Sen. Cornyn: Limbaugh and Gingrich Comments ‘Terrible’

Politics • Views: 2,714

Senator John Cornyn is criticizing Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for labeling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a “racist.”

(CNN) — A top Senate Republican is taking aim at recent statements from conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich suggesting Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a “racist.”

“I think it’s terrible,” Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR’s “All Things Considered” Thursday. “This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.” …

”Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.’ new racism is no better than old racism,“ Gingrich wrote on Twitter Wednesday. ”Here you have a racist – you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist,“ Limbaugh said the day before on his radio program.

Senate Republicans meanwhile have largely withheld judgment on Sotomayor, though many — including Cornyn — have taken issue with some of her past statements and rulings. …

The NRSC chief also brushed off the Limbaugh and Gingrich statements while noting neither man holds an elected office. ”Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. I certainly don’t endorse it. I think it’s wrong,” he said.

Jump to bottom

764 comments
1 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:13:05am

** Cough**
Janice Rogers brown
**Cough**

2 Lee Coller  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:13:40am

It's about time. We need more to speak out on things like this.

3 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:14:24am

Listening to Ted Kennedy slam Judge "Alioto". Hmmmmm.

4 JammieWearingFool  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:15:17am

Funny, but when Cornyn was running for Senate, he was more than happy to have Rush host a fundraiser for him.

Some thanks.

Sucking up to NPR won't get him far.

Rush is right. Sotomayor is a racist.

5 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:15:39am

Listening to Limbaugh today.

One of his best shows ever.

6 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:16:32am

My opinion?

a. She is a racist, or at least has made racist statements.

b. It is bad political strategy for the Republicans to point this out so overtly.

7 pat  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:16:44am

Republicans are always apologizing. It would be easier just to say he does not agree and that is not his approach. This is a media/MSM trap that never seems to fail.

8 lawhawk  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:16:49am

Internecine warfare. And all this does is allow the Democrats to skate by and Sotomayor will get confirmed without a proper questioning on her judicial philosophy, which we know is likely liberal, but which needs to be exposed as such by the GOP so that they can help build towards gaining seats in 2010.

Calling her racist is a mere ploy - a catchphrase, a smear - but doesn't have any lasting effect that helps resurrect the GOP.

The GOP needs more.

One can be critical of those statements without calling her a racist. One can be critical of her judicial prowess without calling her a poopyhead.

There's plenty of material on which to digest and find lines of questioning, but that's a whole lot harder than coming out and saying you want her to fail - or Obama to fail.

That's not leadership.

9 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:16:54am

re: #5 Shug

Yup. using the extremist dems own words against them.

10 Ben Hur  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:17:01am
”Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials.

Exactly.

It's their opinion.

And completely legitimate.

11 Bob Dillon  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:17:29am

Nothing like a giant pissing contest to divert attention.

He said, she said, I said (look at me-me-me!)

12 JammieWearingFool  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:17:35am

When the left mercilessly trashed a black man at his confirmation hearing, why was it they weren't scolded about offending mushy moderates?

This double standard is just ridiculous.

When Miguel Estrada was denied a seat on the federal bench, why wasn't the left trashed for offending anyone?

13 Noam Sayin'  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:17:42am

I don't like to toss around the term, 'racist.' I believe the comment attributed to Sotomayor is somewhere along the lines of bigotry and elitism.

14 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:17:59am

The claim she's racist is pretty thin IMO.
Besides, without media assistance (only libs get that) the claim can only create greater animosity towards conservatives.

15 lawhawk  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:18:09am

re: #6 zombie

My opinion?

a. She is a racist, or at least has made racist statements.

b. It is bad political strategy for the Republicans to point this out so overtly.

You can point out the racism in many ways, and do so in a way that doesn't make you look like the bad guy for pointing them out. It's called strategy. But the GOP doesn't seem to have any patience in laying that groundwork either.

16 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:18:10am

Now a Shumer bite slamming Thomas and Scalia....Now Howard Dean lying.
How can the Dems lie so much while the Repubs can't point out the obvious?

17 Baier  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:18:10am

re: #6 zombie

My opinion?

b. It is bad political strategy for the Republicans to point this out so overtly.

Do republican's have a good strategy lately? It's like the Keystone cops...

18 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:18:20am

Perhaps "racist" is a bit harsh.

However, what are we supposed to think about her membership in "La Raza?"

Here is their mission statement:

"Por la Raza, Todo. Fuera de la raza, nada."

"For the race, everything; for those not of the race, nothing.”

Just what are we supposed to make of that? Limbaugh may be a bombastic sensationalist, but we should be discussing such things, IMO.

19 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:18:33am

Howard Dean hinting Samuel Alito was lenient on the Mob......
/ *must be great to be a Democrat*

20 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:19:21am

re: #13 Noam Sayin'

I don't like to toss around the term, 'racist.' I believe the comment attributed to Sotomayor is somewhere along the lines of bigotry and elitism.

A racist comment from a person who belongs to a racist group could be considered bigoted I suppose.

21 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:19:36am

A more subtle and more effective strategy would be to constantly highlight her distasteful racist-seeming statements, and always just stop short of drawing the final conclusion about it. Let the listener or the reader come to the conclusion themselves, based on the evidence you've presented.

Much more ppwerful psychologically that way.

22 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:19:46am

I couold be wrong, but she does not strike me as a racist.
Some of her comments though are fairly racial & a white male would be DOA.

23 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:20:14am

re: #15 lawhawk

You can point out the racism in many ways, and do so in a way that doesn't make you look like the bad guy for pointing them out. It's called strategy. But the GOP doesn't seem to have any patience in laying that groundwork either.

Exactly.

24 JammieWearingFool  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:20:23am

Maybe that Newt Gingrich ad on the right ought to be removed lest anyone be offended.

25 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:20:32am

re: #18 astronmr20

Perhaps "racist" is a bit harsh.

However, what are we supposed to think about her membership in "La Raza?"

Here is their mission statement:

"Por la Raza, Todo. Fuera de la raza, nada."

"For the race, everything; for those not of the race, nothing.”

Just what are we supposed to make of that? Limbaugh may be a bombastic sensationalist, but we should be discussing such things, IMO.

I keep hearing that, but do you have a link? Just curious.

26 jcm  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:20:39am

A Latina Judge's Voice
By Sonja Sotomayor

An Anglo Judge's Voice
By John Roberts

jus' sayin'

27 Dahveed  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:20:42am

re: #13 Noam Sayin'

I don't like to toss around the term, 'racist.' I believe the comment attributed to Sotomayor is somewhere along the lines of bigotry and elitism.

I agree with you. I don't think she's a racist. Certainly she is an elitist.

28 kynna  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:20:44am

Rush has been called a racist many, many times for comments that were not in the least bigoted. Republican "leaders" were no where to be found defending him. Of course the media is going to get in their faces and tar them with whatever he says. You'd think the GOP "leaders" would have developed a strategy to deal with that by now. One that doesn't include nodding along while someone labels somebody a Nazi for exercising his right to free speech.

