Sotomayor is a racist

[billvon 2,416]

>Sotomayor's statements are deserving of a far higher level of scrutiny and
>discussion than Limbaugh's.

Absolutely. Start the hearings so she can speak about her statements and her record. Let people hear what she has to say - and then make a decision based on that.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Sotomayor's statements are deserving of a far higher level of scrutiny and discussion than Limbaugh's.

She's an important political figure, who is currently under consideration for a lifetime position on our highest court.

He's an entertainer.

If you can't see how one of them ought to be scrutinized more thoughtfully, and closely, than the other, I think we're not really going to get very far trying to discuss it.

I think we're not communicating very well. I completely agree with the point you just made. Especially since that was the point that I was making. Marc was implying that we needed to listen to Limbaugh's blabbering in its entirety so we could "understand" the unspoken nuances that apparently reside in the bile. However when the same degree of respect for context is demanded of someone seeking a lifetime appointment, the dittoheads prefer her sound bites over her complete record.

So, once again. I completely agree with you.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

the dittoheads prefer her sound bites over her complete record.

I'll give the you the same challenge I gave jcd - show the words added to or taken away from the quoted sentence that makes it NOT a sexist or racist remark.

From post 7:

Quote

"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.”

From the speech at Berkely

Quote

Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Oh. My. God.

Y'all are SO right... the inclusion of "Second" changes EVERYTHING!!! .

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'll give the you the same challenge I gave jcd - show the words added to or taken away from the quoted sentence that makes it NOT a sexist or racist remark.

I don't care enough about this argument to repeatedly repeat what has been repeated, especially when it's been stated that her positions are not the issue but that battling her is simply a political ploy to galvanize the base and as payback for perceived past wrongs.

But I will point out again that this issue is a no win for her. She simply cannot deal with any discussion involving race that her detractors won't use against her by calling her a racist, regardless of which way her decision goes. So if you want to play politics then go ahead, but realize that most of us recognize it for what it is.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

but realize that most of us recognize it for what it is.

The same thing the Dems did with Bork, Thomas, Estrada, etc etc etc?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TheAnvil 0]

Information has been provided that show Judge Sotomayor wasn't using race and sex as discriminators in that quotation? Odd - I didn't read that evidence. Who made the quote?

Another quote from the same speech:

"Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court."

Anyone who reads the Judge's speech cannot POSSIBLY believe that woman believes that race has no place in American life or law. She identifies herself by her race - several times - and clearly wants race to play a factor in judicial nominations.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Anyone who reads the Judge's speech cannot POSSIBLY believe that woman believes that race has no place in American life or law.

You're going to be hard pressed to find a judge who is not part of a race. Besides, she'll fit in just fine.

"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Samuel Alito, 2006.

Quote

She identifies herself by her race - several times - and clearly wants race to play a factor in judicial nominations.

So did Alito. Your race and your experiences make you who you are. How you integrate those experiences into your decision making is how you define and apply your philosophy. Sotomayor clearly states this point during the speech.

"I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Earlier in the speech she noted that she "believe(s) that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."
But while that's true, she asserts that there is value to having a diversity of race and gender on the court. Recognizing the value of diversity in a ruling body does not equate to racism. It indicates the belief that the sum is greater than its parts.

The court will be improved through added diversity. In matters of involving race she will have some unique and significant experiences to add to the court's decision, as will her counterparts. As I pointed out earlier, a "Judge McCain" would no doubt have a highly valued argument to offer to a discussion on torture. And if there were a case involving privileged Ivy League favoritism I'd expect that "Judge Honkie Legacy Baby" would be able to offer some unique and valuable insight to the discussion. But with that in mind, it comes down to the law. And what you have to decide is whether or not you think that the judge will be able to bring their unique viewpoints to the court but not let it interfere with the application of the law. A good judge can do that, and I believe that Sotomayor has certainly shown that she possesses that capability.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

"Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court."

I wonder how she felt about the filibuster of the Estrada nomination?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I wonder how she felt about the filibuster of the Estrada nomination?

I don't know. But I'm willing to bet that she doesn't think that race is more important than judicial experience or an inability elevate the law over political bias.
I believe that he was nominated because of his pro-business bias (in an effort to stack the courts) and because he is Latino. However, filibustering his nomination because of inexperience and his unwillingness to share his previous writings doesn't mean that he was being rejected because of his race. And don't forget the politics of the time. It was one party rule, one vote majority equals "will of the people" and "with us or against us" with a side order of "freedom fries". Not our best hour.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Well Newsmax is must be better than where you get yours.

