Tancredo: Sotomayor ‘Appears To Be A Racist’
Tancredo: Sotomayor ‘Appears To Be A Racist’
Last night on MSNBC, former Republican House member Tom Tancredo declared that Judge Sonia Sotomayor “appears to be a racist” and indicated she would only be confirmed because she’s a Hispanic woman:
TANCREDO: I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context. That’s exactly how we would portray it and there’s no one who would get on the Supreme Court saying a thing like that except for a Hispanic woman and you’re going to say it doesn’t matter!
Tancredo also called Sotomayor “a radical” — though he admitted he doesn’t “know anything about the cases…she’s reviews.” He complained that since “she is a Hispanic woman,” “therefore we can’t say things like this.” Watch a compilation:
Remember, Tancredo is the lawmaker who called Miami a “third world country” because of the number of Latinos there, criticized presidential candidates for “pandering” by participating in a Spanish-language debate, and accused immigrants of “pushing drugs, raping kids, and destroying lives.” He said the issue of immigration is “whether we will survive.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Tancredo calling someone a racist is like me calling someone a musician
May 27th, 2009 at 9:51 amSo now Tommy Tancredo is weighing in on Sotomajor, huh?
And the morning round-up quotes Mikey Huckleberry doing the same thing.
I think the new republican game is “the first guy to self-destruct wins”. I wish them all luck and I hope that it’s a fast and close race.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:57 amCare to site examples of her comments that would be racist in any other context???
I mean, Tom Tancredo appears to enjoy juvenile boys in pink tutus.
(What, you ask. Where’s the proof?)
No need for proof, I’m telling you it’s true. HE LIKES TEENAGE BOYS IN PINK TUTUS!
(and because I’ve highlighted the accusation, it must be incredibly true!)
May 27th, 2009 at 9:58 amWe will file this one in the “takes one to know one” bucket, Tom.
PEACE
May 27th, 2009 at 9:58 amWay to play to your base, Tommyboy
May 27th, 2009 at 9:59 amThe greatest privilege enjoyed by the privileged is the privilege of pretending you’re not one of the privileged…
May 27th, 2009 at 10:00 amMore inclusionary talk from the big tent GOP. Politically painting themselves into a corner of being only old, white, blatantly racist, rich guys who will do anything to stop change or progress should really help them reach the masses.
David Duke would be proud, Mr. Tancredo!
May 27th, 2009 at 10:02 amLet’s be clear GOP. This ain’t going to work. Already, Limbaugh pulled this argument out of his big butt. Then of course, you have Buchanan claiming Sotomayor isn’t INTELLIGENT enough. LOL! These guys are truly useless.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:03 amBy the way, what exactly is a “reverse racist” being spouted by Oxybreath?
If reverse means to do a 180 and go in the opposite direction, then my interpretation is she goes against racism and bigotry!
So in essence, he’s saying that her anti-racism and tolerance for all is bad?
Wow, whodathunk that Oxybreath supports racism and bigotry???
May 27th, 2009 at 10:04 amI thought the RepubliCants agreed to pretend that their objections to her are based on qualifications and intelligence, so as not to appear racist.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:05 amTancredo has blown their very thin cover.
“Appears to be a racist” works this way
1) Her appearance shows that she is a racial minority.
2) According to R’s, all racial minorities are racist.
Therefore, he can see by looking at her that she’s a racist.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:11 amWith all due respect to RantingTommy, I’d like to suggest that Tancredo calling someone a “racist” would be like Limbaugh calling somebody a “fat blowhard”.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:11 amTancredo: “She said things that are racist in any other context.”
In other words you have to take her words out of context in order to describe her as a racist?
Well yes, I suppose so. Ummm what’s the point of taking her words out of context?
Ohh,,,,of course, so you can make a false argument!
May 27th, 2009 at 10:11 amYesterday, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor a “reverse racist.”
– - Miss California, Carrie Prejean, seemingly agreed with Limbaugh, calling Sotomayor an “opposite racist.”
Ummm…..
May 27th, 2009 at 10:13 amFirst he paraphrases what she said and then he interprets his paraphrasing. Teabagger genius at work.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:16 amThe right wing sure gets their talking points out to all hands pretty quickly, don’t they? They must use the tubes on the internets….
May 27th, 2009 at 10:18 amThey don’t have the ability to really block her nomination, so the only thing they can do is turn up the heat in the hopes that she can’t take it and will withdraw.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:18 amIt’s a good thing white men have been in power all these years because obviously they are destroyed by the the slightest notion that somebody is insulting them because they’re white males.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:19 amAhhh…What we have here is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Tancredo is not only a racist but a full blown whack job! I am so glad he is out of politics. But I just don’t get why he is chiming in on Sotomayor, he is even more irrelevant today than he was when he was running for President in 2008.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:19 amIt seems to me what Rush is really saying is minorities don’t even qualify to be racists (in the same way that whites do). So he uses another term for them to describe the same behavior.
This, of course, is a form of racism on Rush’s part.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:20 amYou’ve worked closely with these people, haven’t you?
BTW, ElBruce, check out the first Sotomayor thread from yesterday. I gave you props for getting jay to dance one more jig for us.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:20 amTANCREDO: I’m telling you she appears to be a racist.
“Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”
May 27th, 2009 at 10:21 amBadmoodman Says:
- – Miss California, Carrie Prejean, seemingly agreed with Limbaugh, calling Sotomayor an “opposite racist.”
Ummm…..
May 27th, 2009 at 10:23 am“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
badmoodman, we must cut Miss Prejean some slack here, see in her bleach blonde brain she probably thinks “opposite racist” means one who doesn’t race.
….
JohnM = Tancredo.
when he arrives we can ask
him about his comments last night.
“\
May 27th, 2009 at 10:23 amSure didn’t take the right wing long to shoot itself firmly in the ass and make sure to lose at least 10%-15% more of the hispanic vote in 2010 and maybe 30% in 2012.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:24 amTancredo also called Sotomayor “a radical” — though he admitted he doesn’t “know anything about the cases…she’s reviews.”