Whatever. I still like Cornyn. I think he's the most honest senator in congress right now. But he and the others really need to get a grip where Rush is concerned. If they continue to excoriate him rather than get the conversation back on track, they lose more people to the fringe.

29 Baier  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:20:47am

re: #21 zombie

A more subtle and more effective strategy would be to constantly highlight her distasteful racist-seeming statements, and always just stop short of drawing the final conclusion about it. Let the listener or the reader come to the conclusion themselves, based on the evidence you've presented.

Much more ppwerful psychologically that way.

Agreed. Let her statements become the story, not the republican accusations - even if some are true.

30 avanti  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:20:56am

re: #18 astronmr20

Perhaps "racist" is a bit harsh.

However, what are we supposed to think about her membership in "La Raza?"

Here is their mission statement:

"Por la Raza, Todo. Fuera de la raza, nada."

"For the race, everything; for those not of the race, nothing.”

Just what are we supposed to make of that? Limbaugh may be a bombastic sensationalist, but we should be discussing such things, IMO.

BTW, that is not their mission statement, it's a right wing talking point, but has never been true.

La Raza.

31 abolitionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:21:05am

If Sotomayor had said that her special experience and background would likely make her opinions and judgements better than those of a bunch of dead white guys, she would have been golden. That wouldn't have have been racist at all.

/ heavy

32 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:21:22am

Why doesn't the left address substantive issues with the Republican leadership* instead of its retired politicians, pundits and talk show hosts?

*I may have spotted the problem. /

33 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:21:27am

re: #15 lawhawk

You can point out the racism in many ways, and do so in a way that doesn't make you look like the bad guy for pointing them out. It's called strategy. But the GOP doesn't seem to have any patience in laying that groundwork either.

True.

Limbaugh pushes the envelope, while the GOP itself lies down and rolls over.

Neither is helping.

34 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:21:28am

re: #22 opnion

I couold be wrong, but she does not strike me as a racist.
Some of her comments though are fairly racial & a white male would be DOA.

A racist comment from a person who belongs to a racist group does not strike you as racist? Welcome to the Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor.

35 Ben Hur  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:21:43am

But Schumer bowed, too!

Youtube Video
36 albusteve  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:21:45am

the GOP is in freefall...playing pattacake with terminology ain't getting it done....they must somehow rise above the hypocricy, but once again I think Newt is right....but there is nothing down that road

37 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:21:57am

My my, sounds like the Republicans are starting to take a page from the leftist playbook in shutting down other conservatives that they don't want to hear opinion from...

The NRSC chief also brushed off the Limbaugh and Gingrich statements while noting neither man holds an elected office. ”Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. I certainly don’t endorse it. I think it’s wrong," he said.

Wrong? I can't stand Rush, and there has been a "slime" factor (for me) about Newt over the years, but still, there, do you see that political elitism sneaking in there.

The phrase "neither man holds an elected office..." well, when does it get to the point that ONLY elected officials have the right to state an opinion? When does it get to the point that Washington doesn't even want to hear from us anymore, you know, us, the unwashed, unelected?

Not a good sign.

38 VioletTiger  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:22:05am

I think she made a biased remark. I think she needs to be questioned have have the opportunity to defend or explain what she said. I don't think they should just 'roll over' and rubber stamp this. This is a lifetime appoinment and worty of some debate.

39 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:22:19am

re: #18 astronmr20

Perhaps "racist" is a bit harsh.

However, what are we supposed to think about her membership in "La Raza?"

Here is their mission statement:

"Por la Raza, Todo. Fuera de la raza, nada."

"For the race, everything; for those not of the race, nothing.”

Just what are we supposed to make of that? Limbaugh may be a bombastic sensationalist, but we should be discussing such things, IMO.

Hmmm, now I am rethinkig. I forgot all about the La Raza thing.

40 Danny  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:22:22am

OK OK I give in! Just confirm her ass so we don't to have to keep hearing about all this crap!

41 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:22:44am

re: #25 Ward Cleaver

I keep hearing that, but do you have a link? Just curious.

326,000 hits on Google. How many links do you need?

42 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:23:03am

I hope she pulls a Souter and becomes a far right judge once confirmed

43 kynna  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:23:05am

re: #7 pat

Republicans are always apologizing. It would be easier just to say he does not agree and that is not his approach. This is a media/MSM trap that never seems to fail.

I agree. And I'm very disappointed that the elected officials in our party always seem to be so easily diverted by this. Has anyone associated Obama with Olby's comments? Hung them around his neck?

They need to get the conversation back on track and turn the press's obsession with Rush back on them. Sadly, I'm afraid they don't have anything to say and that's the whole reason they're so easily distracted.

44 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:23:20am

I like Cornyn, but I don't understand what he's trying to accomplish here. Is he trying to turn down the rhetoric, hoping the Dems will reciprocate when the GOP gets the WH back? All I can say is, good luck with that.

45 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:23:20am

1. She made a racist comment.
2. She's a member of La Raza.

What's the problem here?

46 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:23:25am

re: #34 kansas

A racist comment from a person who belongs to a racist group does not strike you as racist? Welcome to the Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor.

Actually because of La Raza, maybe she is.

47 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:23:43am

re: #42 Shug

I hope she pulls a Souter and becomes a far right judge once confirmed

That's all we can hope for. Because she will be confirmed, no doubt.

48 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:23:57am

BTW, Republican politicians bending over for the liberals is not going to win them swing voters.

49 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:23:59am

re: #41 kansas

326,000 hits on Google. How many links do you need?

How many of them are to VDARE and Human Events?

50 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:24:16am

La Raza = KKK. No spinning that.

51 Baier  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:24:24am

re: #38 VioletTiger

I think she made a biased remark. I think she needs to be questioned have have the opportunity to defend or explain what she said. I don't think they should just 'roll over' and rubber stamp this. This is a lifetime appoinment and worty of some debate.

Right. But it's not her remarks that become the story, but the strong conclusions drawn by leading Republicans. Which when they appear out of context, like they have been, it only make the party look like crazy wingnuts.

52 Ayeless in Ghazi  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:24:30am

No matter what they take aim at these days, the GOP always seems to end up shooting it's own foot.

53 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:24:36am

re: #30 avanti

BTW, that is not their mission statement, it's a right wing talking point, but has never been true.

La Raza.

However, that has been the place MEChA is coming from.

The phrase "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada" comes from MEChA's Plan Espiritual de Aztlán.

54 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:24:46am

Newt and Rush are private citizens. SO FUCK OFF!

55 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:24:52am

[Link: www.google.com...]

gets 957K hits

56 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:24:57am

re: #30 avanti

BTW, that is not their mission statement, it's a right wing talking point, but has never been true.

La Raza.

And you are mis-informed.

MeCHa is a wing of La Raza.

Read for yourself.

"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. ... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. ... We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada."

57 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:25:08am

People ... it's good cop, bad cop.

Newt is out there as shock troops "oh, he doesn't speak for us officially."

Sen. Cornyn is not a dummy; he has a role in this scripted drama.

