No More Apologies from Sotomayor
by Andrew BreitbartThis week’s Washington Times column:
With Barack Obama, many Americans had hoped to get a post-racial president. With Mr. Obama’s pick of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace David H. Souter on the Supreme Court, it looks less and less like they got one.
President Obama – a man we still hardly know – clearly subscribes to the notion that we should judge each other not just on the content of our character, but also by the color of our skin.
We’ve had warning signs before. Remember the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.?
As for the outrage du jour, the call for Sotomayor to apologize for making a racist comment in a 2001 speech is silly. She said what she meant, and she meant what she said: “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.”
No white nominee could get away with that statement’s corollary in which a wise white man comes to better conclusions that a Latina. Nor should he.
A non-apology apology – which seems to be all the price she is going to pay – is pointless.
The White House simply says Judge Sotomayor used “poor” word choice. But that excuse applies to any number of public figures who have had their careers derailed for similar language blunders. This double standard needs to go on public trial.
In today’s left-of-center culture, the “white male” – “the victim,” as it were – understands that what Judge Sotomayor said is the accepted liberal way of thinking. Identity politics (also known as political correctness, multiculturalism and cultural Marxism) is the foundation of the political left. It is the first, middle and last lesson taught today in Academia. It is the mainstream media’s rulebook.
It is why Sotomayor and Obama are praiseworthy, and why Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez and Miguel Estrada are unacceptable members of their respective tribes. It is the onerous double standard that ensures that the left wins every argument over race. And that is far too useful a weapon for the president and his Democratic Party to give up.
You can read the column in full here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
141 Comments
What is the content of Barack Obama's character?
Do you all remember when Chief Justice John Roberts said this in 2001:
"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 hispanic woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
Don't remember that? Neither do I.
Remember when Justice Sam Alito joined an organization called "The Race" to promote and advance the white race?
Funny, Neither do I.
About as much as can be contained in an empty suit.
For a legal system to work well, it must be fair; and for it to be fair, it must be predictable and consistent. In an ideal system, the people agree to live by the rules, and we avoid rule-breaking because we know what the rules are and what the penalty will be if we break them. (I do understand that some people will always break the rules, hence the need for the court system in addition to the legislature). The system we have now is quite possibly approaching the tipping point of becoming unpredictable, inconsistent and unfair, because we have judges who think they should interpret the law through their own personal filters and lenses instead of serving as impartial arbiters of facts and law. If the outcome of the case depends on the person rendering the decision, the deterrent factor is greatly dimished and the "lottery" factor comes into play. American judges of any background should be capable of applying the law to the facts and reaching the right decision. If a judge can't or won't do that, they have no business being on the bench. If the only judges who can do it are white males, then they're the only ones who should be appointed.
There's plenty to question with Sotomayor, but I really hope Republicans don't let themselves get bullied into a corner where they attack her just so they can appease their more vocal base. I've been listening to Hugh Hewitt a lot about this. Not only is he an accomplished lawyer, but he discusses the appointment with other lawyers of all different ideologies. The consensus seems to be that she's a bit of a lightweight compared to who Obama could have nominated, but she's also not as far to the Left as who he could have gone for. If there are things she needs to be questioned about, that's great. If they go after her just because the Dems got away with doing it and they want payback, I don't think it's going to do anything but help Obama. The criticisms have to be real and substantial, and there has to be respect where it's due. Otherwise it just plays into the mantra that Republicans are opposing everything because they feel it's the best way to win the next time around. I think the issues we face are too important to get bogged down in stupid crap.
"I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation." — White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, 5/27/09
Good observation. I hate when someone says something outrageous but certainly exactly what they meant and we expect an apology to set things right then expect them to change the way they think. Sotomayor believes what she says and no apology is going to change that. Its OK. She needs to defend her statements and let public opinion fall where it falls. Personally I believe this "richness" of her life is bull. She was raised in NY and was indoctrinated in liberal schools. She has a sheltered life and I bet she has never been to the heart of America to see how well-rounded people live. Her statements show a shallow bitter attitude kinda like Obama
The reason we a reaching this tipping point is that it is far easier (i.e. less work) to judge/lawyer/make a lot of noise with the "filters" that come from individual life experience than it is to learn the law and apply the law to a factual situation. Learning the law, actually learning it, is hard. Taking the set of prejudices that were learned in childhood and adolescence, and reacting to them is easy. Everybody does it. Learning to be fair predictable and consistent is a set of filters. Filters that require diligence, conscience and hard work to obtain.