Okee dokee then, She’s a radical,and a racist, yet he knows nothing about the cases she’s reviewed, and he can’t state any example of her being a racist or a radical, but it must be true, because he says so? Help us out here C4P,
May 27th, 2009 at 10:24 amWho can forget Tancredo’s call to “Bomb Mecca”? Surely this knee jerk’s perspective is worth ignoring.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:26 amThe Rove political strategy continues. Take your worst characteristic and turn it against your enemy. The problem is that the idea that Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor is racist only appeals to the core Republicans who are already foaming at the mouth with fear of socialism, gun control, and the sanctity of their precious bodily fluids.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:26 amHappy Hump Day all, looks like the fun to watch party of the reich is going to explode over President Obama’s supreme court pick….LOL
Anyone besides me notice how huge limpdick has become..Hes starting to look like a building, his ravings are such I think he needs to be renovated as well..The builder need’s to put some new air cleaners in his miserable mouth…Oh, I forgot he run’s the reich, soon the entire party will need to be raised from the ground (limpdick) up…It will take a huge wrecker to move something that big and ugly..Then again he may do it alone, keep eating old fat one….P.B. & J
May 27th, 2009 at 10:26 amKeep it up — your party will continue in that downward spiral toward the pit of racists, hypocrites and liars.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:36 amI was wondering why Tancredo was even in this discussion to begin. He hasn’t read her decisions? He doesn’t know about her reviews? Then why the hell did they even bring you on the show?
Stop using the “he said, she said, they said she’s a radical” defense and MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT!
May 27th, 2009 at 10:45 amDoodlebug Shayne Says:
It’s a good thing white men have been in power all these years because obviously they are destroyed by the the slightest notion that somebody is insulting them because they’re white males.
Right. It’s mere coincidence that white men run 100% of anything, and if you have a problem with that, then you must be a racist and a sexist because you’re saying they shouldn’t have job X just because of their race and gender. Therefore the only way to end racism in America is to let white men go back to running 100% of everything and stop complaining about it.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:47 amHe’s just trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo
May 27th, 2009 at 10:50 amPurple State Says:
Stop using the “he said, she said, they said she’s a radical” defense and MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT!
That would involve them doing work. Obviously, expecting white men to do work is racist. He deserves a platform for his opinions whether he has any or not. And if you think he doesn’t deserve that platform, then you’re obviously being racist – what, do you expect them to put a Hispanic on or something? Quotas!!! Besides, I’m sure he’ll have more to say once he gets his next fax from Rove.
/snark
May 27th, 2009 at 10:50 amHey ElBruce, I missed your question last night
Yes, Tommy Jones, the Band is me (my solo stuff). That web site is a bit old, though, still featuring the album from 2007. New one should be up by the weekend at the same URL.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:51 amI’ve gone way, way beyond being amazed or dumbfounded by statements from these imbeciles. Instead, I’m getting worried about what sort of scandal will pop up with the Dem’s getting too confident and full of themselves (not that I believe Obama would EVER start playing around with cigars and interns!), because absolute power does breed . . . . The Repugs are certainly trying to accelerate this – come to think about it, perhaps that’s their strategy!!!!
May 27th, 2009 at 10:52 amWhen I heard she said these words I thought that it was terrible for her to say such a thing. I also thought that it woud be a ligitimate issue to raise.
But once again the conservatives are the masters of deception.
My question is, why is no one in the media doing their job by providing us with facts?
I’ve heard this charge by many on the Right. It is SO disingenuous.
My question is, why is no one in the media doing their job and provide us with facts?
from Media Matters:
“…Sotomayor did not say or suggest that Latina or Latino judges are “better” than white male judges, but was instead talking specifically about “race and sex discrimination cases.” From Sotomayor’s speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:”
. . .
Sotomayor:
“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. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260050
May 27th, 2009 at 10:52 amShe’s qualified. No wonder they hate her.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:57 amGee, a former US Representative! An unsuccessful presidential candidate! Of course he gets significant face time on the major networks!
May 27th, 2009 at 10:59 amI wonder when they’re going to have Gary Hart, Gray Davis and Jerry Brown on to comment?
Surely there must be more unsuccessful politicians out there to interview!
Hey, I’ve got a friend who lost the race for alderman in Chicago’s 26th ward! Let’s interview him!
Wait! Better yet, let’s interview his daughter!
no, jeff, she isn’t. and we don’t need to visit the poll you keep spamming to know it
May 27th, 2009 at 11:04 amIf a white man says what she says he is a racist and everybody here would be all over him. Racism in any form is of course wrong regardless if the person is a hispanic woman. Once again people here show their obvious hypocrisy.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:07 amHey, they can’t help it if all of their mouthpieces are unemployed. After all, finding a Republican who can actually get elected to something is getting harder and harder these days.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:09 amJohnM Says:
If a white man says what she says he is a racist and everybody here would be all over him.
In order for your “picture it the other way around” scenario to work, there would also have to have been no white males ever on the SCOTUS. So no, it still would be fine.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:11 amBut ElBruce… it’s fine because she wasn’t being racist, not because there have been no Latina judges on the SCOTUS.
She was discussing how experience defines and informs judgement and how her experiences as an Hispanic woman inform her judgments… not racist but not because there have been no Hispanic women on the Supreme Court, just ’cause it’s not racist.
We should be careful defining ‘racism’ related to achievements reached… what happens when Sotomayer is confirmed?
Feel free to call me a wingnut now…
May 27th, 2009 at 11:20 amweeba Says:
——————————————————————————–
When I heard she said these words I thought that it was terrible for her to say such a thing. I also thought that it woud be a ligitimate issue to raise.
But once again the conservatives are the masters of deception.
My question is, why is no one in the media doing their job by providing us with facts?
I’ve heard this charge by many on the Right. It is SO disingenuous.
My question is, why is no one in the media doing their job and provide us with facts?
from Media Matters:
“…Sotomayor did not say or suggest that Latina or Latino judges are “better” than white male judges, but was instead talking specifically about “race and sex discrimination cases.” From Sotomayor’s speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:”
. . .
Sotomayor:
“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. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260050
This is a ridiculous premise. This would mean that a white male is better equipped to be the judge if the crime or case involves white people only.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:27 amElBruce Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
If a white man says what she says he is a racist and everybody here would be all over him.
In order for your “picture it the other way around” scenario to work, there would also have to have been no white males ever on the SCOTUS. So no, it still would be fine.
So once a certain deomgraphic is represented on the supreme court they are no longer allowed to be racist?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:28 ambelaccifer lacca Says:
She was discussing how experience defines and informs judgement and how her experiences as an Hispanic woman inform her judgments… not racist but not because there have been no Hispanic women on the Supreme Court, just ’cause it’s not racist.
