Sotomayor: Bigot

pettyfog · Jun 1, 2009

'Bigotry'! As opposed to 'Racism'. There is a difference, and we have been seduced by PC media and Leftist propaganda to equate the two.

Bigots prefer their own kind.
Racists blame their problems on 'the OTHER kinds'.

A Racist is surely also a bigot, but the opposite is not necessarily, usually IS NOT, true. Racism, blaming ones own or own groups' misfortunes on 'the others' is the hallmark of a LOSER!

I dont think there's ANY evidence pointing toward racism, whether PRO or ANTI Sotomayor. Except for the use of the word.

We are ALL bigots in one way or another. I am, and you are. PERIOD.

... I think Sotomayor's belief that a a wise Latina will, by virtue of her gender and ethnicity, come to better conclusions than a wise white man is a fundamental flaw in her judgment which should disqualify her from nomination to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

- AoS on Libertarian Megan McArdle's objections to Conservative Questions

Well, IF that is really what she thinks, I have to concur.

To put a point on it, the only place in the justice system for SotoMayor's attitude, if that is what she meant, is in the trial courts and, perhaps, the first appellate level.
And it's not germane to the decision, but only to the sentencing phase.

Since when do mitigating factors such as 'state of mind of the accused' stand as presentable facts in evidence before the Supreme Court?

I hope the GOP senators exercise their good judgement in questioning her during the affirmation hearings.
If they in any way try to emulate the sliming of Clarence Thomas, then we ARE the losers. But if they overlook shining a light on her viewpoints and the roots of them, we are all the losers.

HatterDon · Jun 1, 2009

FYP 8)

pettyfog · Jun 1, 2009

HatterDon said:

FYP 8)
Click to expand...

Fair enough... what I think and why I think that way, vs what you think about it.
Or does that reference what you think OTHERS should think about it?

jmh · Jun 1, 2009

You, like many others, are taking that "better conclusions" quote out of context. Not that I'm at all surprised.

pettyfog · Jun 1, 2009

jmh said:

You, like many others, are taking that "better conclusions" quote out of context. Not that I'm at all surprised.
Click to expand...

REALLY!!!

Why dont you just fucking EXPLAIN what she meant by it? Or what you think she meant by it?

Do you have a thought or does it disturb you that others dont understand it clearly as you seem to.
What fucking kind of discourse is that you and Don have been putting up.

All I see is criticism of MY view.. no, not my view.. that I have a DIFFERENT view than you do.. that is called 'Ad Hominem' Look it up!

Either debate a point I make, with SOME evidence, or continue to prove to me you have no views of your own.

HatterDon · Jun 1, 2009

I remember fondly when you were hoping for a homosexual black law professor to be nominated. Ah, them were the days.

WhitesBhoy · Jun 1, 2009

If this is part of your point, "We are ALL bigots in one way or another," then what's your other point(s)?

Clevelandmo · Jun 1, 2009

jmh said:

You, like many others, are taking that "better conclusions" quote out of context. Not that I'm at all surprised.
Click to expand...

I've read the liberal blogs that try to explain that comment and it's context and they dont. There is no doubt that she said some good things in her talk during which the comment was made, but they provide no context that makes that comment defensible. Probably because it isnt defensible. It is racist remark (not her, the remark). There is absolutely no doubt that if a white man had said the reverse statement, he would be denied consideration for the nomination, and branded a sexist and a racist.

Perhaps, if Sotomayer had the life experience of a white male, she would have paid attention in school when they explained what racism is, but maybe she didnt pay attention because she didnt think she needed to. After all, white people are the racist ones, right. If she had been a white male (or woman), maybe she would have grown up being careful never to say anything racist and this all wouldnt be happening. As she put it in her now infamous speech:

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder if she simply doesnt care if she says something racist, we all know the double standard in that regard.

And 'fog, I looked up ad hominem - it is Latin for "argument against the man". Sounds like something Sotomayer would do. :3d laughing: or should I say "Latina for . . . " :3d funny:

What she needs to do is admit it was a racist remark and point out court judgements and opinions that she has made that demonstrate she is not racist on the bench. She should just explain how different experiences can allow for different but valid and compeling legal arguments that can surpass or augment other ones. You know like in Legally Blonde when Elle made that argument about the paternity rights of the sperm donor.

HatterDon · Jun 1, 2009

It makes me laugh that when a Vietnamese or African or Hispanic immigrant who is successful in business or academics tries to inspire a fellow-ethnic crowd to believe in themselves and to understand that they bring something unique and powerful to the American Table -- white people who have all the power are quick to label it racism. At least white people who make up the core of the Republican Party are apt to do so. This is the same group who tries to convince themselves -- and us? -- that nobody in the country is as discriminated against as protestant, white, male Americans.