OK, Newsmax is more of an authority on Rush Limbaugh than Rush Limbaugh is.

Again, I cannot for the life of me figure out why defending Rush Limbaugh is so important to some people, and why on earth they would appoint him de facto head of the republican party. He's an entertainer, like Olbermann, Malkin, Coulter et al. They make money by being controversial, not by being factual, unbiased or by being good leaders.

>You should really expand your news sources . . .

You are arguing your point based on your listening to right wing commentators, and you want _me_ to expand my news sources? I'd suggest that a library is a better place to get political information than your car radio.

Lets see, Newsmax links constantly to the BBC, MSNBC, Fox, ABC CBS, all the major news papers and has current info.

when you go tot he library I am sure you will not find any books on what limbaugh said yesterday.

In any event, I do not remember the last time I noticed Limbaugh referenced on Newsmax.

But this you tactic of redirecting the topic.

Fact is, when you post about Limbough you prove every time (with you comments) you dont have a cluse as to his message or meaning. So I need to ask, what sites do you get your info from? I would really like to go read some of what they post? I need a laugh.

To continue, Drudge links to all the major sources as well. Left and Right sources.

I read most of them

You posted your get your news from the BBC, well, I read them somethimes too and I raretly see anything you post here from that site.

So, go on back to "your" library, what ever and where ever the hell it is, and continue to pick out what you agree with to read. If nothing else, it keeps you consistant.

Oh, and BTW, if he is just and entertainer to you, why to you care to post about him and his comments so frequently?

A conundrum huh.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Oh, and BTW, if he is just and entertainer to you, why to you care to post about him and his comments so frequently?

Because of the tendency for some people to substitute "news entertainment" for actual "news". And when his ignorance peddling gets to the level that he drives the national debate then he's left his status as a simple "entertainer" well behind.
Do you think that Randi Rhodes would be a good choice for de facto leader of the Democratic party?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Oh, and BTW, if he is just and entertainer to you, why to you care to post about him and his comments so frequently?

Because of the tendency for some people to substitute "news entertainment" for actual "news". And when his ignorance peddling gets to the level that he drives the national debate then he's left his status as a simple "entertainer" well behind.
Do you think that Randi Rhodes would be a good choice for de facto leader of the Democratic party?

And who pray tell is making that happen? Rush is not doing anything different than he has in the past1



You can try again.

I do love the ignorance peddeling and no facts comments you rush haters love to puke out.

You really should get better sites to get your info from or, you could listen for a while and realize those sites have an agenda, which is to shut up anybody who dares question them and their views.

Why? cant stand up to the debate.

So, I await examples of stated lies, non-facts (of a none joking type) lies and ingnorance. (I do know the ignorance comments are attempts to shut up those who have other opinions)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You really should get better sites to get your info from

What better place to get my info than from AM 790. He's on 12:00-3:00 PM five days per week. I listen to as much as I can stomach and tune away, having reconfirmed that he's an arrogant blabbermouth windbag who does a disservice to thoughtful debate. When I first heard him it was in the early 90's. I thought he was funny in a really f'd up way. But then I came to realize that some people were actually taking him seriously. Seeing people nodding their heads instead of laughing, that was a seriously scary awakening.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

You really should get better sites to get your info from

What better place to get my info than from AM 790. He's on 12:00-3:00 PM five days per week. I listen to as much as I can stomach and tune away, having reconfirmed that he's an arrogant blabbermouth windbag who does a disservice to thoughtful debate. When I first heard him it was in the early 90's. I thought he was funny in a really f'd up way. But then I came to realize that some people were actually taking him seriously. Seeing people nodding their heads instead of laughing, that was a seriously scary awakening.

Been listening for 15 years. I kept listening to him because i found some one that agreed with most of my views.

I will admit it takes some time to figure him out. Remember, the whole premise of his show is to demonstrated the absurd with absurdity. It does come acoss as arogant sometimes.

But then, the left labels anyone who disagrees with them as arogant as well as a host of other terms

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 25]

He was the only (singular, ever) appeals court nominee to be filibustered. If the problem was his experience, or his writings, wasn't the confirmation hearing the right place to discuss those issues?

Why not have a confirmation hearing and give him an up or down vote, with a fair examination, before the Senate?

Isn't that what the democrats are now demanding for Sotomayor? The same thing they denied to Estrada?