Well, it’s a very basic attempt to explain the point behind diversity – everybody’s background and demographic facts influence their judgement. For example, white guys seem to think they’re somehow demographically “neutral” and it’s only everybody else who is so influenced. That’s how they’re influenced, by having had the privilege of defining normative culture like forever, and therefore only seeing deviations from themselves as what exists.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:28 amFunny but every time one of your leaders says something legitimately racist you teabaggers start accusing us of playing the race card. But when anybody else point out that white men aren’t the only people that can handle the good jobs a bunch of rich white men with good jobs swarm out of the woodward crying “racist, racist, racist” playing the RACE CARD. It’s so hard to be rich and powerful and in charge.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:29 amPlease. Last fall, conservative members of the Republic Fascist Party gave us the Ultimate Dunce – Sarah Palin — and held her out as someone qualified TO BE A HEARTBEAT FROM THE PRESIDENCY. They have absolutely no credibility left.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:32 amJohnM Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 11:33 amRacism in any form is of course wrong regardless…
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Oh boy, hell must have frozen over today. I never thought I’d see the day where a republican troll would come to TP and give us all a lesson on racism. Cheney must be freezing down in his bunker today.
Sotomayor:
“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. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”
May 27th, 2009 at 11:33 ambelaccifer lacca Says: OK, you’re a wingnut.
Would you care to decipher wtf you were intending to say?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:36 amRight, now you should tell all your teabagging buddies that Princeton is the most difficult school to get admission to in the country. And the judge graduated at the top of her class. And that the Yale Law Review is maybe even more prestigious than the Harvard Law Review and she was the editor. Then ask them how they can call her an intellectual lightweight comparable to Harriet Meyers even though she has 30 years of experience as a prosecutor and judge. Go call them racists and get back to us with their responses.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:36 amThat Tanrcedo name sounds kind of foreign, sorta like not american. I wonder if Michelle Bachman and her crack team of investigators is looking into it?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:42 amJohnM Says:
This is a ridiculous premise. This would mean that a white male is better equipped to be the judge if the crime or case involves white people only.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am
____________
Yes. What’s wrong with this statement?
All it is saying that someone who shares the same background and life experience as the people he or she is judging may be better equipped to issue a sound and fair judgement. Not in all cases, not for all judges, but if you look at a general trend her statement is perfectly sensible.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:42 amJM,
Please just give up.
The depth of your ignorance is painful.
Feel free to come back after puberty.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:43 amZimzone Says:
belaccifer lacca Says: OK, you’re a wingnut.
Would you care to decipher wtf you were intending to say?
I was agreeing with ElBruce that her statement wasn’t racist and that the ‘what if’ scenario is also ridiculous but I was saying that basic arguments about diversity like ‘there would have to have been no white males on the SCOTUS for your premise to succeed…’ also don’t work because basic minds take that to mean this:
John M says:
So once a certain deomgraphic is represented on the supreme court they are no longer allowed to be racist?
and the fact is what she says wasn’t racist… and it wouldn’t be even if there had been nothing but hispanic women on the SCOTUS.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:44 amJohnM Says:
So once a certain deomgraphic is represented on the supreme court they are no longer allowed to be racist?
Oh dear Lord, you’re thick. I’ll try to type slower and you see if you can follow.
If there were no white guys ever on the SCOTUS, then it would be a good idea to put one on the SCOTUS. The point is having a diverse court. It’s not that Obama likes Hispanics better than he likes you, so don’t you worry your pretty little head about that.
The reason diversity is good is because after all of the facts of the matter are tied up, judgements can often still come down to who you can most easily identify with. It can color which side you see as more credible, which one may seem to be hiding something, a variety of little things that can add up to a swayed decision. I’m sure you probably would agree that it’s generally important to make a good first impression, right? Well, that’s exactly why.
And those tendencies affects everybody. They may affects judges probably less than anybody else, but they still may affect them slightly. And slightly can be a big deal on the SCOTUS. Since we can’t guarantee that bias completely factored out for anybody, the best remaining option is to spread it around; to have a diverse court so that if there is any bias, it averages out.
Another reason is that it’s been proven in numerous studies that a group of people who share demographic qualities such as race and gender are more likely to agree with a false proposition than a diverse group. There’s a natural tendency to want to agree with the group when they’re all the same. Diversity kills groupthink.
Saying that everybody may be influenced by bias is not being racist; if anything, it’s admitting that there is a such thing as pervasive low-level racism, and that most people are probably affected by it. At no point did Sotomayor or anybody on her side ever claim that she is more likely to be personally biased than say, John Roberts is. The point they’re making is that if there is bias (and they believe there is), then it’d be a good idea not to have everything in the world run by old white dudes.
It’s not like there aren’t actually dozens of perfectly qualified people in the country for any given demographic group. With high achievers, beyond a given point there’s no quantitative way to separate them any more. Take Harvard admissions for instance – even with requiring a 4.0 plus extracurricular achievements plus a graded essay, they still end up with more “exactly as good” applicants than they can accept. So the “just pick the best one” meme fails – Obama was picking from the best, and that’s all he can do. But once you’ve narrowed it down to all the best, you can use pretty much any criteria you want. Bringing diversity to the court is a good one.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:45 amJohnM said “Racism in any form of course is wrong”
So JohnM, since you feel this way about racism and feel that some of Sotomayors comments are racist comments, I’m just wondering, were you upset or angered by Rush Limbaughs racial comments directed at President Obama in the past? Were you upset about Limbaughs racial comments about Donovan McNabb in the past? Were you upset upon hearing that republican Senator Jeff Sessions before he became a senator in Alabama refered to a black man as “Boy” and said he thought that the KKK was alright? I only ask these questions because I become amazed when a republican gets on his/her high horse and speaks out against racism but wonder if it is only temporary because your concerns arise out of comments made by a democrat.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:48 amStupid, cowardly white people simply can’t handle reality and should probably just go off into woods and shoot themselves in the head – for the betterment of society overall.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:48 amDoodlebug Shayne Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Racism in any form is of course wrong regardless…
Right, now you should tell all your teabagging buddies that Princeton is the most difficult school to get admission to in the country. And the judge graduated at the top of her class. And that the Yale Law Review is maybe even more prestigious than the Harvard Law Review and she was the editor. Then ask them how they can call her an intellectual lightweight comparable to Harriet Meyers even though she has 30 years of experience as a prosecutor and judge. Go call them racists and get back to us with their responses.