Of course, maybe I am wrong and am undervaluing the wisdom that comes from the Latina experience. I guess Law School is should include a few mandatory years in Miami.
I tell ya, boys and girls, I´ve been back in the USA for a little over two weeks now after a 2 year jaunt in Europe. In this business, ALL of my friends, associates and quite a lot of family are liberals. I cannot tell you the number of times I´ve heard the words ¨I´m sorry¨ in the past two weeks. ¨Buyers remorse¨ is quite the understatement.
If I want to see hate spewing – I would go to Freepers or – Army of God – or Operation Rescue. Plenty of hate there. And I could give plenty of examples of cops getting away with murder also. That is why the Weather Underground was started. I don't need a Gun loving marine to give me advice.
But thanks anyway.
We all know the rules. White Men to the back of the bus. White women a bit in front, of White Men but still back. A complex caste system which has Blacks (as "magical totems" ala Spike Lee's essay "Magical Negro") in front, then Hispanics, then Gays (as the Prop 8 fights made clear, Gays initially attacked Blacks/Hispanics verbally over Prop 8 votes then backed off), then White Women.
This caste system, complex and with the principal advantage of helping White elites who drive the bus, and don't have to cede the driver's seat to upwardly mobile Whites, was supportable during good times when opportunities were many. Now that Taxes are set to go sky high, from soda to beer to electricity, jobs are only government run, and unemployment and inflation are twin hammers, Affirmative Action aka discrimination against Whites and White Men in particular is politically poison and Dems should be made to drink it in full.
Lets put Sotomayor and Dem Senators on the Record in favor of discriminating against White Men in all areas of life: employment, promotion, admission into college, and everything else. Let's have Dems reap what they sowed.
You know, being a Puerto Rican from NY myself I'm torn here, just tonight I was out to dinner with friends in LA (white)_ and some policeman came to eat in the restaurant. They couldn't understand why I never met a policeman that I liked much less would want to even talk to or look at. To them policeman are people too, to me (growing up a Puerto Rican in the NY boroughs) they are Anathema, that even being seen speaking to a cop could bring on social and physical consequences. I'm talking about queensbridge and Astoria NY in the late 70's, where I grew up. They are shocked by her outward racism, while I, I, know where shes coming from…
A federal appelate judge and potential Supreme Court associate justice who openly and unapologetically espouses racism and sexism, and uses it as the yardstick of informed jurisprudence, is far from being "stupid crap."
She's coming from the corner of Bigotry and Prejudice.
Just because you know that neighborhood doesn't make it okay.
"…Gun loving marine…"
You say that like it's a bad thing.
"It is the onerous double standard that ensures that the left wins every argument over race."
Unfortunately, Mr. Breibart what more has the current left at its disposal? This is Mr Obama's flinty Illinois politics as usual–the double standard. That's the only weapon the left has at their disposal. They surely lack fresh ideas and insights. Regretfully, Mr Obama uses it, Mr Reid uses it, and Ms Pelosi uses it. The leadership are all poster children for the double standard.
For a legal system to work, for 'the rule of law" to work the people judged must believe in it. If they lose faith in the neutrality of the legal system, the legislators, lawyers, and judges or in law enforcement then eventually order will break down and vigilante justice will become the rule. Mr Obama must believe he is doing exactly what society allows. Ms Sotomayor, no doubt a wonderful person, as a judge has lost my respect for her childish bragging and arrogance. I imagine she'll be selected. I hope she learns a little dignity and grace.
So all police are white or what? Is your gripe with cops or with white people, because Sotomayor's comment had nothing to do with cops.
The worst of this neither Obi or Sotomayor have ever actually lived the "tribal" experience of which they speak. The are both similar to the phonies of the "Winter Soldier" farce. She especially never lived the life of 95% of her fellow Puerto Ricans. We are missing the total hypocracy of their ignorant "aggrieved" rationalizations for their abuse of their victims.
"I used poor word choice."
Can we get that made into a badge or a business card in case of an emergency? It worked so well for Don Imus. Oh wait…
i am just so glad that she is at least very pro-life, she can help over turn roe v wade.
"Otherwise it just plays into the mantra that Republicans are opposing everything because they feel it's the best way to win the next time around."
