Sotomayor is a racist

[Rstanley0312 0]

My one question is....... is there actually shock about this nomination? Everyone knew this is the type of judge that obama would nominate and truth be told she will just be replacing a liberal judge so the balance on the court does not really change. I don't like it either but I didn't expect a great nomination out of "the prez".... all we can do is make a note of it and keep voting. Ya it sucks but thats the nature of living in a republic.

Blues

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Obama is not to be underestimated.

I think you mean the people pulling the strings.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

IF this is not a racist position, it sure as hell is a biggoted one.

Really? You're absolutely certain the intent of her comment to convey the relative inferiority of white men compared to Latina women?

I think her point whizzed right over your head.

I glad you think I cant think but, in any event, I think you missed her point.

Whhhhhooooooooossssshhhhhhhh.

Now, if you want to discuss the point I am willing. You want to insult people, you can play with yourself.

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

[nerd137 0]

Quote

I glad you think I cant think but, in any event, I think you missed her point.

Whhhhhooooooooossssshhhhhhhh.

Now, if you want to discuss the point I am willing. You want to insult people, you can play with yourself.

No insult intended... already got spanked for that in the gay marriage thread.

Not saying you can't think, just saying I think you're missing the mark on this particular issue. Maybe a little too anxious to call the racism card.

And you didn't answer my question: are you absolutely certain the intent of her comment to convey the relative inferiority of white men compared to Latina women?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Obama is not to be underestimated.

I think you mean the people pulling the strings.

Who would that be? We know Chaney is busy saving his legacy on the talk shows.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Obama is not to be underestimated.

I think you mean the people pulling the strings.

Who would that be?

The Bavarian Illuminati, of course.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Obama is not to be underestimated.

I think you mean the people pulling the strings.

Who would that be? We know Chaney is busy saving his legacy on the talk shows.

I haven't seen "Chaney" on a talk show. I have seen Cheney, and he doesn't seem too worried about his legacy. I don't think he cares if there is one.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 2,406]

>I have seen Cheney, and he doesn't seem too worried about his legacy.

He is, apparently, worried about sales of his upcoming book, though. Fortunately, he's been in the spotlight enough to drive prices up nicely. Bravo Mr. Cheney!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If the right to be left alone is not part of the 9th Amendment then nothing is, and in that case I cannot fathom why the drafters put that amendment in there.

I still boggle over the stretching to include privacy (and many other things) in the first amendment, when it would be so easy to find it a home in the 9th.

Concur heartily.

The Ninth is among my most favorite amendments. Privacy includes, imo, what things you keep in your house, where you keep, and extends to what you keep on/do with your body.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I glad you think I cant think but, in any event, I think you missed her point.

Whhhhhooooooooossssshhhhhhhh.

Now, if you want to discuss the point I am willing. You want to insult people, you can play with yourself.

No insult intended... already got spanked for that in the gay marriage thread. Dont consider myself spanked at all. I think I held my own!
Not saying you can't think, just saying I think you're missing the mark on this particular issue. Maybe a little too anxious to call the racism card. I am not missing anything. YOU on the other hand, need only consider her statement in reverse had she been a he and white. What do you think would be happening (changing the statements to reflect the switch) would be happening today? Good for the goose?

And you didn't answer my question: are you absolutely certain the intent of her comment to convey the relative inferiority of white men compared to Latina women?

No more than you can be but, good for the goose? This still stands. If those statements are reversed they are still as bad.

Personally? I think she is as arogant as it gets. I have no idea of her idology.

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

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Obama is not to be underestimated.

I think you mean the people pulling the strings.

Who would that be? We know Chaney is busy saving his legacy on the talk shows.

I haven't seen "Chaney" on a talk show. I have seen Cheney, and he doesn't seem too worried about his legacy. I don't think he cares if there is one.

Agreed! He has money and needs nothing from goverment or anything else. Nothing wrong with defending one's self. Something the Bush admin did not do.

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

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I have seen Cheney, and he doesn't seem too worried about his legacy.

He is, apparently, worried about sales of his upcoming book, though. Fortunately, he's been in the spotlight enough to drive prices up nicely. Bravo Mr. Cheney!

His book will go to number 1 regardless. Care to make a bet?

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

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

>I have seen Cheney, and he doesn't seem too worried about his legacy.

