Steele On Sotomayor: ‘God Help You If You’re A White Male Coming Before Her Bench’
Steele On Sotomayor: ‘God Help You If You’re A White Male Coming Before Her Bench’
Last week, while guest-hosting Bill Bennett’s radio show, RNC Chairman Michael Steele urged Republicans to stop “slammin’ and rammin‘” Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor with personal attacks. Instead, Steele argued that conservatives should “move on to the substance of the conversation about what this woman believes, why she believes it.”
But just one week later, while hosting the same show, Steele couldn’t help but paint Sotomayor as a racist. “God help you if you’re a white male coming before her bench,” declared Steele before agreeing with a caller who who wanted the GOP to raise questions about her “character”:
STEELE: And apparently, the comments that she made that have been played up about, you know, the Latina woman being a better judge than the white male is something that she has said on numerous occasions. So this was not just the one and only time it was said. They’ve now found other evidences and other speeches, Trip, that she has made mention of this, this fact that her ethnicity, that her cultural background puts her in a different position as a judge to judge your case.
TRIP: Yep.
STEELE: And God help you if you’re a white male coming before her bench.
TRIP: Why don’t we focus on the content of her character?
STEELE: Well, you got that right. You got that right. Thanks Trip for the call.
Listen here:
The disconnect between Steele’s rhetoric last week and his comments this week shouldn’t come as a surprise. Yesterday, the Hill reported that while GOP leaders are cautioning against harsh rhetoric in public, behind the scenes they are encouraging activists to keep it up.
Additionally, Steele’s fearmongering about Sotomayor treating “white males” differently in the courtroom has no basis in fact. A recent study of Sotomayor’s race-related opinions by SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein found that Sotomayor had “rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.” “Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking,” concluded Goldstein.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You mean a white male like you, Michael?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:22 pmAdditionally, Steele’s fearmongering about Sotomayor treating “white males” differently in the courtroom has no basis in fact.
As if that’s ever stopped him or the rest of the GOP before…….
June 5th, 2009 at 12:22 pm.
LIE-CHEAT-STEELE
The “NEW” G(no)P
.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pmSteele On Sotomayor: ‘God Help You If You’re A White Male Coming Before Her Bench’
– - I love watching Steele grovel and pander to his base.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:26 pmThe Republican Party: Now Fact-Free for 3,076 Days!
June 5th, 2009 at 12:26 pmIt can be pointed out dozens of times how Judge Sotomayor’s actual record on the bench is actually quite moderate, especially in terms of discrimination cases, but idiots like Steele (yes, I think he is an idiot) will never absorb the information.
Their brains are like the “other leading brand” of paper towel that is just not as absorbent as Progressive™ brand paper towels.
Actually, if progressives are a paper towel, in terms of absorbency, conservative brains are more like a Post-It™.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pmI think we should focus on Mikey’s character — or lack thereof.
Keep talkin’, Mikey. You da man!
June 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pmOh…it’s been MUCH longer than that, Jane E. More like…ever since Theodore Roosevelt, or even before…
June 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pmSteele is trying to be the hero fighting for the rights of those poor, discriminated white males, oppressed by the ruthless Hispanic majority…
June 5th, 2009 at 12:29 pmAnd God help you if you’re a blue waiter serving Michael Steele a fly in his soup.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:31 pmAs a member of the “white male community”, Im sure we’ll manage despite this appointment like we have for thousands of years.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:31 pmThank you AIO this is the best laugh I’ve had today. This idiot ought to check into a race reasignment operation.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:31 pmI didn’t think the GOP could fall any further off the cliff but it seems they are aiming straight for the center of the earth. Wack Jobs Galore, I love it.
Yes Richard she hates white men, especially black men who pretend to be white men. She also wants to open the border between us and Mexico and appoint illegals to the courts. She is thinking about making it legal for turtles to marry humans (for the Fox Noise followers) and only white people can be gardners and waiters in restaurants. Once she gets that accomplished, our official language will be LATINA and we must all be part of La Rosa (the race?) and all newspapers will be in spanish.
I almost forgot, if she gets appointed she will work with Obama to bring all terrorists to the United States to celebrate Jihad Day, same day as Christian Jihad Day….
June 5th, 2009 at 12:32 pmThe Corporate GOP vies for which party whore can spout the absolutely stupidest sh¡t on the planet. Their corporate masters award bonuses for the week’s longest compliant-MSM milking.
..and we’re always the losers.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pmSo by his logic, God help you if you’re anything but a white male coming before a white male judge…
June 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pmDaddy-O, I realize that it’s been much longer than just since Bush-43, I was just being lazy. (At least I’m not using Rove’s “THE math.)
June 5th, 2009 at 12:37 pmGod help you if you’re an African American male being used by a party and are too blind to realize it.
PEACE
June 5th, 2009 at 12:37 pmWe must remember that the GOP has given up the whole ‘truth’ paradigm. They don’t fear hypocracy. They embrace hyperbole.
Everything they say could be a lie; they’ve freed themselves from the constraints of truth. It saves so much on research.
Every statement they make should be met with, ‘yes, but that is a lie.’ It is time we denied them any benefit of the doubt. They’ve abused ‘the benefit of the doubt’ past reclamation.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:39 pmLooks like Sotomayor has made her racist comment in at least 2 other speeches. I guess the white house was wrong when they said she would choose her words differently if given the chance.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:41 pm“…our official language will be LATINA…”
No, no, O-B2009, you must have forgotten, according to G. Gordon Liddy, she speaks “illegal alien.” ;)
June 5th, 2009 at 12:41 pmHow many immigrant and ethnic groups has the U.S. villified in its constant anxiety? What’s the vague threat of being non-white or non-WASPy? Or non-male, non-chritian, non-straight, etc.
Steele’s main task appears to be a justification for the racist entitlement of the GOP. They can all breathe easier because a black man is saying these things…
June 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pmThe more info comes out about Sotomayor the more her positive ratings increase……keep talking steel.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pmGood point, ElBruce. I wonder what percentage of our judiciary is white and male?
And could that have something to do with the disproportionate sentencing handed down to white defendants and black defendants for similar convictions?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pmSorry, on my prior post I got Richard & Michael mixed up, I meant so say Michael but he reminds me of Dick
June 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm(Cheney) so much and they do look alike.
ElBruce #16 “So by his logic, God help you if you’re anything but a white male coming before a white male judge…”
June 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pmThroughout the history of the United States, that has been true more often than not. Fortunately things have been changing lately. Unfortunately, from the rhetoric from the right-wingers, we still have a long way to go…
Ralph-
not to mention the OBVIOUS disparity between cocaine and crack cocaine sentencing.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pmWhat do you expect from a man owned by massa Boss Limbaugh?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pmLooks like JohnM has made the same flawed argument in at least a dozen other threads. I guess Troll Central was wrong when they said that their trolls were capable of absorbing new information of any kind.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pmJohnM Says:
I guess you don’t understand the word or it’s meaning. Not too surprised am I.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:45 pmJohnM Says:
Looks like Sotomayor has made her racist comment in at least 2 other speeches.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
______________
So? It doesn’t make her comment any less true, so what’s the problem?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pmSure, Mikey — and God help you if you’re a poor person, a person of color, a woman, a gay man, a lesbian woman, a transgender, a handicapped person, an unemployed person, a union member or a member of any historically oppressed minority, appearing before the current U.S. Supreme Court.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Looks like Sotomayor has made her racist comment in at least 2 other speeches
Proof?
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/SupremeCourt/Sotomayor/upload/Question-12-d-No-56-10-22-03-Seton-Hall-speech.pdf
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/SupremeCourt/Sotomayor/upload/Question-12-d-No-10-11-7-96-Princeton-speech.pdf
June 5th, 2009 at 12:47 pmI guess ToiletM is still looking for some sort of validation for his racism
June 5th, 2009 at 12:47 pmHey JohnM: does the fact that Justice Alito said the exact same thing about the influence of his ethnic background on his view of the law during his confirmation hearing mean that he’s a racist too? Or wasn’t that fact included on the Rushpublican talking points that were distributed to your little club a couple of weeks ago?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pmSonia Sotomayor has a great deal of experience on the bench — more than most Supreme Court appointees. You’d think this would provide a solid record on how she would rule on any number of situations.
Yet her critics rarely point to specific cases she’s heard and ruled on. Instead we get these rather vague accusations of her “racism”, her “liberalism”, etc. We also get attacks on her character and her temperament, but I have yet to hear one specific example to back up these attacks.
If Michael Steele wants us to believe that Judge Sotomayor is biased against white males, let him provide a list of cases where Sotomayor ruled against a while male simply because he was a white male. If he can’t, he should just STFU.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pmMichael Steele is certainly schizophrenic in a verbal sense — a manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome
June 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
Looks like JohnM has made the same flawed argument in at least a dozen other threads. I guess Troll Central was wrong when they said that their trolls were capable of absorbing new information of any kind.
There hasn’t been any new information to show that her comments were not racist. By her logic a white male would have come to a better conclusion than she did because it was about a white fireman being discriminated against.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pmOh, and BTW, JohnM — your dear leaders Herr Rushbo and Newtie-boy have abandoned the “racist” mantra. Try to keep up with the rest of your misguided sycophantic crowd; they’ve moved on from this unworkable “racist” smokescreen, so perhaps it’s time for you to do so as well…
June 5th, 2009 at 12:51 pmSteele demonstrates exactly what women and people of color are traditionally supposed to do to rise to the top – defend white male privilege. If you prove that you stand for white male interests regardless of anyone else’s, they’ll promote you. Also see Meiers, Thomas and Gonzales for additional examples.
It’s not that Sotomayor has ever been anti-white in any way. It’s just that she’s not pro- white, and that breaks the rule that all nonwhites and females have to be pro-white-male in order to get ahead.
Maybe Steele’s thinking to himself “I did all this shuckin’ and jivin’ for nothing? No way someone with integrity is cutting in line ahead of me!” Being Steele, he then mentally adds “Oh no she di’in’t!”
June 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pmThe Dogfather Says:
——————————————————————————–
Hey JohnM: does the fact that Justice Alito said the exact same thing about the influence of his ethnic background on his view of the law during his confirmation hearing mean that he’s a racist too? Or wasn’t that fact included on the Rushpublican talking points that were distributed to your little club a couple of weeks ago?
Actually he did not say the exact same thing. Allito said that his would impact his decisions he never said that he would come to a better conclusion because of that. The two statements clearly are different.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:53 pmTRIP: Why don’t we focus on the content of her character?
STEELE: Well, you got that right. You got that right. Thanks Trip for the call.
[...]
