Sotomayor says she chose word poorly in 2001 speech

Well, she certainly chose better words than the right-wingers who call her "racist" and "bigot."

Wow that is sure a shocking comment she made!!! She "would hope" they reach a better conclusion. If this is all the US right wingers have then they should be very, very careful. Women and Hispanics have the vote too.

When Trent Lott chose his words poorly he was branded a racist and bigot by Left-wingers and he lost his leadership post. Sotomayor may have chosen her words poorly but her actions in the firefighter case belie her attempts at hiding her true self. What is good for the Right, is good for the Left as well. If you say racist things and in her case do racist things (ie firefighters case) you must pay the price just as anyone must. Shouldn't Sotomayor be treated equally to any other person or should she be given special treatment? She is a bigot - period. Apparently, the Left loves bigots - when they are one of their own.

Gosh, I can't even remember the exact words I said 8 years ago. Sounds like a witch-hunt.

Wolfpack,

How is Sotomayor's decision in the firefighter's case racist? The fact is that we cannot treat people equally or impartially. That just isn't possible. We can endeavor to treat people fairly, however, and that was at the crux of the firefighter's case--whether it was fair to use a test-based system which comprised 60% of the decision, guided by a rule that says that every promotion must go to one of the three top scorers.

Also how are Sotomayor's remarks racist. She said that she hoped a wise Latina woman with an experience of discrimination issues would reach better decisions than a white male without such experiences. You have to go 'round Robin Hood's barn to make that racist.

“I’ve not talked specifically with her about this, but I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor,” Gibbs said at the end of his daily briefing.

Sotomayor may have said that she chose her words poorly, but that isn't documented here. What is documented here is that the White House suggests that she should say that she chose her words poorly. I would hope she has enough integrity, however, not to be mincing about her previous comments unless she truly believes she did choose them poorly.

So, 8 years ago she made a comment, and now she's suddenly struck by feelings of guilt? I'd have more respect for her if she just told them "So what, it was eight years ago. Can't we all just move along?"

Who said anything about guilt?

When Trent Lott chose his words poorly he was branded a racist and bigot by Left-wingers...

Trent Lott chose his words -- WORDS -- very carefully. The person he was giving credit to was an arch-white supremacist and segregationist.

Now, it's very funny how not only paying a compliment to a segregationist gets a pass from right-wingers, but telling people that if the segregationist won, that we wouldn't be having these "problems" -- "problems" such as a proud, wise Latino woman being considered for the highest court in the land.

The right-wingers, hypocrites that they are, profess that things should be color-blind in their slimy attack on Sotomayor. And yet they fully admit that Trent Lott's words -- anything but color blind -- shouldn't have been held up for criticism. Which is why they attribute the "attacks" to "left-wingers."

Lott was not removed from the Senate, just his position as Majority Leader. If we are to treat Sotomayor equally, she should be a Justice, but not Chief Justice. Fine by me.

are you white guys on JT really upset over her words?

As for Trent Lott, how many times do I have let you white guys in on a secret - the racist, the word itself is reserved for you.

I am only upset about the New Haven case, they do have a legit gripe and to add to the fact there were Puerto Ricans push over in this case. She sided with blacks over Hispanics.

skipthesong,

In the New Haven case she did not side with blacks over Hispanics. As I understand it what she did was to support the city's decision to remove a written test as a basis for advancement. The city had rules for the test, for the weighting of the test and for mandating the selection to be one of the three highes scorers. Those rules did not comply with EEO guidelines. Application of city rules prior to their revocation would have produced the result that out of around 50 candidates, about half of whom were white with the others being black or Hispanic in not too disparate proportion, only 1-non-white would have been eligible for promotion.

Only white people are racists. It's well documented. We are responsible for everyone's woes. I feel so guilty that I must choose my words more carefully than those of other groups. I love fairness. Who was that guy that said something about a black female basketball player? Didn't he hang out to dry for a stupid little comment like that?

I love watching Dilbert Gibbs do "damage control."

Obama, with Sotomayor standing next to him, defends her selection and then proceeds to tell the crowd she will be entrusted with defending the principles of our Constitution, "which were put to paper more than 20 centuries ago."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d04_1243462691

more bold face lies from an administration making a habit out of lying to the American people.

if this rascist judge didn't really mean to come off as a rascist, then she should have cleared this up immediately following her very rascist comments.

salute smartly obama lovers, he needs you to repeat the lie over and over and over again.

Sotomayor opposes free speech. No wonder the Left want her on the SCOTUS.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html

She will fit in perfectly :

"Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews. The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms."

If President Obama says Sotomayor is the best choice for this job, by golly she is!

Sotomayor opposes free speech. No wonder the Left want her on the SCOTUS.

I bet a great many Republicans vote to approve her too.

Does that mean Republicans are opposed to free speech?

" “She was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging, that your personal experiences have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases, that your experiences affect your understanding,” Gibbs said. “I think we agree with all that.” "

No Mr. Gibbs, we do not all agree with that. The whole idea of an modern legal system, based on an enlightened constitution, is that every wise person who goes through the legal education and accepts the concept that judges are there to apply the law, not to create it, should come to the same understanding, and apply the same logic to every case.

Identity politics throws all that out of the window, no matter much lipstick you put on that particular pig.

No Mr. Gibbs, we do not all agree with that.

You don't have to agree with it. You merely have to accept that more than enough Democrats and Republicans will vote to approve Sotomayor.

based on an enlightened constitution

Huh? Enlightened as in "infallible?"

Sotomayor's nomination is bringing to light some reality about her fabled background. Accrding to an article by the AP, Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale. She joined a law firm where her clients included the fashion maker Fendi. She now earns more than $200,000 a year and owns a condominium in Greenwich Village, a neighborhood of million-dollar-plus homes. Her brother, Dr. Juan Sotomayor, is a physician in North Syracuse, N.Y., whose practice doesn't accept Medicaid or Medicare — programs for the poor and elderly — according to its Web site.