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but…
I keep hearing this mantra that the Republicans need to not play the role of the sore loser if they want to get back in power. Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember the Democrats playing the role of extremely sore loser from 2001-2008 and they ended up in control of everything.
Sotomayor is a Latina?
I had no idea!
You raise some sharp points. Yes, Obama’s relationship with a radical anti-American church was always a bad sign. He is a nut job and will leave behind a more racially divisive nation.
everything said by the left is either a joke or just a small mistake, with no real offense meant. Everything said by a republican or conservative is viewed as the true word of the devil with racism and hatred in every syllable.
I hope you’re right – and right.
And eye for an eye, whatever happened to the moral majority? I guess we're just part of the moral minority
oh no no. The worst police in NY are the latin and blacks, those are the ones you don't want to be arrested by! I never said anything about white. My comment had more to do with growing up hispanic, and the differences in perception from that `experience' I used the police as an example. Back in the 80's I had many people literally turn their backs to me when they heard I was PR, to the point of where I started telling people I was Italian. thats the way it was (is), I'm just saying her comment about experience in the world is valid.
HaHAHA. You're obviously not from a major `melting pot' like NYC…
Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember the Democrats playing the role of extremely sore loser from 2001-2008 and they ended up in control of everything.
No, you are right, and that's a good point. However, just because both happened, does it necessarily make them connected? I think it's a lot more likely that Democrats were able to get away with being nimrods because of the furor about the war and the way the Republicans blew it while they had their shot. I was much further to the Left back then (still supported Bush over Gore, but come on….that's a slam-dunk), but hated the way the Dems were behaving. It's part of what pushed me to the Right. I can't swear that the abhorrent way the Dems behaved didn't help them (other than among their base), but I'm pretty sure they got away with it because Americans were distracted and Bush didn't do enough to call the public's attention to it (if it was me, I would have gone on TV and blasted Durbin as an obvious racist for the way he attacked Estrada).
The bottom line is, there are more people who say they aren't a member of either party than there are members of either party (I believe the latest numbers are 39%, 32%, 29%). Because Republicans had control of everything and failed to implement anything serious (where was the border control, drilling for oil, and tort reform???), people turned against them. I think they have the superior argument, so I want to see them make it….not joust at windmills in an attempt to copy the behavior of the most gutless, calculating, narcissistic group of politicians I've seen in my lifetime.
One comment in her career and you're going to say she "openly and unapologetically espouses racism and sexism?" That's exactly what I'm talking about. It sounds good to Rush and his fans (and I'm a big fan of Newt Gingrich who also said it), but to people who can be swayed, it sounds like you're looking for a reason to hate her. Hardly the stuff of winning the argument through superior ideas.
Actually, the NY cops are soundly behind Sotomayor. She was a prosecutor, and from what I've heard was tough on crime. I'm not a lawyer, but the other names I heard that Obama was considering were WAY scarier than hers. Some guy from the Hoover Institute (Libertarian think tank) who does judicial review said that every name on the short list was to her Left. He still would have preferred them because he wasn't impressed with her credentials, but if ideology is your main objection, you might want to listen to a few other sources before you make up your mind.
Forget about what she SAID. Focus on her RULING regarding the firefighters whose test results were thrown out because they were the "wrong" race.
Now there's an outrageous case of "reverse" racism. Why should we muzzle ourselves? She's going to pass anyway. The least we can do is make a stink about it. The Dems always do. Why should we play dead?
I didn't realize law enforcement was a race.
I'd be curious to hear your response to this, Andrew. Something I read from our liberal friends, a response to Newt calling Sotomayor out… saying "Old Racism" looks like lynchings and slavery, segregation and the KKK, but "New Racism" looks like asking to have minorities represented even if it steps on the toes of whites, thusly, for Old Racists to yell down New Racists is bordering on obscene.
Well, nevermind. I just saw the error of that. No one is an Old Racist now.
Silly liberals.
I have nothing original to add, but very much share the sentiment that she knew exactly what she was saying and meant exactly what she said. This judge will rule on issues based on her desired outcome instead of the law. I think her comment about appellate courts and making policy was equally telling. Yes, she needs to go on trial in the court of public opinion.
Since you must engage in Identity Politics, you will note in Sotomayor's comment that she spoke only of "Latina women" which implies that males of any "Latina" background, including Puerto Rican do not even exist as part of her 'empathy'.