The disconnect between Steele’s rhetoric last week and his comments this week shouldn’t come as a surprise.
last week and this week? hell, there’s disconnect right there in THIS week’s comment…
“content of her character”??? disconnect AND disregard…
first he trashes her with a racist slur then agrees with the caller to focus on her character…
maybe i misunderstood the caller, trip… maybe trip misunderstood king’s words… hmmmmm…
June 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm“Be afraid of the non-white judge, white people!!!”
Classic GOP fear-mongering. *yawn* Yep, that surely ought to return the GOP to power. Political genius!
June 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pmThe Dogfather Says:
——————————————————————————–
Oh, and BTW, JohnM — your dear leaders Herr Rushbo and Newtie-boy have abandoned the “racist” mantra. Try to keep up with the rest of your misguided sycophantic crowd; they’ve moved on from this unworkable “racist” smokescreen, so perhaps it’s time for you to do so as well…
I don’t care what they are saying now. I knew the statement was racist the first time I read her speech. Since she has said the same thing at least two other times simply adds to her racism.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pmYou’re right. It’s NOT “new” information. in fact, it was contained in the paragraphs BEFORE the quote you guys pulled out of context.
it would just be new information to YOU.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pmI wonder if a total disconnect from his race will have long term consequences for Steele’s mental health. He’s already showing signs of cracking.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pmJohnM,
Did you think she was a racist when George HW Bush nominated her in 1991? Did you think she was a racist when Orrin Hatch, Bennett, and several other republican senators voted for her in 1998? Or do you just think she is a racist now because that is what you are told to say? By the way, in 2010 every republican who is slamming her now will be featured in democratic commercials running in Spanish in all of the Hispanic/Latina communities. The GOP can now say goodbye to the Hispanic vote forever.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pmElBruce Says:
——————————————————————————–
So by his logic, God help you if you’re anything but a white male coming before a white male judge…
Your comparison is flawed. If the white judge had said that white judges come to better conclusions, then the two would be the same logic.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pmRight. Alito was saying that the decisions he would make with the influence of his background wouldn’t be “better” than other decisions. I guess he was saying that, because of his immigrant background, he’ll just be a mediocre judge.
Is that how it goes, JohnM? Alito doesn’t think his conclusions, that would be shaped by his immigrant background, would be good enough to warrant his inclusion on the Supreme Court?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pmjohnmmmmmmm
Your opinion seems not to be shared by many……You got anything that you can get to stick? I didn’t think so.
Cry baby cry, why baby why. You lose and Sotomayor gets confirmed.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says:
Sonia Sotomayor has a great deal of experience on the bench — more than most Supreme Court appointees.
As Obama has pointed out, she has a longer resume than any sitting Justice at the time of their nomination.
.
JohnM Says:
There hasn’t been any new information to show that her comments were not racist. By her logic a white male would have come to a better conclusion than she did because it was about a white fireman being discriminated against.
Although it’s getting pointless by now, I’m going to continue to debunk your lies. You’ll just run away and repeat them in another thread later on. I’ll debunk them there too.
1. It’s been common knowledge that all judges have at least a slight degree of bias.
2. She did not say she’s more biased than a white male, only that if she has any biases, they would be different.
3. Alito said the same thing.
4. She immediately pointed out that it was nine white men who decided Brown v. Board of Education, so bias isn’t that important anyway.
5. Ricci was about discrimination against blacks. They could only throw out the test or not throw out the test. If they didn’t throw it out, the black firefighters would have had a much stronger case than the white firefighters do.
6. Ricci was ruled on the law as it is written and according to existing precedent, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, overturning it would constitute judicial activism.
7. There’s nothing in Sotomayor’s record to suggest that she has a problem with white people.
8. Sotomayor’s ex-husband was a white male.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pmChris LeJeune Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM,
Did you think she was a racist when George HW Bush nominated her in 1991? Did you think she was a racist when Orrin Hatch, Bennett, and several other republican senators voted for her in 1998? Or do you just think she is a racist now because that is what you are told to say? By the way, in 2010 every republican who is slamming her now will be featured in democratic commercials running in Spanish in all of the Hispanic/Latina communities. The GOP can now say goodbye to the Hispanic vote forever.
Her comments came in 2001 and after before she was nominated by Bush and before she was confirmed. I guess she was hiding her true beliefs until her confirmation.
So you think that she should not get any resistance because she is hispanic and it can be used as campaign fodder? She should not be put under the same scrutiny as a white judge?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pmYou know, the most annoying part of this sad little controversy that, imho, the media is trying hard to keep interesting to the public- is that Sotomayor is so obviously a moderate by all case study. I personally want someone who’s way more left, and it still wouldn’t balance the right leaning judges on there! Roberts and Alito were so obviously conservative- and they got in! Leftists have always had way more of an uphill battle to be seen as valid in this country. I get a little tired of having to defend a moderate.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:00 pmJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
ElBruce Says:
——————————————————————————–
So by his logic, God help you if you’re anything but a white male coming before a white male judge…
Your comparison is flawed. If the white judge had said that white judges come to better conclusions, then the two would be the same logic.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Basing it upon the decisions rendered by Roberts , Salia and Alito , there’s no way anyone could ever even think that , let alone say it……..
June 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pmLety’s take a look at YOUR logic, JohnM; what do you think is better predictor of future behavior; past behavior, or statements about onesself?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pmElBruce Says:
3. Alito said the same thing.
When did Alito say that he would come to a better conclusion because of his experience?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pmWhat about token black men, you freaking nut?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:03 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
ElBruce Says:
So by his logic, God help you if you’re anything but a white male coming before a white male judge…
Your comparison is flawed. If the white judge had said that white judges come to better conclusions, then the two would be the same logic.
Lety’s take a look at YOUR logic, JohnM; what do you think is better predictor of future behavior; past behavior, or statements about onesself?
So you are saying her statements mean nothing? She could be out saying that white people are less intelligent than hispanics as long as her record indicates a different theme? Of course her past behavior should be used as a predictor of future behavior, but her statments and speeches should also be evaluated.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pmJohnM Says:
When did Alito say that he would come to a better conclusion because of his experience?
At his own confirmation hearing:
Do you think he takes it into account in order to come to a worse conclusion?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm——————————————————————————–
Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Looks like Sotomayor has made her racist comment in at least 2 other speeches
Proof?
We’re still waiting. C&P two pdfs is not proof.
Waiting…..
Actually read the PDFs and you will see that she again said would hope that that a hispanic female will come to better conclusions that a white male. Is it too much reading for you?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pmNo. Because she is supremely qualified and if roberts and alito got confirmed you can bet your ass that she will too.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pmJohnM Says:
I don’t care what they are saying now. I knew the statement was racist the first time I read her speech. Since she has said the same thing at least two other times simply adds to her racism.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Did you bother to read the rest of the speech, or just cherrypick that one quote, child molester?
Here, I’ll help you. Explain to me why this is racist:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
JohnM,
I’m not trying to dissuade you. I hope all of the GOP keeps calling her racist – and worse. Specter has already said he will vote for her – so will Snowe and Collins. She is filibuster proof. The question now is how many votes the GOP wants to lose from the Hispanic sector. The answer is all of them. Also, I hope that the GOP uses up all of its political capital (what little it has left) on pointless arguments like this. This way, when the real fights come later (that aren’t filibuster proof) the GOP will be spent. Have fun in 2010. I know I will.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pm>>>
poor johnm,
make them hate you.
“who cares if they like us?”
– karl rove.
***
and that is how they lose elections.
:)
June 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pmIt’s a simple question, JohnM. No need to try to parse what I’m saying. I’m simply asking what you think is the BETTER indicator of future behavior: words or actions?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pmJohnM Says:
Actually he did not say the exact same thing. Allito said that his would impact his decisions he never said that he would come to a better conclusion because of that. The two statements clearly are different.
And if you and your ilk bothered to read all of what Judge Sotomayor said rather than isolating that one sentence, you will see that the intent of what she was saying is identical to what Alito said. But, you never read the whole, you only cherry pick a sentence or two that you think bolsters your arguments. That is inherently dishonest. But, then, I don’t know a honest Republic so it goes with the territory.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pmGrassley’s memory lapse prompted me to search for reports on the reasons some Senate Republicans opposed Sotomayor in 1998. I could not find any articles discussing controversial decisions she had made as a district court judge.
I also learned that Sotomayor gave a speech in 1994 containing a statement about a “wise woman” that is similar to her 2001 remark that conservative commentators have been flogging. Greg Sargent reported that “though the 1994 speech was disclosed to Republican Senators as part of her confirmation for Court of Appeals in 1998, there’s no sign that anyone objected to it in any way.”
So, why did Grassley and 28 other Republican Senators vote against Sotomayor in 1998? My hunch is that the reason Grassley didn’t enter a speech into the Congressional Record at the time is the same reason I can’t find any reporting on the grounds for opposition to her: Republicans had no legitimate beef with her qualifications or her judicial rulings.
[...]
http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/6/4/194150/0574
well, other than the democratic president that nominated her…
and this, hand in hand:
At the time, analysts said that Republicans did not want her confirmation to go forward because it would put her in line for a Supreme Court seat.
hmmmm… imagine that…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pmJohnM Says:
Actually read the PDFs and you will see that she again said would hope that that a hispanic female will come to better conclusions that a white male. Is it too much reading for you?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
___________
Explain why that is racist, child molester. She’s not saying that Hispanic females are better than white males. She’s saying that SHE WOULD HOPE that a Hispanic female WITH EXPERIENCE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST would TEND TO come to a better conclusion in DISCRIMINATION CASES than a white male who HASN’T BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.
You need to look at ALL the words of the sentence, not just pick out a few and rearrange them in your brain.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pmDoes anyone here think that there is even a remote chance that the republican party can ever become tethered to reality again?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pmThis quote from Sotomayor I find particularly pertinent. It really describes people like Steele and JohnM perfectly:
June 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
ralph, you are trying to get an intelligent response from ToiletM
might as well be trying to prove Sotomayor is a racist
neither are going to happen, ever
June 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pmJohnM, her RECORD trumps your right-wing fear script:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/
June 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pmtom Says:
Does anyone here think that there is even a remote chance that the republican party can ever become tethered to reality again?
***
not gallup.
:)
June 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pmBut she’s not and you saying so don’t make it true. You’re the one starting to look like you have no credibility. Where do you derive the wherewithall to make baseless attacks that you just dream up? Delusional much?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Actually read the PDFs and you will see that she again said would hope that that a hispanic female will come to better conclusions that a white male. Is it too much reading for you?
What racist statements has she made.
Still waiting for you to provide proof. Is it too much reading for you?
Obviously you did not read the proof.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:13 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
You need to look at ALL the words of the sentence, not just pick out a few and rearrange them in your brain.
Now, now… be nice to JohnM.