He is, apparently, worried about sales of his upcoming book, though. Fortunately, he's been in the spotlight enough to drive prices up nicely. Bravo Mr. Cheney!

His book will go to number 1 regardless. Care to make a bet?

A bet that his book would have gone to number one regardless of the publicity he's already stirred up? How would that work?

(And even so, you don't get paid on what spot you were on the best seller list, you get paid on how many copies you sell.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

More to consider. By the way, jsut the letter, not the comentary from the site I found this on

Quote

Sotomayor Letter to the Editor: Anti-Latino discrimination at Princeton (May 10, 1974)
By Daily Princetonian Staff

Published: Friday, May 15th, 2009
The following is a letter to the editor written by Sonia Sotomayor ’76 and published in the May 10, 1974, issue of The Daily Princetonian. Sotomayor explains a complaint filed by University students with the Health, Education and Welfare Department charging the University with “an institutional pattern of discrimination.”

Anti-Latino discrimination at Princeton

By Sonia Sotomayor

May 10, 1974

On April 18, 1974, the Puerto Rican and Chicano students of Princeton filed a complaint with HEW charging the university with an institutional pattern of discrimination.

The facts of the complaint are these: 1) There is not one Puerto Rican or Chicano administrator or faculty member in the university; 2) There are two million Puerto Ricans in the United States and two and a half million more on the island itself. Yet there were only 66 Puerto Rican applicants this year, and only 31 Puerto Rican stuents on campus. While there are 12 million Chicanos in the United States, there were only 111 Chicano applicants and 27 students on campus this year; 3) Not one permanent course in this university now deals in any notable detail with the Puerto Rican or Chicano cultures.

Self-evident lack of commitment

The lack of commitment on the part of the university to the Puerto Rican or Chicano heritage seems self-evident from these facts. Yet statistical evidence is not the total concern or complaint of the Puerto Rican or Chicano students - what is terrifying to us are the implications. The facts imply and reflect the total absence of regard, concern and respect for an entire people and their culture. In effect, they reflect an attempt - a successful attempt so far - to relegate an important cultural sector of the population to oblivion.

Chicanos were the first natives of the Southwest. They were the largest population sector to become citizens when the Southwest was incorporated into the United States. Puerto Ricans constitute 12 per cent of the population in New Jersey. Immediately surrounding Princeton - New Brunswick, Trenton, and Newark - they constitute approximately 15 per cent of the population. Yet we estimate that over 90 per cent of the Princeton community knows nothing about either culture other than that we speak Spanish and that we are presently complaining about something. The members of the student body, for the same reasons they study the French, Russians, English or Chinese, are the ones to benefit from an inclusion of our culture into the Princeton community and curriculum. Puerto Rican or Chicano students have no great need to study about their own culture - we live it. What good is it to know about what happens west of the Urals if you do not know what is happening a few miles around you?

Vanguards of societal change?

It has been said that the universities of America are the vanguard of societal ideas and changes. Princeton University claims to foster the intellectual diversity, spirit, and thoughts that are necessary components in order to achieve this ideal. Yet words are transitory; it is the practice of the ideas you espouse that affect society and are permanent. Thus it is only when Princeton fulfills the goal of being a truly representative community that it can attempt to instill in society a respect for all people - regardless of race, color, sex or national origin.

The feelings we are trying to convey was best stated by Frank Reed ’76 when he said: “We only wish the opportunity as a people, to learn and be learned from.” This is our complaint, and what it signifies.

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

[rushmc 18]

Additions to my earlier post.

Quote

Sotomayor's Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash
Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, May 28, 2009






Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, called Obama's nomination a "declaration of war against America's gun owners."

Such a line of attack could prove more effective than efforts to define Sotomayor as pro-abortion, efforts that essentially grasp at straws. Sotomayor's record on that hot-button issue reveals instances in which she has ruled against an abortion rights group and in favor of anti-abortion protesters, making her hard to pigeonhole.

But Sotomayor's position on gun control is far more crystallized.

Blackwell, who also ran unsuccessfully to head the Republican National Committee, told FOX News her position is "very, very disturbing."

"That puts our Second Amendment freedoms at risk," he said. "What she's basically saying is that your hometown can decide to suppress your Second Amendment freedoms."

The chief concern is her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which the court examined a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law that prohibited possession of nunchucks violated his Second Amendment rights. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The ruling explained that it was "settled law" that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government might seek on individual gun rights.