Ok, she is a very well educated and successful racist. I agree that Meyers was a bad choice.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:50 amWell, that “empathy” meme died a quick death. Haven’t heard a single rightie use it this morning, after Bush sr.’s quote hit the net. So they now think racist will stick – until a similar quote from Thomas is found.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:53 amUncle Fester Lurks Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM said “Racism in any form of course is wrong”
So JohnM, since you feel this way about racism and feel that some of Sotomayors comments are racist comments, I’m just wondering, were you upset or angered by Rush Limbaughs racial comments directed at President Obama in the past? Were you upset about Limbaughs racial comments about Donovan McNabb in the past? Were you upset upon hearing that republican Senator Jeff Sessions before he became a senator in Alabama refered to a black man as “Boy” and said he thought that the KKK was alright? I only ask these questions because I become amazed when a republican gets on his/her high horse and speaks out against racism but wonder if it is only temporary because your concerns arise out of comments made by a democrat.
First off Limbaughs comments about McNabb were not racist, he was saying that the media favored him because he was black. As for the comments about President Obama that was also not racist. He was simply stating that other people view him as the magic negro which was from a column in a newspaper. Jeff Sessions comments were racist and I do not agree or condone those comments.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:55 amSo let me get this straight…
President Obama – Racist (Check)
Michele Obama – Racist (Check)
Reverend Wright – Racist (Check)
Sonia Sotomayor – Racist (Check)
Jesse Jackson – Racist (Check)
Rush Limbaugh – Not a racist (Check)
May 27th, 2009 at 11:56 amTom Tancredo – Not a racist (Check)
Trent Lott – Not a racist (Check)
Jeff Sessions – Not a racist (Check)
The KKK – Not racist (Check)
The Aryan Brotherhood – Not racist (Check)
——————————————————————————–
ElBruce Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
So once a certain deomgraphic is represented on the supreme court they are no longer allowed to be racist?
Oh dear Lord, you’re thick. I’ll try to type slower and you see if you can follow.
If there were no white guys ever on the SCOTUS, then it would be a good idea to put one on the SCOTUS. The point is having a diverse court. It’s not that Obama likes Hispanics better than he likes you, so don’t you worry your pretty little head about that.
The reason diversity is good is because after all of the facts of the matter are tied up, judgements can often still come down to who you can most easily identify with. It can color which side you see as more credible, which one may seem to be hiding something, a variety of little things that can add up to a swayed decision. I’m sure you probably would agree that it’s generally important to make a good first impression, right? Well, that’s exactly why.
And those tendencies affects everybody. They may affects judges probably less than anybody else, but they still may affect them slightly. And slightly can be a big deal on the SCOTUS. Since we can’t guarantee that bias completely factored out for anybody, the best remaining option is to spread it around; to have a diverse court so that if there is any bias, it averages out.
Another reason is that it’s been proven in numerous studies that a group of people who share demographic qualities such as race and gender are more likely to agree with a false proposition than a diverse group. There’s a natural tendency to want to agree with the group when they’re all the same. Diversity kills groupthink.
Saying that everybody may be influenced by bias is not being racist; if anything, it’s admitting that there is a such thing as pervasive low-level racism, and that most people are probably affected by it. At no point did Sotomayor or anybody on her side ever claim that she is more likely to be personally biased than say, John Roberts is. The point they’re making is that if there is bias (and they believe there is), then it’d be a good idea not to have everything in the world run by old white dudes.
It’s not like there aren’t actually dozens of perfectly qualified people in the country for any given demographic group. With high achievers, beyond a given point there’s no quantitative way to separate them any more. Take Harvard admissions for instance – even with requiring a 4.0 plus extracurricular achievements plus a graded essay, they still end up with more “exactly as good” applicants than they can accept. So the “just pick the best one” meme fails – Obama was picking from the best, and that’s all he can do. But once you’ve narrowed it down to all the best, you can use pretty much any criteria you want. Bringing diversity to the court is a good one.
The law is the law and the constitution is the constitution. Race and past life experiences should play a factor when deciding the law. That just shows how democrats want to legislate based on empathy and that is not the purpose of the supreme court.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:58 amJohn “Chop Chop McGee” M Says:
Ok, she is a very well educated and successful racist.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:50 am
____________
Whereas you are an uneducated and pathetic racist. What’s the matter – are you jealous, choppy?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:58 amJohnM Says:
Boy, you got stupid all up over your face…
But I admit, it looks totally natural on someone LIKE YOU.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:58 amchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
John “Chop Chop McGee” M Says:
Ok, she is a very well educated and successful racist.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:50 am
____________
Whereas you are an uneducated and pathetic racist. What’s the matter – are you jealous, choppy?
How exactly am I racist?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pmOnly the white men aren’t racists, apparently. In upside down world.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:01 pmJohnM Says:
How exactly am I racist?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
_____________
You’ve already proven it beyond all doubt, fingersnips.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:02 pmHow exactly am I racist?
More incredible ignorance. Here’s a hint, you defend loudmouth ditto-head stupidity and hate speech (i.e. racism), therefore, you support racism.
You fcuking idiot.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pmbelaccifer lacca Says:
——————————————————————————–
Zimzone Says:
belaccifer lacca Says: OK, you’re a wingnut.
Would you care to decipher wtf you were intending to say?
I was agreeing with ElBruce that her statement wasn’t racist and that the ‘what if’ scenario is also ridiculous but I was saying that basic arguments about diversity like ‘there would have to have been no white males on the SCOTUS for your premise to succeed…’ also don’t work because basic minds take that to mean this:
John M says:
So once a certain deomgraphic is represented on the supreme court they are no longer allowed to be racist?
and the fact is what she says wasn’t racist… and it wouldn’t be even if there had been nothing but hispanic women on the SCOTUS.
I am pretty willing to bet that if a white republican said the same comment but switched it to state that white males came to better conclusions you would think that was racist. It’s okay hypocrisy is the norm with progressives.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pm——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
How exactly am I racist?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
_____________
You’ve already proven it beyond all doubt, fingersnips.
How?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pmIt was a matter of time when Tancrazy would somehow crawl from under the sewer pipe to resurface. The pot calling the kettle black. Tancrazy is calling Sotomayor a racist? He should look in the mirror fist before he ever make a ridicilous comment like that.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pmDNFP Says:
——————————————————————————–
How exactly am I racist?
More incredible ignorance. Here’s a hint, you defend loudmouth ditto-head stupidity and hate speech (i.e. racism), therefore, you support racism.