That’s what a life time of substance abuse will do to you: Short attention span, inability to read the written word…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:13 pmElBruce Says:
As Obama has pointed out, she has a longer resume than any sitting Justice at the time of their nomination.
which the frighties are going to use to stall stall stall…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm‘oh look at all this information we have to study… years and years worth… this could be a long while… oh dear…’
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Actually read the PDFs and you will see that she again said would hope that that a hispanic female will come to better conclusions that a white male. Is it too much reading for you?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
___________
Explain why that is racist, child molester. She’s not saying that Hispanic females are better than white males. She’s saying that SHE WOULD HOPE that a Hispanic female WITH EXPERIENCE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST would TEND TO come to a better conclusion in DISCRIMINATION CASES than a white male who HASN’T BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.
You need to look at ALL the words of the sentence, not just pick out a few and rearrange them in your brain.
Yes the statment is racist. To think that any race would come to a better conclusion on any case simply because of their own race and gender is racist and sexist.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pmFor our poor threatened troll John:
What was the context? When Sotomayor asserted, “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,” she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases.
Placed in the proper framework, Sotomayor’s comments become far less controversial. (She was not making a sweeping claim about the superiority of Latina women.) And placed in the proper context, the right-wing allegation that she’s a racist utterly collapses and instead reveals itself to be the ugly, hateful charge that it is.
Sotomayor, Gingrich, and the demise of our press corps
June 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm…
johnm,
on his way from utah.
:::
when they can’t win,
they kill.
…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pm——————————————————————————–
Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Actually read the PDFs and you will see that she again said would hope that that a hispanic female will come to better conclusions that a white male.
Please explain how that is “racist”.
Waiting….
She is saying that she as a hispanic woman would come to a better conclusion than a white male. Since she is saying one race is superior to another race in deciding certain cases then that is a racist comment.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pmSTARTING TO? Fred, I had no idea you were capable of such generosity to our guests..
June 5th, 2009 at 1:17 pmFor the idiot troll, who chooses to cherry pick and not read the whole of what Judge Sotomayor said in the 1994 speech:
Here she is pointing out that white judges often allowed their gender and race to color their opinions, and not in a good way. That’s why she says she hopes that being a wise Latina…
And please tell us how the above quote is any different than what Judge Alito said in his hearing.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pmJohnM Babbles (again):
To think that any race would come to a better conclusion on any case simply because of their own race and gender is racist and sexist.
But that’s not what she said. At all.
And you repeating ad nauseam doesn’t make it true.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pmIsn’t it nice of Steele to stand up for the poor, downtrodden white male? A real fighter for justice he is.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
Fred Says:
JohnM Says:
She could be out saying that white people are less intelligent than hispanics
But she’s not and you saying so don’t make it true. You’re the one starting to look like you have no credibility
STARTING TO? Fred, I had no idea you were capable of such generosity to our guests..
Somebody said that we should not pay attention to what she says only what her decisions in cases have been. I never said that she said that. I was simply asking if that would be okay to say if her record is good on discrimination cases.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pm“The Earth is flat! The Earth is flat!”
June 5th, 2009 at 1:19 pm~JohnM
This whole “she’s a racist” screed is very amusing coming from a group of “people” that has a history of being racists…
Oh, but I forgot — IOKIYAR, right Johnny-boy?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:19 pmYou have to enjoy the entertainment aspect of all of this.
The party of NO has a RNC chairman they don’t know what to do with and on a daily basis we see their members spewing hate and venom = falling approval ratings.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pmConfucius say:
Speaking about race, does not a racist make.
/Or was it Yoda?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pmYou know, this just occurred to me:
And God help you if you’re a white male coming before her bench.
I bet about 90% of the people who have argued cases before her on both sides were white males.
.
JohnM Says:
Actually read the PDFs and you will see that she again said would hope that that a hispanic female will come to better conclusions that a white male. Is it too much reading for you?
We’ve presented a lot more releveant reading than you have.
If you want to get all nitpicky, then you should meditate on the sentence construction “I would hope that.” It means she doesn’t know, but she certainly wouldn’t want her experience to lead to worse decisions.
Obama had a good analogy when he mentioned that if a judge came from a farming community and were settling an agriculture case, their knowledge of how such rulings impacted farmers might help them come to a better conclusion. Is that racist too?
Either everybody’s biased, or nobody is. Just because some people admit that everybody’s biased, doesn’t make them more biased than the people who don’t admit it. In fact, that makes them less biased, because they’re aware of their bias.
Therefore, she’s less racist than you are. Which we knew all along anyways.
.
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
Did you bother to read the rest of the speech, or just cherrypick that one quote, child molester?
They never read the entire thing. Remember when the Obama/Joe-the-plumber hit the web? When I first saw it, I thought it was a complete triumph for our side, demonstrating Obama’s concern for the average citizen’s view and the depth of his thinking. His explanation of the reasoning behind progressive taxation was thorough, clear and extensive. Then I found out that the wingnuts considered it a triumph for their side, based solely on three words. All they heard was “…blah blah blah blah spread the wealth blah blah blah…” and immediately thought “Ha, we won that argument!” I swear, it’s like trying to explain algebra to a doberman retriever.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pmMichael,
You’re a man of Steele with a mouth full of maggots.
Quit squirming. It’s distracting to people to see a token minority figure lambasting another minority figure who’s so obviously more intelligent than the one screaming & squirming.
Get a real job, Michael. Your White bosses are playing you like a cheap flute.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pmit’s that proverbial BRICK WALL, guys… not worth it…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pmThat is true. If one thought that the conclusion was the result of one’s race or gender then, yes, that would be racist.
But that is not what the Judge said. She related the case to her upbringing and cultural background — in short — to her experience as a Latina in our society, not to the simple genetic gifts of being born Latina.
This may be too subtle a distinction for you; we know you’re not really a subtle thinker — or much of a thinker of any kind, for that matter — but it makes it obvious tat you have no understanding of what the Judge said, beyond your simplistic determination to see it as “racist”.
You never answered my question, JohnM — which is the better predictor of behavior: words or actions?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pmGregor Samsa Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Babbles (again):
To think that any race would come to a better conclusion on any case simply because of their own race and gender is racist and sexist.
But that’s not what she said. At all.
And you repeating ad nauseam doesn’t make it true.
That is exactly what she said at least 3 times.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pmJohnM Says:
She is saying that she as a hispanic woman would come to a better conclusion than a white male. Since she is saying one race is superior to another race in deciding certain cases then that is a racist comment.
John, please, that Critical Thinking course at your local JC is just begging you to attend.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pmYou take her statement out of context and then throw in sexist for good measure. Pathetic.
What drives you to continue when you are losing so badly? Are you one of those that likes to be whipped?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pmSo she said that “she would hope that a Hispanic female would come to a better conclusion than a white male”. What exactly is wrong with “hoping” such a thing? It doesn’t seem to be prejudiced to me. It is merely an aspiration that may or may not be true.
Don’t you think that GDumbya “hopes” that history will treat him well (which it won’t)? Or that Darth Cheney “hoped” that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq (which we weren’t)? I certainly wouldn’t fault either of them for their “hopes”. I would condemn them for their failures, though.
So be it with Sotomajor. Consider her on her record and her case opinions. She will pass with flying colors!
June 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pmI hope you’re not referring to me when you say this.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:23 pmJohnM Says:
That is exactly what she said at least 3 times.
No, that is not what she said 3 times. That is a cherry picked sentence out of a speech that you use to support your views. If you bother to read the entire speech (if you are capable of that kind of comprehension), you will see that in essence what she is saying is no different than what Alito said.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pmJohnM shoots himself in the foot thus:
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
And how is that racist, you little twit, you?
Do white males face racial or sexual discrimination in the workplace, as a matter of fact and on a regular basis?
Are they sexually harassed (and “had it coming”) or denied promotions because they just had a baby?
You have no clue what you are talking about…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:26 pmJohnM – would you care to reply to my post at 93? Or are you to much of a coward?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:26 pmJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
Gregor Samsa Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Babbles (again):
To think that any race would come to a better conclusion on any case simply because of their own race and gender is racist and sexist.
But that’s not what she said. At all.
And you repeating ad nauseam doesn’t make it true.
That is exactly what she said at least 3 times.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Well , think about that (if you’re capable).
Isn’t a Latina woman much more likely to have encountered discrimination in her life (1st hand) , than an anal-retentive , cancervative white male ?
And in such a case , who would have a better grasp on the nature or reality of discrimination ; the one who has experienced it , or the one who claims they “understand it” , even though he doesn’t ?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm…
johnm,
anything new or
same old same old?
:|
good luck.
:)
June 5th, 2009 at 1:28 pmLet me highlight the parts that you quoted, but ignored:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”
Yes, there are a couple of important qualifiers in this one out-of-context quote that you pretend are not there. She did not say, as you claim that a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
It’s difficult to figure out how to make this clear to you at this point, if simply laying it out in front of you has no effect. Perhaps we are dealing with an Upton Sinclair moment:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
JohnM may not be drawing a salary for his trolling, but he certainly has a vested interest in not understanding a fairly simple concept.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:28 pmBush and Cheney are white males who should be before a judge right now for their WAR CRIMES.
Fcuk the Republic Fascist Party
June 5th, 2009 at 1:28 pmIt is clear from her 11 year record that she has not shown a racial bias.
So it is your contention, JohnM, that she’s a secret racist who will finally come out of the closet when she’s on the Supreme Court?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:30 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Yes the statment is racist. To think that any race would come to a better conclusion on any case simply because of their own race and gender is racist and sexist.
That is true. If one thought that the conclusion was the result of one’s race or gender then, yes, that would be racist.
But that is not what the Judge said. She related the case to her upbringing and cultural background — in short — to her experience as a Latina in our society, not to the simple genetic gifts of being born Latina.
This may be too subtle a distinction for you; we know you’re not really a subtle thinker — or much of a thinker of any kind, for that matter — but it makes it obvious tat you have no understanding of what the Judge said, beyond your simplistic determination to see it as “racist”.
You never answered my question, JohnM — which is the better predictor of behavior: words or actions?
No two people’s experiences are the same regardless of race. If she was speaking of her experience as a Latina in society and not simply her race she should have given examples that would lead to better conclusions in a distinct case. She is making the broad statement about race and gender and now you are putting words in her mouth.
As for your questions I believe they are equally important because they both are an indicator of the future. The supreme court is a lifelong appointment and she does not have to worry about her cases being scrutinized anymore as she would be at the top. If she speaks one way and rules another, then she could very likely be toning down her decisions in order to get to the supreme court. If somebody says racist things and rules another way in lower courts I think there is a definite possibility that the rulings will fall more in line with their personal views when they feel they are untouchable.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:30 pm…
same old same old.