Given her statement it is safe to say that Sotomayor most likely hates 'Latina males' as much as she hate 'white males' so when you say 'Hispanic experience' Sotomayor is speaking in terms of how "Latina" is experience only by 'Latina women'; she see you SeanLA as the her problem ie 'oppressive patriarchy'.
Someone pointed already pointed this out however bears repeating, law enforcement is not a Race therefore it is a fallacy to use police officers when arguing on the side of Identity Politics.
I love how the initial reactions from conservatives whenever a person of color says something vaguely racist is "WELL WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE RACIST THEN, TOO"
All of the racial implications aside, as commenters have mentioned before, the real issue here is legislation from the bench – impartial interpretation of the Constitution is what the American people expect, even according to the polls, not legislation from the bench based on one's life experiences.
That having been said – conservative judges often vote with their bent, and liberals with theirs. How is it possible to ensure that a nominee will eschew their personal proclivities and truly interpret the Constitution? This certainly isn't a justification for Sotomayor's incendiary words, but an attempt to understand them as they apply to any judge.
Me remembering also, Lois.
Obama wears his ethnicity like a suit of armor.
I believe it's called pointing out a double standard. It's okay for an African American to use the "N" word in a derogatory fashion toward members of his/her own race, but if someone from another race uses it, it is totally unacceptable (unless you're Robert Byrd and referring to white "n"s). If a Latina (note to the group: woman is redundant–the male equivalent is Latino) implies that she is better than a white man, that's okay, but if a white man or woman were to imply that he/she is better than someone of Hispanic origin, that would be racist as far as liberals are concerned. See how it works??
Guess we've decided as a culture only to build up the self-esteem of minorities and women…white men need not apply.
What is required is not an apology for but a repudiation of that and similar statements. Ah but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.
I think generally conservative judges look to the Constitution and legal precedent in this country; if there is a doubt, they err on the side of caution–don't try to read too much into our national charter (abortion, gay marriage, pornography). Liberal judges often seem to turn to international law, popular opinion, and their own social preferences to "inform" their position on cases. As a result, they end up trying to legislate from the bench without a specific Constitutional basis for their ruling.
Ah, still going with the "Miles no able to deal with icky conservative view so Miles make up something and get all 'amused' and 'shocked'" tactic?
Do you earn dissonance if you tell the truth or something?
For all the thrashing about considering this choice for the Supreme Court, really no matter who he puts up it's a net gain of zero in relation to the balance of the court. Souter was a closet liberal and when he came out that was a differnce maker. Ruth Bader Ginsberg will also be a wash. What needs to happen is for the block of 5 to stand pat and try to outlive this utter mistake of a POTUS. I trust thorough opposition research and full fledged dirt diggin is underway.
No really, and it's apparently made ZERO difference in her life. She's so natuarlly BRILLIANT that she would be where she is today regardless of her race (which is technically CAUCASIAN) and her gender. And I would be f—ing King of Belguim if the MAN wasn't holding me back…
Great another Obama lightweight…fortunately we can correct his other mistakes in a few years, these types of mistakes can linger and linger and ….
Nobody can claim that the political correctness advocates are pusuing a just and fair society as long as they overlook Hispanics having membership in LaRaza("the race"),yet fully condemn a Caucasian if they are known to be a member of any group that celebrates European heritage-especially if a white had made a similar comment about "being as good or better then a Hispanic at deciding the law due to their European heritage".
To the "multi-culti" advocates who wonder why there's still resentment among the races,this is the legitimate reason why.
Miles, you son of a gun! You're on to us! Just listening to the racist drivel on this message board is enough to sicken a person.
How dare we say things like, race shouldn't be a factor when examining a man or woman? Or, we judge people not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character? How dare we say things like, racism should never be tolerated – discrimination of any person by any person is wrong?
And there you are, the epitome of race-sensitivity, speaking for all the "people of color"! I'll bet the "people of color" are so overwhelmingly thrilled to have someone as sensitive as yourself going to bat for them. You're an inspiration, Miles.
Right On Sean!!!
Only if you grew up in a place where the police acted more like gestapo than law enforcement would you really relate to someone who grew up in the same circumstance.
Despite the call among conservatives for "less government", they have no problem with an overbearing presence of state institutions among poor, minority communities and when that is rejected, the complainer is automatically branded a "racist." Why? Because he feels he has the same human rights as someone who lives in a tony suburb?
