism, in spite of her comments? Her race itself. Racial discrimination . . . ahhh . . . but should we expect less from them?

After all, they support racial discrimination under the guise of Affirmative Action. Of course, they’ll run like cowards and refuse to admit they support racial discrimination or that they discriminate based upon race for any reason - all evidence to the contrary. Everyone should be used to that now. Their cowardice in that regard has been proven multiple times beyond question.

It’s pretty hilarious how some leftists refer to taking this quote in context in defense of racism. Some of the same leftists were likely quoting Rush Limbaugh as hoping president Obama fails - and would run like cowards when challenged to give the complete quote from Mr. Limbaugh. The same lefties were undoubtedly screaming for Trent Lott’s head over his innocuous comments at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party, and later burying their heads in the sand when Senator Dodd stated that former KKKlansman Senator Byrd would have been right during the Civil War - right on the floor of the Senate. Here their discriminatory factor for taking things in context would be party allegiance, not race. Despicable double standard, regardless.

In context or out, Ms. Sotomayor’s comments are racist by any rational standard. Peggy Noonan wrote a fantastic article in the Wall Street Journal regarding the Republican response to Judge Sotomayor. It advises them to ignore her blatant racism, face the fact that she will be confirmed, and try and engage her to get a feel for her legal thought processes.

I agree with Ms. Noonan that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed and that Republicans should not engage in Borking. It does little but bring down the political discourse and make fools of those taking part in it. I disagree with her, however, that conservatives should ignore the fact that she has made racist comments and her decisions tend to support institutionalized racism in the form of Affirmative Action. I do not, however, believe they should make said racism or racist comments the crux of their opposition to her. I think they should highlight it, and oppose or support her based upon her judicial qualifications - which seem to be quite impressive. They would be morons to oppose her on the race issue or to bombard her with queries on her abortion views, as she will likely rule on an abortion case and it would be inappropriate to query her on that issue. Conservatives need to question her in an intelligent manner and not resort to Biden-esque tactics that were used upon Bork, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.

Leftists have capitalized on the lie that anyone who opposes race based affirmative action is a racist. It’s a pillar of their rhetoric and their attack machine during any election cycle. It’s a lie that has political inertia. Republicans must realize that until they place another force into play, this inertia will allow this lie to have power. It’s time for them to take the truth and throw it back at leftists.

Race based affirmative action is racial discrimination. Those who support it are cowards if they cannot admit that. Ms. Sotomayor’s comments are racist. Those who cannot admit that are cowards. Supporters of racial discrimination are racists. All of the aforementioned are irrefutable facts, that currently lie dormant in the Republican arsenal. It is long past time for conservatives to bring these weapons to bear. If they do so, they will eventually benefit. The truth, rest assured, has political inertia too. It must be set in motion.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Because the law shouldn't be analyzed through any particular lens. The law is the law regardless of your life experiences.

Oh yeah. The law is TOTALLY black and white with no room for interpretation. Right.

As stated, the law is black and white. The situations that occur aren't. Again, law shouldn't be read with prejudice. There's a reason she's blindfolded.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because the law shouldn't be analyzed through any particular lens. The law is the law regardless of your life experiences.

Oh yeah. The law is TOTALLY black and white with no room for interpretation. Right.

As stated, the law is black and white. The situations that occur aren't. Again, law shouldn't be read with prejudice. There's a reason she's blindfolded.

I am amazed by how our schools have failed the US on this point.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Shotgun 1]

Did Limbaugh seriously compare her to David Duke??? If so, holy crap, I want some of those pills that he's on.

Quote

Radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker New Gingrich have both branded Sotomayor a racist, and Limbaugh went on to compare choosing her for the high court to nominating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sotomayor_supreme_court

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Limbaugh went on to compare choosing her for the high court to nominating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke

I'm sure it's just because they both have alliterative names

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Did Limbaugh seriously compare her to David Duke??? If so, holy crap, I want some of those pills that he's on.

Quote

Radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker New Gingrich have both branded Sotomayor a racist, and Limbaugh went on to compare choosing her for the high court to nominating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sotomayor_supreme_court

Perhaps Mr. Duke would “hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life.”

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Perhaps Mr. Duke would “hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life.”

OK, Mike. Yes, nominating her is EXACTLY like nominating a former leader of the KKK as a SC Justice. That quote of hers CLEARLY shows that she is just as racist as Mr. Duke.



But seriously... I can see how that comment and some of her actions might be interpreted as racist (and should certainly be considered by the committee), but blowing it out of proportion as Limbaugh did only makes him look silly.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But seriously... I can see how that comment and some of her actions might be interpreted as racist (and should certainly be considered by the committee),

Agreed.