Sotomayor says she chose word poorly in 2001 speech

She's a racist. No amount of retrofitting the facts and reinterpreting already stated opinions changes it.

Her nomination would be setback for civil rights in America.

There certainly are injustices rationalized by the majority ethic group in any country to maintain there privileged position. (anyone have complaints about the Japanese interaction with other ethnic groups in Japan?) It really is racist with rewards. Perpetuating racism does not make it right even if there are rewards. From what I understand, white Americans need to live in Hawaii for a bit to understand what being a minority is like in USA. They would then understand and perhaps have empathy for something they themselves have experienced. I have to agree with her on this for sometimes we (I am white) do not even see our own cruelty to those who are of different ethnic origins. It is a shame but a true statement that gets her in trouble for even pointing it out.

OneForAll:

" There certainly are injustices rationalized by the majority ethic group in any country to maintain there privileged position. "

If there is racism, you end it by ending it -- not by turning the tables. As simple as that. If you want to get into the swamp of revenge justice there is no way out. And not to mention the question of what happens to the principle of "All men are created equal" along the way.

As a side note, as a non-USer I am always confused by the idea that "Latina" is a race? Since when? How? The woman in question looks whiter than me, so how is this "race" different from simply another Caucasian? Weird.

Bork the racist.

Our Constitution is too sublime an achievement for foul-mouthed ingrates, race hustlers and moral relativists like Ms. Sotomayor to be entrusted with the solemn duty of its interpretation.

Bushlover, Are you referring to the comment of "Nappy headed ho's"? By the shock jock, I forget his name, but it wasn't a simple, naive slur, but one that crossed the line, for which he was heartily disciplined. They were the championship team at the time.

All people, of all colors and genders have predjudice thoughts in our inner and outer minds. Its just a matter of how we control ourselves or not.

Sotomayor's nomination is bringing to light some reality about her fabled background. Accrding to an article by the AP, Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood

She should be ashamed of herself for being middle class. How dare she.

I know she is a judge -but she really needs to self-impose a gag order on herself or get better "handlers". Even Japanese talentos have handlers. Obama has handlers (the fools who wanted Airforce#1 (with a F16 in tow) to fly around NYC for a foto-op).

=Media/Celebs, Politicians, and now Judges need "handlers"

WillB "If there is racism, you end it by ending it -- not by turning the tables." Quite right. Once it is seen. When there is money and power it is sometimes difficult. For me, a Latino is someone who speaks Spanish and is from South of the border. Living in a foreign country myself, I have much empathy for them. Ms. Sotomayor has Latino heritage but is an American having been born and raised there.

Teleprompter : Good statement even though it may not apply to Ms. Sotomayor. It may and I hope you are wrong.

So, I've asked the question why people consider Sotomayor to be a racist and I've heard no answer. However, I've heard plenty of people say that she said Latina woman and white man in the same sentence and that makes her a racist in her words. I don't think they could be more wrong.

Try this exercise: In the Sotomayor quotation substitute white man for Latina woman. Go ahead. Try it. If you do, you will clearly see that Sotomayor was talking about wisdom and first-hand knowledge of the subject under discussion.

What she was saying was that a person, even a woman, even a Latina, could render more sensible judgments than those of the run-of-the-mill justice if they had wisdom and experience to bring to the situation. Politics always has been and always will be identity politics. The best that we can hope for is that we have insightful and honest justices who will protect the American identity.

Supreme Court Justices are not umpires. They're not calling balls and strikes. They have three jobs--the least of which is to determine whether someone did or did not break the law. Beyond that they must determine whether the law itself is Constitutional. To do that, they must determine what the Constitution means for us today.

We change. And our interpretation of the Constitution must change with it until it becomes apparent that some change is needed in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, we become slavishly devoted to a centuries old and static interpretation of a goddamned piece of paper--kind of like a real American Taliban.

Otherwise, we become slavishly devoted to a centuries old and static interpretation of a goddamned piece of paper--kind of like a real American Taliban.

Yeah.

Kinda.

But no, not really.

In fact, I read that and have a hard time believing you are even a US citizen. By gum that "goddamned piece of paper" was a neat trick! No one has ever confirmed Bush actually said it, but you lot need to believe it's true.

willib:

As a side note, as a non-USer I am always confused by the idea that "Latina" is a race? Since when? How? The woman in question looks whiter than me, so how is this "race" different from simply another Caucasian? Weird.

It more than weird. It's disturbing how Sotomayor has been able to trade on her "race" for her entire career, in the legal field no less.

Her appointment to the SCOTUS would be a setback for civil rights in America.

teleprompter,

I really can't help it if you can't express your thoughts forcefully.

Radicals (and reactionaries) define themselves by seeking unchanging interpretations of old documents. Unless you want our justices to call balls and strikes based on a fixed and unyielding strike zone, you are amenable to giving them some latitude in how they interpret the Constitution. Once you do that, you are lost because in order to protect your interests you will seek to grant latitude here but to withhold it there.

If you have a difficult time believing that I am a US citizen, you must live in a constant state of disbelief as you travel the streets and highways of America. As far as I can see your disbelief seems to be based on the fact that you and I disagree. I think you will find that you are at odds with quite a few of your fellow citizens.

As for the goddamned piece of paper, I don't believe that I asserted that Bush said it. I think you are defending against something that wasn't said. A little over-sensitive, perhaps. I certainly didn't hear Bush say it. I don't need to believe it or disbelieve it. I only watched as Bush interpreted the Constitution from the White House.

Apparently you feel more comfortable with one man telling us what the Constitution says than you do nine justices conferring, discussing and voting on what it says. Not me. That's why the Supreme Court is there in the first place.

Radicals (and reactionaries) define themselves by seeking unchanging interpretations of old documents.