It's all b.s. and so are many right wingers.
Look the woman made a racist comment. I am sick to death of these so called victims of white racism running their mouths off and not having to answer for it. They no more have the right to make those statements than any of us awful, horrible white people do.
My advice look at Obama when he starts wielding teh truncheon race to beat us with and tell him to his face, The race card does not work on me. Its a cheap tactic and it cheapens you. We are sick of it. And its not helpful. It also proves one thing with the Sotomayor nomination: Obama does not want a real discussion on race or any issue for that matter.
Unfortunately, my response would be : "not as sorry as we will all be when the next attack happens." Not if…when.
Reverse racism is another by-product of the ‘60s. The hyphenated moniker, African American, Italian American, etc. as it was designed by our race pimps, and mind numb leftist, has Balkanized our society to a dangerous crescendo. The post racial presidency of Barry was another fallacy that people wanted to believe, oh well. This is the game that our leftist have brought to public discourse, coarseness, with a seething rage. My knee-jerk response is Sotomayer deserves the same response as Miguel Estrada, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and on and on. As much as I hate to say it, Sotomayer is going to get through, and is going to sit on the SCOTUS. Our team (conservatives) must professionally address our differences, in the same demeanor as Dick Cheney addressed the war on terror, brilliant, concise, factual, and with as little emotion as possible, and maybe we win? We must remember that Stevens, Ginsburg, are certain appointments and God forbid there are rumors of Scalia.
Just yesterday, on another internet site, one of the lefties was accusing me of taking Sotomayor's statement out of context and challenged me to read the entire speech, which I did. Well, reading the entire speech definitely changed my mind about Sotomayor. Before I thought she probably wasn't really racist, but just hadn't thought carefully enough about what she said (although the remark was part of a prepared speech), but after reading the entire speech, I had to conclude that she is racist. She's not just saying that a wise Latina and a white man (notice that he isn't allowed to be "wise") would reach different conclusions. She says that a wise Latina would reach a BETTER conclusion than the white male. I would be okay if she had just said that they would reach different conclusions, because only I believe that any two wise people, regardless of background, race, sex, etc, might reach different conclusions on the same issue. I am definitely not okay with her saying that a Latina would reach a BETTER conclusion than a white male. To quote Garbarfalo, that is just straight-up racism.
I heard this judge has had over 60% over her cases over-turned, and that she has a reputation of being both beligerent and not very smart.
If I'm interviewing someone for a job, these are qualities that would cause me to say, "NEXT…."
Excuse me. How has an act of racism been commited by somone saying "I would HOPE"? Also why is this statements content never revealed? What was the topic of discussion? If, for instance, we were talking about things pertinant to the Hispanic community and Latinas specifically, like laws that would affect them directly. Then I would say “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.” And what would be wrong with that?
I am not sure how "tough on crime" she has been throughout her career, but I do know that 80% of her decisions have been overturned. More than 3/4ths. That doesn't speak well to her judgement, now does it? I also know that most attorneys find her to be difficult, lazy, spiteful, and hard to deal with. They also have described her as very uneven in her decision making. Sounds like someone who would make a good pick for the highest court in the land? Not to me. Justice is supposed to be blind, and doesn't care if she is a woman, hispanic, a witch a princess, or whatever. She is obviously an idealogue, and while she may be PR as someone said above, she lived a middle class upbringing, (regardless of how it is being reported), so I doubt seriously she had any dealings with cops growing up.
Where did you get the idea she is very pro-life? Don't count on that! I saw Elinor Holmes Watson on tv yesterday on a panel discussion, and she and the other lefty chicks were saying that Sotomayor would not be any help to the pro-life community. And they know her, personally.
Don Imus, or Jimmy the Greek, or Howard Cosell, or…
The thing for people to remember is Obama's own words. He said this past week that he wanted her confirned so we could "start having some justice" here. So, until his pick is confirmed, there has been no justice? Or just not the RIGHT KIND? She's his pick, and from all I have read and seen, she was picked because her views mirror his. So, if you go back and look at how she ruled on her previous cases, you will see how he believes things should be done. Also, as I said above, 80% of her cases have been overturned in other decisions, so evidently they weren't too widely received, regardless of her sex or color.
That's a given. There is no way in hell Obama would put up anybody about whom there was even a question in his mind about Roe v. Wade. This public posturing on the part of the left is just that.
