Sotomayor is a racist

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

That's a staple for you left wingers. Running from facts. Suppose we should expect it.

No one is running from the facts. Quite the opposite, most of us are capable of looking at more than the narrowly defined "fact" that you're choosing to focus upon. If you guys would go back and read what was posted, like I just did (not even an IT professional), then you would be able to take the quote in context.

But let's change the context from decisions regarding race, as made by an all white male court, to decisions regarding torture, as made by a panel of dittoheads. Would you place any more value on an opinion that Judge John McCain wrote based on the richness of his experience, one that is not shared by his armchair warrior counterparts?

But then again, this isn't about her, her comments, or her opinions. This whole thing is about galvanizing the Republican base. The Republican strategists have said precisely that and you stated it before when you laid out your strategy. Take her to task about topic "X", thrash her publicly as you vie for attention, then vote in favor of her nomination because she's well qualified and frankly, you're secretly really happy that Obama didin't nominate an ideologue with an axe to grind.

edited to add: I think there's a flaw in my hyperbole but I'll leave it to someone else to point it out

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

2. I've read the passage in context, and recognize that it isn't racist.

You've made that decision. Other people have read the passage in context and made the opposite determination.

Simply stating that it's obvious to you doesn't make it so. It's obvious to plenty of other people, who have read the full passage, too--it's just obvious in the other direction.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But I do think that input from a variety of perspectives is valuable.

The problem with lefties is they DEFINE 'perspective' mainly by cosmetics.

I would say that 'perspective' is defined by life experience and a lot less by color and gender in today's world. Unless someone petulantly forces themselves to be defined by it. Those that do, bring it up. I'm suspicious of those that do. They wallow in it, and perpetuate it.

Take two conservative white males of nearly the same age. And one convervative black female of the same age.

Wmale 1 and Bfemale are both from a very urban area, the parents were friends, both rich, both given freebies, lived in the same neighborhood, went to the same college, the frat and her sorority did events together, worked at the same firms, etc etc, 1.5 kids each. before being promoted to the SCOTUS.

Wmale 2 is from a farm, hunted for food, raised pets, paid his own way through school, lived off campus, worked 6 or seven different jobs before finding a firm that did good work and let him do various pro bono efforts, adopted 3 orphans in addition to his other 2 kids - before being promoted to the SCOTUS.

why in the world would color or gender have ANYTHING to do with which 2 are likely to vote the same and who would have other perspectives?

BUT, even with that, all 3 should vote the same in most cases because it's about interpreting the law as intended and not letting those different "perspectives" sway the logical letter of the law.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wrong - the evidence has been submitted, in the form of her statement. Defend your assertion, counselor.

The very statement on which you base your allegations of racism does not support those allegations if read in its entirety. Until a supportable allegation is made, there is nothing to defend.

Your opinion, obviously, since she DOES reference one race/sex being more capable than other.

Your hypocrisy is showing, counselor.

Have you even read her full comment?

Yes, several times.

When are you going to actually ANSWER the question instead of evading it?

NB: The 'dreamdancer gambit' of saying 'no it's not' over and over is NOT a valid defense. Show how her advocating that a latino woman woman would make a better decision than a white male is NOT racist.

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

[wmw999 2,589]

Perspective has a LOT of facets. Color, gender & ethnicity are specifically protected categories for employment, voting and justice. Well, I think ethnicity is, and I'm too lazy to look.

That said, they overlap. There aren't a whole lot of good mutually exclusive blocks that you can sort people of them and not have them start wiggling out of.

That said, if we could consistently expect all three to rule the same on any give decision based on the law, then we wouldn't need 3 (or 9), would we?

Crisp rulings are good. Sometimes they're hard to reach, simply because the impact on different pieces of the legal framework vary so much. We're not building it from scratch, we're modifying something that has a whole boatload of interconnecting dependencies that people might not even be aware of until they're broken.

And perspective helps to find some of those interdependencies. It's not a guarantee of anything.

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)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

perspective helps to find some of those interdependencies.

I agree

I just think the artificiallity of how 'some' define perspective is goofy - if I had 6 people on my staff and all were the same ethnicity, gender, politics, I could still guarantee we'd have lively discussions with 7 different viewpoints nearly all the time on stuff that really matters. And even if I were not in the same 'category' as those 6, I'd usually be aligned in the middle (not the end) of the group opinions in one way or the other (management tends to level your opinions)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,589]

I'm a big fan of dissimilar backups, as opposed to identican redundancy. While it might be a little slower, when you really, really need to get there, you don't find that all of your cars have the same manufacturer's defect.