58 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:25:09am

re: #47 zombie

That's all we can hope for. Because she will be confirmed, no doubt.

if this happens Julianne Malveaux will hope her husband feeds her lots of butter and eggs.

59 avanti  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:25:22am

re: #25 Ward Cleaver

I keep hearing that, but do you have a link? Just curious.

They've denied that years ago.

La Raza.

60 leereyno  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:25:22am

Limbaugh and Gingrich are right.

Why should they refrain from telling the truth? How does it serve the best interests of our nation make nice with our domestic enemies?

The Manchurian candidate has, in typical form, sought to push a far left agenda while pretending to be pragmatic. It is a two step that all should be familiar with by now.

But what we all need to remember is that it is the American people who are ultimately to blame for this. Ayer's protege and others like him will always exist, but that doesn't mean they have to be elected to high office. Don't blame Obama, blame the people who voted for him, many of whom will be blaming themselves soon enough if they are not already.

61 nyc redneck  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:25:32am

re: #1 Shug

** Cough**
Janice Rogers brown
**Cough**

it is never racist when the dems are eviscerating people w/ such accusations.
they outright called her a right wing racist. she is a black woman w/ a compelling life story committed to the rule of law.
teddy kennedy is a pos.

62 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:25:32am

re: #51 Baier

Right. But it's not her remarks that become the story, but the strong conclusions drawn by leading Republicans. Which when they appear out of context, like they have been, it only make the party look like crazy wingnuts.

Stop jumping to conclusions. Only left wing maniacs think the party looks like crazy wingnuts because of this. Swing voters are paying attention to the facts.

63 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:03am

Dear GOP:

Limited Government (for our chidlren)
A strong national defense (for our children)
Fiscal responsibility (for our children)
Ethical government (for our children)

Repeat until elected
Govern like you mean it

Anything else is a losing strategy (for our children)

64 lawhawk  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:06am

By the way, her background story isn't all that Obama wants people to think it is. Sure, she was born and grew up in the Bronx in a housing project, but her family moved to a middle class neighborhood, put her in private school and then sent her on to the Ivy League. It's a heartwarming story, but her background is far more complex than her supporters want people to think. Her family did what it had to in order to make her life better, and she took advantage of those opportunities opened to her. And now she's on the edge of a confirmation to the US Supreme Court.

65 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:20am

re: #2 Lee Coller

It's about time. We need more to speak out on things like this.

Really, it's fine with you that politician imply that only elected officals have a right to these opinions...

The NRSC chief also brushed off the Limbaugh and Gingrich statements while noting neither man holds an elected office. ”Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. I certainly don’t endorse it. I think it’s wrong," he said.

Hmmm, I wonder how long it will be before YOU won't be able to address you opinions on a blog like LGF?

66 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:24am

re: #49 wrenchwench

How many of them are to VDARE and Human Events?

That's irrelevant. There are plenty of links to show what "Por la Raza, Todo. Fuera de la raza, nada." means and it doesn't matter who said it. This type of guilt by association crap pisses me off.

67 Noam Sayin'  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:25am

re: #20 kansas

re: #27 Dahveed

I've always felt that 'racist' also comes with the power to impact. Plus, I like to think of all of us as belonging to the human race, so I don't like to give the word a lot of power. I don't like when Progressives throw it around, and I can't say I like it much that Limbaugh and Gingrich are using it.

Of course, sitting on the Supreme bench, gives one power ...

68 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:30am

re: #63 DaddyG

Dear GOP:

Limited Government (for our chidlren)
A strong national defense (for our children)
Fiscal responsibility (for our children)
Ethical government (for our children)

Repeat until elected
Govern like you mean it

Anything else is a losing strategy (for our children)

Add support for the Constitution.

69 Baier  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:32am

re: #54 cannadian club akbar

Newt and Rush are private citizens. SO FUCK OFF!

Newt and Rush are the media's spokespeople for the party, whether you like it or not. In the leadership vacuum that is the republican party, why shouldn't they be?

70 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:45am

re: #56 astronmr20

Link?

71 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:46am
72 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:48am

re: #18 astronmr20

Perhaps "racist" is a bit harsh.

However, what are we supposed to think about her membership in "La Raza?"

Here is their mission statement:

"Por la Raza, Todo. Fuera de la raza, nada."

"For the race, everything; for those not of the race, nothing.”

Just what are we supposed to make of that? Limbaugh may be a bombastic sensationalist, but we should be discussing such things, IMO.

re: #25 Ward Cleaver

I keep hearing that, but do you have a link? Just curious.

re: #41 kansas

326,000 hits on Google. How many links do you need?

It's one of the mottos of MEChA, not La Raza:

MEChA:

"Also controversial is the phrase "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada", which translates "For the Race, everything, outside the Race, nothing". Many critics of MEChA see this statement as ethnocentric and racist. This phrase appears in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán and is often claimed to be the "slogan" of MEChA, despite little attestation of its use by MEChA members or alleged importance within MEChA. The official motto of MEChA, as seen in its logo, is "La Unión Hace La Fuerza", meaning "Unity Makes Strength". [1] MEChA members themselves differ in their interpretations of "La Raza". While some use the term to strictly refer to only mestizos and Chicanos, others use it to mean all Hispanics and minorities. A likely origin of the phrase is the Cuban communist Revolution, which used a similar slogan: "Por la revolución todo, fuera de la revolución nada!""

73 Ben Hur  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:26:52am

re: #54 cannadian club akbar

Newt and Rush are private citizens. SO FUCK OFF!


I agree with you....but....your canadian.

Tone it down.

74 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:27:12am

re: #65 Walter L. Newton

Hmmm, I wonder how long it will be before YOU won't be able to address you opinions on a blog like LGF?

Obama is going after the internet as we speak.

75 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:27:17am

re: #59 avanti

They've denied that years ago.

La Raza.


Well I guess it's settled, then.

Thanks.

/

76 1SG(ret)  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:27:29am

re: #28 kynna

He may be nice and honest, but this is war for the country. Rups, need to get or find their balls. Bulls fight for the right to lead/bred, Steers don't. All I see right now are steers on the Repub side.

77 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:27:32am

BTW, I don't like Rush Limbaugh because of his religious wingnuttery, but he's totally 100% right on this one.

78 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:27:43am

re: #18 astronmr20

Perhaps "racist" is a bit harsh.

However, what are we supposed to think about her membership in "La Raza?"

Here is their mission statement:

"Por la Raza, Todo. Fuera de la raza, nada."

"For the race, everything; for those not of the race, nothing.”

For the record, that is NOT the National Council of La Raza's "mission statement." In fact, they have unequivocally rejected that slogan.

79 Ben Hur  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:28:00am

re: #57 OldLineTexan

People ... it's good cop, bad cop.

Newt is out there as shock troops "oh, he doesn't speak for us officially."

Sen. Cornyn is not a dummy; he has a role in this scripted drama.

Ahhh....Interesting point.

Maybe they are starting to use the LLL handbook.

80 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:28:31am

It's like this. Extremist dems can say anything, attract most moderates, and take over house and senate. Extremist republicans say anything, most moderates run away screaming to extremist dem party. Do I have it right?