Consider: if the left were really in doubt about how she'll rule on so-called privacy cases, they'd be in a total uproar right now, threatening everyone in sight. But they're not. They're just going through the motions.
The same thing that would be wrong with a white judge in the modern south empathizing with white citizens and ruling that blacks have to sit at the back of the bus.
A law about where black people can and can't sit affects white people directly. A judge who truly understood white racists' concerns and "felt their pain" should, on your reading, bring his feelings to bear in his ruling.
(I am NOT calling Southern people racists. They are not. This is simply a hypothetical proposition I'm using to make a point.)
Is this person only going to hear cases that involve Latinos? Is she going to make her decisions so that the outcomes favor Latinos?
As a white male, these questions leap to mind when I see a statement from a potential SCOTUS nominee. I would hope that any SCOTUS nominee would be impartial and stick to the constitution, without any sort of racial leanings influence their decisions. From what has come from this person, it doesn't look like she will do that.
The real question, however, is will she be properly vetted? She should not be allowed to use race as a shield from criticism as Obama has done. Her record, and her statements need to be thoroughly debated.
I think that the Reps should question everything, not respond to media baiting by going straight to talking points about Ricci and then when the vote comes up, go fishin' and don't vote- purely out of conscience.
Yes, we must be careful. Don't want to offend a wise Latina do we?
Of course she's not going to apologize, in her mind she's done nothing wrong. In obamas mind he's a God.
"…It is the onerous double standard that ensures that the left wins every argument over race. And that is far too useful a weapon for the president and his Democratic Party to give up."
This administration has proven to have no character to speak of: race and relativism are the only weapons of which they can avail themselves–smoke and mirror, illusionary firepower amounting to no more than slight of hand.
No one will deny that one's EXPERIENCE shapes their world. That is true for all. It is another thing to think that somehow, being of a particular genetic or cultural heritage somehow de facto makes you better or worse to do some job.
Now, this may not be a bid deal in most areas of life but it IS a big deal for a Supreme Court judge.
To me, the annoying thing is this clinging to one's heritage. This applies to Irish, German, Hispanic etc etc. Get over it; we are human beings. Being Irish means NOTHING from an individual point of view unless you say so. Then it does.
Let me get this straight. By saying this, she made and error in judgment? hmmm.
Hey, you do the crime, do the time. Black, white, green. I am color blind when it comes to crime.
You should be too. Oh yes human rights. Mine is to be free to walk the streets and not be afraid some low life is going to hassle me.
That is your right also.
Yes this is similar to "misremembering"
Dream on.
That is not gonna happen under this President. He would have her shot first.
I agree with your premise. The problem is that no matter what the argument against anything liberal is automatically labeled sour grapes. We're not playing on a level field here.
Had those statements been made by a white guy, he would have immediately been Borked….. They would not have been "One lousy comment in his career" it would define him. And that's a fact. The worry here is that these statements will be ignored and that a judge will get elected that holds racist beliefs. Even if she said that to a group of Latinos to get their support for something, it says an awful lot about her character.
You're lucky. My family, liberal to the core and wondering who "messed me up", continue to make excuses for the current administration. My dad, at least, stopped sending me articles from Obama's website, trying to convince me how great the man is. I think he was perturbed I responded with articles from other websites that disputed those he sent me. Luckily, we're stationed several states away from them, so I don't have to deal with the nonsense too much. My two conservative uncles, both of whom are retired veterans, aren't so blessed and have to consider it directly across the dinner table. Poor fellows! They've taken to emailing me, too, saying how pleased they are I'm "rational".
I'm not sure I like the term "reverse" racism. It implies that racism really starts with whites, and everyone else only turns it around. It's better to say, I think, that racism is racism, period. Whether the racist is white, black, yellow or plaid — no matter what their race they can be racist.
Exactly right.
She will get fast-tracked without being properly vetted, just like everything else associated with Obama.
Well said, Lola.
Obama is a hate-mongering, racial divider as is Sotamayer.
I'm a hard core conservative and I like her.
Considering what I believe about Obama and the left and what kind of juctice I expected him to nominate, I think she is a reasonable pick and I don't think she will be the reliable vote liberals hope for.
A little pride in ones own culture and background do not offend me much.
Buena Surete Dona Sotomayor.
Andrew, I just had to share this. It is completely off topic, but great work by you in this video clip:
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22397710/...