Sometimes.

Others, like critical legal theory lawyers - almost exclusively Leftists - camouflage an outright contempt for "old documents" (such as our Constitution, which has served us remarkably well and ranks among the most prescient legal works ever conceived) with specious, post-modernist theorizing which basically seeks by an a priori process to absolve themselves of their lust for power with the argument that traditional legal structures grow out of power relationships within society and need change. The "logic" is as ridiculous as the "science" judges like Sotomayor try to foist on the public, i.e. biological determinism.

I was not surprised to find this racist woman also believes voting rights should be extended to violent felons - even those who have taken the lives, and therefore also the votes, of their fellow Americans.

telelprompter,

Sometimes.

More nearly, almost always.

I think you lost your argument almost halfway into your first full sentence. You don't really want to talk about the issue. You want to talk about Left and Right, intellectually bankrupt constructs if there ever were any.

I think you cemented the loss when you posited a contempt for the Constitution on the part of people who have a different judicial bent than you would like. And without the contempt, there can be no attempt to camouflage it. Your accusation is without merit.

I don't think legal works are ever prescient. The people who draft them sometimes are, but not the works themselves. The Constitution is a fine document but it does not become any finer by decorating it with inappropriate adjectives.

As for "specious, post-modern theorizing which which basically seeks by an a priori process to absolve themselves of their lust for power,...etc...", that's a nifty string of words, but it doesn't mean much. An example would have been much more powerful. The Constitution provides for the Supreme Court and provides for it to determine the Constitutionality of certain matters (exercise: where's the lifetime appointment?). Importantly, however, it does not prescribe how the justices are to render their decisions.

Justices recognize the importance of precedent. That is why the Court recognizes the principle of stare decisis, a principle that many people are in a lather to upend in the case of Roe vs. Wade. The court does not operate by whim. It operates through Constitution, law, precedent and, inevitably, through individual justices consulting their own understandings of what the framers intended for our society and, equally inevitably, through the personal prejudices of those justices.

It doesn't matter whether those prejudices are held by a white man or a Latina woman. They're still prejudices. And we have nine Justices so that those prejudices can be held in check.

teleprompter,

I'm sorry about the misspelling. I occasionally remind myself to proofread and it's usually after an incident such as this. The extra "l" has no meaning other than clumsy typing.

If there is racism, you end it by ending it -- not by turning the tables.

As in "just say 'NO' to racism?" A campaign along that tactic sure ended the use of drugs in the US, didn't it...

If, on the bench, Sotomayor has had a tendency to favor one race over another, her record would show that. Because conservatives can't provide such a record, it must not be there -- because everyone knows they are looking through her record and scrutinizing it carefully.

When Sotomayor was nominated by President Obama, the immediate reaction from some conservatives was to say that she was chosen just because she was a Latina, and that somehow her experience on the bench didn't qualify her. That is very similar to the racism experienced by Sotomayor when some white recruiter told her he suspected that the reason she got into Princeton because she was Latina.

Now, how do we get conservative white supremacists to just "end" their racism?

“I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she’d change that word,” presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Uh-huh. As if one word was all that was wrong with it.

“She was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging, that your personal experiences have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases, that your experiences affect your understanding,” Gibbs said. “I think we agree with all that.”

What bilge. First of all, is there some magic point system that makes the experiences of minorities count more? Saying that white men can't have the same experiences is a crock. All white men are not born into wealth, and are not all CEOs.

As a Supreme Court Justice she is supposed to uphold the Constitution. Why is that not an issue? Why have the news outlets pounced on her comments from a racial perspective. Necessary perhaps but more worrying to me is a justice relying on 'the richness of her personal experience'. God help us.

Others, like critical legal theory lawyers - almost exclusively Leftists - camouflage an outright contempt for "old documents" (such as our Constitution, which has served us remarkably well and ranks among the most prescient legal works ever conceived) with specious, post-modernist theorizing....

This is quite revealing. Because Americans have the freedom to form opinions, something that we are pretty sure that Sotomayor would agree with, an opinion about the Constitution not being perfect is interpreted by conservatives as "contempt."

One of the greatest jurists in American history, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., expressed his opinion that the US Constitution is a theory. "It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment." I suspect that Sotomayor would agree with that also. (And good for her!)

Although Sotomayor claims she chose a word poorly during her 2001 speech, their was not a trace of contempt in her words or in the sentiments she expressed. But just observe all the contempt coming from conservatives towards anyone who would dare form a different opinion about the Constitution than they have -- an opinion backed up by decades of study by the finest legal minds the US has produced.

It is also noted that conservatives are so filled with contempt, that they can do nothing else but to project it onto others. A real liberal does not feel contempt for someone who thinks the Constitution doesn't have serious flaws; we just feel they are wrong.

Regarding the Constitution's "prescience," we hope that Sotomayor does not put too much into that. After all, the flaws of the document led to the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of Americans barely 80 years after it was enacted.

Now, how do we get conservative white supremacists to just "end" their racism?

Maybe you' ll just have to wait for Sen. Robert Byrd's comment on the nomination.

First of all, is there some magic point system that makes the experiences of minorities count more? Saying that white men can't have the same experiences is a crock.

Certain white people want to employ some sort of magic point system, or at least fantasize that one exists. Why not use some common sense?

According to estimates, there are well over 35 million Americans whose primary language is Spanish. I am just not too sure that there are many "white men" who have had the experience of growing up in a Puerto Rican housing project with Spanish as their first language.

As for Sotomayor's words, take a look around:

We have an economy that was driven to the brink of collapse, as well as major auto, finance and banking firms going out of business or into bankruptcy. The people making the systemic disastrous decisions and judgments that led to this fiasco were 99% white males.

I think it is not saying too much that a wise Latina woman would do much better.

"a wise Latina woman would do much better"

Than an unwise white man, right? The key word is wise. A wise white man would do much better than an unwise Latina woman, right?