…
:)
June 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pmDude, that’s just your opinion of what she said. That don’t make it so. You have already demonstrated your lack of critical thinking skills so give it up. You lose, again.
Want to bet whether she gets confirmed or not? You know she will and still you rant on in your exercise in futility as if you were going to accomplish something like change our minds or keep it from happening.
If you push on the rock for 2 days and the rock doesn’t move you may have spent energy but you have not done any work.
You are embarassing yourself and all on the right but you just keep it up. I’m enjoying the show. It’s like watching a wreck in slow motion. Morbid curiosity I guess.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:33 pm;;;
“The supreme court is a lifelong appointment and she does not have to worry about her cases being scrutinized anymore as she would be at the top.”
***
June 5th, 2009 at 1:34 pmJohnM Says:
If somebody says racist things and rules another way in lower courts I think there is a definite possibility that the rulings will fall more in line with their personal views when they feel they are untouchable.
That might be true, except that was nothing “racist” about any of her remarks. They were expressions of simple common sense, which you apparently lack completely.
You’ve repeatedly established that you have no idea what the word even means.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:34 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
That is exactly what she said at least 3 times.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
Let me highlight the parts that you quoted, but ignored:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”
She hopes that a wise Latina woman would come to better conclusions more often than not. So even with your qualifiers having more impact than they actually do at best she hopes that Latina women come to better conclusions than white men. Why does she want Latina women to come to better conclusions? Could it be that she has a bias? Would that bias come out in the supreme court because she is hoping the hispanic woman before her was discriminated against by the white male?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pmJohnM Prattles:
If she was speaking of her experience as a Latina in society and not simply her race she should have given examples that would lead to better conclusions in a distinct case.
She did give specific examples of black & female Justices leading to better rulings than the wise white males who sat at the bench before them -unless, of course, you don’t think sex discrimination happens or dream of the days when schools were segregated.
She is speaking of her “experience as a Latina and not simply her race”? WTF does this even mean? What is Sotomayor’s race, exactly?
She is making the broad statement about race and gender and now you are putting words in her mouth.
No, she isn’t. Had you bothered to read the preceding and following paragraphs in that Berkeley speech, you would have an idea of what exactly she was talking about.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pmThat’s what others are trying to get you to understand. How could a white male understand discrimination?
See race does matter when you are dealing with racial decisions. Her viewpoint is needed.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm>>>
johnm,
only if a woodchuck
could chuck wood.
:\
:)
June 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pmFred Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
Dude, that’s just your opinion of what she said. That don’t make it so. You have already demonstrated your lack of critical thinking skills so give it up. You lose, again.
I don’t need to have an opinion because it is her quote. You can either accept or make excuses and try and justify the racism.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pmJohnM is a classic pussy afraid of strong non-white women.
Ignore him! Let him wither!He can’t learn – his whole world will collapse if he ever opens his closed mind.
How sad. What a waste.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pmJohnM&M Says:
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
Okay. You’ve lost me. Exactly what are you saying that is racist about this statement?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:40 pmJohnM, your entire argument is based on wishful/hateful speculation.
The measure of a judge is her record. Her record proves that she’s not a racist. Until she rules otherwise you are wrong.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:41 pmJohnM(oron) has been told what to post by the Republic Fascist Party and he is not going to stray from their propaganda talking points.
Like most of these treasonous bastards on the right, they are wrong.
Fcuk the Republic Fascist Party
June 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pmDo you also think Obama is a secret Muslim, JohnM?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pm….
doc,
he’s not trying to make sense.
he’s trying to obfuscate.
:)
June 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pmJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
Fred Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
Dude, that’s just your opinion of what she said. That don’t make it so. You have already demonstrated your lack of critical thinking skills so give it up. You lose, again.
I don’t need to have an opinion because it is her quote. You can either accept or make excuses and try and justify the racism.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
No , dipshit
You can accept the FACT that someone who has (most definitely) experienced racism herself 1st-hand , would have a better grasp of discrimination than an insulated white cancervative goofball.
Roberts and Alito seem about as “worldly” as a Nerf football…..
June 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pmDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM&M Says:
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
Okay. You’ve lost me. Exactly what are you saying that is racist about this statement?
I can’t believe how willfully blind people are here. Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pmI know, you’ve been told what to think.
I think you are a racist. I think you are against her because she is Latino. I can think of no other reason for your ignorant behavior.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pmJohnM Says:
She hopes that a wise Latina woman would come to better conclusions more often than not. So even with your qualifiers having more impact than they actually do at best she hopes that Latina women come to better conclusions than white men. Why does she want Latina women to come to better conclusions? Could it be that she has a bias?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
________________
No, idiot.
It’s not BECAUSE of the Latina woman’s race that Sotomayor hopes she’d make a better decision, it’s because of the Latina woman’s EXPERIENCE. As a Latina woman, she has suffered discrimination. That’s simply a statement of fact. Though the degree of discrimination she has experienced in her life may range from blatant to petty, the fact remains that she will have encountered some discrimination at some point during her years on this Earth.
It is a solid fact that a white male who hasn’t been discriminated against has not been discriminated against. That’s pure logical tautology and is indisputable, given the constraints of the judge’s statement. She is not referring to all white males – just white males who have not suffered discrimination.
So if we put the identical set of evidence to this hypothetical Latina female who has been discriminated against and this hypothetical white male who hasn’t been discriminated against, Sotomayor is saying that she hopes that the hypothetical Latina female may bring a bit more experience and understanding to the case than the hypothetical white male. Not because she’s Latina and he’s white, but because she’s EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION and he HAS NOT.
Race has nothing to do with it.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pmJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
DRxJapanese Beetle Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM&M Says:
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
Okay. You’ve lost me. Exactly what are you saying that is racist about this statement?
I can’t believe how willfully blind people are here. Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
What experience can an insulated cancervative white male rely upon when discussing or ruling on discrimination ?
The way they personally treated minorities themselves ?
It’s akin to asking a serial killer to describe the terror their victims felt right before they were killed , knowing their time had come ……….
You’re an imbecile.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:50 pmSo JohnM thinks that words are just as useful as actions when predicting future behavior.
That says a lot about JohnM’s susceptibility to the words of his right-wing overlords, even when their actions fail to match their words (which is almost always).
And it’s enough to dismiss the uninformed prattle of JohnM as useless.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:50 pmJohnM Jabbers:
Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
First, you don’t seem to realize that in Ricci, Sotomayor was one of three judges who rules infavor of the city. The two other judges were… wait… male Caucasians.
So much for your “Sotomayor is racist” meme.
Second, Ricci was not about race, affirmative action, or discrimination in the workplace -it was whether the city was within their rights to set aside the results of the test. Which they did. Nobody got promoted.
Third, overturning the city’s decision would have been judicial activism by an unelected judge. I thought conservatives -like yourself- were against that.
Fourth, you really are in over your head in this discussion. Haven’t you made a fool of yourself enough?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pmJohn M&M Whines:
I can’t believe how willfully blind people are here. Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
Well John, speaking as a 43 year old white male, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life!
So, as you can see, I’m not willfully blind (although I did have cataract surgery a couple years back), but it is you, my friend, who failed to answer my direct question.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pmSo, perhaps, we could describe you as blissfully ignorant?
JohnM Says:
DRxJapanese Beetle Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM&M Says:
She is saying that in discrimination cases a hispanic woman would come to better conclusions than a white male.
Okay. You’ve lost me. Exactly what are you saying that is racist about this statement?
I can’t believe how willfully blind people are here. Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
***
you are here all the time.
willfully.
voluntarily.
therefore you like it here.
…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:52 pmIt’s worth mentioning in the context of this discussion that neither “Latina” nor “Hispanic” are a race. In case people hadn’t noticed, Sotomayor is about as pasty white as it gets outside of Finland.
.
JohnM Says:
Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
Of course it would, for the reason that reverse discrimination is a racist myth.
.
JohnM Says:
I don’t need to have an opinion because it is her quote. You can either accept or make excuses and try and justify the racism.
=
“I don’t need to address your logical and thoroughly cited debunkings of my claim, I’m just going to wave it off as ‘excuses’ and then reassert my claim.”
You’re losing. Very, very badly.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pmJohnM Says:
I can’t believe how willfully blind people are here. Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
____________
No, I don’t. It would not at all be racist, if that white male were in, say, Zimbabwe.
If he’d been evicted from his farm by Robert Mugabe and passed over for promotions and suffered discrimination due to his status as an oppressed white minority in a black majority country, then there would be absolutely nothing wrong with him then saying that he’d hope that a white male who had suffered discrimination would come to a better conclusion about discrimination than a black male who benefitted from the corrupt system.
However, in the United States it is simply not possible for a white male to make the statement that Sotomayor did. Not because it’s racist, but because it’s logically ridiculous.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pmWhat a whore this Mike Steele is.
If anyone’s interested, he’ll sell you a romp with his mom, too.
“Sorry guys, we couldn’t find anyone of lesser integrity, so we’re going with Steele to head things up.”
June 5th, 2009 at 1:55 pmJohnM has been parsing this one sentence for about three weeks now. He is obviously sick. He needs help. Is there a shrink in the house?
June 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pmspring heeled jack Says:
JohnM has been parsing this one sentence for about three weeks now. He is obviously sick. He needs help. Is there a shrink in the house?
****
the voters get bored.
and vote democrat.
:)
June 5th, 2009 at 2:00 pmJohnMyheadisupRush’sass says:
Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
Leaving aside the gibberish that your alleged sentence contains, the answer to the question I think you’re asking is no — a white male saying that would likely not be considered a racist. Want proof? Look back to Justice Alito’s confirmation hearing. And this time, read what he really said, not what you want to think he said.
When Alito said he would let his family’s ethnic background and religion and experiences with discrimination affect his view of the law, I don’t recall anyone calling him a racist. That includes you and your dear leaders Rushbo and Newtwitter, all of whom seem to have a new-found (and rather disingenuous) fear of racism after wearing the racist cloak for lo these many years…
June 5th, 2009 at 2:06 pmIf the Republican Party had its way, people like Michael Steele (African Americans) would still be wearing chains and living on plantations owned by white people.
Can’t figure out why Steele would defend racist Republicans. They must be paying him $50 million per year to betray Black Americans.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pmDRxJapanese Beetle Says:
So, perhaps, we could describe you as blissfully ignorant?
I haven’t seen a blissful Republican outside of this flick. Angrily ignorant, certainly. Fearfully ignorant, usually. But generally they’re pretty bitter about how stupid they are.
.
delafield Says:
If the Republican Party had its way, people like Michael Steele (African Americans) would still be wearing chains and living on plantations owned by white people.