81 kynna  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:28:41am

Here's a strategy for them. When the media asks them about Limbaugh saying someone is a racist they should say: "I don't usually listen to Rush. Why is he alleging she's a racist?" Then you're going somewhere rather than just trying to brush the briars off.

Easy peasy. Don't just stand there like a deer in the headlights.

82 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:28:46am

Charles, are you defending the very existence of La Raza?

83 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:29:10am

re: #69 Baier

Newt and Rush are the media's spokespeople for the party, whether you like it or not. In the leadership vacuum that is the republican party, why shouldn't they be?

I must have missed that vote...

84 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:29:15am

re: #74 kansas

Obama is going after the internet as we speak.

Well, if you are not an ELECTED official, Cornyn may be after you too.

The NRSC chief also brushed off the Limbaugh and Gingrich statements while noting neither man holds an elected office. ”Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. I certainly don’t endorse it. I think it’s wrong," he said.

85 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:29:26am

re: #81 kynna

Here's a strategy for them. When the media asks them about Limbaugh saying someone is a racist they should say: "I don't usually listen to Rush. Why is he alleging she's a racist?" Then you're going somewhere rather than just trying to brush the briars off.

Easy peasy. Don't just stand there like a deer in the headlights.

It doesn't help when the GOP can't unite on something as clearcut as this. Mixed messages to the swing voters.

86 VioletTiger  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:29:54am

re: #51 Baier

Right. But it's not her remarks that become the story, but the strong conclusions drawn by leading Republicans. Which when they appear out of context, like they have been, it only make the party look like crazy wingnuts.

And who is making the strong conclusions the story? The same people who want to damage the GOP. After tlistening to some of the wacko comments the Dems made about nominees in the past, I have to say what I am hearing is pretty mild. They are going after her STATEMENTS, not her personally, which is a big difference from the Dem playbook.

87 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:29:55am

I'll agree that we could have a much worse appointment than Sodomayor. However, that does not mean we should not expose her ACTUAL WORDS as it relates to her point of view an opinions.

This is a lifetime appointment, folks. Rush is correct about this point: to expose this sort of thinking is to expose Obama's agendas and far left-wing ideology.

88 alegrias  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:30:00am

Meanwhile the Obama administration's justice department comes to the aid of the New Black Panther Party and lets THEM off the hook for carrying weapons to a Philly voting polling place & intimidating people with racist taunts.

(Didn't Charles Johnson himself point out this vile group was linked to one of Obama's campaign websites, until they were de-linked when they became a liability for their violent, racist acts & manifesto?)

Ugh, discrimination & reverse discrimination are both ugly & unnecessary.

89 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:30:01am

Iceberg Meltdown, right ahead

90 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:30:14am
91 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:30:16am

re: #78 Charles

It is reassuring to see that even Charles can accidentally delete part of the HTML code of the "blockquote" and mess it up, just like the rest of us! Now I don't feel quite so incompetent.

92 turn  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:30:17am

The hypocrisy on the left is stunning. You all know what would be happening right now had a conservative Latino made the same statement Sotomayor made. It's a darn miracle conservatives even get elected having to fight not only their political opponent but the entire MSM as well.

93 kynna  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:30:36am

re: #64 lawhawk

By the way, her background story isn't all that Obama wants people to think it is. Sure, she was born and grew up in the Bronx in a housing project, but her family moved to a middle class neighborhood, put her in private school and then sent her on to the Ivy League. It's a heartwarming story, but her background is far more complex than her supporters want people to think. Her family did what it had to in order to make her life better, and she took advantage of those opportunities opened to her. And now she's on the edge of a confirmation to the US Supreme Court.

People still think John Edwards father just "worked in a mill". The MSM will play that heartstring story to the hilt forever and ever and ever and ever. Truth doesn't matter. And frankly, her back story doesn't matter to me nearly as much as her current story does. The MSM is Obama owned.

94 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:30:46am

re: #91 zombie

It'll be fixed before you read this.

95 Noam Sayin'  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:30:59am

Hanson's take:

Conservatives are flummoxed about the Sotomayor news, and have been warned by the likes of Chris Matthews and David Gergen that the nomination is a shoo-in, regardless of Justice Sotomayor’s statements about the less desirable characteristics of white males as judges, and the desire to enact policy from the appellate bench.

I think we are in an Orwellian time, and it is not just explainable by identify politics. Remember the grilling of Alberto Gonzales and the hysteria over Miguel Estrada. So the point is not just having a so-called minority profile, but having one compatible to the ‘progressive’ left. If an African-American nominee (cf. Justice Thomas) or Hispanic proves to be conservative, then race can often count against them, inciting a sort of furor on the left that such independent thinking individuals are not suitably deferential to liberals for their trail-blazing work.

Or perhaps the liberal mind feels that de facto it is beyond racial reproach, and therefore can engage in a sort of viciousness that exceeds even that shown non-minority conservatives. In short, the inspirational story of a Hispanic is relevant only to the degree that the nominee favors an agenda of the elite progressive left-without that requisite ideology, the candidate is reduced to an ingrate or a victim of false-consciousness, or a traitor of sorts.

96 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:31:11am

re: #50 ArrowSmith

La Raza = KKK. No spinning that.

That's just way over the top.

The NCLR has never burned crosses on people's lawns or lynched anyone.

97 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:31:24am

re: #78 Charles

Founding members of La Raza and others involved in the hierarchy are also members of MECha.


If Pat Buchanan is to be condemned for his racist ties (as he should be), then it works for La Raza, too, Charles.

98 Ben Hur  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:31:35am

re: #64 lawhawk

By the way, her background story isn't all that Obama wants people to think it is. Sure, she was born and grew up in the Bronx in a housing project, but her family moved to a middle class neighborhood, put her in private school and then sent her on to the Ivy League. It's a heartwarming story, but her background is far more complex than her supporters want people to think. Her family did what it had to in order to make her life better, and she took advantage of those opportunities opened to her. And now she's on the edge of a confirmation to the US Supreme Court.


She's a Democrat.

Race Narratives only matter when you're a Democrat.

See:

Condi Rice.
Clarence Thomas.
Alberto Gonzales
And a sh*tload of other "firsts" appointed by Reps.

Of course Bill Clinton had Betty Curry.

The Dems need some "firsts."

See:

President.

99 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:31:37am

re: #92 turn

The hypocrisy on the left is stunning. You all know what would be happening right now had a conservative Latino made the same statement Sotomayor made. It's a darn miracle conservatives even get elected having to fight not only their political opponent but the entire MSM as well.

Yes, and I don't understand why the right can't unite on this. Sure we don't have to spend every last bit of energy on it - but at least ask some tough questions for god's sake!

100 doppelganglander  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:31:59am

IMO, Sotomayor is willing to exploit her Hispanic roots in order to advance. I suspect her outlook is much more shaped by her Ivy League education and elite connections.

101 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:32:01am

re: #59 avanti

They've denied that years ago.

La Raza.