Clevelandmo · Jun 1, 2009

Don you're being riduculous. Everyone knows she is being nominated because she is female and hispanic, and I havent heard anyone have a problem with that. The last 5 or 6 presidents have done that; it's acceptable and considered important precisely because it will demonstrate to minorities and immigrants that they have something to bring to the "american table" and to government. If the statement isnt racist then please explain why.

HatterDon · Jun 1, 2009

Sigh! I really wanted to leave this alone, but if you insist.

In order for there to be racism, there has to be a targeted group, and that group has to have suffered from it -- or at least to have continued to suffer because of it. So, which is the targeted group of Sotomayor's racisim, and how has that group been affected negatively by her racism? Specifically, how has she acted against that targeted group in her long career on the bench? What has been the result of that consistent, systemic racism on the part of the power or wealth of the targeted group?

And, speaking of racism, if all is required to be nominated is that she's female and hispanic, then why wasn't Eva Longoria or Jessica Alba mooted as a candidate? Does the "everyone" in "everyone knows" come from a scientific poll? Or is this something that's assumed [by some people] any time a woman or a minority achieves success in a non-entertainment or non-sporting context?

Is your sense of irony so blunted that you don't see that this "Everyone knows ... because she is female and hispanic" is what makes the cheering session "let's-have-pride-in-our-ethnicity's-unique-whatevers" necessary in the first place? In other words, if she hadn't spent her entire life hearing "she got the job because she slept with somebody" or "he got the job because he was black/hispanic/etc.," she probably wouldn't have had to appeal to ethnic/gender pride in the first place.

If you want to keep going, please answer the first paragraph first, and supply the specific quote [please include the preceding and following paragraphs]. I'll be happy to give you my opinon -- which will probably be just as useless as everyone else's. "Everyone knows" how I stand on things, anyhow. Thanks.

jmh · Jun 2, 2009

pettyfog said:

Either debate a point I make, with SOME evidence, or continue to prove to me you have no views of your own.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this was all pretty thoroughly addressed about four days ago in another discussion I was having about the nomination, so it took me some time to track it down. You probably would've seen something similar if you didn't get your material from... Ace of Spades HQ? What the hell kind of a source is that?

Here's more of the context of the quote, and a link to the speech in its entirety.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives -- no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

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

In other words, her point is that a Latina woman might reach a better conclusion than a white male in cases involving race or gender discrimination because we simply haven't experienced such discrimination. You could just as correctly say that a male judge might be more informed than a female judge in a case involving prostate health.

Of course, Sotomayor isn't the only liberal fascist bigot to say that sort of thing:

Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]

And that goes down the line. 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.
Click to expand...

That was noted liberal Justice Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearings. So, no, I'm sorry, but having her views influenced by personal experiences that, say, Justice Kennedy might not have doesn't make her a bigot.

clevelandmo said:

Everyone knows she is being nominated because she is female and hispanic...
Click to expand...

... and a sitting Court of Appeals judge for over ten years and a District Court judge (nominated by that pinko commie George H.W. Bush) before that, and an accomplished prosecutor and litigator, and an editor of the Yale Law Journal, and a summa cum laude Princeton graduate. Let's not pretend we're talking about J.Lo here. If she were a white male her credentials would still stack up favorably with a lot of the other likely candidates.

Edit: No posts for four hours and then Spencer and I post at the same time down to the minute. Sorry if his and my posts may have been at all redundant with one another.

pettyfog · Jun 2, 2009

Now, GEE.. was that so hard?!!!!!

We're actually discussing the ISSUES here!
First.. as said many times, all presidents use 'group representative' appointments as a political tool. Hella nothing new there.

The 'remarkable story of her early life' is good, but less so than Clarence Thomas.. she was 'rescued' relatively early on, more like Condi was.
Mo, I reiterate.. there is nothing per se 'Racist'* in that comment, either in whole or part. As the others point out it was an address on 'what it is like'.
The most can be pointed out is the ethnic group bias. If you extrapolate her views into the future, indeed it MIGHT become racist in practice but we wont know that until the time.

Face it, she's gonna be confirmed. There's no doubt about that. What I want the minority GOP panel to do is to have her particular views illuminated. I dont want them to 'Bork' her.. it wouldnt work, anyway.

And I dont want them to try a soft-spot smear, like the Dems did using Anita Hill.. truly a bile-disgorging low point in Senate history. But if there's going to be a 'standard' procedure in confirmation hearings then let it be STANDARD the way the Democrats applied it in Roberts and Alito. As pronounced by Obama himself; He said Roberts was eminently qualified in every but he would vote 'No' anyway..

We can talk about those 'empathetic' issues as they happen - or not- during the hearings.
-- - - - -- -
* In that, I mean 'racist' as highlighted in Steve's thread on the BNP. There Don's definition is, arguably, quantified.