Actually, Steele would be wearing an ill-fitting tux and serving the brandy. *ahem*
June 5th, 2009 at 2:17 pmNo offense to any African Americans,but isn`t the Token Steele calling the Kettle black or am I missing something here.This is just typical of the Reich Wing American Taliban taking a comment out of context and running with it not knowing the whole story,oh I keep forgetting the Reich doen`t want the whole truth, just cafeteria style facts,just like with health care,the enviroment and the economy and every other issue they can get their pudgy little grimy hands on.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:17 pmJohnM,
Peace be upon you.
-Barack Hussein Obamam / 6-4-09
Speech of the Century
June 5th, 2009 at 2:21 pmObama!
June 5th, 2009 at 2:21 pmHey folks, it’s time to stop trying to talk some sense into JohnM. He is incapable of critical thinking or independent thought so he is going to cling to what he wants to believe.
Ne never had the courage to address my post #93 that proved what she was saying was pretty much what Alito said and that she pointed out that WHITE men made many bad decisions based on their gender and race.
Do we want to push this thread to 400+ posts in a vain attempt to get JohnM to use the gray matter he was given?
June 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pmHe thinks he’s a white guy with a really dark suntan, that’s all.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pmGregor Samsa Says:
JohnM Jabbers:
Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
First, you don’t seem to realize that in Ricci, Sotomayor was one of three judges who rules infavor of the city. The two other judges were… wait… male Caucasians.
And one of the other two white male Judges was a conservative.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:26 pmFair enough, Bilbo. As spring heeled jack points out, JohnM has been parsing this one sentence for weeks. Seems like if he were capable, he’d have gotten a little bit of it by now.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pmThis white male is Limb’s way of igniting race into politics so that the next general election they can have something to go against. There is the limbaugh white male type, hannity,beck, oreily, s. carolina governer, Senator sessions, and there is the JFK TYPE MALES. Don’t confuse the two.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pmThe Dogfather Says:
When Alito said he would let his family’s ethnic background and religion and experiences with discrimination affect his view of the law, I don’t recall anyone calling him a racist.
Ah, but he didn’t say that his life experiences as a member of an ethnic, religious minority would help him be more sensitive, or make better rulings -he only implied it. Plus he is a hot-blooded Italian man, not a fiery Latina.
See? Big difference.
/sarc off
June 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
And one of the other two white male Judges was a conservative.
And JohnM’s talking point just went poof!
He is now emailing Troll Central for an updated list of his talking points. The one he’s got is no longer useful.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:43 pmGregor Samsa Says:
He is now emailing Troll Central for an updated list of his talking points. The one he’s got is no longer useful.
No, he’ll keep using the same list. It’s just that he’s been run off of this thread. The next time a Sotomayor post shows up, he’ll start again at the top, saying the same things he’s said here as if this never happened. And then, as annoying as it may be, we’ll have to start over with the same rebuttals.
By the way – great work on this one, everybody.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pmSteele is a fool. My advise to the Republicans is that they should keep their eyes open and audit him every month on the money coming into RNC. According to reports, he filled for bankruptcy once or twice already. Watch him.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:22 pmGregor Samsa Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Jabbers:
Do you think that if a white male said the same thing regarding discrimination cases regarding white men like the fireman case that Sotomayor ruled against the white man would be considered racist?
First, you don’t seem to realize that in Ricci, Sotomayor was one of three judges who rules infavor of the city. The two other judges were… wait… male Caucasians.
So much for your “Sotomayor is racist” meme.
Second, Ricci was not about race, affirmative action, or discrimination in the workplace -it was whether the city was within their rights to set aside the results of the test. Which they did. Nobody got promoted.
Third, overturning the city’s decision would have been judicial activism by an unelected judge. I thought conservatives -like yourself- were against that.
Fourth, you really are in over your head in this discussion. Haven’t you made a fool of yourself enough?
This shows how little you know what you are talking about. The case was very much about race. Not enough of races other than white scored well on the test so the city dumped the test.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
So JohnM thinks that words are just as useful as actions when predicting future behavior.
That says a lot about JohnM’s susceptibility to the words of his right-wing overlords, even when their actions fail to match their words (which is almost always).
And it’s enough to dismiss the uninformed prattle of JohnM as useless.
If words did not matter Obama never would have been elected because as we all knew his experience was very meager. So yes words do matter. The fact that you think we should dismiss what she has said is rather telling that you are really uninformed and have proven that you are simply ill equipped for this discussion.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:11 pmJohnM:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:16 pmBefore we go any further, do you have any specialized training in test construction, reliability, and validity or any other aspects of the implications of standardized tests of specific subsets?
Sorry JohnM:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pm“of” should be “on”
Thanks..
porno izle
porno izle
porno izle
porno izle
dizi izle
June 5th, 2009 at 4:47 pmfilm izle
yerli dizi
film indir
I wonder what izle means and I am scared to venture a quess about ‘yerli dizi” but I probably tried it at some point…
June 5th, 2009 at 4:55 pmJohnM Babbles:
The case was very much about race.
No, it wasn’t. That was not what the ruling was about, no matter how much you want to believe it is.
Repeating it won’t make it so. Don’t be so dense.
Not enough of races other than white scored well on the test so the city dumped the test.
And that’s what the ruling was about: Whether the city were within their legal rights to set aside the results.
You are still ignoring the fact that the two other judges that rules on this case were Caucasian males. But don’t let facts get in the way of your beliefs and prejudices.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pmJohnM Says:
This shows how little you know what you are talking about. The case was very much about race. Not enough of races other than white scored well on the test so the city dumped the test.
… as is required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. If they had not, they could have been sued by the black firefighters for using a racially biased test, and the city probably would have lost that suit. Why do you want them to overturn the law?
The three-judge panel Sotomayor was on merely upheld the lower court ruling that the city was in its rights to throw out the test. Your complaint is that they did not overturn it, even though overturning it would be going against the law as it is written.
Just because you disagree with the law on the books does not mean that lower courts should disregard the law as written. Nor does it mean that appeals court judges should overturn lower court decisions which apply the law as written.
If you don’t like the Civil Rights Act, I invite you to try to get your local Republican Congressman to introduce legislation to repeal it. In fact, that would be awesome.
But if you’re going to call for rampant judicial activism, then at least have the guts to admit that’s exactly what you’re doing.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pmHere’s your translation, dbadass
Something may have been lost in the translation.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:28 pmI’ve come to the conclusion the major problem the Republican’s have with Sotomayor is President Obama appointed her.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:37 pmConsidering her previous nominations by Republican presidents, her academic achievements and performance on the bench, should make her an outstanding candidate for the Supreme Court.
Playing the racial card is the only option the Republican’s have left to derail the nomination and stir up their Republican base. If this represents the ideological and principled Republican Party it is a fine thing that they lost the election. They don’t represent my principles or ideology.
JohnM Says:
This shows how little you know what you are talking about. The case was very much about race. Not enough of races other than white scored well on the test so the city dumped the test.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No John Gregory is right. What your posts shows is how stupid and brainwashed you are and how little YOU know what you are talking about. The city couldnt show the test had anything to do with job performance. Thus they were wide open for a civil rights lawsuit. The judgement was to follow the LAW which allows a city to take action to avoid such a lawsuit. Since they couldnt show the test measured job ability they DECIDED to put the test aside and the court ruled WITH THE LAW that they were within their right to do so. Do you have any idea how stupid you are? Do you have any idea how brainwashed you are? Do you have any idea how badly you embaras yourself with your constant repitition of long ago debunked rightwing talking points?
June 5th, 2009 at 8:52 pm“Something may have been lost in the translation.”
Jebus, Wiley, I hope so! :D
June 5th, 2009 at 10:48 pmShe has shown how her female latino background makes her wiser then a white male with the firefighters.That’s discrimination and anyone with half a brain can see that. So you all think that merit should have nothing to do with the promotions of the firefighters and it would be more important to have an illiterate minority in charge. God help America. I know, maybe we can make Mr. Rogers the chief so everyone can understand.
June 6th, 2009 at 1:55 amJustice4all2 Says:
“She has shown how her female latino background…”
Well, there’s your first mistake – you apparently haven’t been paying attention, it’s ‘latina‘, you know, ends in ‘a’ because she’s a female?
“…makes her wiser then a white male with the firefighters.That’s discrimination and anyone with half a brain can see that. So you all think that merit should have nothing to do with the promotions of the firefighters…”
Even if you’ve neither read, nor heard on the radio or the TV machine exactly what the firefighters’ case involved, Eugene and others have explained it correctly right here on this thread. You really need to check your info.
“…and it would be more important to have an illiterate minority in charge.”
Okay, I’m not sure WTF that means. Where did this “illiterate minority” thing come from?
“…I know, maybe we can make Mr. Rogers the chief so everyone can understand.”
Mr. Rogers is dead.
June 6th, 2009 at 2:56 amFirst, I’d like to hear how an exam can NOT have to do with job performance (insomuch as knowledge “typically” aids job performance)
Secondly, do any progressives believe it’s possible that a white male CAN be discriminated against? Not so long ago, “sexual harassment” became a big deal in the work force. Initially, it was used by females… but now things are starting to turn. More and more males are finally coming forth with charges, and being upheld. My sincere is that race based legislation will finally come back and bite those that abuse it, and their “victims” status to advance themselves over equally qualified non-minorities.
Thirdly, I don’t actually have a problem with Sotomayor based on her judging history. I DO think it’s a legitimate fear that she could have been “playing it straight” so to speak until possibly getting to the SCOTUS, but I’m willing to dismiss that as an all-too incredible “conspiracy theory”. Do I think she’s racist? HELL YES. It’s obvious, context or NOT, that the statement she makes is racism. Alito never stated his decisions, using his experience, made his judgements BETTER than others, just that it effected them. He made no qualification of the “accuracy” of those judgements whatsoever, merely acknowledged it could play a part.
The amazing thing is here at “THINK Progress”, it seems to be “THINK OUR WAY” or we’ll call you names, and generally be nasty about how we interact with you. We’ll call you stupid, closed-minded, a redneck, a rascist (because only whites can be), among many other things (although, I must admit the HUGE smile I got from being called a “Stupid-head” by what I assume was a grown woman).
June 6th, 2009 at 3:12 amjustice4all2 Says:
…it would be more important to have an illiterate minority in charge.
I’m trying to figure out how not to accuse you of calling all Puerto Ricans illiterate, and I’m coming up with nothing. Tell me, how do I not call you a racist for that?
.
JonW Says:
Secondly, do any progressives believe it’s possible that a white male CAN be discriminated against?
It’s possible, but unlikely. As most of the cases that have been brought to our attention have been increasingly ridiculous, we’re growing increasingly skeptical.
.
JonW Says:
Not so long ago, “sexual harassment” became a big deal in the work force. Initially, it was used by females… but now things are starting to turn. More and more males are finally coming forth with charges, and being upheld. My sincere is that race based legislation will finally come back and bite those that abuse it, and their “victims” status to advance themselves over equally qualified non-minorities.