I saw that, too.re: #72 zombie

It's one of the mottos of MEChA, not La Raza:

MEChA:

"Also controversial is the phrase "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada", which translates "For the Race, everything, outside the Race, nothing". Many critics of MEChA see this statement as ethnocentric and racist. This phrase appears in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán and is often claimed to be the "slogan" of MEChA, despite little attestation of its use by MEChA members or alleged importance within MEChA. The official motto of MEChA, as seen in its logo, is "La Unión Hace La Fuerza", meaning "Unity Makes Strength". [1] MEChA members themselves differ in their interpretations of "La Raza". While some use the term to strictly refer to only mestizos and Chicanos, others use it to mean all Hispanics and minorities. A likely origin of the phrase is the Cuban communist Revolution, which used a similar slogan: "Por la revolución todo, fuera de la revolución nada!""

Thanks zombie.

102 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:32:02am

re: #92 turn

The hypocrisy on the left is stunning. You all know what would be happening right now had a conservative Latino made the same statement Sotomayor made. It's a darn miracle conservatives even get elected having to fight not only their political opponent but the entire MSM as well.

The Conservative candidate doesn't even have to say anything controvercial. They ( LLL ) invent / make it up

103 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:32:06am

re: #96 Charles

That's just way over the top.

The NCLR has never burned crosses on people's lawns or lynched anyone.

Wow, I can't believe you're defending them.

104 avanti  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:32:10am

re: #82 ArrowSmith

Charles, are you defending the very existence of La Raza?

You can read, can you not ? Where did he say that.

105 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:32:13am

re: #95 Noam Sayin'

Hanson's take:

Hanson is a wacky, right wingnut, just like Alex Jones.
/////////////////////

106 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:32:30am

re: #79 Ben Hur

Ahhh....Interesting point.

Maybe they are starting to use the LLL handbook.

The talking points were spread immediately; Cornyn just washed his hands of them ... it will not stop.

It's a game; these people are power players.

The prize? They get to keep their phoney-baloney jobs. ;)

If Newt has nothing interesting to say, you will cease to see Newt.
If Rush has nothing to talk about due to a bout of "niceness", his radio program will cease to prosper.
If Cornyn acts nasty, he will hand the Dems weapons just as Hutchison leaves the Senate to challenge Perry.

STRATEGERY!

107 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:32:43am

re: #78 Charles

Looks like that one didn't come out right.

108 Baier  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:32:45am

re: #86 VioletTiger

And who is making the strong conclusions the story? The same people who want to damage the GOP. After tlistening to some of the wacko comments the Dems made about nominees in the past, I have to say what I am hearing is pretty mild. They are going after her STATEMENTS, not her personally, which is a big difference from the Dem playbook.

We all know the score with the media, yet we play the same game and expect different results. At this point how can you continue to say it's the media's fault when Republicans give them exactly what they want?
Republicans need to out game the MSM.

109 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:33:03am

re: #82 ArrowSmith

Charles, are you defending the very existence of La Raza?

No, I'm trying to be accurate, instead of circulating lies. That is not the slogan of the NCLR.

110 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:33:15am

Let's everybody calm down.

111 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:33:27am

re: #80 rightside

It's like this. Extremist dems can say anything, attract most moderates, and take over house and senate. Extremist republicans say anything, most moderates run away screaming to extremist dem party. Do I have it right?

Unfortunately I think you do because the MSM has tilted the playing field. Professing to be a party that stands for traditional values is that any inconsistency in your behavior is going to bite you in the butt. The left knows Alynski and they play that game well.

The answer is not to become the right verson of the loony left, it is to stick to core principles, communicate them succinctly and directly to the people and not be drawn off message. Living up to your professed standards as closely as possible goes without saying.

Becoming like the opposition warts and all will kill the republicans and leave conservatism without a viable home for years to come.

112 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:33:33am

re: #95 Noam Sayin'

Hanson is bang on, as usual:


Remember the grilling of Alberto Gonzales and the hysteria over Miguel Estrada. So the point is not just having a so-called minority profile, but having one compatible to the ‘progressive’ left. If an African-American nominee (cf. Justice Thomas) or Hispanic proves to be conservative, then race can often count against them,
113 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:33:35am

re: #101 Ward Cleaver

MECha is tied to La Raza.

114 kaymad  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:33:51am

Yeah, because democrats are never vicious with republican nominated supreme court picks. And none of that attack stuff ever works, right?

Glad to see that republicans can attack someone at least. Just to bad it couldn't be a democrat for a change.

115 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:34:02am

re: #109 Charles

No, I'm trying to be accurate, instead of circulating lies. That is not the slogan of the NCLR.

No, but it's the slogan of their friends.

116 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:34:13am

La Raza can't be justified, just as any other racist group. Full stop.

117 kynna  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:34:15am

re: #37 Walter L. Newton

My my, sounds like the Republicans are starting to take a page from the leftist playbook in shutting down other conservatives that they don't want to hear opinion from...

Wrong? I can't stand Rush, and there has been a "slime" factor (for me) about Newt over the years, but still, there, do you see that political elitism sneaking in there.

The phrase "neither man holds an elected office..." well, when does it get to the point that ONLY elected officials have the right to state an opinion? When does it get to the point that Washington doesn't even want to hear from us anymore, you know, us, the unwashed, unelected?

Not a good sign.

I think he meant it as "why are you asking me about what these private citizens are saying?" I think that's good point. He could have been clearer making it.

118 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:34:48am

What's next - GOP politicians will have to break bread with La Raza?

119 Bloodnok  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:34:48am

re: #116 ArrowSmith

La Raza can't be justified, just as any other racist group. Full stop.

I wish you would.

120 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:00am

re: #97 astronmr20

Founding members of La Raza and others involved in the hierarchy are also members of MECha.


If Pat Buchanan is to be condemned for his racist ties (as he should be), then it works for La Raza, too, Charles.

Names? Because that is interesting.

121 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:07am

re: #103 ArrowSmith

Wow, I can't believe you're defending them.

Was Karl Rove "defending" them too, when he spoke at their 2006 annual meeting?

122 albusteve  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:15am

re: #110 Ward Cleaver

Let's everybody calm down.

I'm nodding off a tad....

123 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:25am

I can't believe we're even debating whether La Raza is a racist group.

124 VioletTiger  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:27am

re: #108 Baier


Republicans need to out game the MSM.


What do you suggest? It seems like the only solution eanybody offers from the right or the left is to sit down and shut up. I don't think that is always the right thing to do.

125 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:28am

re: #64 lawhawk

By the way, her background story isn't all that Obama wants people to think it is. Sure, she was born and grew up in the Bronx in a housing project, but her family moved to a middle class neighborhood, put her in private school and then sent her on to the Ivy League. It's a heartwarming story, but her background is far more complex than her supporters want people to think. Her family did what it had to in order to make her life better, and she took advantage of those opportunities opened to her. And now she's on the edge of a confirmation to the US Supreme Court.

Still a pretty good story. IMO, not as good as Alberto Gonzales, but still pretty good.

126 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:33am

re: #60 leereyno

Limbaugh and Gingrich are right.