It's a good laugh watching "liberals" and Democrats arguing again for biological determinism.

Until the 50's or so they did it to keep blacks and minorities down. You need only look at "progressives" like the racist Margaret Sanger (founder of what became Planned Parenthood) or Woodrow Wilson's order to segregate the armed forces and federal Civil Service. Now they do it to keep themselves in power and to create as many aggrieved constituencies as possible.

Because Americans have the freedom to form opinions, something that we are pretty sure that Sotomayor would agree with, an opinion about the Constitution not being perfect is interpreted by conservatives as "contempt."

The Critical Legal Theory I mentioned and you commented upon is basically neo-Marxist. Its exponents will even admit it.

So yeah, it deserves contempt from Americans.

Maybe you' ll just have to wait for Sen. Robert Byrd's comment on the nomination.

Rather than attempt to follow you off topic, we have to assume that our democracy allows a senator to serve because the people of his state send him or her there. If a certain senator is accused of the racism that Sotomayor is being accused of by conservatives, we would have to wonder about the racist tendencies of the electorate. I believe we would see those tendencies play themselves out in a highly visible election where a white male was pitted against someone who is not a white male.

A wise white man would do much better than an unwise Latina woman, right?

A white man who grew up in a Puerto Rican housing project would likely be very wise indeed.

The people making the systemic disastrous decisions and judgments that led to this fiasco were 99% white males. I think it is not saying too much that a wise Latina woman would do much better.

LOL. Man, you are a riot. "Undocumented workers" = white males?

Fact is catastrophically large numbers of mortgages were taken out by illegal aliens, "Latinos" I guess you would call them.

You need only check the hardest hit counties in the country.

Fact is catastrophically large numbers of mortgages were taken out by illegal aliens...

The fact is that the policies that gave the approval and promotion to such practices, to the extent they existed, were not formed by wise Latinas. We do see, however, many unwise people putting forth the claim that the judgments of white men were not somehow primarily responsible.

This only reinforces Sotomayor's point.

I am just not too sure that there are many "white men" who have had the experience of growing up in a Puerto Rican housing project with Spanish as their first language.

And? I am addressing the point that this woman thinks her experiences count for more because she's a minority. I think it's odd.

The fact is that the policies that gave the approval and promotion to such practices, to the extent they existed, were not formed by wise Latinas.

You are correct.

They were formulated by a political party that seeks to put a self-described "wise Latina" on the SCOTUS, and for the very same reason - to score points with one particular racial group, and use them for the obvious goal of making 15 to 20 million illegal aliens into citizens - and voters - and establishing a permanent Democrat majority, destroying America as we know it.

President Obama has chosen Sotomayor. The man has good judgement, right?

I am addressing the point that this woman thinks her experiences count for more because she's a minority.

And how you have expressed "the point" is how a white supremacist would express it. A white supremacist would make the claim that Sotomayor's upbringing as a Spanish-speaking woman in a Puerto-Rican housing project before rising by her own bootstraps to a very high level of success in predominantly Anglo institutions such as Princeton mean nothing, and therefore give her no advantage whatsoever.

And since between 20-30% of the American people are of Hispanic-Latin background, the white supremacist would assert that white people are as capable as any Hispanic-Latin at understanding what the Latin culture has to contribute to making wise judgments. In fact, the white supremacist would be on the lookout for any non-white who asserted that their background gave them any additional insights in a white-dominated society.

"And since between 20-30% of the American people are of Hispanic-Latin background, the white supremacist would assert" blah blah blah more like big white straw man in your febrile brain I'm afraid.

President Obama has chosen Sotomayor. The man has good judgement, right?

Like Sotomayor, Obama has risen through very similar circumstances, and has certainly been exposed to various cultures as well as knowing the dominant Anglo culture intimately.

I assert that such a past provides a tremendous foundation for the ability to make "good" judgments. Since feelings of white supremacy are obviously alive and well in the US, one indicator of "good" judgment is how loudly those who hold those feelings squawk about an issue. The louder white supremacists squawk, the more likely it is to be a good judgment.

yabits, I didn't say that and you know it.

A white supremacist would make the claim that Sotomayor's upbringing as a Spanish-speaking woman in a Puerto-Rican housing project before rising by her own bootstraps to a very high level of success in predominantly Anglo institutions such as Princeton mean nothing, and therefore give her no advantage whatsoever.

Ya, right, I said that. Uh-huh. When your reading comprehension improves, maybe this will become a discussion.

Himajin, you have no basis whatsoever when you said this: "As a Supreme Court Justice she is supposed to uphold the Constitution."

The constitution does not say that the Judicial Branch's duty is to uphold it. There is no prescribed oath of office as there is for the chief executive. There is not even a requirement of US citizenship, as there is for executive and legislative branches.

These obvious omissions by the founding fathers can only lead one to the conclusion that they wanted as much leeway and independence as possible for the court to decide what is and what is not Law. The assumption made on your part above is the fatal one.

come on guys, it's an innocent mistake. she meant to say "less worse," I'm sure. my students make the same mistake all the time...

Yabits:

" The constitution does not say that the Judicial Branch's duty is to uphold it. "

LOL! A classic. Can we frame this absurdity?

Can we frame this absurdity?

It is only absurd to those who do not understand what Justice is, and who believe that justice originates with the constitution, rather than the Truth: That Justice exists outside of constitutions, and that a constitution is nothing more than an attempt to realize the possibilty of Justice through the machinations of flawed and prejudiced human beings.

Ever read the Preamble to the Constitution? Before the constitution existed, the ideal of Justice was there. The authors of the US Constitution are plainly telling us this.