Fair enough. Show me a case that shows we’re there yet, and we can discuss that one on its individual merits.
.
JonW Says:
Do I think she’s racist? HELL YES. It’s obvious, context or NOT, that the statement she makes is racism.
It’s not obvious to me. And the context is not irrelevant. What are you ignoring to make it seem so simple to you? Seriously, were you told by a talk radio “personality” that that’s how it is, and you agreed, and now that’s what you think?
We’ve gone over this and over it again with many other trolls. If you are at all the least bit curious (fat chance) about why it’s not racist, read the comments from #1 and scroll down.
But after we’ve spent all that time explaining it to others, having you post at the bottom of the thread the very square one that they started with is simply unfair. Others have made the case you’re trying to make better than you above. If you don’t have any respect for us libs, at least have some respect for them.
.
JonW Says:
The amazing thing is here at “THINK Progress”, it seems to be “THINK OUR WAY” or we’ll call you names, and generally be nasty about how we interact with you.
Good lord, I can’t give you a hanky over the internet, you poor little thing! I’m so sorry if the big mean liberals called you nasty names. Maybe you should take a time out and sob for a while. You’ll feel better after you let it all out at once. Would you like a fainting couch? Perhaps we should loosen your corset…
June 6th, 2009 at 3:50 amthank you seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
June 6th, 2009 at 4:06 amWhat a bunch of whiners… Are all liberals such wimps?
Why dont you all just get together and have a circle jerk to make you all feel better about what the RNC said…
Poor little boys, all trying to be men, but failing at it…
June 6th, 2009 at 4:09 amLIberals_suck Says:
…and the twits just keep on coming. Jebus save us.
June 6th, 2009 at 4:16 amLIberals_suck Says:
What a bunch of whiners… Are all liberals such wimps?
Bring it. Got any topical argumentation on ya? Let’s do this thing.
June 6th, 2009 at 4:35 amHey Liberals_suck, where’d you go? Since you’re so tough, I won’t assume that you just ran away immediately after calling us all wimps. Instead I’ll assume that you can’t figure out which sequence of runes in front of the magic glowing screen would result in you entering another post.
So, since us libs are known for our helpfulness, I’ll fill in for you and enter your next post on your behalf. Consider it a “public” service.
Liberals_suck Says:
OOK OOK! ME AM BIG MANLY CONSERVATIVE!
*thumps chest*
ME GROW TESTICLES ON ME TESTICLES! ME AM MAKING POLITICAL ARGUMENT NOW!
LIBERALS RUN IN FEAR FROM ME MANLY ARGUMENTING! LIBERALS WEAK! ME STRONG!
*thumps chest*
Was that what you were going to say…?
June 6th, 2009 at 5:00 amAwesome. He’s a house-negro on steroids. He not only sells out fellow African-Americans but people of color in general. Nothing quite as uplifting as seeing a member of one oppressed group slam other oppressed groups. Maybe him and my fellow Chicano Alberto Gonzalez should go out for a drink and brainstorm how to overturn “Mendez vs. Westminster School District” or “Brown vs. Board of Education” while they’re at it.
Despicable.
June 6th, 2009 at 7:34 amGod Help you if you’re a dumb RNC Chairman coming before her bench.
June 6th, 2009 at 7:56 amEl Bruce-
rac·ism (rszm) KEY
NOUN:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
1. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
A statement depicting a “wise latina woman” as likely to come to a BETTER conclusion than a “white male” seems to complete #1 quite well. The fact that you think it’s ridiculous is irrelevant. Not so long ago, as Ms. Sotomayor points out, white males that the idea of racism against minorities was ridiculous.
We’re not “there yet” because the minorities still achieve “victim” status despite clear indicators with hard work, even WITHOUT the programs in place for assistance, minorities can indeed “make it”. As stated above (yes, I have read all of the 2001 Sotomayor speech, and all of this thread), “everyone has bias”. Whites are increasingly biased against because of what I like to call “big bad whitey syndrome”. Speaking of Stockholm’s, I think that many white male liberals seem to have a smattering of it. My question to them is this: How can you feel that whites are ALL racist when you’re one of them? Do YOU have racist feelings? Or does your sense of guilt make you want to “give” to them?
Again, I’m not against Ms. Sotomayor. At the moment, barring something more important coming up, I hope her a quick confirmation. I DO, AGAIN, think she’s a racist and sexist, but she seems to be able to seperate that from her job performance (while some cannot, others can). In such a case, she has my support (and has since the beginning).
The weird thing to me, is that while all of you TP regulars like to rail on the “reich-wingers” for their zombie-like following of Rush, Hannity, etc; it seems to me that conversely, Obama/The left can do no wrong.
I also think it’s relevant to bring up the general nastyness. It’s called being civilized. Name calling serves no purpose to further an argument, only an agenda. “Most” children learn to control this impulsive behavior early in life, as it’s rude and unbecoming… others don’t.
June 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pmJonW Says:
A statement depicting a “wise latina woman” as likely to come to a BETTER conclusion than a “white male” seems to complete #1 quite well.
Once again, that is not what she said.
Try reading her speech; actually, you don’t even have to read the whole thing, just from preceding to the following paragraphs will do.
The paragraph conservatives love to reduce to a caricature was said in the context of rulings regarding sex and/or racial discrimination, which a white male is a lot less likely to have experienced than a woman and/or minority. She also gave at least two examples that made clear what she meant, one of which was segregation in public schools.
In that context, a woman and/or minority is more likely to deliver a more sensible (better) ruling than a man who hasn’t lived that life.
How many times has the above been explained to you already?
June 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pmfilm izle
June 6th, 2009 at 3:24 pmonline film izle
sinema izle
film seyret
film
internetten film izle
porno film izle
porno izle
sex izle
porno
porno film
sex
sikis
filim izle
filmler
izlesene
izle
okey
oyna okey
giyim
yazlik giyim
kozmetik
film izle
klip izle
müzik
The weird thing to me, is that while all of you TP regulars like to rail on the “reich-wingers” for their zombie-like following of Rush, Hannity, etc; it seems to me that conversely, Obama/The left can do no wrong.
The weird thing to me is that people come on to a thread like this one and immediately assume that the regulars here worship President Obama, regardless of the fact that not one comment implies or says that President Obama can do no wrong. Try looking around and reading some of the other threads and comments, all of us here are pissed off at many of the things that President Obama is doing. See, we criticize our leaders when they’re wrong, as American citizens ought to.
June 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pmSesli Chat
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Görüntülü Chat
June 6th, 2009 at 8:26 pmsesli ve görüntülü sohbet sitesi
Gregor-
I HAVE read the speech, in it’s entirety, and nothing in it changes the fact that her belief is that the wise latina woman will be better (better decision) than a white male. You seem focused on the fact that she may have been exposed to bias, and agree with her that she would “better understand”. What you fail to see, is that in addition to the possibility that she could come up with a “better decision”, she could also read bias where it was not, thereby coming up with a much WORSE decision. This is why Lady Justice is blindfolded. She shouldn’t see a Latina, or an Asian, or a man or a woman before her. Neither should she “put herself in their shoes”. She should evaluate the facts UNBIASED, and judge the PERSON. In her case history, which I personally have not evaulated, but numberous blogs have, it seems she is unbiased, but in her PERSON, she clearly is not. I personally believe there can be a disconnect between soeone’s job, and someone’s personaly life, and it appears so far she has upheld that. Therefore I’m okay with her as a selection. Doesn’t change the fact that, in her personal life, she does indeed seem to have racial prejudices (which is changing an outcome based on racial differences). It doesn’t matter that she truly “could” come up with a better judgement, it’s STILL racist. If I said that I would hope a white would come up with a better judgement based on his mental abilities (or Asians, etc based on test scores), it would be a racist comment, despite being true.
Jane – Just as anyone who “disagrees” must listen to Rush, or Beck, or Hannity; so too can the broad paintbrush be used on Progressive/liberals. It would seem to some, and I happen to agree, that this nominee has racist issues (again, which I don’t think disqualify her). Conservatives seem to want to disqualify her, and instead of agreeing, as I’m sure would be the case for a white racist, liberals seem to rush to her defense (above, someone even comments that they’re tired of defending a moderate). Personally, it wouldn’t suprise me for Sotomayor to be the liberal’s Souter: not exactly what they were expecting.
June 6th, 2009 at 10:18 pmJonW, while I don’t really see how your response to my comment actually explains why, despite the lack of evidence, you said “it seems to me that conversely, Obama/The left can do no wrong“, I do agree with your comment “it wouldn’t suprise me for Sotomayor to be the liberal’s Souter: not exactly what they were expecting.” Although I had never considered Souter to be “the liberal’s Souter”, any more than I believe that Sotomayor will be ‘the liberal’s Sotomayor’ as so many conservatives fear.
From what many talking heads discussed early on when Sotomayor’s name was first being bandied about, she was desbribed as a more moderate, stick-to-the-law-as-written type of judge. I’m not terribly excited about her (although I do believe that having another woman on the court could only be a good thing.) I don’t believe that she is a reverse-racist–I think that what she said was a poor choice of words even when shown in the entire context, and I don’t believe that she’ll be an ‘activist’ judge.
Anyway, please try to keep in mind that many here really would prefer a more serious debate (okay, with a bit of humor/snark thrown in), but when most of the ‘trolls’ come in here with insults blazing, we often react in kind. I know that some of our regulars can be abrasive, but remember we’ve been arguing some of the same points for years. Sometimes we’re just tired of endlessly refuting the same talking points, it’s easier to just tell some regular trolls to STFU.
I’m gonna go wander around the intertubes for a while, have a nice night.
June 6th, 2009 at 11:32 pmJonW Says:
nothing in it changes the fact that her belief is that the wise latina woman will be better (better decision) than a white male.
Again, that is not what she said. She was talking about a very specific set of circumstances; she didn’t make a blanket statement.
She should evaluate the facts UNBIASED, and judge the PERSON.
The belief that white, middle age males do not have any kind of bias is simply ludicrous. Their bias was the reason why no Supreme Court upheld sexual discrimination claims before 1972; which was Sotomayor’s very point in that speech you claim to have read in its entirety.
Maybe you did read it, but that simple idea completely escaped you. Or maybe you are more comfortable with that kind of bias.
In her case history, which I personally have not evaulated, but numberous blogs have, it seems she is unbiased, but in her PERSON, she clearly is not.
You are right, her job performance is what actually matters.
The paranoia and hyperventilation about her so-called racism, is simply partisan posturing.
If I said that I would hope a white would come up with a better judgement based on his mental abilities (or Asians, etc based on test scores), it would be a racist comment, despite being true.