Quote

but blowing it out of proportion as Limbaugh did only makes him look silly.

Like nobody here in SC ever uses hyperbole? He definitely overplayed the point, making that comparison. I don't agree with it, but I can understand the point he was trying to make.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

> I can see how that comment and some of her actions might be
> interpreted as racist (and should certainly be considered by the
>committee), but blowing it out of proportion as Limbaugh did only makes
>him look silly.

Agreed - and most of the GOP, to their credit, have denounced his comparison, and are abandoning the "she's a racist" angle.

[bodypilot90 0]

looks like there is even moew stuff

Quote

The comments in 2002 and 2003 echo a much-criticized remark she made in 2001 at the University of California-Berkeley law school that has prompted a furor among conservatives who say they suggest President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee brings a personal bias to her legal decisions.

She is a racist
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/04/white-house-delivers-sotomayors-writings-records-senate/

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Here’s some info from Sotomayor’s judicial record that pertain to her alleged racism (and here’s the link to the source http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104941870):
(I've underlined some especiaslly inflammatory passages for emphasis.)

“In [a] case involving a black couple bumped from an American Airlines international flight, Sotomayor said their race discrimination claim was clearly trumped by an international treaty governing airline rules. It matters not, she said, that her ruling might mean airlines could discriminate on a wholesale basis and that there would be no legal recourse. The treaty's language is clear and it is not for the courts to make policy, she said, adding that if policy is to be changed, Congress or federal agencies must do it.”

“Sotomayor … dissented when her colleagues allowed the New York City Police Department to fire one of its officers for sending hate mail on his own time. While the hate mail was patently offensive, hateful and insulting, Sotomayor wrote, it did not interfere with the operations of the police department, and, she observed, under our Constitution, even a white bigot has the right to speak his mind.”

“As a judge, Sotomayor has ruled in 100 cases that involve questions of racial discrimination of one sort or another. Tom Goldstein, Supreme Court advocate and founder of the leading Supreme Court blog, has read all of those decisions. He says that Sotomayor does not seem to put her thumb on the scale and has in fact, most of the time, ruled against those charging discrimination. In only 1 of out 8 cases, he says, has she favored in some sense claims of discrimination. "The fact that she so rarely upholds discrimination claims I think answers the idea that she is always angling for minorities," he says.”

“Sotomayor has not been reversed by the Supreme Court in any of her race cases, but that is likely to change in the next few weeks when the high court issues a decision in what is widely viewed as her most controversial ruling. It involves the city of New Haven, Conn.'s new promotion exam, which resulted in no African-Americans scoring high enough to be promoted. The city's lawyers warned that the test results were a red flag that made New Haven liable to losing a lawsuit from black firefighters. So the city discarded the exam and the results. Instead, the city was sued by a group of white firefighters who charged reverse racial discrimination. A federal district court judge held a fact-finding hearing and, in a 48-page opinion, said the city was discriminating against no one because all of the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted. Sotomayor was on a three-judge panel that reviewed that decision. In a six-sentence unsigned order, the panel said that because the test appeared to violate a provision of federal law that treats such racially disproportionate test results with grave suspicion, the city was within its rights to take the steps necessary to avoid liability.

Wow! “…it is not for the courts to make policy...if policy is to be changed, Congress or federal agencies must do it.” “…under our Constitution, even a white bigot has the right to speak his mind.” Clearly the ranting of a racist lunatic! It’d be insane to let someone with those views on the Supreme Court! Think of the damage she’d do! [/sarcasm]

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[tbrown 26]

Quote

Seems pretty clear to me. Besides being a judicial activist, she is a racist. Of course I realize that racism by those that are not Caucasian is allowed without serious objection nowadays, but it is what it is. I certainly don't want a racist that wants to be a super-legislator/"making policy" from the highest court. It is bad enough that Bush 41 nominated her to the lower court.

Complete bullshit. Complete garbage spewing Republican slash & burn "we may not run this country anymore, but we can still trash what's left of it" bullshit.

Her judicial record, if anyone would bother to READ it, tells the whole story. But the Republicans either can't read, or don't want to read anything but their own bullshit. so they'd rather call a woman who's realized the American dream a racist, because it's easy, cheap, and emotional.

It's bullshit. I won't even debate this asshole crap. It's just complete and utter bullshit.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

It's just complete and utter bullshit.

And the left's assault on Trent Lott after his innocuous comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party? Was that bullshit?

Was the Borking of John Ashcroft bullshit?

Judge Pickering? Was his borking bullshit?

How about the vile assault of lies and hatred heaped upon Judge Bork? Was that bullshit?

