Results 51 to 75 of 155
Thread: "Sotomayor is a racist"
05-29-2009, 04:02 PM #51
There is a fair amount more nuance in that case than some allegation that the exam was biased.
05-29-2009, 04:06 PM #52
I know, why don't we have just the Democratic party. A one party system. If Megan McCain can call herself a main stream Republican, there isn't a Republican Party.
The Republicans don't need a bigger tent. Freedom is a big enough tent. They just need to expain to people how they are fucking themselves by looking to government for all the answers.
Problem is, the current batch of Republicans don't want to or know how to do that. We need a Libertarian uprising INSIDE the Republican Party.
05-29-2009, 04:15 PM #53
Is it necessary to put words in a potential Supreme Court Justice's mouth?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23102.html"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" --Margaret Thatcher
05-29-2009, 04:17 PM #54
05-29-2009, 04:42 PM #55
Again, where's the diversity?
She's like the Peurto Rican version of Steven S. Dallas.
WASHINGTON (AP) — There are two sides to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: a Latina from a blue-collar family and a wealthy member of America's power elite.
The White House portrays Sotomayor as a living image of the American dream, though its telling of the rags-to-riches story emphasizes the rags, a more politically appealing narrative, and plays down the riches.
Branding a complex person in a simplistic way can backfire in the highly charged environment surrounding her coming Senate hearing.
Discussions about Sotomayor and her ethnicity, gender and tax bracket carry risks for supporters and detractors. Unartful criticism by Republicans risks offending voters they'd like to win. Democrats, likewise, need to be cautious about how they conduct the debate in a nation uncomfortable talking about matters of race and gender.
On ethnicity, Sotomayor herself has recognized — and contributed to — the dichotomy. She proudly highlights her Puerto Rican roots but hasn't always liked it when others have. She once took issue with a prospective employer who singled her out as a Latina with questions she viewed as offensive yet has shown a keen ethnic consciousness herself.
In a California speech in 2001 now under renewed scrutiny, she remarked that, on a court, "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." On Friday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sotomayor acknowledges she made a poor word choice.
In that same speech, "A Latina Judge's Voice," Sotomayor drew attention to cultural differences between Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans and between Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico and those born on the U.S. mainland, and narrowed her ethnicity beyond American, Hispanic and Puerto Rican to "Newyorkrican."
"For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II," she explained.
Yet years ago, during a recruiting dinner in law school at Yale, Sotomayor objected when a law firm partner asked whether she would have been admitted to the school if she weren't Puerto Rican, and whether law firms did a disservice by hiring minority students the firms know are unqualified and will ultimately be fired.
Afterward, Sotomayor confronted the partner about the questions, rejected his insistence that he meant no harm and turned down his invitation for further job interviews. She filed a discrimination complaint against the firm with the university, which could have barred the firm from recruiting on campus. She won a formal apology from the firm.
In speeches, Sotomayor has harkened back to her and her brother's beginnings in a poor Bronx neighborhood, roots that President Barack Obama highlighted in introducing her this week.
"Born in the South Bronx, she was raised in a housing project," Obama said. "And even as she has accomplished so much in her life, she has never forgotten where she began, never lost touch with the community that supported her."
Yet Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale.
And Sotomayor's life and lifestyle after law school largely resemble the background of many lawyers who rise to powerful positions in Washington.
She climbed her way up through New York's Democratic power structure boosted by its ultimate brokers over those years — Gov. Mario Cuomo, Mayor Ed Koch, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. That's the access of a partner in a corporate law firm, not a kid from the South Bronx.
She now earns more than $200,000 a year and owns a condominium in Greenwich Village, a neighborhood of million-dollar-plus homes. Her brother, Dr. Juan Sotomayor, is a physician in North Syracuse, N.Y., whose practice doesn't accept Medicaid or Medicare — programs for the poor and elderly — according to its Web site.
Her ethnic consciousness was apparent in the earliest days of her career, in the New York City prosecutor's office.
"What I am finding, both statistically and emotionally, is that the worst victims of crimes are not general society — i.e., white folks — but minorities themselves," she told The New York Times in 1983. "The violence, the sorrow are perpetrated by minorities on minorities."
The "riches" part of Sotomayor's rags-to-riches story began when she left her low-paying job in that prosecutor's office and joined the Pavia & Harcourt law firm. Her clients included Fendi, maker of luxury purses that she was unlikely to have seen as a child in the Bronx.
Still, she kept her hand in the Puerto Rican community — possibly to the point of a conflict of interest.
She served simultaneously on New York's campaign finance board and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that took legal action in 1991 to fight what it considered discriminatory redistricting. Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from a finance board discussion of the redistricting battle, despite the involvement of her own advocacy group.
Also during this time, Sotomayor served on the state board that makes mortgages available to low- and middle-income New Yorkers. She missed nearly a third of the board's meetings during three of those years but apparently still left a mark. Cuomo said Sotomayor's respect for the law, her "life story" and her integrity were deciding factors in his decision to name her to the agency.
And when she left in 1992, the agency's board adopted a resolution praising her for defending "the rights and needs of the disadvantaged to attain, maintain, and secure affordable housing appropriate to their need." It went on: "Ms. Sotomayor also served as the conscience of the Board concerning the negative effects of gentrification which can harm communities and create hopelessness and homelessness if individuals and families are displaced."
Republicans are scrutinizing her full record and background, but carefully. The White House warned as much earlier this week.
"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 spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
With Hispanics a growing voting bloc, and ethnic sensitivities high, few are willing to be as blunt as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said of her comment that a Latina woman would rule more wisely than a white man: "New racism is no better than old racism."