Hypocrisy? Who'd have thunk it?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[idrankwhat 0]

The real problem with his brand of entertainment is that it's viral. He makes a good living doing it as do the broadcasters. When other outlets see that that "product" is selling, they want in on the the action too. And when entertainment is substituted for "news" you end up with things like a significant portion of the public thinking that Saddam was involved in the WTC attack. That's ignorance.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

The real problem with his brand of entertainment is that it's viral. He makes a good living doing it as do the broadcasters. When other outlets see that that "product" is selling, they want in on the the action too. And when entertainment is substituted for "news" you end up with things like a significant portion of the public thinking that Saddam was involved in the WTC attack. That's ignorance.

It is less viral than the shit on MSNBC FCS.

If you think he is viral then you think that of anybody with whom you disagree.
Sad sir, really sad

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

He was the only (singular, ever) appeals court nominee to be filibustered. If the problem was his experience, or his writings, wasn't the confirmation hearing the right place to discuss those issues?

Why not have a confirmation hearing and give him an up or down vote, with a fair examination, before the Senate?

Isn't that what the democrats are now demanding for Sotomayor? The same thing they denied to Estrada?

Hypocrisy? Who'd have thunk it?

You're forgetting Abe Fortas. But that aside, the Democrat's only tool that they had at their disposal during those years was the filibuster. They had already ok'd the vast majority of Bush's picks but they had a problem with a few. The filibuster was the tool at their disposal in their weakened political state. Recall that things were so bad with the Republicans in power at the time that they were even hiding conference meetings from Democratic members. Rep. Rangle tried to find a Ways and Means Committee meeting that was chaired by Bill Thomas. When Rangle finally found the meeting Thomas kept him out, stating that it was only open to the "coalition of the willing". You might as well have had a bunch of kindergartners running Capitol Hill.
The filibuster was a legal tool, just as much so as when the Republicans held over 60 Clinton nominations in committee. You pick your battles and use the tools at your disposal, provided they are legal.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

If you think he is viral then you think that of anybody with whom you disagree.

Nope. Only some. I respect those who disagree with me but choose to discuss it in a fair manner. When the idea of "discussion" is reduced to leading with a talking point and then yelling over any attempt at a counter point before turning off the other guys mic as you repeat your talking point, then that's simply ignorance peddling.

[billvon 2,416]

>she is a bigot at the very least and and racists at worst.

I am glad to see more and more conservatives abandoning the smears. If anything can save the party, it will be people who can think with their heads instead of give in to their emotions. From Politico:

===========
Former President George H.W. Bush defended Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Friday, saying it is “not right” to call President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a “racist.”

“She was called by somebody a racist once. That’s not right. I mean, that’s not fair,” Bush said in an interview with CNN. “It doesn’t help the process. You're out there name-calling. So let them decide who they want to vote for and get on with it.”
===========

[TheAnvil 0]

Hard pressed to find one who does not care about what race or identify themselves by their race - I think not.

Divirsity of experience is always a good thing. Diversity based upon race is irrelevant if you don't care about race or its use as a discriminating factor.

Again, it's impossible to read her speech and believe that she could ever honestly state that she believes race has no place in American law or life.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>she is a bigot at the very least and and racists at worst.

I am glad to see more and more conservatives abandoning the smears. If anything can save the party, it will be people who can think with their heads instead of give in to their emotions. From Politico:

===========
Former President George H.W. Bush defended Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Friday, saying it is “not right” to call President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a “racist.”

“She was called by somebody a racist once. That’s not right. I mean, that’s not fair,” Bush said in an interview with CNN. “It doesn’t help the process. You're out there name-calling. So let them decide who they want to vote for and get on with it.”
===========

He speaks from the political world. The reality is what he is missing.

I have disagreed with him on most topics through most of his term. I disagree with him again.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,416]

>He speaks from the political world.

Yep, as do do all politicians. I am glad at least some seem to be putting rationality above "hurt the other side any way you can."

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>He speaks from the political world.

Yep, as do do all politicians. I am glad at least some seem to be putting rationality above "hurt the other side any way you can."

I am really surpried you can even see or understand that perspective at all.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

He speaks from the political world. The reality is what he is missing.

Bush Sr (who was, IMO, probably the most underrated president of modern times) is politically bulletproof. He's never running for office again. He's retired. He's a former president with virtually no stake in the game. He doesn't have to be "political."

Hell, even when he was POTUS, he was probably the least likely President to equivocate. Remember what he said when a reporter asked him to comment on covert action in Central America? "If I told you, it wouldn't be covert, would it?"

Quote

I have disagreed with him on most topics through most of his term. I disagree with him again.

That's cool. We all have that right. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he says.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com