You fcuking idiot.
And you defend a judge that is racist, so does that make you racist?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pmAnd you defend a judge that is racist, so does that make you racist?
There’s not one single racist statement in her quote.
Only in the mind of a cowardly white dumbfcuk…
May 27th, 2009 at 12:11 pmTom Tancredo thinks Sotomayor is a racist?
Well, that settles it, then! Tom Tancredo should definitely, absolutely not vote for her confirmation!
Oh, almost forgot…
You don’t GET to vote FOR her or AGAINST her, Tommy Boy! Awwww…
May 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pmJohnM Says:
I am pretty willing to bet that if a white republican said the same comment but switched it to state that white males came to better conclusions you would think that was racist. It’s okay hypocrisy is the norm with progressives.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
____________
Yes. If a white Republican stated, without any equivocation, that white male judges come to better conclusions than non-white non-male judges, that would be racist and sexist. Absolutely.
But that’s not what Sotomayor said.
The equivalent would be to state that a white man from a wealthy background would more often than not reach a better conclusion on a case involving white men from wealthy backgrounds than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life. I would tend to agree.
The law is not color-blind or socially-blind or economically-blind, and it is certainly not black and white.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pmNiiiice straw man, JohnM. I especially like how you dressed it up with the sunglasses and the panama hat.
Can you link to a report of Judge Sotomayor saying that being a Latina allows her to come to “better conclusions”?
I await your evidence. Thanks.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:18 pmJohn M:
Any white person who complains about affirmative action or quotas is a racist hypocrite. It’s not hidden. It’s right there.
Minorities are repressed in this country. They still suffer prejudices that keep them from getting a job over whites. Women, too, earn less than men, for the same basic reason–
–repression WORKS. Because they can get away with it.
You’re a racist. Plain and simple. You bait. You dodge. You hit-and-run.
And you got nothin’. Not a g*dd*mn*d f**king thing. Man, that sucks, don’t it? Nobody would willingly take your position at this point, John M.
But the attention…!
May 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pmJohnM Says:
You’ve already proven it beyond all doubt, fingersnips.
How?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
___________
Your knee-jerk reaction to your deliberate misinterpretation of Sotomayor’s statement. In your feeble little mind, any frank discussion of race is “racist.” The fact that you have no concept of what racism is (hint: it’s a SYSTEM, hence the suffix “-ism.”) makes you a willing proponent of that system and, thus, a racist.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pmThese people are beyond stupid. They have no idea how much harm they are doing to the Republic party. Oh well, we should just all step aside and let them continue.
Sonia Sotomayor has more qualifications to be a SC Justice than any other sitting member of the court did when they were confirmed. The fact that she is female and Hispanic are irrelevant when it comes to qualifications. They are relevant, though, when it comes to diversity on the court. We live in a very diverse country and having a Supreme Court occupied by nothing but white men is not a Supreme Court that is representative of our country.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pmTancredo: I’m telling you she appears to be a racist.
Takes one to know one.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:25 pmPurple State Says:
I was wondering why Tancredo was even in this discussion to begin. He hasn’t read her decisions? He doesn’t know about her reviews? Then why the hell did they even bring you on the show?
Has anyone besides me noticed that the right now seems to be represented by nothing but has-been politicians and right wing talking heads? Why is it that they have no sitting politicians who can speak for their party?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:32 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
You’ve already proven it beyond all doubt, fingersnips.
How?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
___________
Your knee-jerk reaction to your deliberate misinterpretation of Sotomayor’s statement. In your feeble little mind, any frank discussion of race is “racist.” The fact that you have no concept of what racism is (hint: it’s a SYSTEM, hence the suffix “-ism.”) makes you a willing proponent of that system and, thus, a racist.
You are obviously unwilling to look this from an objective perspective is rather troubling. This woman feels that she is better suited to be a judge because of her race. You can rationalize and minimize her comments all you want, but that is clear racism. The only reason you are unwilling to admit it is because she is not white and not republican.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pmDaddy-O Says:
——————————————————————————–
John M:
Any white person who complains about affirmative action or quotas is a racist hypocrite. It’s not hidden. It’s right there.
Minorities are repressed in this country. They still suffer prejudices that keep them from getting a job over whites. Women, too, earn less than men, for the same basic reason–
–repression WORKS. Because they can get away with it.
You’re a racist. Plain and simple. You bait. You dodge. You hit-and-run.
And you got nothin’. Not a g*dd*mn*d f**king thing. Man, that sucks, don’t it? Nobody would willingly take your position at this point, John M.
But the attention…!
I believe choosing somebody for a job or admittance to a school based on their race is racism. Combatting discrimination with more discrimination is not right. I don’t think that minorities should be excluded from any job because of their race and I don’t believe that white people should be excluded from any job because of their race either. So no a white person that does not believe in quotas is not racist.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:43 pmYour difficulties with reading comprehension are troubling.
Please link to a quote from the judge making the statement you attribute to her, or STFU.
Your inability to grasp the concept of “racism” and use the term appropriately in a sentence is troubling as well.
Hmm… attributing a cause to an unrelated racial difference? What’s the term for that…?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:46 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
I am pretty willing to bet that if a white republican said the same comment but switched it to state that white males came to better conclusions you would think that was racist.
Niiiice straw man, JohnM. I especially like how you dressed it up with the sunglasses and the panama hat.
Can you link to a report of Judge Sotomayor saying that being a Latina allows her to come to “better conclusions”?
I await your evidence. Thanks.
“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,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html
May 27th, 2009 at 12:46 pmJohnM Says:
This woman feels that she is better suited to be a judge because of her race.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
____________
Oh, you know what she feels, do you?
So you’re a psychic AND a racist. Good to know!
May 27th, 2009 at 12:47 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
You are obviously unwilling to look this from an objective perspective is rather troubling. This woman feels that she is better suited to be a judge because of her race.
Your difficulties with reading comprehension are troubling.
Please link to a quote from the judge making the statement you attribute to her, or STFU.
Learn to read it has been posted here already, I just posted again.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pm——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
This woman feels that she is better suited to be a judge because of her race.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
____________
Oh, you know what she feels, do you?
So you’re a psychic AND a racist. Good to know!
I don’t have to know how she feels, she flat out said it.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:55 pmJohnM Says:
That just shows how democrats want to legislate based on empathy and that is not the purpose of the supreme court.