ROFL That was a classic line. Well played, sir!
Ok Bruce, since I'm sure you're well-versed in your Second Amendment rights, why don't you just whip out a 12-gauge and shoot anyone you think might be remotely suspicious.
That would solve all of your problems.
when gibbs said if she had it to do over, she would have picked her words more carefully. no kidding. we are supposed to feel better that if she knew she would be a justice pick, that she would gloss over her racism?!
Sotomayor is a discredit to the bench. Her reversal rate is an indication of her disregard for logic and precedent. Her inability to understand her oath of office should be a major disqualifier ("I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich . . . and will impartially discharge and perform all the duties . . . ."). Her record and public statements are clear evidence that she does not abide by her oath of office, and has no intention of doing so. Nevertheless, there is another point to address. Her reversal rate is hardly solely attributable to her views on giving special consideration to certain persons. She simply writes bad decisions with worse logic, and she gets reversed. She would be an appropriate candidate for Presiding Justice of the much-reversed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but not for the Supreme Court. Sotomayor does not have a strong grip on the principles of law, let alone of the Constitution.
I lived in LA for a over dozen years and most of the rich Latina heritage that I saw was having more babies than you can afford and expecting others to pick up the tab. I also witnessed a disproportionate amount of scarred latino children, injured scarred because their mothers aren't watching them, and the 5 year old who's supposed to be watching the two year old (while momma sleeps) doesn't really work well.
I guess you could add stealing shopping carts from grocery stores lots too. Call me a racist if you like, I'm not, just real observant. I keep count for days upon days.
In my 12+ years, I have never seen anyone but Latino's pull their baby up on a table at a fast-food restaurant and change a poop filled diaper right on the table next to eating customers.
I have witnessed white males standing at bus stops, waiting for a bus, suddenly the Latina women run to the bus, grab ahold of each other in a train, and load the bus, so they all get on before the white guy.
And speaking of Latino's in general, every car accident of any consequence, that my car was involved in or that I witnessed first hand, involved the following: A drunk latino, with no car insurance, who fled the accident scene.
And I can't tell you how many times I have driven by Latino weddings, watching the wedding attendees buying corn on the cob and other junk from illegal, unlicensed, Latino street vendors… only to drive by an hour later, everyone's gone but all their trash is deposited on the church grounds. I am not talking two or three, I am talking 30 to 50 pieces of garbage, corn cobs etc.
What a marvelous, experientially rich culture.
Yes, there are many hardworking, cultured Latinos living in LA but they are way outnumbered. Second, the first generation of immigrants work very hard, realizing where they come from. Their kids usually do not share this character trait, seeing only what they don't have, and not where they come from. This second generation is largely where all the gang-bangers and riff-raff come from.
The irony is that if a compelling life story is so darn important to the left they should adore Clarence Thomas, who really overcame abject poverty. But in reality the left only cares about ideology; the rest is propaganda.
Is this a lame attempt at humor?
This satire points out how Sotomayor's comment could disqualify her for jury duty:
http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/05/updated-obama...
What a completely hysterical and stupid thing to say.
I suppose you get this tripe from the liberal talking points manual…..
You have some growing up to do.
"Reverse racism is another by-product of the ‘60s."
Not to be too technical or nit-picky because I understand where you are going, but there is no such thing as reverse racism.
For further indicators of her racist leanings one might want to read what Sotomayor said when confronted about the rendering decision of Brown v. Board of Education. Who was on the Supreme Court then did not disprove her racist conclusions. Not one bit! This was discussed this morning on "Fox and Friends" by Megyn Kelly and another lawyer formerly with the Bush Administration. There is a pattern here, and Heritage also has found other statements Sotomayor has made regarding judges relying upon their personal experiences when making legal decisions. Scary to say the least. Add to this, her rulings in business affairs. Many in the legal realm have said Souter was at least fairly solid when it came to business rulings, and they cite Sotomayor has been reversed many times regarding her rulings like the one involving the EPA.
What I want to know is what happens when Justice Sotomayor has to rule on pregnancy issues, which to my knowledge she has not been pregnant. How about cases involving marriage? Divorce? What if the case involves two white people? Two Chinese people? If judgement or justice is to be doled out according to one's life experience, then is not Sotomayor's life experience somewhat limited? We have seen quite often how she rules when Whites are involved so that question has been already answered. We have seen how she rules against big business types, so that question has been answered.