It's without question that Judge Sotomayor's comments, were they made by a white male republican nominee in the same context with the race portions interchanged, would have instantly made that nominee un-confirmable. The left media and the left's political machine would have borked them into political oblivion. Here, because of the judge's race and party, it's OK.

If left wingers have a problem with Republicans calling her a racist, left wingers should think about the 'reap what ye sow' proverb. I think she's not a blatant racist and made some racist remarks. I've read her record is actually to the right of Souter's (hard to be left of it in some cases). Compared to what Democrats reaped upon myriad Republican nominees, the Republican response to the Judge's remarks is benign. It's struck a chord, hence the left's whining.

Reap what you sow - and it's a small harvest given the enormous amount of seed the left has put out.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Seems pretty clear to me. Besides being a judicial activist, she is a racist. Of course I realize that racism by those that are not Caucasian is allowed without serious objection nowadays, but it is what it is. I certainly don't want a racist that wants to be a super-legislator/"making policy" from the highest court. It is bad enough that Bush 41 nominated her to the lower court.

Complete bullshit. Complete garbage spewing Republican slash & burn "we may not run this country anymore, but we can still trash what's left of it" bullshit.

Her judicial record, if anyone would bother to READ it, tells the whole story. But the Republicans either can't read, or don't want to read anything but their own bullshit. so they'd rather call a woman who's realized the American dream a racist, because it's easy, cheap, and emotional.

It's bullshit. I won't even debate this asshole crap. It's just complete and utter bullshit.

*hands tbrown a tissue*

I was going to make a comparison between the KKK and La Raza (which Sotomayor was a member of), but then I realized that Dems don't really care about either one unless it's a Republican that's a member.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>If left wingers have a problem with Republicans calling her a racist . . .

Most republicans have recanted that, a few have even apologized. Good to see that some people don't live in the "X did it first so it's OK by me" world.

[TomAiello 26]

It's interesting to me that Jeff Sessions had his own judicial appointment torpedoed by partisan accusations of racism (from Ted Kennedy, among others). Article here.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TheAnvil 0]

Why should they recant? Unlike Pickering, Lott, Ashcroft, and Bork, the Republicans actually have extant evidence from the Judge's own remarks. It IS without question that a white male making similar remarks would be borked into political oblivion, their name becoming synonymous with racism for quite some time. If you're of a certain race and sex, it's OK though - for idiots at any rate.

And that's really what has leftists just up in arms. A public, undeniable display of them racially discriminating. I could expect no less of them, given their history on the issue. Nice to be proven correct yet again.

Strategically, the Republicans should not have recanted. They should openly state that her remarks were racist, point out the disparity between her remarks and those made by the people I mentioned earlier (and others; my list is by no means all inclusive), and then point out that it's OK with leftists because they discriminate when it's OK to make racist remarks based upon the speakers color. They should then vote to confirm the Judge. She seems quite qualified.

The Republican response is why they have issues with much of the electorate. They should mimic the left on this issue and get right in their face on it. They've the far, far stronger position.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[GeorgiaDon 380]

What do you think of her actual record on the bench? Decisions like:
“…it is not for the courts to make policy...if policy is to be changed, Congress or federal agencies must do it.”
and: “…under our Constitution, even a white bigot has the right to speak his mind.”

Do you find those statements offensive too?

In over 100 cases involving some allegation of discrimination, she has found in favor of the party that alleges discrimination only 1/8 of the time. Hardly the record of an "activist judge".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 3,120]

>Why should they recant?

Because they have realized that it is better to do the jobs they were elected to do than to play petty games of political payback. Bravo for them.

>And that's really what has leftists just up in arms.

Try again. The right _was_ the side up in arms. They are now (fortunately) calming down.

The republicans have become the party of "no." Any solution any democrat proposes - they're against it. If they propose raising taxes, they're against that. Greedy tax and spend dems etc. If they propose reducing taxes, they're against that. Irresponsible fiscal policy! Who will pay for Obama's misguided attempts at stimulus? Their only apparent goal is to see the US fail at whatever it does, so that they can blame the democrats and start winning elections again.

This is the first indication I've seen that the republicans want to do anything but screw over America, and that's a good sign. Kudos to them.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

This is the first indication I've seen that the republicans want to do anything but screw over America, and that's a good sign.

Wow, Bill. That's phenomenally partisan.

Disagreeing with the majority is not an attempt to "screw over America." In this country, it's generally accepted that dissent is both normal and healthy, and leads to a good political discourse. Arguing against the position put forth by the President, the Speaker, or the President Pro Tem is not "screwing over America." Viewing the nation as a simple extension of the current leadership (and dissent from that leadership as unpatriotic) is a terribly shortsighted view.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com