This is why the oath of office that Justice Sotomayor will likely take does not contain any language respecting the upholding of the constitution. Their duty under the constitution is to administer Justice. And because it is impossible for any written document to embody all Justice, contrary to conservatives' expectations and their limited understanding, a judge will often have to return to a theory of justice to apply a wise decision.

as our leftist share more and more of their viewpoints it becomes clearer and clearer these people hate the limited government the founding fathers envisioned for our Republic. The ugly head of fascism is showing through as the Obama administration does a complete back face on the constitution. the fall of any empire never happens all at once, it crumbles one block at a time and the fascists know this when they appoint judges who bend and twist the Constitution to serve their power grab.

as our leftist share more and more of their viewpoints it becomes clearer and clearer these people hate the limited government the founding fathers envisioned for our Republic.

I don't claim to be speaking for any faction. I am here to fully support and voice my agreement with Judge Sotomayor's remarks -- seeing that she presented the ideal of a wise Latina contributing to better decisions than what can be achieved by a team of white males. Especially if those white males are of the US elites.

There is no hatred of "limited government." Only the recognition that government has to be powerful enough to prevent and forestall a tyranny of the majority. After all, the founders didn't envision women like Sotomayor even having a vote, much less holding office.

the fall of any empire never happens all at once...

This is very revealing. It shows the two-faced nature of those who claim to be for "limited government" while proclaiming that their country is an "empire." (And so it is.)

Since genuine freedom and justice is not likely to be found with in an empire, we hope that whatever Sotomayor does contributes to a weakened nation-state as it strengthens individual liberties. We pray that the constitution is not used to perpetuate the legacy of white privilege that the founders established, however inadvertantly. Because to do so would be to perpetuate INjustice.

Because to do so would be to perpetuate INjustice

You just make people laugh.

There are between 12 ~ 20 million illegal aliens in America.

English is not their native tongue.

Why do they flock to such "flawed" country?

Why do they flock to such "flawed" country?

A wise Latino woman as a justice of the Supreme Court would certainly not be one of the flaws.

Yabits, here's a junior high school student handout on the Supreme Court--

"It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution."

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.

What if the latina woman grew up in Idaho? Would that detract from the 'richness' of her experience? I honestly think that Sotomayor is bringing more attention to her race than anyone else really cares to.

Isn't the term Latina/o rascist in itself? I would personally take offense if someone called me a latino, I'm American with cuban heratige.

A wise Latino woman as a justice of the Supreme Court would certainly not be one of the flaws.

But an equally wise black woman, asian hermaphrodite, or, god forbid, white man would be?

One must remember that she considers herself a "wise latina" yet says some very stupid things. She does blow her own horn pretty good. Leave it to the Obama lovers to not see her statements as blatantly rascist especially when they scream so loud when anybody but a democrat utters anything remotely rascist. If Obama was the uniter he claimed he would be, he would have found a more suitable judge.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.

Yes, Himajin, it is that -- and even more.

But I completely disagree that the Constitution is literally the highest law of the land. Rather, the Constitution derives from the highest Law; it does NOT contain it.

What if the latina woman grew up in Idaho? Would that detract from the 'richness' of her experience?

It depends. If she was raised among migrant fruit and vegetable pickers, perhaps not. If she was raised in a middle-class suburb that was not predominantly Latino, then her experience wouldn't allow her to understand that of the migrant pickers to the extent of someone who was living that life.

Isn't the term Latina/o rascist in itself?

Definitely not.

Leave it to the Obama lovers to not see her statements as blatantly rascist especially when they scream so loud when anybody but a democrat utters anything remotely rascist.

I can understand why Democrats would be so sensitive to racism. For decades, up until the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Democratic Party formed an unholy alliance with southern racist whites. When the northeastern and midwestern liberal forces in the party pushed for greater integration and civil rights for blacks, the southerners rebelled and started joining the Republicans.

What is so puzzling is why Republicans are so up in arms about something as mildly ambiguous as Sotomayor's remarks, and yet rushed to defend the obvious racist sentiments of Trent Lott.

Hypocrites? I think so.

Saying that white men can't have the same experiences is a crock.

And it would be very good to notice that Sotomayor did not say that. I don't think that Sotomayor said that she was going to rely on her experiences. I think she said that with respect to issues of discrimination her experiences bring something to the table that people without such experiences do not have.

Than an unwise white man, right? The key word is wise. A wise white man would do much better than an unwise Latina woman, right?

Yes, Sarge. That's right. Right but irrelevant unless you produce the wiser white man.

One must remember that she considers herself a "wise latina" yet says some very stupid things.

For example....

What is so puzzling is why Republicans are so up in arms about something as mildly ambiguous as Sotomayor's remarks, and yet rushed to defend the obvious racist sentiments of Trent Lott.

What is so puzzling? When a liberal activist judge gets caught playing the race card and says things things that are blatantly rascist you can't comprehend why people don't think she is worthy to sit on the highest court in the land. geez yabits, time to take off the blinders or your armbands or whatever the Obama youth are wearing these days.

What is so puzzling is the willful misunderstanding on the part of those who say she was playing a race card.

yabits:

When the northeastern and midwestern liberal forces in the party pushed for greater integration and civil rights for blacks, the southerners rebelled and started joining the Republicans.

You mean like former Ku Klux Klan (Grand Kleagle no less) and current Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia?

But I completely disagree that the Constitution is literally the highest law of the land.

In terms of authority I'm pretty sure it is actually...although probably not literally the highest. Lansing Michigan, for example, is about 860 feet above sea level while DC ranges from 0 to about 400 feet so I suppose you've got me beat there.

It depends. If she was raised among migrant fruit and vegetable pickers, perhaps not. If she was raised in a middle-class suburb that was not predominantly Latino, then her experience wouldn't allow her to understand that of the migrant pickers to the extent of someone who was living that life.

We aren't talking about comprehension here. I'm simply pointing out the utter absurdity of saying that one upbringing or demographic has a greater value than another. It's completely subjective, immeasurable, and therefore irrelevant. I certainly never got a job due to the 'richness' of my upbringing and I don't see why her's should land her a seat on the most powerful court in the nation.