We have one Supreme Court with nine Justices. They are to be selected based on being the best legal minds in the country, and with the ability to uphold the Constitution and specifically American justice. Beyond her radical comments, Judge Sotomayor does not even meet the threshold of being one of the foremost legal minds in this country. Besides being overturned quite often, her decisions more often than not are not based in the law, or our Constitution. Touchy feely justice could cause tremendous chaos, and send us back to the days of the wild, wild west. But those Alinksy lovers like chaos don't they!
If Judge Sotomayor issues an apology, just how sincere and truthful are we to believe it will be? I for one have my doubts. The woman wants to be a Supreme, knows she has the full weight of Obama and gang behind her, and has never indicated she plays well with others. I do not see her being very flexible, and it should be very easy to see her seething underneath if forced to make some sort of apology. Besides, there is tons of evidence she firmly and without question believes every word said about those not Latina, or Latino for that matter. There this little thing called being a member of La Raza. But I guess that is okay, they were not one of the groups listed in the DHS memo!
I would suggest reading the full speech that Sotomayor gave in 2001. She completely disagrees with you on every point.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/28/i...
Judge Cedarbaum … believes that judges must transcend…prejudices and aspire to …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
Here she is espousing a belief widely held to racist:
Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning,
And again:
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
I personally don't object to her having these opinions, but any fair-minded person would have to admit that a white male giving a speech proposing the possibility that there are inherent physiological differences that possibly impact our logic and reasoning would be labelled a racist very quickly by the left and by the MSM.
I think Obama's ultimate goal is to push and push and push until things become intolerable, forcing people to respond with action over words. At such point he establishes martial law, makes guns illegal, and brings in U.N. troops, which have trained on our equipment in America, to quell the problem. And thus the end of America as we know it.
A conditioning tactic the Nazi's used to get doctors to not complain about murdering Jews (as stated in the book, NAZI DOCTORS) was to force the doctors to do this job, but then to give them lots of beer at night and let them complain and fuss all they wanted, with no consequences. After a short while, the doctors were all complained out, and just did the job thereafter with no complaints.
So Obama and the Dems, just keep pushing these evil issues, one after the other, day in and day out, ignoring the will of their vocal constituents, frustrating and disenfranchising voters, knowing that soon enough the outspoken will just give up.
What would be the right word choice in her situation?
I am more concerned that 60% of her rulings have been overturned by a higher court. There will be no higher court if she is seated.
If only you had any idea what you were talking about. "I heard" and "she has a reputation"? Not the best evidence. obviously you lack any understanding of the judicial system, but what you heard was that 60% of the cases that went up on appeal were reversed. very, very few cases actually go up on appeal. As for not very smart, she was the valedictorian of her high school and college classes, and from all accounts a brilliant scholar at Yale. Then she was appointed to the federal bench by GHW Bush.
Just a pithy catch phrase, off coarse racism is racism. But as we were taught by eh…hmm… Jesse Jackson black, brown, yellow, red cannot be racist because they have no “power.” Hopefully you get my point?
No, not at all. I've been exposed to enough conservatives to finally learn: I've been wrong all along.
The only thing that can be done is to simply eliminate all suspicious characters from the map. President Bush was successful right after 9/11 because the Patriot Act clearly eliminated the terrorist threat from the world.
So when it comes to crime, every white American should just take up arms and kill all the dangerous minorities, of course sparing those that can easily be enslaved.
Sound like a plan?
I guess everyone else doesn't know what they are talking about either….
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotom...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/6...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/05...
Doesn't any of this give you pause?? Or does she have pictures of you with farm animals or something….
Or better yet, let's just all go on our roof tops and sing Let it Be. We'll invite the terrorists over for some tofu and scones and discuss our feelings. That'll work!!
We'll make laws forcing everyone to bow to anyone in Arab garb just like our president does. They'll be sure to like us then!! We just need to make everyone like us!! The constitution be damned!!
And rather than enforcing those pesky laws against criminal behavior, we'll give every minority a lifetime get out of jail free card, you know, cause they're minorities and we're not. That'll do it!! That'll make crime go away!!
The only thing you've been exposed to is some sort of radiation that has caused some mild retardation. But keep up the funny posts, a few friends of mine don't believe that hysterical people like you exist so thanks for the evidence!!
You must be logged in to post a comment.