Thread: "Sotomayor is a racist"

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

I'm of the opinion it will get overturned but that's just because I can't imagine how they would have racially biased a firefighter's exam.

"You're in a 5 alarm blaze and unable to locate a person believed to be trapped inside. What is an appropriate shoe to wear while sailing?"

It's amazing to me how so many people sit in here and type away furiously, spewing your opinions on something like this, when it is so obvious that you don't even understand the issues.

There is a fair amount more nuance in that case than some allegation that the exam was biased.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=104730833

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103289178

Originally Posted by hutash

Off topic, but did you see Megan McCain on "The Colbert Report"? She is "pro sex, pro choice, and pro gay marriage". If the republicans are going to get back to the point they need a tent bigger then a bivy sack, they better start paying attention to some of the younger, brighter minds then Rush and Newt.

McCain had his shot as a Democrat calling himself a Republican running for President and look what happened. McCain ran far to the left of JFK, the Democrats hero.

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.

Is it necessary to put words in a potential Supreme Court Justice's mouth?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23102.html

Originally Posted by bklyn

Did you miss something here?

The Democrats do not have a recent history of high profile members such as Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, George Allen... the list could go on... but this doesn't lend you the benefit of the doubt when the party is bandying the racism charge against minorities.

Sure they do...It's just that nobody cares when a Democrat slurs a white person or a Christian. Or a Conservative minority.

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.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

They may be good points, but it is the job of Congress to make laws not the Court. The fact that those unjust things stood for so long is at the feet of the other 2 branches of the government IMO.

...and the job of the Court is to prevent unjust laws from being imposed. That's called "separation of powers," and it's one of the central tenets of our government.

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?

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

She's like the Peurto Rican version of Steven S. Dallas.

Just because my brother doesn't take Medicaid... That article is ridiculous. Why doesn't it mention that she would be earning $1.2 million dollars a year, not $200,000, if she had stayed in private practice instead of joining the bench?

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

Well no shit, dummy.

SSD 3 Dummies 0

Why don't you two get a room?

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

...and the job of the Court is to prevent unjust laws from being imposed. That's called "separation of powers," and it's one of the central tenets of our government.

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?

Just because my brother doesn't take Medicaid... That article is ridiculous. Why doesn't it mention that she would be earning $1.2 million dollars a year, not $200,000, if she had stayed in private practice instead of joining the bench?

Well no shit, dummy.

I don't think her sacrificing the million dollars per year has anything to do with creating a diverse court.

don't they all make that sacrifice?

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

SSD 3 Dummies 0

nice multitasking. water boy and score keeper.

well done.

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

nice multitasking. water boy and score keeper.

well done.

You left out "fluffer".

^^^^^^^^^^

Cool - a three way Santa!

Originally Posted by OSECS

Ditto. I will say I think the Constitution was written with a certain degree of ambiguity, so interpretation based on today's society can play a part in deliberation, within reason and the confines of the known intent of an article.

I find it really hard to believe that you are so naive that you actually believe that a white man, born to a rich family that attends the best schools will interpret this section of the constitution:

The 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:

the same as a poor black man that grows up in abject poverty while relying on welfare and food stamps to survive.

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.

Originally Posted by Jer

Why don't you two get a room?

They're waiting for you and Blurred to finish each other off.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

McCain had his shot as a Democrat calling himself a Republican running for President and look what happened. McCain ran far to the left of JFK, the Democrats hero.

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.

Holy shit, you are so fuckig stupid, that you don't understand FREEDOM applies to everything, including sex, including choice, including marriage.

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.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

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.

Go read the federalist papers, and I mean really read them. Try to understand what kind of government the writers of the constitution had in mind and you will see that the constitution is not nearly as open to interpretation as you seem to think. Not if you are going to stay true to the framers intent, and if we aren't going to try to do that then the constitution becomes nothing more than an obstacle to shaping the country into what you want it to be.

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.

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

How has the richness of her experience at Princeton/Yale different than the legions of other judges that went to harvard/princeton/yale?

with diversity like this who needs racism?

Current Court
Harvard Law- Souter, Roberts, Breyer, Kennedy, Scalia
Yale Law- Thomas, Alito
Columbia Law-Bader-Ginsburg (also attended Harvard Law)
Northwestern Law-Stevens

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.

Originally Posted by Sea 2 Ski

I guess I'm to believe you're worried Sotomayor will rule exactly like Alito who also went to Princeton undergrad and Yale Law.

My problem with her is not so much her background, it's the fact that she is simply a poor judge. Over half of her cases that have made it to the SC have been overturned. Now she is going to be sitting on that court? That doesn't sound like a step up for the court.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

My problem with her is not so much her background, it's the fact that she is simply a poor judge. Over half of her cases that have made it to the SC have been overturned. Now she is going to be sitting on that court? That doesn't sound like a step up for the court.

It's come out now that Alito has a 100% reversal rate on his cases that have come to the SC.

Go Yalies!

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

I find it really hard to believe that you are so naive that you actually believe that a white man, born to a rich family that attends the best schools will interpret this section of the constitution: the same as a poor black man that grows up in abject poverty while relying on welfare and food stamps to survive.

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.

The phrase may mean different things to different people surely. That's part of the problem. What is supposed to be determined is in what context did the framers mean for the phrase to be interpreted. That has nothing to do with ones personal perspective, and I would say it's precisely the reason justice is supposed to be blind not emotional. There is a vehicle for changing the Constitution, it's called an amendment. If something needs to be changed in the constitution that's how you do it, not by legislative breaches or judicial fiat !!

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.

Originally Posted by bklyn

It's come out now that Alito has a 100% reversal rate on his cases that have come to the SC.

Go Yalies!

If that's the case, simple, an examination of appellate rulings to help qualify or disqualify judges for appointment to the SC bench. See that's the kind of criteria we need to determine qualifications. One's actual experience with the law and crafting rulings that satisfy the Constitutional intent.

Originally Posted by bklyn

It's come out now that Alito has a 100% reversal rate on his cases that have come to the SC.

Go Yalies!

having known and worked with many Yalies, I would agree that it is the very weakest of the top ten schools.
If you meet a smart Yale lawyer, it is in spite of their formal school training.
I dont think a Yale grad learns the law until their bar review courses.

Originally Posted by bklyn

It's come out now that Alito has a 100% reversal rate on his cases that have come to the SC.

Go Yalies!

Bklyn wrastlin' in the PolAss with us... don't see that every day... but I like it!!!

Originally Posted by Sea 2 Ski

Current Court
Harvard Law- Souter, Roberts, Breyer, Kennedy, Scalia
Yale Law- Thomas, Alito
Columbia Law-Bader-Ginsburg (also attended Harvard Law)
Northwestern Law-Stevens

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.

I think I already stated I don't really have huge problem with her as a judge. no wait, I did state i don't have a problem with her as a judge.

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.

J(h)esus Kristos...

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.