So it depends on what's important -- getting it right, getting it cheap, or getting it fast -- just like any other project

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)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

And perspective helps to find some of those interdependencies. It's not a guarantee of anything.

Having a variety of perspectives isn't the issue here.

We're talking about a comment which appears to imply that one perspective is inherently better than another.

This isn't about the value of having differing views. It's about elevating one view above others as superior.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[wmw999 2,589]

And I believe I agreed up front that the comment was stupid. But I'm not real good at bounding arguments (otherwise I'd be a lawyer or a judge ).

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)

[happythoughts 0]

news this week

Quote

WASHINGTON — Near the end of a long and heated appeals court argument over whether New Haven was entitled to throw out a promotional exam because black firefighters had performed poorly on it, a lawyer for white firefighters challenging that decision made a point that bothered Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Quote

“Firefighters die every week in this country,” the lawyer, Karen Lee Torre said. Using the test, she said, could save lives.

“Counsel,” Judge Sotomayor responded, “we’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired. The city’s not suggesting that. All right?”

...or maybe they are unqualified according to the test.


One of the guys who passed the test is Hispanic.

Quote

“The entire discussion before the board was, ‘Was there an adverse impact on the minority candidates by this testing procedure?’ ” Judge Sotomayor said.

Quote

“You have to look at the test and determine whether the test was in fact fair or not,” Judge Sotomayor told a lawyer for the defendants, Richard A. Roberts. “If you’re going to say it’s unfair, point to specifics, of ways it wasn’t, and make sure that there really are alternatives.”

But the summary order Judge Sotomayor joined drew none of those distinctions.

[billvon 3,120]

>One of the guys who passed the test is Hispanic.

Well, that's the reason he got the job over a black guy, then! Maunel Miranda, the chairman of the Third Branch Conference and the author of a letter to congressional republicans advocating a filibuster for Sotomayor's nomination, explained it pretty well:

"Hispanic surveys indicate that Hispanics think just like everyone else. We’re not like African-Americans. We think just like everybody else."

So whites and hispanics are OK, just not blacks. Suggesting that hispanics are different - why, that would be racist!

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>One of the guys who passed the test is Hispanic.

Well, that's the reason he got the job over a black guy, then! Maunel Miranda, the chairman of the Third Branch Conference and the author of a letter to congressional republicans advocating a filibuster for Sotomayor's nomination, explained it pretty well:

"Hispanic surveys indicate that Hispanics think just like everyone else. We’re not like African-Americans. We think just like everybody else."

So whites and hispanics are OK, just not blacks. Suggesting that hispanics are different - why, that would be racist!

So, Mr. Miranda is racist. Is that the point you're making?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[TheAnvil 0]

ANOTHER dodge!

The fact that the Judge clearly uses race and sex as discriminatory factors is just too much for you to bear, eh? It's quite hard to deny plausibly as the discriminating factors are right there for anyone to read. Your implausible denial is HILARIOUS.

We're used to left wingers running from facts. Facing them just isn't your forte.

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

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

news this week

Quote

WASHINGTON — Near the end of a long and heated appeals court argument over whether New Haven was entitled to throw out a promotional exam because black firefighters had performed poorly on it, a lawyer for white firefighters challenging that decision made a point that bothered Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Quote

“Firefighters die every week in this country,” the lawyer, Karen Lee Torre said. Using the test, she said, could save lives.

“Counsel,” Judge Sotomayor responded, “we’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired. The city’s not suggesting that. All right?”

...or maybe they are unqualified according to the test.


One of the guys who passed the test is Hispanic.

Quote

“The entire discussion before the board was, ‘Was there an adverse impact on the minority candidates by this testing procedure?’ ” Judge Sotomayor said.

Quote

“You have to look at the test and determine whether the test was in fact fair or not,” Judge Sotomayor told a lawyer for the defendants, Richard A. Roberts. “If you’re going to say it’s unfair, point to specifics, of ways it wasn’t, and make sure that there really are alternatives.”

But the summary order Judge Sotomayor joined drew none of those distinctions.

Ahhhh HAAA!

Ok. Nope. I don't see the point you're trying to make. Thanks for the article though. The quote towards the end of the article seems to sum it up nicely.

"The decision ruled that New Haven’s civil service board “had no good alternatives” and was protected because it “was simply trying to fulfill its obligations” under a federal civil rights law when it was “confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact.”"