...and I don't see why her's should land her a seat on the most powerful court in the nation.

I don't either. Nor do I see why a true observation should deprive her of a seat on the same court. People who yesterday despised political correctness seek to use it today in the most grotesque way. That's a clue that perhaps they haven't yet caught on to what political correctness is and why it's important.

and says things things that are blatantly rascist

What? She called whitey a "cracker"?

Sotomayor's admission, on film no less, that she believes courts "should make policy" ought to disqualify her from propounding her repugnant, racist views from the highest court in America.

In fact, her presence on the bench in any of our great nation's courts is a setback for civil rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

teleprompter,

You are promoting "gotcha" politics in its most virulent form. That video has been bitten off a longer remark and is taken out of context. She said that defense funds were looking for people who had Court of Appeals experience. Who was she talking to? What was her real message?

Contrary to your assertion, it wasn't that courts "should make policy". If anything, she said that she is not promoting the point of view that courts should make law. I think she did say that courts do in fact make policy. And that is entirely correct and entirely appropriate.

Judges make a ruling in areas that were previously undefined. The ruling establishes a precedent and clarifies what is permissible and what is not. The effect is to make policy. It cannot be any other way.

What is so puzzling? When a liberal activist judge gets caught playing the race card and says things things that are blatantly rascist you can't comprehend why people don't think she is worthy to sit on the highest court in the land.

There was nothing racist about Sotomayor's choice of words. She simply expressed a hope that a wise Latina woman, could as often as not, reach a better conclusion than a white male judge who didn't happen to have the richness of experiences.

Did she state that Latinas are better than all whites as a fact? No. Read it again: She's not making a comparison to every single white person, just those who, for whatever reason, didn't have the richness of experience of growing up in two cultures.

Does she say that the Latina would make better decisions as a fact? No. She said she hoped that the Latina would -- as often as not.

And conservatives call this blatant racism, and playing a "race card?" LOL!!! I think you're only making bigger fools out of yourselves in doing so.

In terms of authority I'm pretty sure it is actually.

Yes, in relation to the authority of government officials acting in their roles, the Constitution is the highest law of the land.

However, when we are discussing "the People," there is a higher law. After all, the people have the right to abolish the constitution -- a right not spelled out in it. You can only assert your position if you believe that people are made for constitutions, and not the other way around.

We aren't talking about comprehension here. I'm simply pointing out the utter absurdity of saying that one upbringing or demographic has a greater value than another.

And I am pointing out the utter absurdity of claiming that a person brought up in two cultures will not have a greater richness of experience than a person who only knows one.

I certainly never got a job due to the 'richness' of my upbringing.

Well, if such richness is not there it can't be helped. But a person who can speak more than one language fluently certainly has an edge over a person who can't -- all OTHER things being relatively equal.

You mean like former Ku Klux Klan (Grand Kleagle no less) and current Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia?

In relation to the great sensitivity to racism, civil rights, and inclusion that became the Democratic Party's standards from the 1960s on, one would have to examine the patterns of racism as a matter of locality.

What appears to me to be the case is that hardcore conservatives, in feigning all this offense over Sotomayor's completely harmless words, will bring up someone like a Senator Byrd in an attempt to whitewash their own party's racist tendencies. This is why, within very recent history, the Republican National Chairman felt the need to apologize to African-Americans for the racist "southern strategy" employed by the party.

This does not mean the Repubican Party has totally abandoned such racist strategies. (Look at how their initial response was to rally behind Trent Lott's defense of an arch-segregationist.) We see many of their hardliners crying "reverse racism" in response to the innocuous remarks of Judge Sotomayor. To the extent that Byrd might still be a racist is better known to the voters in his home district. One would have to see how they would vote in an election where a white person was pitted against a non-white. To the extent that they would send a person of Byrd's background to Washington in the belief he still was that kind of person, one would expect them to vote heavily Republican in other contests.

OK Liberals, let's take Sotomayors statement:

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 change it to this:

I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life.

So you are not offended by either statement? This is precisely what this whole debate comes down to. Liberals think it is fine to direct what would overwise be termed a racist statement towards a white man. Somehow, they do not see the cognitive dissonance in seeing the world this way.

I can't see any Liberal not going bezerk over a similar statement to Sotomayor's but directed at a minority or woman. By the Left's own definition - Sotomayor is a bigot. If this is "gotcha politics", then I guess Conservatives have finally wised up and joined Liberals in their own game.

Wolfpack,

I'm not offended. It makes perfect sense.

Wolfpack,

I'd have to add, though, that I'd have to know more about this "White man" (you know, "white" is not usually capitalized and what's up with the capitalizations?) and the richness of his experiences about discrimination. I believe that's what Sotomayor was talking about. No?

would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life.

It would depend upon the individual white man, and what constitutes the "richness of his experiences." Sorry, but a white-WASP male born to a well-off family that has never known hard times, and who entered a university on a legacy endowment and graduating to join the firm of one of daddy's country club friends is not, for his own experiences, a very inspiring story. It is not inspiring because he was born to privilege.

He is not likely to understand what life is like for millions upon millions of Americans of all backgrounds who had to struggle to get where they were. As a woman, Sotomayor had to successfully navigate her way through the world dominated by men. As a Latino, Sotomayor had to make her way through a society dominated by non-Hispanics. As a child born of immigrants in a housing project, Sotomayor had a closer experience of what it is like to be without.

As such, she is more likely to understand the conditions of many of the people who approach her seeking justice much, much better than the rich white dude.

It is some of these whites who raise the insulting insinuation that Judge Sotomayor would treat Latinos more leniently than non-Latinos, who have stepped close to the line of letting their racism show. The reality is this: A Latino man, or a poor white man for that matter, facing Judge Sotomayor, is more likely to feel that his case was understood and decided fairly, than he likely would if he was facing the rich white son of privilege.