Maybe you should have read the thing I wrote. After all legally definable factors have been concluded, there may still be personally reflected bias. Dems aren’t saying they want there to be bias, they’re saying it’s already there.
.
JohnM Says:
How exactly am I racist?
By intentionally trying to obfuscate the meaning of what racism actually is, you and Tancredo are effectively concern-trolling on behalf of the KKK.
.
JohnM Says:
“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,”
Moved the bolding for ya. The fact that she’s referring to relevant cases is appropriate.
And yes, I’m sure a white dude would come to better-nuanced decisions when handling cases regarding where to situate a golf course or whether the mayonnaise has gone off. Maybe the appropriate length to wear khakhis.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:00 pmJM fears what he is most lacking and highly ignorant of:
EMPATHY.
Deal with reality fcukwit, she’s getting the nod. If it makes you crazy, then I’m more than satisfied.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:08 pmI look forward to the GOP running on an anti-empathy platform in 2010. Y’all have fun with that.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm… speaking of which, check this out. Heh heh.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pm——————————————————————————–
ElBruce Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
That just shows how democrats want to legislate based on empathy and that is not the purpose of the supreme court.
Maybe you should have read the thing I wrote. After all legally definable factors have been concluded, there may still be personally reflected bias. Dems aren’t saying they want there to be bias, they’re saying it’s already there.
.
JohnM Says:
How exactly am I racist?
By intentionally trying to obfuscate the meaning of what racism actually is, you and Tancredo are effectively concern-trolling on behalf of the KKK.
.
JohnM Says:
“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,”
Moved the bolding for ya. The fact that she’s referring to relevant cases is appropriate.
And yes, I’m sure a white dude would come to better-nuanced decisions when handling cases regarding where to situate a golf course or whether the mayonnaise has gone off. Maybe the appropriate length to wear khakhis.
You can bold wherever you want, it is racist and you simply continue to show your ignorance in denying it. “That” life that she is referring to is gives her the ability to be a better judge. That life which can only be attained if you are a hispanic woman, which shows that she believes that only a woman that is hispanic can make the correct decisions based on civil rights.
Your comment in the end clearly shows that you are unwilling to look at this objectively.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:15 pmSotomayor:
“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. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”
May 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pm——————————————————————————–
DNFP Says:
——————————————————————————–
JM fears what he is most lacking and highly ignorant of:
EMPATHY.
Deal with reality fcukwit, she’s getting the nod. If it makes you crazy, then I’m more than satisfied.
I will take a judge based on ruling by the constitution instead of a judge that rules based on empathy.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pmhttp://mediamatters.org/research/200905260050
Contrary to Kelly and Greenburg’s claims, Sotomayor did not say or suggest that Latina or Latino judges are “better” than white male judges, but was instead talking specifically about “race and sex discrimination cases.” From Sotomayor’s speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
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. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pmWell done, JohnM. I notice you decided against quoting the fuller context of Judge Sotomayor’s statement, in which she addresses a specific example:
three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases.
This is the case she is discussing when the statement you and the NYT pulled out of the following context:
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. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
As you can see (or someone with reasonable reading comprehension could see) Judge Sotomayor is speaking of a specific case when she makes that “racist” statement. And it is not even primarily focused on race, but on gender.
So I’m sure you’ll agree that this statement fails to demonstrate your claim that Judge Sotomayor believes that just being a Latina means that she is able to reach “better conclusions” in all cases than a white male.
If you have another statement to prove this contention, I’m anxious to see it. I don’t want to see a racist on the Supreme Court any more than you do.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:18 pmAh, yes, the binary mind of the frightened conservative at work.
It’s either one or the other.
If one brings empathy to the bench, one apparently must necessarily disregard the constitution.
For me, JohnM, I would rather have a justice who rules based on the constitution AND who considers the law with a sense of empathy for those it affects.
Your false choice only reveals the limitations of your thought process.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
As you can see (or someone with reasonable reading comprehension could see) Judge Sotomayor is speaking of a specific case when she makes that “racist” statement. And it is not even primarily focused on race, but on gender.
Yes it was about that specific case and obviously she feels that in that case she was a better suited judge than that of a white man. Why does she mention race, why not just mention gender? She also mentions that her gender and race will play a factor in her decisions, which is quite troubling as her job is to base her decisions on the constitution not her race or gender. She clearly has shown that she will have trouble considering every person equal that comes into her court.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:26 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
I will take a judge based on ruling by the constitution instead of a judge that rules based on empathy.
Ah, yes, the binary mind of the frightened conservative at work.
It’s either one or the other.
If one brings empathy to the bench, one apparently must necessarily disregard the constitution.
For me, JohnM, I would rather have a justice who rules based on the constitution AND who considers the law with a sense of empathy for those it affects.
Your false choice only reveals the limitations of your thought process.
The law is the law, there should not be seperate laws if she feels bad for somebody. Since she also believes that judges should legislate from the bench, she clearly will not adhere to the constitution either.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pmI hate this idea that, after years of racist comments and actions from the white majority here in America on black, Hispanic, Asian and non-white communities, the white conservative community suddenly has the spine to target everything said by non-whites regarding race as “racist”. It’s a difficult road to follow–imagine a football team that always stacks the rules against weaker teams, yet cries foul when the other team flips the rules to favor themselves.
Fairness does have to play a part in modern politics, so it is hard to ignore claims from the other side regarding “reverse racism”. It’s the golden rule in motion–”do unto others as you would have them do unto you”–but what do you do when that golden rule is suddenly enforced by the same side that has bluntly disregarded it for so long?
That’s the conundrum here–the conservative base has been so racist in the past, but they expect fairness when they are suddenly the target? I just don’t get it.
And that’s why I want Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. Fairness.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pmYou obviously didn’t read her speech. It was titled “A Latina Judge’s Voice” and was delivered at a symposium entitled, “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation”.
Again, read the speech. She said any judge’s race and gender will play factors in their decisions. It is not something she strives for; it is something that is inevitable. It is part of the human system of jurisprudence.
She has shown no such thing. Please produce evidence of this charge.
One need not be blind to differences between people in order to consider them all equal.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:35 pmThat’s not what empathy means, just as that wasn’t what George H. W. Bush meant when he praised Clarence Thomas’ “empathy.”
She didn’t say that, either. She merely pointed out that the difference between appellate and district court is that the former sets policy via precedents and the latter does not, which is true.