And I really don't see how she's going to ever win in the eyes of her detractors in a case involving race if they decide that the best political tactical move is to call her a racist. If she ruled against Ricci then she's labelled an "unsympathetic racist". If she ignores the federal statute and rules in favor of Ricci then she's a racist who is "legislating from the bench". Either way she's going to be raked over the coals by those who wish to use her nomination as a rallying cry.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

When are you going to actually ANSWER the question instead of evading it?

There's no need to address the baseless accusation of racism again unless new evidence is presented, as it has already been addressed.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We're talking about a comment which appears to imply that one perspective is inherently better than another.

It didn't sound like that at all, in context.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

ANOTHER dodge!

Support your accusation. Until you can do that, it's a non-issue.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

>So, Mr. Miranda is racist.

As are many of her detractors.

I spoke before about the Republican party splitting into two. One may end up with the libertarians, the part of the conservative party interested in supporting _all_ civil rights, non-interference in people's personal lives, reducing overseas misadventures, limiting the power of the executive, reducing spending etc etc. The other can take the fundamentalists, the racists, the people who believe that government should decide who you can marry, what you can say and what rights you have over your own body.

This nomination may be part of the catalyst for that split. Centrist republicans are abandoning the smears, and are more interested in hearing what she has to say than smearing her:

===========
Mel Martinez (R-FL): "For someone who is of Latin background, personally, I understand what she is trying to say. Which is, the richness of her experience forms who she is. It forms who I am."
================
Gingrich backtracks on calling Sotomayor a racist

Julie Hirschfeld Davis, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist . . .
==============

The future of the GOP is in the hands of these people; I hope they can save it from the Mirandas and the Limbaughs. Failing that, I hope they can jettison them to bring the party back from the pit it's in now. A one-party government benefits no one.

[sundevil777 102]

As if the Dems are free from racists? I think there is more racism and extremism from the left (including Obama's role models/leaders) than the right. The left's brand of racism is acceptable, even desirable to many including much of the media.

It is our current president that says marriage is between a man and a woman, it is he that recently declined the opportunity to rescind the don't ask don't tell policy (instituted under a Dem admin), so there is plenty of it to go around.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

When are you going to actually ANSWER the question instead of evading it?

There's no need to address the baseless accusation of racism again unless new evidence is presented, as it has already been addressed.

No problem, counselor - the next time there is a post saying that a WHITE person is better than a black or hispanic or asian person, or that a MAN is better than a woman, you'd damned well better not be making any posts about racism or sexism.

Because when you do, it won't be a PA when I use the word 'hypocrite'.

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

[tbrown 26]

One of the more interesting things about this whole mess is that Judge Sotomayor cannot defend herself under the rules of the game. She has to wait for her hearing before the Judiciary Committee before she can say one word.

But in the meantime, the Republicholes can heap all the lies and vilifications they want on her in an attempt to poison people's minds against her. After all, character assassination is not only their specialty, it's their hobby. I say let them, because in the end most Americans get fed up with an underdog who's been jumped by a pack of thugs. I think the Republicholes will turn public opinion even further against them.

And in the end, Justice Sotomayor will be seated anyway.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...the Republicholes...

It's hardly fair to cry "partisanship" on this one.

Remember that the first time this sort of thing happened, it was the democrats who did the "Borking".

Both sides are guilty of using the tactic that was (very effectively) pioneered by the democrats.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

One of the more interesting things about this whole mess is that Judge Sotomayor cannot defend herself under the rules of the game. She has to wait for her hearing before the Judiciary Committee before she can say one word.

But in the meantime, the Republicholes can heap all the lies and vilifications they want on her in an attempt to poison people's minds against her. After all, character assassination is not only their specialty, it's their hobby. I say let them, because in the end most Americans get fed up with an underdog who's been jumped by a pack of thugs. I think the Republicholes will turn public opinion even further against them.

And in the end, Justice Sotomayor will be seated anyway.

Reps: Sotomayor

Dems: Alito, Stevens, Bork, Estrada, Myers, Thomas, etc etc etc

WHO'S "hobby" was that again?

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

[billvon 3,120]

>As if the Dems are free from racists?

Not at all. The GOP is down and out, so they're frustrated, and thus more likely to "snap" and reveal their racists. Limbaugh blew a fuse and did just that the other day.

>It is our current president that says marriage is between a man and a woman . . .

I know a lot of people who think that, and I don't have too much of a problem with people thinking that. I _do_ have a problem with people who try to pass laws that enforce their morality on others.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Limbaugh blew a fuse and did just that the other day.

Really? Got a cite for Limbaugh saying that a white male could make better decisions than a Latina woman?

Oh, wait...I forgot, that's not racist or sexist anymore.

Anyway...linkage?

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