After hearing Sotomayor's words, I am certain of this.

It would depend upon the individual white man, and what constitutes the "richness of his experiences." Sorry, but a white-WASP male born to a well-off family that has never known hard times, and who entered a university on a legacy endowment and graduating to join the firm of one of daddy's country club friends is not, for his own experiences, a very inspiring story. It is not inspiring because he was born to privilege.

So every white person is the son of a rich oil barron that skated through life and because his life story isn't an inspiration to the masses he should never be able to hold office, even if he is more qualified. Gotcha.

As a Latino, Sotomayor had to make her way through a society dominated by non-Hispanics. As a child born of immigrants in a housing project, Sotomayor had a closer experience of what it is like to be without.

So did everybody in my family and we did just fine. I still don't see how any of this applies to her qualifications for being a supreme court justice.

Well, if such richness is not there it can't be helped.

Still making assumptions are we?

i thought she looked chinese...

So every white person is the son of a rich oil barron that skated through life and because his life story isn't an inspiration to the masses he should never be able to hold office, even if he is more qualified.

He can always put himself in front of voters and run for office. He might even become president, where he can practice the judgments of his limited and pampered life experiences to appoint other unqualified people, start wars, and otherwise mess up things. (Until, that is, the people look for someone with a richer life story to replace him and repair things.)

I still don't see how any of this applies to her qualifications for being a supreme court justice.

OK, so you don't see the fact that Sotomayor has had years of experience as a judge. In fact the only person on the Supreme Court who has had trial judge experience is the person she is replacing, David Souter.

What it appears that many whites want to do is to disregard all of Sotomayor's legal/judicial experience and focus on the pride she shows in her Latina heritage, calling it "racist." I say the fact of Sotomayor's life story greatly enhances her other significant qualifications.

He can always put himself in front of voters and run for office. He might even become president, where he can practice the judgments of his limited and pampered life experiences to appoint other unqualified people, start wars, and otherwise mess up things

So you do think that every white person is like that. Gotcha

I say the fact of Sotomayor's life story greatly enhances her other significant qualifications.

And I say it's irrelevant, I'm glad we understand each other.

So you do think that every white person is like that. Gotcha

The vast majority of white males are not the sons of rich parents, nor have they led pampered lives. But, if they are living in the US, they inherit the legacy of a society that was dominated by white males for decades. Corporate boards, Congress, court systems, etc., many centers of power have been occupied by white males far out of proportion to their population in the society at large.

Anyone who believes that this example of dominance is the result of white males being better than women and non-white males, would more apply to the label that some here have called Sotomayor for her expression of pride in her heritage.

What is even more pernicious, is that due to decades of white male dominance of institutions, people get brainwashed into thinking that the standards of qualification themselves should favor white males.

And I say it's irrelevant...

If that were the case with most conservatives, they would not have brought up Miguel Estrada. Sorry, but biography is relevant to most Americans, as it can help to shape judgment and philosophy.

Himajin has a point, no doubt bolstered by her experience of womanhood. ;)

The vast majority of white males are not the sons of rich parents, nor have they led pampered lives. But, if they are living in the US, they inherit the legacy of a society that was dominated by white males for decades. Corporate boards, Congress, court systems, etc., many centers of power have been occupied by white males far out of proportion to their population in the society at large.

Thats probably because historically there have been more caucasians than any other group in the U.S. You could get into the genetics of political ambition but most consider that a psudoscience and not valid in most circles.

Sorry, but biography is relevant to most Americans, as it can help to shape judgment and philosophy.

I guess I just care more about concrete qualifications than the subjective value of background. I work in a field dominated by numbers and facts in a State that values ability over ethnicity so excuse me for caring more about her provable capacity to do her job over her life story.

they inherit the legacy of a society that was dominated by white males for decades.

Oh really? Well then all the white male homeless and unemployed in the US just better stand up, go shake hands with some white CEO and get a cushy job....it's their legacy, dude!

probably because historically there have been more caucasians than any other group in the U.S.

Not just Caucasians, but white MEN who have discriminated against other Caucasions, be they Catholics, Jews, women, etc.

I work in a field dominated by numbers and facts...

LOL!! I know about numbers. The great statistician, W. Edwards Deming, used to say that the most important numbers for any undertaking are unknown and unknowable. That should be enough to make anyone who prides themselves on "facts" to take a bit of pause.

Qualifications are not always as "concrete" as some would like to believe. And we should never let one side alone dictate what the pertinent "facts" are.

Well then all the white male homeless and unemployed in the US just better stand up, go shake hands with some white CEO and get a cushy job....

Was there some reason you specified a "white CEO?" Oh yes, because that is reality. Whatever the rate of homeless and unemployed, minorities suffer it in greater proportion than whites in America. And that's part of the legacy too.

Into this environment steps a Sonia Sotomayor. And the defenders of white privilege are terribly worried that she won't make decisions like a white male.

Not just Caucasians, but white MEN who have discriminated against other Caucasions, be they Catholics, Jews, women, etc.

The same can be said about any ethnic group anywhere. And I don't buy into the 'legacy' arguement, every person should be judged by their own merit and not by the deeds of their predecessors. Otherwise you get a 'sins of our fathers' complex that could drag on forever.

I know about numbers. The great statistician, W. Edwards Deming, used to say that the most important numbers for any undertaking are unknown and unknowable.

Only a statistician...

Qualifications are not always as "concrete" as some would like to believe.

What is that even supposed to mean?

"After graduation from Yale in 1979, and when many of her peers began lucrative careers in the private sector, Sotomayor became a prosecutor, working for venerable Manhattan Dist. Atty. Robert Morgenthau. She rose quickly from junior to senior assistant district attorney, moving from prosecuting misdemeanors to felonies."