So, this is what your problem really is: That Sotomayor is not a Caucasian male.
What you said is racist indeed, and you are one racist jerk. Not only this is nothing like what Sotomayor said, or even implied, no one race has better innate mental abilities than any other.
What bloody century do you bloody live in, anyway?
June 6th, 2009 at 11:46 pmGregor- a wonderful jump to conclusions while entirely proving my point.
If you had read, numerous times I have actually said I have no problem with Sotomayor professionally. I have a problem with her personal views, but believe she has thus far kept them out of her judging and therefore I’m perfectly fine with her pick. Also, just for informative purposes, I’m half hispanic, half white. I’m also not “not opposed” to Sotomayor due to her race, just the fact that she seems, as many have said, to be a moderate pick who “sticks to the law”, as a Judge SHOULD.
Again, I’ve read her speech, in it’s entirety, including the “pre and post” paragraphs that outly her statement. It was STILL a racist statement. Read the definition of racist, then her statement, under ANY context, is still just that. Experiences, wisdom, mental abilities, strength, durability, it doesn’t matter WHAT ability you’re measuring, attributing a greater value to that ability entirely due to one’s race/sex/sexual orientation/religion what have you is prejudice, and when prejudice is based on race, it’s racist.
Jane – I appreciate you actually being civil with me. It actually enhances one’s “adult” image to do so. My statement was meant as a point: so many times the conservative posters are demonized as Rush/Bush/Cheney/Beck/Hannity puppets, while *some* regular posters seem to stick straight with the party line (aka pot to kettle).
June 7th, 2009 at 12:03 amSesli Sohbet
June 7th, 2009 at 4:08 amSesli Chat
Görüntülü chat
thanks u
JonW Says:
rac·ism (rszm) KEY
NOUN:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
The phenomenon of racism is a little more complicated than a simple dictionary definition is likely to provide.
She never said any race was “superior to others.” Not even close. Note that the definition is blanket for all cases.
Saying that some of her life experiences might help her come to a better decision in certain kinds of cases not only does not reference race (”latina” is not a race), it’s narrowly focused to cases relevant to the experience.
Furthermore, she didn’t say that she was more biased than a white male judge; in fact, Alito said much the same thing at his own confirmation hearing. It has long been accepted by everybody that there’s at least a slight degree of judicial bias in all judges’ rulings, and that their personal background can influence the outcome. While judges try to minimize their bias, the better ones tend to be aware of it.
.
JonW Says:
We’re not “there yet” because the minorities still achieve “victim” status despite clear indicators with hard work, even WITHOUT the programs in place for assistance, minorities can indeed “make it”.
Not very many. But in a large part, I agree. Obama completely stayed away from the “we must have an apology for history before we can move forward” politics of previous black politicians like Jackson and Sharpton, and it worked wonderfully – “let’s just move forward now.” Although we should never forget the past, we shouldn’t dwell on it either; the future is where we’re going to make a better world. If we’re too busy crying over spilt milk to clean it up, then it’s just going to lay there on the kitchen floor.
However, that doesn’t mean we should do nothing. To the contrary, it means we should do more to guarantee equality of opportunity for all. Setting the past aside is not merely an excuse to ignore the inequalities that still remain today.
.
JonW Says:
My question to them is this: How can you feel that whites are ALL racist when you’re one of them? Do YOU have racist feelings?
I can answer this question best by referring you to this brief entertaining and instructive video presentation. It’s actually informed my thinking on the subject quite a lot.
.
JonW Says:
Personally, it wouldn’t suprise me for Sotomayor to be the liberal’s Souter: not exactly what they were expecting.
I’m pretty much expecting her to be exactly like Souter; not just for us, but in general. Her judicial record is remarkably similar to his in terms of what’s not there. She rules very narrowly and avoids controversy. She’ll probably rule pretty much as he would if he stayed.
While I would like a more liberal Justice, I can live with that.
With Souter, conservatives were hoping he’d be much more conservative than his no-drama case record would indicate. With Sotomayor, we have no such hopes. So we’re not likely to be too disappointed.
.
JonW Says:
This is why Lady Justice is blindfolded. She shouldn’t see a Latina, or an Asian, or a man or a woman before her. Neither should she “put herself in their shoes”. She should evaluate the facts UNBIASED, and judge the PERSON. In her case history, which I personally have not evaulated, but numberous blogs have, it seems she is unbiased, but in her PERSON, she clearly is not.
Actually, all judges try to rule on the facts as best they can. But even after applying all of the relevant law as written on all of the facts as presented, there’s still going to be a certain amount of wiggle room for bias. It’s only in that space that she’s discussing it.
I appreciate that you note her record. I’d like to point out that there’s no such thing as someone who is unbiased “in their person.” If you believe otherwise, let me give you my address and you can send me all of your future paychecks. No? You prefer to keep them yourself? That’s an example of personal bias then.
But if you’re saying she’s “personally biased” against all white males, I suppose that can be either refuted or explained by the fact that she was married to one for many years.
June 7th, 2009 at 6:54 amSotomayer is not only a racist but doesn’t know history. She says her background makes her more eligible than a white male. Why, because she grew up poor in New York City. More white males settled into New York, dirt poor, than Hispanic females. So by her irrational thinking, there are more qualified white males than Hispanic females.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:44 amI knew he would still be wallpapering this thread. I take the Holocaust seriously enough not to wear it out. I am not nor have I ever been anti-semitic. I’m agnostic. Why in the world would I be anti-semitic? The assertion that I would “forget” or approve of any persecution and systematic murder is anti-social.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:56 amcdwriteme Says:
Awesome. He’s a house-negro on steroids. He not only sells out fellow African-Americans but people of color in general. Nothing quite as uplifting as seeing a member of one oppressed group slam other oppressed groups. Maybe him and my fellow Chicano Alberto Gonzalez should go out for a drink and brainstorm how to overturn “Mendez vs. Westminster School District” or “Brown vs. Board of Education” while they’re at it. Despicable.
Roket Says:
What do you expect from a man owned by massa Boss Limbaugh?
After reading comments like this I wonder who’s the racist???? SG
June 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pmJonW Says:
Gregor- a wonderful jump to conclusions while entirely proving my point.
That’d be in you own mind. You were the one who said that a statement about white males having better mental abilities would be true, not me.
Also, just for informative purposes, I’m half hispanic, half white.
I couldn’t care less. You are still a twit.
[...]attributing a greater value to that ability entirely due to one’s race/sex/sexual orientation/religion what have you is prejudice,[...]
WTF are you talking about? You obviously have reading comprehension problems. Once more: She didn’t make a blanket statement. Once again, (or perhaps I am typing too fast for you?) she said that a minority and/or woman could come to a more sensible ruling in race or gender discrimination cases.
And why would that be? Because someone who hasn’t faced such discrimination has obviously harder time relating to the experience (because they are someone who “hasn’t lived that life”). Again, this the reason why it took a female justice to uphold a sex discrimination claim, and a black justice to finally do away with segregation.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pmTpackage Says:
Sotomayer is not only a racist but doesn’t know history. She says her background makes her more eligible than a white male.
And you have no clue what you are talking about. “Eligible”? She didn’t even hint at the word, and the speech was delivered several years ago, in a completely different context that had nothing to do with being appointed as a Supreme Court Justice.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:58 pmSesli Sohbet
June 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pmSesli Chat
Görüntülü chat
thank u like
Gregor Samsa: this the reason why it took a female justice to uphold a sex discrimination claim, and a black justice to finally do away with segregation
Great point but then that only makes the larger context of Sotomayor statement that much more important. She was mindful enough to acknowledge when White justices differed from the prevailing White-think. Notice she didn’t include Justice Rehnquist in that group (i.e. views on race rarely, if ever, stopped the nomination of a White [male] justice).
June 7th, 2009 at 6:11 pmElBruce – while I appreciate that racism is complicated, there is no more justified a use of a word than using it as defined in the dictionary. Just because the situation/person/etc isn’t appreciated by the listener, does not make the word inappropriate. “Latina” does indeed signify race (it is synonamous with Hispanic other than it’s gender reference). I do not feel that elevating a race brings about equality. Ignoring race and focusing on personal attributes regardless of skin color, etc, is the only way to accomplish this. The former advisor to Dr. King pointed out that many of today’s policies would loudly be called down by him, as they focus on race rather than ignore it. Some (I’m admitting not all by a long shot), seem to have it in their minds that BECAUSE we had racist white male judges, that exonerates any racist prejudices by, for instance, a hispanic female judge. I heartily disagree, but again, it doesn’t appear that Sotomayor incorporates her racism into her judging. End case. Had her speech said that someone “like her” could, or was hoped, to come up with a wiser judgement than “those sitting” , based on “experience”, then there would have been no racism. Even though the words she used (on multiple occasions)DO INDEED afford her the label of racist, it doesn’t seem to me to be of the “lynching” white mobs, or retribution seeking minority groups. Rather, she just uses it as something that in her mind elevates her slightly over her white peers. So what? I think I’m better than some of the people I meet, I don’t think that should in any way disqualify me from any position.
Gregor – You jumped immediately to the fact that I’m a racist and opposed to Sotomayor, based on a hypothetical question. She made a statement of her direct feelings regarding how a minority female would make a BETTER judgement than a white male. So my hypothetical question qualifies me more than her direct belief? You are truly ridiculous. I’ll also add “twit” to the list of random names I’ve been called due to not agreeing with someone on this site. It truly advanced your cause, and gave you the intellectual high ground.
Your typing is, rather too SLOW for me. Or perhaps it’s the thinking behind it. In case you missed it, once again, it doesn’t matter WHAT THE SITUATION IS. If you believe, based on RACE, that someone would do BETTER in anything, you have racism. I would actually AGREE that it’s POSSIBLE that a latina woman could come up with a better judgment due to having the experience (and that experience would be of a RACIAL bias recipient), BUT I would also say it’s possible she could come up with a WORSE ruling due to the same. I don’t believe, in general, that it would trend either way, but both possibilities exist. Taken SINGLY, (ie in all cases, or most, it would be white better, or hispanic better), it would be racist. But I don’t claim that EITHER would be better, just that a possibility exists. She professes a belief that the hispanic female would be BETTER, thus race and gender is played, with a resulting difference in outcome. This is racism. Plain and simple. But not what I would consider flagrant…
June 7th, 2009 at 6:28 pmJonW Says:
There was NO racism and it isnt complicated. She is saying she HOPES her life as a latina would enable her to make better decisions than a white male in context of race and gender discrimination suits. So what she is saying is she hopew her EXPERIENCE living as a latina would help her make better judgements than those without that EXPERIENCE then goes on to aknowledge that all white courts had made wise judgements in such suits and said she wasnt myopic enough to think differently. NOTHING RACIST.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:54 pmsouthernRacistMoron :
After reading comments like this I wonder who’s the racist???? SG
<<<<<<<<<<<
I dont wonder, I KNOW, you and Rush are the racists. Glad to be of help
June 7th, 2009 at 9:13 pmJonW Says:
Gregor – You jumped immediately to the fact that I’m a racist and opposed to Sotomayor, based on a hypothetical question.