HatterDon · Jun 2, 2009

The major reason why there won't be as much sniping and grandstanding probing on this nomination as opposed to others in the recent past, is that in the latter the candidates had little or no federal bench time and, as such, no decisions to examine. Inquisitors [and I use the term neutrally] in that situation try to parse out what the nominee might or might not do based upon his/her public statements or legal activity in other venues [you know, like firing an AG]. In the case of Sotomayor, this isn't necessary, since she has more than 20 years of actual federal bench experience to examing and weigh. Folks who make their living on radio and television might want there to be more blood and thunder, but there's no need for it in this case. Her decisions are there. We KNOW how she'll act on the federal bench. She's been there a while.

pettyfog · Jun 2, 2009

Maybe.. or not. There's some perplexity out there.

Expect there to be some questions on her view of property rights 'takings', as was illustrated by Kelo.

Meanwhile on the subject of 'Racism' hypocrisy, everyone should read this.
On Democrats, casual 'racism' charges, and the Pickering nomination

As usual, it's alright for Dems and their MSM hyenas to just make shit up.. but let Limbaugh get hyperbolic and .. golly gee. Unfair!

FulhamAg · Jun 2, 2009

There's no racism here, and I'd argue the statement actually shows prejudice and not bigotry. But what the hell, damn near no one uses those terms properly anyway.

Empathy based on shared race/gender would require a level of prejudice by nature. This would seem to run counter to "Equal Justice Under the Law" (written over the main entrance to the court). I realize we're talking about humans, and to err is such, but if the objective is to uphold the Constitution and judge by the rule of law, I fail to see why empathy is the new fashionable trait to be sought in a SC Justice. If prejudice against is bad....then prejudice for is the same.

Isn't justice supposed to be blind?

HatterDon · Jun 2, 2009

And how has this empathy "colored" her judgment since George HW Bush put her on the federal bench? The role of the judge is to assess the case on its merits, regardless of feelings. If there are examples extant where her feelings caused her to rule regardless of the merits of the case, that IS the dictionary definition of "prejudice." If there aren't, then that's that as well.

As I've said, we have an almost unique case here, where Senators [the only ones that matter] don't have to probe and dig and extrapolate how past statements or publications or overheard conversations might indicate the frame of mind of the nominee. Instead, they can look at her performance over the past 20 years on the federal bench.

One can assume that a black judge will favor a black litigent or that a judge who smokes will always rule in favor of Big Tobacco or that a judge who likes to go duck hunting will be buddies with the NRA, but if there's a REAL track record out there, assumtions mean nothing. If there's something in her performance that stinks, the Senate will find it. If it's not in her performance, rather it's in a sentence she said in a speech, then it is irrelevant.

FulhamAg · Jun 2, 2009

No clue. I haven't looked through her record to answer whether empathy has colored her judgement. That's the Senate's job. That's not the point I was making.

What I have seen is Obama, the tv media, and myriad editorials citing empathy as a positive when selling Sotomayer as a candidate for Justice. I find that odd as I'd think it runs contrary to what a Justice's job is. It also denegrates her from a qualified candidate who happens to be Latina, to just a Latina candidate. As you said, she has an extensive record and resume, so sell that.

pettyfog · Jun 29, 2009

Wise Latina Latest: Overturned Again

Not Looking good for a 'Hearts and Flowers' USSC Justice nominee..

Several Aggregated links on Instapundit

Even dissenter Ruth Bader Ginsberg said Soto's decision was based on wrong points.

Word is that makes 4 of 6 decisions she's had overturned.

Sotomayor: Bigot

pettyfog Well-Known Member

HatterDon Moderator

pettyfog Well-Known Member

jmh New Member

pettyfog Well-Known Member

HatterDon Moderator

WhitesBhoy Active Member

Clevelandmo Active Member

HatterDon Moderator

Clevelandmo Active Member

HatterDon Moderator

jmh New Member

pettyfog Well-Known Member

HatterDon Moderator

pettyfog Well-Known Member

FulhamAg New Member

HatterDon Moderator

FulhamAg New Member

pettyfog Well-Known Member

Share This Page

About Us

League Standings

Useful Searches

Sotomayor: Bigot

pettyfog Well-Known Member

HatterDon Moderator

pettyfog Well-Known Member

jmh New Member

pettyfog Well-Known Member

HatterDon Moderator

WhitesBhoy Active Member

Clevelandmo Active Member

HatterDon Moderator

Clevelandmo Active Member

HatterDon Moderator

jmh New Member

pettyfog Well-Known Member

HatterDon Moderator

pettyfog Well-Known Member

FulhamAg New Member

HatterDon Moderator

FulhamAg New Member

pettyfog Well-Known Member

Share This Page