Why should they refrain from telling the truth? How does it serve the best interests of our nation make nice with our domestic enemies?

The Manchurian candidate has, in typical form, sought to push a far left agenda while pretending to be pragmatic. It is a two step that all should be familiar with by now.

But what we all need to remember is that it is the American people who are ultimately to blame for this. Ayer's protege and others like him will always exist, but that doesn't mean they have to be elected to high office. Don't blame Obama, blame the people who voted for him, many of whom will be blaming themselves soon enough if they are not already.

Some of those will not be blaming themselves as they will be the apparatchiks for this regime.

127 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:36am

Full-stop. Time-out, lizards.


La Raza means "the Race."

How in the fuck is that not racist?

For the record, I work for a hispanic company. No one I work with is a member, nor would be.

128 CommonCents  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:42am

re: #24 JammieWearingFool

Maybe that Newt Gingrich ad on the right ought to be removed lest anyone be offended.

I have a Constitutional right to be not offended!
/

129 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:35:44am

re: #121 Charles

Was Karl Rove "defending" them too, when he spoke at their 2006 annual meeting?

Karl Rove was always a master panderer. I have no respect for the man.

130 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:36:10am

re: #110 Ward Cleaver

Let's everybody calm down.


Don't tell me to calm down you @#%^$ $@^% $#@&T! /

131 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:36:13am

re: #110 Ward Cleaver

Let's everybody calm down.

Aw, gee, you're right, Dad.

/hugs Wally

132 Ben Hur  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:36:24am

Lunch.

133 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:36:33am

re: #118 ArrowSmith

What's next - GOP politicians will have to break bread with La Raza?

Have you had an LGF account under another name?

134 turn  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:36:42am

re: #99 ArrowSmith

Yes, and I don't understand why the right can't unite on this. Sure we don't have to spend every last bit of energy on it - but at least ask some tough questions for god's sake!

I'm torn a little on this, I fear a backlash might happen yet I'm not too sure making the racisim charge will necessarily peel away voters.

135 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:36:47am

re: #108 Baier

I do not believe it is possible. The drive bys can manipulate anything we say.

136 Bloodnok  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:36:49am

re: #121 Charles

Was Karl Rove "defending" them too, when he spoke at their 2006 annual meeting?

And the ADL, who are partnering with them?

137 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:36:52am

re: #118 ArrowSmith

What's next - GOP politicians will have to break bread with La Raza?

McCain spoke before an event sponsored by LaRaza during the election. There was a long thread here yesterday about how LaRaza has changed since the 1960's. It is no longer a racist organization.

138 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:37:15am

re: #90 Iron Fist

To extend my remarks, this is exactly the kind of shit I am referring to when I say that bi-partisan means the Republicans giving the Democrats everything that they want while getting nothing in return. Just like McCain, they'd rather be collegial than win. The Democrats, OTOH, could give a rat's asss about collegial. They want to win.

That attitude is part of why they are winning.

Damn straight. One side is engaging in a knife fight and the other side doesn't even seem to know there is a fight.

139 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:37:16am

re: #122 albusteve

I'm nodding off a tad....

WAKE UP!

140 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:37:20am

re: #129 ArrowSmith

Karl Rove was always a master panderer. I have no respect for the man.

Oh, piss off.

141 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:37:29am

Uh oh.

142 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:37:38am

re: #95 Noam Sayin'

Hanson's take:

It seems to me that there is something here to look at, meaning Sotomayor's race related statements. Hanson is certainly NOT the unhinged Alex Jones type, or even the media hog Limbaugh type, in retrospect, he is one of the smartest conservatives out there today, a few ticks down from the late Buckley Jr.

Considering his take on this issue, I find it very hard to understand how anyone can do anything BUT examine her race comments, in the same light as it would be examined if a leftist was calling a conservative a racist.

After reading Hanson, it has only support what I knew all along, there is a honest issue here, and we should be concerned about the outcome, even if the outcome is apparent.

143 snowcrash  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:37:43am

Cornyn cannot offend Latino voters, Texas has plenty.

144 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:37:51am

re: #123 ArrowSmith

I can't believe we're even debating whether La Raza is a racist group.

I guess that's the difference between you and most people here. We debate with facts and reason, while you sputter and shriek.

145 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:38:00am

re: #127 astronmr20

Full-stop. Time-out, lizards.


La Raza means "the Race."

How in the fuck is that not racist?

For the record, I work for a hispanic company. No one I work with is a member, nor would be.

Maybe theyr'e NASCAR fans........?
///////

146 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:38:16am

re: #137 Kenneth

McCain spoke before an event sponsored by LaRaza during the election. There was a long thread here yesterday about how LaRaza has changed since the 1960's. It is no longer a racist organization.

They can start by changing the name of the organization then. Would we allow the KKK to get away with moderating themselves? No - we'd hound them to the ends of the earth.

147 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:38:20am

re: #131 OldLineTexan

Aw, gee, you're right, Dad.

/hugs Wally

Ick.

148 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:38:31am

re: #97 astronmr20

Founding members of La Raza and others involved in the hierarchy are also members of MECha.

If Pat Buchanan is to be condemned for his racist ties (as he should be), then it works for La Raza, too, Charles.

Pat Buchanan is condemned FIRST for what he says, and writes.... his ties are the backup.

149 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:38:48am

Not all hatchlings survive. This makes the species stronger. Only the strong survive

--Darwin

150 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:38:51am
151 turn  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:38:55am

re: #102 Shug

The Conservative candidate doesn't even have to say anything controvercial. They ( LLL ) invent / make it up

I know, it's worse. Much of that made up shit comes from the lefty blogs and trickles it's way up to prime time with Olbermann parroting it out like the gospel.

152 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:03am

re: #147 Ward Cleaver

Hey, you wanted peace!

/

153 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:04am

re: #146 ArrowSmith

They can start by changing the name of the organization then. Would we allow the KKK to get away with moderating themselves? No - we'd hound them to the ends of the earth.

Why are you comparing La Raza to the KKK?

154 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:05am

re: #146 ArrowSmith

It would be a really good idea for you to answer my question.

155 avanti  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:06am

re: #118 ArrowSmith

What's next - GOP politicians will have to break bread with La Raza?

They already have, what's the issue ? The left is already using this hysteria against conservatives .

link..

156 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:18am

I think I hear Stinky's Mighty Stick warming up...

157 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:27am

re: #154 Charles

It would be a really good idea for you to answer my question.

No I haven't had another account.

158 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:28am

re: #134 turn

the extrermist dems are taunting us now, slapping our faces over and over saying, "we don't want blacks or hispanics who are conservatives, and we can be as racist as we want, because the media will cover for us, but if you say one bad word about any minority we nominate, you are as good as dead."

159 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:31am

re: #148 Buck

Pat Buchanan is condemned FIRST for what he says, and writes.... his ties are the backup.

Agreed.

Same with Sodomayor.

160 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:41am

re: #109 Charles

No, I'm trying to be accurate, instead of circulating lies. That is not the slogan of the NCLR.