Your position is a function of your ignorance.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:39 pmClearly, your trouble with reading comprehension strikes again.
I made a point about your (standard conservative) binary way of thinking; it’s either black or white, either up or down. It seems that in your mind, it is impossible to both apply the Constitution AND do so with empathy at the same time.
Perhaps you’re confusing EMPATHY (which is an ability to consider a situation from another’s perspective) with SYMPATHY (which is an emotional response, the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration).
Maybe that’s why you righties seem so scared of “empathy”.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:40 pmIf John M wasn’t stupid, he wouldn’t be a conservative.
I fail to empathize.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pmBS. This woman is only getting picked because she is a minority woman. IF she was white or a man she wouldn’t even be considered. Obama is raping us with no lube. If anyone opposes her they are to be called racists. Her race is the only reason she was nominated. This is just one more step in the wrong direction. Minorities shouldn’t even be up for office. Illegal immigrants should get deported immediately. WHo cares about the Hispanic votes just send them back to where ever they are from. If you don’t have a green card GET OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. If obama keeps this up, there will only be minorities in office. English will become the second language and everyone will need to know spanish. The only thing Sotomayor will be able to do for Americans is make us good tacos and thats about it. Call me a raist all you want, I’m just a realist. Anyone who says she would have been nominated for any other reason is an idiot and almost as stupid as Obama.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:46 pmProve it.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:46 pmProve that it wasn’t the case. Obama has no definitive answers for why she was nominated out of all the candidates. You actually think she would be the most qualified and best person for this job then you are crazy. Obama did it just to help out the minorities and to pay them back for voting for his sorry as$.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:50 pmThen why wasn’t J-Lo nominated? She’s a Latina as well and a lot more popular.
What’s that? She’s not a lawyer? Hasn’t served for seventeen years on the federal bench? Hasn’t distinguished herself in the law profession?
Oh. I guess Judge Sotomayor’s race and gender aren’t the ONLY reasons she was nominated then, are they?
May 27th, 2009 at 1:50 pmJ-lo good one. You act like she is the only one with those credentials. Ok, if you took a white man with the same credentials and put him up against Sotomayor, who do you think would Obama would pick? He would pick the stupid minority just for that reason. So get off your knows and quit blowing Obama and realize what is going on.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pmAh, yes… a troll classic — make a claim of “fact”, then when asked to prove it, challenge the other side to prove the negative.
Probably from their low angle, it looks like it works. To anyone of normal intellectual height, however, it just looks silly.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pmI don’t have to prove a negative, that’s the first rule of evidence and logic.
It was your assertion, and now you’re admitting you can’t back it up. Typical.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pmLet me guess I am having a discussion with stupid minorities.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pmAh, I think I see the problem.
The bigot assumes she can’t be qualified BECAUSE she’s a minority, so he then concludes that she can only have been nominated BECAUSE she’s a minority.
With arguments like that, it’s no wonder they sound so stupid.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pmWell if you are of such high intellect, you should know that you asked me to prove something that can’t be proven right or wrong. It’s an opinion, it can’t be wrong. I forgot ya’ll are just too smart and you should be running the country.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:00 pmObviously, he already has picked Judge Sotomayor.
Why do you assume that if the two jurists have “equal credentials” she should NOT be chosen?
It almost sounds like you believe she is less qualified by virtue of her race or gender.
When the President picks a “stupid minority” you might have an argument. Judge Sotomayor is clearly not stupid.
I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:00 pmThe only stupid one here appears to be you.
(JohnM has left, hasn’t he?)
May 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pmNo, you stated it as a fact, then challenged me to prove otherwise, which shows that you considered the statement to be falsifiable.
You are now pretending that you didn’t say what you said … TWICE … because, in addition to being an idiot, you’re a coward.
Again: typical.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pmMINORITIES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN OFFICE! END OF STORY! INCLUDING OBAMA!
why would she be picked over a more qualified candidate when I know that there are plenty of them out there.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pmThen perhaps you shouldn’t have stated it as fact. And most people realize that opinions can be wrong. You provide strong evidence for that observation.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pmSo just because I said something it is a fact? haha you have got to be kidding me. I don’t need to state that in my opinion, for it to be an opinion. I am not denying that I said anything, you can scroll up and see what i said. Basically we are screwed because of all the minorities and for the stupid people who support them like ya’ll
May 27th, 2009 at 2:06 pmOkay, now our friend has blown his cover.
He’s obviously not for real. He’s a progressive masquerading a really hideous troll in order to make the Right look ignorant and foolish.
I wish our side would quit doing that. THe other guys don’t need our help. They make themselves look plenty foolish all on their own.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:06 pmNo.
You really aren’t very bright, are you?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pmBut you just said i stated it as a fact. if you did not see the word fact or opinion how can you differentiate the way I stated it? did you hear the tone in my voice?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pmwhocares Says:
MINORITIES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN OFFICE! END OF STORY! INCLUDING OBAMA!
WOW. What an ignorant view you have.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pmWhere’s the KKK when you need it
May 27th, 2009 at 2:16 pmYou mean you don’t have your local chapter on speed dial?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:17 pmwhocares Says:
WHo cares about the Hispanic votes just send them back to where ever they are from. If you don’t have a green card GET OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. If obama keeps this up, there will only be minorities in office. English will become the second language and everyone will need to know spanish. The only thing Sotomayor will be able to do for Americans is make us good tacos and thats about it.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
____________
You do realize that Puerto Rico is part of our country, right? They don’t need a green card to be here. They’ve sent lots of young men and women to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that you can sit home and be a happy ignorant bigot.
You are a disgusting and pathetic excuse for a human being, and I wish upon you every misfortune and tragedy that the world has to offer.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pmF puerto rico
May 27th, 2009 at 2:25 pmchiroptera toasterhead wrote…You are a disgusting and pathetic excuse for a human being, and I wish upon you every misfortune and tragedy that the world has to offer
Wouldn’t saying that make you just as pathetic as me? I didn’t wish no harm to anyone unlike you. So i guess i will see you in hell. You hypocrite. At least I am true to myself.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pmEasy, CTH. Keep your powder dry. This one’s not for real.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:28 pmCome on toasterhead, say something as stupid as you did last time.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pmI may be a bigot and a racist but i never wish no harm on anyone. Go ahead and persecute me for my beliefs. I will live a long and happy life regardless. But for you CTH you just proved what kind of person you are.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pmblowcares Says:
I may be a bigot and a racist but i never wish no harm on anyone.