Despite last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the Maloney ruling determined that case "does not invalidate this longstanding principle" that states are not covered by the Second Amendment. (Another appeals court since the Heller case reached the opposite conclusion.)

Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace, dissented from the majority decision in D.C. v. Heller, so Sotomayor wouldn't necessarily tip the balance on such issues. But she's joining a split body -- the D.C. case was a 5-4 decision -- and with the Maloney case likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court her presence could be threatening to gun rights groups.

"We have concerns and we have questions," Andrew Arulanandam, public affairs director for the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com. He said the NRA would work with members of Congress to have those concerns addressed in the coming months, and that the NRA has researchers looking more closely at Sotomayor's gun rights record.

Ken Klukowski, a fellow and legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, predicted this issue would heat up as the confirmation process moves forward.

"If this nomination were not to succeed, it would likely be because of the Second Amendment issue," he said.

Klukowski questioned the brevity of the Maloney decision, which spanned only a few pages, more than the actual conclusion. He said it glossed over decades of relevant legal precedent.

"The idea that you would be the first circuit court to take up this profound, constitutional question after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling and only give it one paragraph is stunning," he said.

But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the issue of Sotomayor's gun rights position is being "overblown" since the court was merely following precedent. He agreed that the Heller decision did not mean Second Amendment rights apply to states.

He said any controversy over the issue would be a "red herring."

As interest groups launch a heated campaign to define Sotomayor and draw the battle lines ahead of her confirmation process, the White House has voiced unequivocal confidence in her judgment.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was "very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."

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

[likearock 1]

Quote

There are a few characteristics of activism. One is by failure to adhere to stare decisis. So, if a court overturns an established precedent (i.e. Roe v Wade) it would be activist.

Exactly. Which is why it's sometimes not so clear which positions are more "activist" than others. Whether you agree with it or not, affirmative action has been supported by both judicial precedent and legislative statute for many years now. If a judge were to rule against that precedent, it would constitute the activist choice. Which is why Sotomayor's ruling in favor of the city of New Haven was not the more activist stand while if she had ruled the other way it would have been.

Quote

Another way to be activist is to conjure up stuff that just isn't there in the Constitution. The Warren Court did this often. Thus, when Robert Bork was villified for his statement that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution, the fact that it isn't in there is not as important as "it should be, and justices should say the right is there."

Which is hand in hand with intruding on legislative power.

See, from a political standpoint, I love what the Warren Court did for personal freedoms. I really like the policies they announced.

How they did it, though, I have serious problems with it. Because the same disrespect for precedent and disregard for the text of the Constitution leads not only to decisions I applaud but also to decisions I abhor.

It's why I like textualism. Because there is a high degree of certainty with it. We may not like it, but it is what it is.

The problem is that one man's textualism is another's judicial activism. For every conservative that thinks a right to privacy was conjured out of thin air there is a liberal who believes that the second amendment only guarantees a right to bear arms when participating in a militia. My point is not that one or the other is right, only that your "textualism" is a lot more subjective than you'd like to think it is.

[nerd137 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I glad you think I cant think but, in any event, I think you missed her point.

Whhhhhooooooooossssshhhhhhhh.

Now, if you want to discuss the point I am willing. You want to insult people, you can play with yourself.

No insult intended... already got spanked for that in the gay marriage thread. Dont consider myself spanked at all. I think I held my own!
Not saying you can't think, just saying I think you're missing the mark on this particular issue. Maybe a little too anxious to call the racism card. I am not missing anything. YOU on the other hand, need only consider her statement in reverse had she been a he and white. What do you think would be happening (changing the statements to reflect the switch) would be happening today? Good for the goose?

And you didn't answer my question: are you absolutely certain the intent of her comment to convey the relative inferiority of white men compared to Latina women?

No more than you can be but, good for the goose? This still stands. If those statements are reversed they are still as bad.

Personally? I think she is as arogant as it gets. I have no idea of her idology.

No, no... I didn't mean you got spanked; *I* got spanked by a greenie for crossing the line.

Anyways, let's look at that quote in context:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She was disputing O'Connor's contention that age trumps all other considerations related to one's relative wisdom by asserting that one's life experiences (as influenced by one's race, culture, and gender) are at least as important as one's age when it comes to developing wisdom. To illustrate her point, she contrasted a wise Latina woman with a life full of experiences with a white male "who hasn't lived that life."