Charles is 100 percent correct about this. That slogan is not and has never been used by NCLR.

But, there are shaky connections between NCLR, in the past and present, with more radical "Hispanic race based" organizations.

161 Baier  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:39:55am

re: #124 VioletTiger

What do you suggest? It seems like the only solution eanybody offers from the right or the left is to sit down and shut up. I don't think that is always the right thing to do.

I suggest that the Republicans listen to Krauthammer on this one. Sotomayor rulings have been sometime controversial, and even vile. These need to be the talking points.

162 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:40:03am

re: #32 DaddyG

Why doesn't the left address substantive issues with the Republican leadership* instead of its retired politicians, pundits and talk show hosts?

*I may have spotted the problem. /

Alternatively, why doesn't the right address substantive issues with Sotomoyer's actual legal opinions*, instead of trotting out retired politicians, pundits, and talk show hosts to babble endlessly about a single line in a speech she gave years ago, presented out of context?

*I may have spotted the problem.

I snark because I love. I think this is a nonissue and a nonstarter and that the republican party and the country would benefit more if we just had a real confirmation hearing.

163 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:40:06am

re: #146 ArrowSmith

Again, read yesterday's thread. The meaning of the word "raza" was discussed too.

164 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:40:10am

re: #149 Shug

How do you explain the dems then?

165 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:40:10am

re: #153 MandyManners

Why are you comparing La Raza to the KKK?

A fetish for people who march with flags? /

166 Noam Sayin'  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:40:17am

re: #142 Walter L. Newton

And he's just knocking that one out on the fly from over in Europe. I'd be interested in reading a more thoughtful essay once he gets back to the States.

Wow; a lot of complex prepositional phrases in those sentences...

167 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:40:53am

re: #164 rightside

How do you explain the dems then?

the same way I explain The duck billed platypus

168 nyc redneck  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:40:55am

she believes she would be a better justice than white males because she is a female latina.
i think it is insulting to hispanics to avoid this issue and presume they can't understand why this statement is unacceptable for a candidate for the scotus.
it needs to be aggressively addressed. let her explain her meaning.
why wouldn't ALL citizens want to hear it?
and decide for themselves. she made the statement as a sitting judge.
at the very least it shows a lack of proper temperament to understand the role
of a scotus justice.
the gop needs to forget abt. any fall out that may occur from simply seeking the truth.

169 Noam Sayin'  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:40:57am

re: #154 Charles

It would be a really good idea for you to answer my question.

... and truthfully, too. I have a feeling Charles already knows the answer.

170 jwpaine  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:41:07am

I've pretty much had it with the Republican Party. For far too long it's been the lesser of two evils around election time, and now, it has ceased to be even that.

I'm all for a party that will insist government provide only police protection, a judicial system, and a military. Period.

Of course, I'd also favor a political party that would require, on at least a semi-annual basis, that randomly-selected Congressmen be taken out back and shot.

171 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:41:13am

re: #113 astronmr20

MECha is tied to La Raza.

IIRC, they started off from the same root, but split several years ago.
Please correct me if my IIRC is wrong.

172 albusteve  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:41:17am

re: #139 Ward Cleaver

WAKE UP!

I'm so jaded over the whole of national politics...I just don't see any issue going right, or any leadership....both parties are a mess, America is in chaos and it's very disturbing to me...BO is a lunatic and I expect Soto to tow his water....bummer all the way around....whether LaRaza is a racist entity is hardly an issue in comparison to all else

173 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:41:35am

re: #148 Buck

Pat Buchanan is condemned FIRST for what he says, and writes.... his ties are the backup.

And anyone who tolerates his presence is connected with both ... why is this not applicable between these two groups?

So, under this "doesn't count" theory, two leading Republicans could conceivably found and for some period fund a new John Birch-type group, never denounce them, and that would be OK?

174 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:41:44am

re: #141 Ward Cleaver

Uh oh.

I smell trouble in the air as well.

175 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:41:48am

Since people brought it up, and now I am curious : What are the major differences between groups like MEChA and the BNP and Vlaams Belang?

176 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:42:08am

re: #150 Iron Fist

Downding for using Human Events as a source on this.

177 lawhawk  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:42:12am

re: #150 Iron Fist

That's the kind of interesting attack without looking like an attack zombie and I were discussing above. Have her explain her role in LaRaza and see where it goes. Seeing as she's sometimes talking faster than she thinks, she could talk herself right out of a confirmation if she says the wrong things.

178 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:42:29am

re: #154 Charles

It would be a really good idea for you to answer my question.

You might want to remind him what the question was.

179 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:42:58am

re: #172 albusteve

I'm so jaded over the whole of national politics...I just don't see any issue going right, or any leadership....both parties are a mess, America is in chaos and it's very disturbing to me...BO is a lunatic and I expect Soto to tow his water....bummer all the way around....whether LaRaza is a racist entity is hardly an issue in comparison to all else

Yep, politics is in a pretty sorry state now.

180 Lee Coller  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:43:03am

There's only two ways Sotomayor is not going to be confirmed:

1) Some scandal --- unlikely given she's already gone through two senate confirmations.

2) The left decides she's not liberal enough.

I'd rather take my chances with her than Obama's next choice.

181 kynna  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:43:06am

re: #143 snowcrash

Cornyn cannot offend Latino voters, Texas has plenty.

Which is why Cornyn should have told the questioner to ask Limbaugh about his comments and that Cornyn hadn't heard the statement and so could not answer it in an informed way. Ask Gingrich. Ask whoever made the comments in the first place. "Why ya askin' me?" kind of thing. The GOP just doesn't get it and they end up owning these comments because they engage the questions about them without likely even having heard them in context. It's idiotic.

182 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:43:13am

re: #162 iceweasel

the country would benefit more if we just had a real confirmation hearing.

The Dems did away with those several years ago. I believe Joe Biden wrote the memo.

183 flyovercountry  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:43:13am

It is possible to agree with none, a little, some, most or even all of someone's statements. All without feeling emotional about them personally. Two years ago, I would have said that most of the people here agreed in large part with Rush's views on a variety of issues. His statements that he wants our president to fail are mis-understood. I also want President to fail to enact his damaging policies, as I disagree with him politically on almost every issue. That said, this supreme court nomination is terrible. Rush is right on this issue. He associations don't bother me anywhere near what her history of rulings does. Empathy has no place on the supreme court. The only thing positive I can think of with this nomination, is that she would replace Souter.

184 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:44:09am

re: #175 Shug

Since people brought it up, and now I am curious : What are the major differences between groups like MEChA and the BNP and Vlaams Belang?

Obviously the difference is which group each considers to be the master race.
I figured the human race should be good enough, although when we meet aliens, it will be xenophobic.
However, some of these people (eg VB, BNP, MEChA) make me disgusted to be in the same species.

185 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:44:11am

re: #142 Walter L. Newton

Generally I like Hanson, but I did not like his book Mexifornia so much.

186 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:44:20am
187 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:44:27am

re: #171 Honorary Yooper

IIRC, they started off from the same root, but split several years ago.
Please correct me if my IIRC is wrong.