BZZZZZZZ!
May 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pmDouble negative! You’re in essence stating you do wish harm.
It’s too bad you didn’t post “I never wish no harm on no one” and hit the trifecta negative, which may have better helped your case.
ralph the wonder locust…… You have a good day. You may not have liked what i had to say but you did treat me with alittle respect and I appreciate that. Stay true to urself and whichever side of the fence you may find yourself on. Beliefs are your own regardless of what they are.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pmoo f u c k I forgot I was in English class. What grade did i get DRxJapanese Beetle? You are a real loser trying to correct grammar on a blog. Get a life.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pmWow. blowcares is really striving for attention, isn’t he (she)?
Awwwww, don’t give up, little buddy! Someday, someone will really care for you. It will be magical. All your dreams will be fulfilled.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pmKeep the dream alive, blowcares.
Keep the dream alive.
whocares Says:
Wouldn’t saying that make you just as pathetic as me? I didn’t wish no harm to anyone unlike you. So i guess i will see you in hell. You hypocrite. At least I am true to myself.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
____________
How am I a hypocrite? I have no tolerance for bigots and wish for you to die alone and unloved of some horrible disease. The planet will be better without you.
I don’t see how that is in any way hypocritical. Unless you’re suggesting that I should be tolerant of bigots, or recognize racists as a cultural minority.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pmhaha your funny. you haven’t made one substantial comment yet, you can only try to pick at someone else’s comment. Do you not have anything to say for urself? Let me help you. DRxJapanese Beetle says “I suck d i c k and lick a s s h o l e. I am worthless and have no thoughts of my own, I can only pick at others ideas and tell them how stupid I am.” Get a life chinq
May 27th, 2009 at 3:02 pmwhocares is just a mole-troll. Ignore it.
.
JohnM Says:
You can bold wherever you want, it is racist and you simply continue to show your ignorance in denying it. “That” life that she is referring to…
Is clearly one that’s relevant to the case under review, not all cases.
.
JohnM Says:
I will take a judge based on ruling by the constitution instead of a judge that rules based on empathy.
It’s not either/or. After all of the facts have been weighed, there’s still room for bias. Bias happens – even white guys do it.
You aren’t having a debate if you keep ignoring all of the facts that are repeatedly and carefully explained to you.
.
JohnM Says:
Your comment in the end clearly shows that you are unwilling to look at this objectively.
Like I care what a stupid trailer-park livin’ cracker thinks. Go eat some Wonder Bread and let the smart people do the thinking.
.
Purple State Says:
It’s a difficult road to follow–imagine a football team that always stacks the rules against weaker teams, yet cries foul when the other team flips the rules to favor themselves.
Worse than that, they cry foul whenever anybody on the other team points out that the rules are unfairly stacked.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:04 pmchiroptera toasterhead… you are pathetic. I hope you don’t have kids and if you do i feel soooooo sorry for them and the state should pobably take them from you. Or you could just let your crackhead wife suck d i c k to feed them. At least that’s a step up from you sucking D I C K for blow. You will be the one to die unhappy and alone and of some terrible disease hopefully. You will be going to hell for wishing someone’s death, you are a waste of life and you don’t deserve to have an opinion. Please quit breahing and wasting everyone’s oxygen.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:08 pmLIVE THE DREAM, blowcares!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:09 pmLive the dream.
JohnM Says: 43
No he isnt you are a liar and a fool
May 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pmJohnM Says:
Ok so YOU are a STUPID and brainwashed piece of filth. I frankly find it astonishing how staggeringly stupid you are
May 27th, 2009 at 3:43 pmBlowcares
If you can get your trailer trash whore of a mother to take a break blowing syphalitic lepers for pocketchange try asking who your father is. She wont know of course since it would be whoever gave her the shortdog that night but chances are its your uncle. Inbred trailer trash morons like you are a danger of polluting our gene pool with your STUPID. So just go kill yourself, it is the only service someone as stupid and pathetic as you can do for mankind
May 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pmwhocares Says:
MINORITIES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN OFFICE! END OF STORY! INCLUDING OBAMA!
Wow. Just…wow. I know I shouldn’t feed trolls, but…WOW. What a stupid statement.
Even Rush wouldn’t go that far. Seriously.
Even he’s not that much of a dunderhead to suggest that ANY minority should not be allowed in office. You’d probably run out of WASP’s before you run out of offices to fill.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pmOK everyone just calm down. What Sotomayor was talking about in her Berkeley speech is the importance of diversity in our judges. This speech is a call for all types of judges, white males included but also others, because, in her words, personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
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 her life, in the context of deciding sex and racial discrimination cases. Just like in deciding an antitrust case, a judge who only had the experience of being a big corporate CEO might look at the case differently than a judge who only had the experience of being a small business owner.
Now you can agree or disagree with her sentiment that having judges with varying personal experiences makes the judicial system better. But calling her a racist because of it is completely and utterly INACCURATE. Once again I fear the conservative bigots will win on spinning this one.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pmIf she takes the Judicial Oath, she will also be a liar based on her comments.
“I, Sotomayor, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons (LIE), and do equal right to the poor and to the rich(LIE), and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States (LIE). So help me God.”
She will have little reguard for the Constitution if she feels any empathy whatsoever. Oh Well, I guess it is outdated and irrelevant anyway. Maybe Obama can run it through a paper shredder and draft a new one.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:07 pm“She will have little reguard for the Constitution if she feels any empathy whatsoever. “
Are you suggesting that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalito and Thomas have no empathy whatsoever?
Oh wait — what am I thinking? They’re hard-core conservatives. Of course they have no empathy.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:06 pmU.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito’s Nomination to the Supreme Court:
– Justice Samuel Alito
So DBAJ, other than the fact that she’s not a white guy, how is Sotomayor’s approach any different from Alito’s?
May 27th, 2009 at 9:19 pmThank you for the post..
seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
May 27th, 2009 at 9:30 pmI hope these morons just keep on talking. I used to get very upset at these antics, but now enjoy them immensely. I guess they are shooting themselves in the knees now because their feet have been gone long ago.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:43 amIf anyone here has heard about Sotomayor’s quote about Latina women and white men and wants to know more, here are a couple quotes from her 2001 speech and under the quotes is a link to the full speech.
“Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.”
“Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
May 29th, 2009 at 8:44 pmsikis
nice
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 amsikis
yes
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 am