That is concrete and impressive. My problem isn't with Sotomayor its with the media pushing her as hispanic rather than qualified which does her professional career absolutly no service whatsoever. She could be from a gypsy family for all I care as long as she can interprete law but if, however, she is racist as some people claim it would seriously impede her capacity to act in accordence with expected conduct of someone in her potential position.

And we should never let one side alone dictate what the pertinent "facts" are.

The woman is out to become a judge therefore any experience she has in the legal and judicial field is pertinent in addition to any public statements made while holding said pertinent positions that may cast doubt on her impartiality.

I think we can both agree that the position Sotomayor is gunning for is one which has a lengthy approval process for a reason. Nobody wants a dud and I hope they find that Sotomayor is not racist as she does have many good qualifications. However if she is found to be a racist than it would be for the best that she didn't serve.

I do enjoy watching "progressives" argue for biological determinism.

When do the brown shirts appear?

same can be said about any ethnic group anywhere.

I'm not an anthropologist but I do know of societies where this is not so.

And I don't buy into the 'legacy' arguement, every person should be judged by their own merit and not by the deeds of their predecessors

Sorry, but such judgments about merit are rendered as a result of values formed by people who are accountable to institutions. White supremacy was institutionalized over many, many decades in the US. There was not one day where this all suddenly changed. The change has been gradual, but the fact that it is the 21st century when the first person of Latin heritage is deemed "qualified" for consideration to the Supreme Court says something -- and not against Latinos.

but if, however, she is racist as some people claim

This really serves to make my point. The "some people" who claim outright that Sotomayor is "racist" are a relative handful of whites. And not on the basis of any of Sotomayor's legal decisions, but because of ONE innocuous statement made in ONE speech to a group of young Latinos nearly a decade ago. The power of this tiny fragment of white society and how they get folks like you to give creedence to their looney claims is really quite amazing.

Was there some reason you specified a "white CEO?"

Yes, because of the insipid 'white male dominating' business fields and the 'white privilege' 'white legacy' claims made here. If it were a "white legacy" they'd have to go to a white and do the secret handshake to get the job, yes? That's what's intimated in these foolish comments. Unless it's a family run business, men do not get shooed into positions. You operate under the delusion that whites do absolutely nothing to get where they are, and have never faced adversity. There have been plenty, plenty of white males who were poor, used for cannon fodder, indentured servitude, press-ganged onto ships, etc. Being white didn't do a helluva lot for probably the majority of whites. What percentage of all white males are those who go to Ive League schools?

a white-WASP male born to a well-off family that has never known hard times, and who entered a university on a legacy endowment and graduating to join the firm of one of daddy's country club friends

As I said, what miniscule portion of white males does that represent?

what miniscule portion of white males does that represent?

An amazingly high portion of the folks who sit on corporate boards and other positions of power. "Set for life" I believe the term is.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you what proportion of white males that comprises. Not enough of the general white male population to justify statements that whites get everything handed to them.

An amazingly high portion of the folks who sit on corporate boards and other positions of power. "Set for life" I believe the term is.

It's embarrassing watching baby boomers parroting the class warfare talking points they were spoonfed at university decades ago.

One of the delightful ironies of Obama's rein of error is that so many of their generation,most spoiled and self-obsessed in all of US history, are looking at seriously diminished pensions and retirement choices. The 5 decades of post-modernist drivel American universities are awash in back at you like a tsunami.

I'm lovin it.

The pretense that Republicans appoint Supreme Court justices based on outstanding qualifications and commitment to the rule of law is absurd on its face. Jennifer Rubin of Commentary Magazine maintained recently that when George H. W. Bush used the word empathy in describing Clarence Thomas it was just a parenthetical remark that added another dimension to his distinguished record as a jurist, while President Obama used it as his main reason for choosing Judge Sotomayor. In reality, Thomas was only modestly qualified, hardly top-of-the-line, chosen mainly because he was a black man with conservative credentials - - pro-life, anti-affirmative action and a willing disciple of Antonin Scalia; he hasn't disappointed supporters.

Very impressive post at 12:21pm.

Zurcronium has lifted it from http://blog.buzzflash.com/davidow/123

If Sotomayor didn't commit a few gaffes she wouldn't be federal nominee material, would she? Between Biden and Bush I would have thought that every "foot-in-mouth" moment would have been thought up but I guess Sotomayor will come up with a few new ones to keep us entertained.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

Obama set the trap and the clueless republicans fell right into it. Now Limbaugh says he will support the nomination. Perfect. The idiots realized that they were pissing off the entire hispanic voting block.

Obama is 3, make that 13, steps ahead of the republican so called leaders. Its easy when he is so much smarter than any of them.

The idiots realized that they were pissing off the entire hispanic voting block.

It's "Hispanic", and it's hardly a monolithic voting block.

But I do enjoy watching "progressives" argue, like some of modern history's most odious political movements and groups, in favor of biological determinism.

Regarding the hispanic vote, its about 70 percent now democratic and climbing. I just keep hoping drugs limbaugh and his clones keep attacking the only latina to be nominated to the SCOTUS. Its just golden for the key swing states in the west.

Lets face it, the whites only republicans want to keep their party and the SCOTUS to themselves.

Sotomayor used almost the same words in '94, it has recently emerged. So no, we are not talking about someone having "misspoken."

But it doesn't matter. Obama's unwarranted autobios are full of the same racist crap:

"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere... That's the world! On which hope sits!"

Barack Hussein Obama,

Dreams From My Father

yabits:

This really serves to make my point. The "some people" who claim outright that Sotomayor is "racist" are a relative handful of whites. And not on the basis of any of Sotomayor's legal decisions, but because of ONE innocuous statement made in ONE speech to a group of young Latinos nearly a decade ago. The power of this tiny fragment of white society and how they get folks like you to give creedence to their looney claims is really quite amazing.

She actually stated something similar years before, so perhaps she had been 'tweaking' the comment.