No, I didn’t. It wasn’t a hypothetical question; it was a statement. Let me paste it here again for you:
“If I said that I would hope a white would come up with a better judgement based on his mental abilities (or Asians, etc based on test scores), it would be a racist comment, despite being true.”
No, it is not true. Caucasians don’t have the market cornered on mental abilities.
In case you missed it, once again, it doesn’t matter WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
Yes, it does, my slow-witted foe because she didn’t say that Hispanics are better as a blanket statement. She was trying to say that, based on past personal experiences with discrimination, minorities & women may have more a sensible approach to racial and/or sex discrimination cases.
That is clear when you read the speech, if you don’t have reading comprehension problems -which you seem to have.
If you believe, based on RACE, that someone would do BETTER in anything, you have racism.
And what race are Hispanics, exactly?
BUT I would also say it’s possible she could come up with a WORSE ruling due to the same.
Right. That’s why Sotomayor said she’d hope a wise Latina woman would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.
That you missed the caveats above mean that you either a) didn’t read the speech as you claim, and/or b)you need to work on your reading comprehension.
She professes a belief that the hispanic female would be BETTER, thus race and gender is played, with a resulting difference in outcome. This is racism. Plain and simple.
No it isn’t because that is not what she said. She didn’t say she believes anything. Again, she said she’d hope -see above for the rest of the explanation.
And I suggest you use of a dictionary next time you read a text for grown ups.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:45 pmGregor – The entire statement was a hypothetical. “Suppose” whites/asians/whathave you statistically scored better on tests. If I were then to state that a white/asian/whatever was to come up with a better answer, because they were white/asian/whatever, even with the supporting evidence of the tests, it’s still racism. That’s the problem with people with intellects like yours Gregor, it’s only racism if you say it is, and then it’s a sure thing. Bottom line is, YOUR comprehension needs some work. You read racism where you want, and when you want, dismissing the definition of the word whenever it suits you. Again, she could easily have used the words that she hopes SOMEONE with her EXPERIENCES would come to a better judgement than those sitting. That would not DIRECTLY allude to her sex and her race. Hispanic/Latin/Latino(a) is all easily exchanged and represents a minority. Minorities are NOT unable to be racists, in fact some of the most flagrant CURRENT racists are minorities.
I’ll give you that a hope and a belief are different, but are along the same lines. You could say she HOPES the wise latina would be a better judge because she BELIEVES it. They can be used interchangeably in this instance.
This slow-witted foe clearly acknowledges your refusal to see racism when it is apparent. It’s a shame that someone as bright and quick-witted as you has such a glaring deficiency. Especially someone astute enough to notice that I’m a racist white who opposes Sotomayor (for clarification, this is sarcasm, as none of those is true). I also submit you need to work on your reading comprehension, as clearly you take a stance and are unable to change from it, despite clear evidence of AT LEAST QUESTIONABLE nature. But no, it’s a strong, defiant stance, one which I have above shown would clearly NOT be yours if the speaker were a white… Racist.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:16 pmJonW Babble incoherently:
The entire statement was a hypothetical.
Let’s review your statement, shall we?
“If I said that I would hope a white would come up with a better judgement based on his mental abilities (or Asians, etc based on test scores), it would be a racist comment, despite being true.”
There was nothing hypothetical in the “despite being true” part.
it’s only racism if you say it is, and then it’s a sure thing.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Again, she could easily have used the words that she hopes SOMEONE with her EXPERIENCES would come to a better judgement than those sitting.
Which is what she did. Her experience, of course, being that of that a Latina judge. What was your point again?
That would not DIRECTLY allude to her sex and her race.
Oh right, because she should hide the fact that she is Hispanic & a woman -specially at a conference called “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”
Maybe she should change her surname to Smith or something, lest it be clear she’s Latina.
And again, what is her race, exactly?
Minorities are NOT unable to be racists, in fact some of the most flagrant CURRENT racists are minorities.
What? Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, and Michael Savage are minorities?
Wow.
Or maybe “blowhard” became a protected minority when I wasn’t looking.
I also submit you need to work on your reading comprehension,
Well, at least I am able to understand caveats such as “I would hope”, “more often than not”, and “lived that life” in the context of a sex & racial discrimination talk.
But no, it’s a strong, defiant stance, one which I have above shown would clearly NOT be yours if the speaker were a white… Racist.
I am sorry; I don’t speak babble. A white what? And who are you calling racist?
Whatever you think you have clearly shown, you haven’t.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:15 pmFollowing your worship at the altar of your own image, I feel I just can’t come up with anything to top that…
You don’t understand the word hypothetical.
You can’t see the difference between using the word latina, and not, or the difference between comparing to white males versus people in general.
You apparently can’t read the dictionary (although accuse me of needing one, even though I quoted from one)
As close minded as you clearly are, I don’t see why you continue to post. Even Obama and SOTOMAYOR HERSELF have admitted that the words that she used probably weren’t the best; clearly they understand they can be taken to be racist. But no, Gregor knows better than all!! His mastery of the cut and paste, and directly addressing posts with the same responses over and over CLEARLY indicates an intelligent mind. He associates only white males with racism, and then only those whom his beloved media depict to him as such. And even more telling of his maturity and personal wisdom, his use of the “witty” cuts against opponents obviously places him above all.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:37 pmJonW shoots himself in the foot thus:
Even Obama and SOTOMAYOR HERSELF have admitted that the words that she used probably weren’t the best; clearly they understand they can be taken to be racist.
That still doesn’t mean she is, does it?
It only means she acknowledges her words can be misconstrued as such by smarmy little twits like you, that’s all.
He associates only white males with racism, and then only those whom his beloved media depict to him as such.
Right, because *I* said only white males can be racist, and Limbaugh, Savage, etc. are not racist at all. Limbaugh never told a Black caller “take that bone out of your nose”. Oh no, that never happened. Ever.
And even more telling of his maturity and personal wisdom, his use of the “witty” cuts against opponents obviously places him above all.
Again, I don’t speak babble. If you object to my posts, stop responding. It’s as easy as that.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:51 pmTpackage Says:
She says her background makes her more eligible than a white male. Why, because she grew up poor in New York City
That’s not what she said at all. This one’s not even remotely close to her words. Now you’re completely authoring original statements to put in her mouth, way to go.
.
JonW Says:
“Latina” does indeed signify race (it is synonamous with Hispanic other than it’s gender reference).
Go to the Dominican Republic, then go to Spain, and tell me that again. Latinos/latinas run the gamut of completely black to pasty/blonde, and everything in between. You can’t be taken seriously talking about race if you don’t understand that simple consequential fact.
.
JonW Says:
I would actually AGREE that it’s POSSIBLE that a latina woman could come up with a better judgment due to having the experience (and that experience would be of a RACIAL bias recipient), BUT I would also say it’s possible she could come up with a WORSE ruling due to the same.
… so if it were a factor, one would hope it was helpful rather than harmful, right?
.
JonW Says:
Obama and SOTOMAYOR HERSELF have admitted that the words that she used probably weren’t the best; clearly they understand they can be taken to be racist.
… by racist bigots with an agenda to twist them around. She probably should have said something more bulletproof so your job would be a little harder.
The reason I’m calling the people who call her racists racists is that actual KKK/neo-Nazi/Aryan-Nations types have long had an agenda of equating their virulent racism with perfectly reasonable discussions on race. Whenever anyone of a minority race opens their mouth on the subject – no matter how innocuously – the true hatemongers and their apologists (that’s you) are immediately out the front lines screaming “racism! racism!”
When everybody’s racist then nobody is, and then the real racists get to make a comeback. As they are among the Republican party today. With your active help.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:40 amGregor, I don’t object to your posting, simply fail to see the point. You have effectively run around saying “no she isn’t, no she isn’t” with your fingers in your ears. This, coupled with the constant barrage of “smarty” insults, seems to me to be much more the behavior of a child (eerily reminiscent of my 8 and 9 year olds).
Obama, his administration, and now she herself have said the words were bad, and yet in her history she used these words OVER AND OVER. She’s a racist, by definition. The problem, I think, is that you can’t see far enough past that word. If someone is a racist, and wants to see people who are like them, or them based on their race get ahead, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are bad. Again, I support Sotomayor’s nomination, just deplore the constant defense of her racist statements. If a white man said the reverse, it would be decried as racist. Hell, I honestly believe that with only a slightly different judicial record, THIS nominee would be called a racist by most progressives/leftist if George Bush (either) had nominated her to the high court. However, since she’s Obama’s, well we must defend her every statement vigorously. I made no statements concerning Limbaugh, or Savage, or other’s NOT being racist. Certainly you could put up information that would lead me to that exact same conclusion. STILL doesn’t me that she ISN’T, or can’t be. She is. Oh well. I don’t care, put her on the court, and it will be more variably populated, and I feel she will rule according to law.
ElBruce – So, by your logic, African-American/Black doesn’t indicate a race, as they can be anything from a very light almost imperceptible tan, through almost jet black. Guess there reallly AREN’T races after all?? And you suggest that I can’t be taken seriously about race???
Yes, she hopes. She decideds NOT to discuss the also obvious likelihood that said person could judge POORLY by seeing prejudice where there is none. Hence, in her speech, raising the latina woman with her experiences above the white male based on that. Were she not a latina (yes, effectively a race), and/or female, you’ve taken away the statement entirely. She put those like herself, due to their race and sex, above white males (but just most of the time right… I mean, slave owners weren’t ALWAYS on plantation, just “most of the time”).
I am not a racist bigot. I have no agenda. But I do love to point out hypocrisy when I see it. Had a white male made the same statement, he would be eviscerated by the left (and I would hope some/most of the right). Her statements WERE racist, but irrelevant. I will concede that a racist statement does not a racist make (necessarily). I believe she is, at least in specific circumstances, but not in such a way as to be afraid of her on the SCOTUS. She’s a good judge. Seat her, and move on.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:33 amEugeneDebs Says:
southernRacistMoron :
After reading comments like this I wonder who’s the racist???? SG
<<<<<<<<<<<
I dont wonder, I KNOW, you and Rush are the racists. Glad to be of help
I see you are still being yourself ED. Are you as ugly as you are foul-mouthed. PS I don’t support Rush or his comments. SG
June 8th, 2009 at 7:19 pmfine
sikis
June 10th, 2009 at 4:08 amporno izle
sikis