Associated Press writers Cal Woodward in Washington, Sara Kugler in New York and Jessica M. Pasko in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report."The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" --Margaret Thatcher
05-29-2009, 05:15 PM #56
I mean, seriously dude. If the courts are going to defer to the legislative and executive branches at every turn, as you suggest, why have a Court?
She climbed her way up through New York's Democratic power structure boosted by its ultimate brokers over those years — Gov. Mario Cuomo, Mayor Ed Koch, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. That's the access of a partner in a corporate law firm, not a kid from the South BronxIn the long run, we're all dead.- John Maynard Keynes
05-29-2009, 05:23 PM #57
05-29-2009, 05:30 PM #58
Why don't you two get a room?
05-29-2009, 05:49 PM #59"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" --Margaret Thatcher
05-29-2009, 05:50 PM #60
05-29-2009, 06:03 PM #61
05-29-2009, 07:25 PM #62
Cool - a three way Santa!
05-29-2009, 08:07 PM #63The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States:
Fuck, that's not even that ambiguous, but obviously many people have much different opinions about what "general welfare" can actually apply to.
It's fucking stupid to think that there is only one correct interpretation of the Constitution, and it's fucking arrogant to think that interpretation is yours.
05-29-2009, 08:38 PM #64Balls Deep in the 'Ho
05-29-2009, 09:29 PM #65
Fuck it pisses me off you fucking self righteous pricks that think FREEDOM applies only to what your god thinks it should apply to.
You're a true worthless piece of shit. You make me fucking sick.
You don't even understand libertarianism, or you would also be pro sex, pro choice, and pro gay marriage. But you're a typical conservative fuck in libertarian clothes. You pick and choose the libertarian ideals that appeal to you and throw the rest out.
05-29-2009, 09:30 PM #66
In case you don't know, the federalist papers were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay and were originally published anonymously in New York newspapers urging the ratification of the constitution. They discuss and explain different issues that arose in the drafting of the constitution as well as various proposals that were not included in the constitution and the arguments that were made for and against proposals that did make it into the final draft.
Anybody who hasn't read them really isn't equipped to talk about the constitution.it's all young and fun and skiing and then one day you login and it's relationship advice, gomer glacier tours and geezers.
05-29-2009, 09:55 PM #67Zen Slacker
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- The Tweed Coast
Harvard Law- Souter, Roberts, Breyer, Kennedy, Scalia
Yale Law- Thomas, Alito
Columbia Law-Bader-Ginsburg (also attended Harvard Law)
I guess I'm to believe you're worried Sotomayor will rule exactly like Alito who also went to Princeton undergrad and Yale Law. Maybe you're afraid that attending NYC Catholic schools before college just like Scalia is the thing to worry about instead. Those guys are so liberal.
I wonder if Stevens gets to be the designated driver the weekend of the Harvard-Yale game.Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
05-29-2009, 10:07 PM #68it's all young and fun and skiing and then one day you login and it's relationship advice, gomer glacier tours and geezers.
05-30-2009, 04:53 AM #69who guards the guardians?
I'm just a simple girl trying to make my way in the universe...
- Join Date
- May 2005
I come up hard, baby but now I'm cool I didn't make it, sugar playin' by the rules
If you know your history, then you would know where you coming from, then you wouldn't have to ask me, who the heck do I think I am.
05-30-2009, 06:41 AM #70
Why do you always insist on putting words in my mouth ?? The interpretation of the Constitution is supposed to be based on what the founders intended in their wording and intent to mean not yours, mine or Mrs. Sotamayor.
There is an intent in there and it's not the one the left continues to press (SEE: small weak centralized nat'l gov't ) That's the core of the Constitution, and no amount of word twisting and parsing of definitions will ever change that (SEE: American revolution, taxation without representation, individual rights, ratification by the states, fear of a strong monarchy/ central gov't)
We are supposed to be a nation of law and not emotional responses. Every damn thing the founders wrote about their notions of the gov't centered on keeping it in check, and not letting it gain too much power. That horse has been let out of the barn and shot . You can make all the emotional based arguments you like about life experience, but they mean nothing in the context of LAW, when they ignore what the law says !!!
Damn, three cups of coffee already, I need to cut down on the caffeine.
05-30-2009, 06:50 AM #71
05-30-2009, 08:35 AM #72"Fakers are Maggots" - T. Hall, 2011
only a fake Rasta could make a claim like that
05-30-2009, 08:57 AM #73pmiP triD remroF
!!!timoV cimotA erutuF
"!!!emit a ta anigav eno dlroW eht gnirolpxE"
05-30-2009, 10:29 AM #74
my problem is the fact that she is being sold as a token of diversity. that's not really the case.
that, and I still don't know what the fuck a "wise latina" is.
05-30-2009, 11:34 AM #75
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging;
G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: ‘Let’s Hope That The Key Conferences Aren’t When She’s Menstruating’
Yesterday on his radio show, conservative host G. Gordon Liddy continued the right wing’s all-out assault on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First, just like Tom Tancredo, Liddy slammed Sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as “illegal alien“:
LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.
Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor’s gender:
LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.
Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there’s anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:
LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.
Liddy and his radical colleagues, mostly on the radio, are so far failing to get the conservative leadership on board with their racist and sexist attacks. Last night, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called the attacks “terrible” and “wrong.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was asked if he agreed with Newt Gingrich’s characterization of Sotomayor as a “Latina woman racist.” “No, I don’t agree with that,” Hatch replied.
Update: Read more on right-wing hate in today's Progress Report.
Update: Karen Tumulty flashes back to what Liddy's former boss, President Nixon, thought of having a woman on the Supreme Court.pmiP triD remroF
!!!timoV cimotA erutuF
"!!!emit a ta anigav eno dlroW eht gnirolpxE"