It's hardly Earth-shattering to suggest that experience leads to wisdom. I actually think the Latina versus white male juxtaposition is largely irrelevant; if the speech itself were not centered around race, the sentence could easily have read: "I would hope that a wise individual with rich life experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than someone who hasn't lived that life." If anything, she might have been trying to convey her hope that a Latina would be at least as good as a white male, since women and non-whites are (still) commonly perceived to be inferior to their male white counterparts. Nowhere do I see her asserting the fundamental superiority of Latinas over white men.

I think all the complaining that "if a white person said that, there'd be hell to pay!!!" is pretty comical. Isn't that *exactly* what's happening to Sotomayor right now? White, Latina... it doesn't matter who it comes from. You make a public remark that is largely perceived as racist, and there's hell to pay. Perception becomes reality.

In the end, since you admit you have no better idea than I do what she really intended to convey, isn't it perhaps worth giving her the benefit of the doubt? Or are her words so vile that she should be permanently branded a racist?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

She was disputing O'Connor's contention that age trumps all other considerations related to one's relative wisdom by asserting that one's life experiences (as influenced by one's race, culture, and gender) are at least as important as one's age when it comes to developing wisdom. To illustrate her point, she contrasted a wise Latina woman with a life full of experiences with a white male "who hasn't lived that life."

Sugarcoat it however you want to make it taste good to you.

Quote

You make a public remark that is largely perceived as racist, and there's hell to pay. Perception becomes reality.

Get back to me on that once the media starts questioning her suitability over the remark, like they did with Roberts and Alito, m'kay?

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

[nerd137 0]

*sigh*

I just read the speech. I should have done that first. The premise of this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone who has not read the speech in its entirety should do so before forming an opinion: Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.

[nerd137 0]

Quote

Get back to me on that once the media starts questioning her suitability over the remark, like they did with Roberts and Alito, m'kay?

What for?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

*sigh*

I just read the speech. I should have done that first. The premise of this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone who has not read the speech in its entirety should do so before forming an opinion: Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.

As I stated ealier, I question her ideology. But, this topic is not near as disturbing as her comments regarding courts setting policy. Scarey shit

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I haven't seen "Chaney" on a talk show. I have seen Cheney,

Rather telling that you don't bother to correct the 95% mis-spelling rate in posts - and thread titles! - that a certain blog-brother of yours on here has. (Still trying to figure out WTF a "stimlas" is.)

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

I haven't seen "Chaney" on a talk show. I have seen Cheney,

Rather telling that you don't bother to correct the 95% mis-spelling rate in posts - and thread titles! - that a certain blog-brother of yours on here has. (Still trying to figure out WTF a "stimlas" is.)

Not telling at all. Most spelling errors don't involve a major political figure whose name has been seen in print countless times. What is telling is that you chose to point out my correction, rather than the other 95% of spelling correction replies.

By the way, I don't have any "blog brothers" and don't even know who you're talking about. Funny how you libs want to discuss everything BUT the OP's topic.

Now back on topic. Sotomayor is on record as saying:

“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.”

And Websters dictionary defines racism as:

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

If a white man said the same thing in reverse, he would be fried for it. Racism is racism, even when the libs don't want it to be.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Did it not occur to you that when I asked to see it, that I had in fact already seen it and knew it was taken out of context?

Hell, even the ONE sentence is truncated. Why? Because to not do so would scream even louder that that it was a statement cherry picked out of context of a larger discussion about race, sex and the judicial system.

Here's the FULL sentence, "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."

Hmmm, does it sound to you like MAYBE there's something that goes in front of this? Yeah it kinda does!

here's the entire paragraph:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

put in context, its still a racist statement.

You would be wrong. Not a racist statement at all.

You don't get the difference between "I would hope that" and "I am certain that"?

The white males that are judges view the world through the lens of their experiences. A Latino woman would do the same. Expressing hope that a richer, wider experience life experience would produce better conclusions is pretty reasonable. Why do you think otherwise?

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Expressing hope that a richer, wider experience life experience would produce better conclusions is pretty reasonable. Why do you think otherwise?

Because the law shouldn't be analyzed through any particular lens. The law is the law regardless of your life experiences. Not a single one of the other judges said "hopefully a white man can make a better decision than a latino woman."

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.