So can Vlaams Belaang sprout a less-offensive entity that is acceptable?

Isn't that kind of what they are attempting?

What's the difference?

/besides the location, I mean

188 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:45:00am

re: #157 ArrowSmith

No I haven't had another account.

Really? Your IP address tells a different story.

189 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:45:02am

re: #185 wrenchwench

Generally I like Hanson, but I did not like his book Mexifornia so much.

What did you not like about it?

190 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:45:19am

At what point as a conservative do you draw the line and say no more.

191 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:45:30am

re: #185 wrenchwench

Generally I like Hanson, but I did not like his book Mexifornia so much.

And that has "what" to do with his statement about Sotomayer and this issue?

192 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:45:30am

re: #175 Shug

Since people brought it up, and now I am curious : What are the major differences between groups like MEChA and the BNP and Vlaams Belang?

Not really much, IMHO. Throw in the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, Front National, and others as well. It seems as though a certain percentage of the population is attracted to such tribally-based groups for some reason or another.

193 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:45:36am

re: #186 Iron Fist

In this case, the late Mr. Norwood either lied or was misinformed.

194 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:45:51am

re: #190 ArrowSmith

At what point as a conservative do you draw the line and say no more.


So what you are saying is "quit while you're ahead" ?

195 guftafs  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:46:18am
"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."

Racist?

"I would hope that a wise white man with his particular experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

Racist?

196 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:46:18am

Banhammer in 3..2...1

197 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:46:29am

re: #188 Charles

Really? Your IP address tells a different story.

BUSTED!

198 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:46:44am

re: #195 guftafs

Racist?

Yup.

199 Rancher  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:46:55am

I wonder what I would be called if I was a member of an organization called the National Council of the White Race, the largest White civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States? What would I be called if instead of equal protection under the law I advocated special treatment in hiring, admissions, and government contracts for whites?

200 guftafs  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:10am

re: #198 ArrowSmith

Thought so.

201 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:12am

I think it's appropriate for sitting U.S. Senators to take a temperate tone in discussing Judge Sotomayor or any other judicial nominee. I just wish the Democrats were so constrained. That's a major problem here. We demand good behavior from Republican Senators, while excusing execrable behavior from Democratic Senators in their treatment of Republican judicial nominees.

I think Sotomayor should be grilled, especially about her "Latina females good, white males bad" statement, which stated in reverse by a white male candidate, would have disqualified him on the spot.

Time to end the double standard. And if Democrats want to lynch GOP judicial candidates, some hard shots at Democratic nominees are in order.

202 itellu3times  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:16am

re: #10 Ben Hur

Exactly.

It's their opinion.

And completely legitimate.

Agreed.

Let's Cornyn "triangulate", but he needs to regulate his own comments to do this effectively.

So he went on NPR and wanted to sound like a hippie, probably not his best strategy.

203 Dave the.....  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:25am

Charles, sometimes you must feel like banging your head really hard on your desk?

204 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:36am

re: #199 Rancher

I wonder what I would be called if I was a member of an organization called the National Council of the White Race, the largest White civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States? What would I be called if instead of equal protection under the law I advocated special treatment in hiring, admissions, and government contracts for whites?

a republican

/ mainstream media

205 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:39am
ArrowSmith

Karma: 55
Registered since: May 24, 2009 at 3:58 pm
No. of comments posted: 170
No. of links posted: 0

If I were you, I'd answer the questions asked.

206 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:41am

re: #195 guftafs

Exactly.

207 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:44am

re: #199 Rancher

An extremist republican, of course.

208 JammieWearingFool  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:50am

The IP never lies.

Whoops.

209 VioletTiger  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:51am

re: #161 Baier

I suggest that the Republicans listen to Krauthammer on this one. Sotomayor rulings have been sometime controversial, and even vile. These need to be the talking points.


Okay. I can agree with that. I would really like to hear more and hear what she has to say. The only thing I don't want to see happen is a rubber stamp with no debate.

210 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:55am
211 kynna  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:47:58am

re: #188 Charles

Really? Your IP address tells a different story.

Ack! The clincher!

*eats popcorn*

212 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:48:00am

re: #193 wrenchwench

In this case, the late Mr. Norwood either lied or was misinformed.

If there's proof, wouldn't we be able to find it on the Web somewhere (how non-profits spend their money)?

213 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:48:25am

So I'm going to be banned because my opinions are not acceptable.

214 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:48:28am

re: #205 Honorary Yooper

"....no one expects the Spanish inquisition!"

215 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:48:48am

re: #213 ArrowSmith

You'll be banned for sock puppetry.

216 SummerSong  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:48:59am

re: #213 ArrowSmith

So I'm going to be banned because my opinions are not acceptable.

Link?

217 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:49:07am

re: #213 ArrowSmith

No, you're going to be banned because you're an idiot. There's a difference.

218 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:49:09am

re: #172 albusteve

I'm so jaded over the whole of national politics...I just don't see any issue going right, or any leadership....both parties are a mess, America is in chaos and it's very disturbing to me...BO is a lunatic and I expect Soto to tow his water....bummer all the way around....whether LaRaza is a racist entity is hardly an issue in comparison to all else

I think that much of that is because of the media's blatant taking of sides. They are the window that we view the world through and their obvious slant skews and distorts the information we need to make informed judgements. I honestly don't know how the republicans can get their message out effectively when they have to go through the media's filter.
Until that changes advnacing the conservative cause is nothing more than the long defeat......in my sad opinion.

219 Bloodnok  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:49:14am

re: #213 ArrowSmith

So I'm going to be banned because my opinions are not acceptable.

I'm sure that's the excuse you use at your next blog stop.

220 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:49:15am

re: #191 Walter L. Newton

I was responding to this:

It seems to me that there is something here to look at, meaning Sotomayor's race related statements. Hanson is certainly NOT the unhinged Alex Jones type, or even the media hog Limbaugh type, in retrospect, he is one of the smartest conservatives out there today, a few ticks down from the late Buckley Jr.

Considering his take on this issue, I find it very hard to understand how anyone can do anything BUT examine her race comments, in the same light as it would be examined if a leftist was calling a conservative a racist.

After reading Hanson, it has only support what I knew all along, there is a honest issue here, and we should be concerned about the outcome, even if the outcome is apparent.

Was that not related? The book was partly about race, and Hanson's views.

221 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:49:27am

re: #213 ArrowSmith

So I'm going to be banned because my opinions are not acceptable.

No, but you'll be banned because you are using a sock-puppet.

222 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:49:53am

re: #213 ArrowSmith

So I'm going to be banned because my opinions are not acceptable.

No. 188.

223 turn  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:49:55am

re: #158 rightside

the extrermist dems are taunting us now, slapping our faces over and over saying, "we don't want blacks or hispanics who are conservatives, and we can be as racist as we want, because the media will cover for us, but if you say one bad word about any minority we nominate, you are as good as dead."

Exactly right, right. Ha, kenneth's 156 was funny. By the time I back down to this comment somebody will probably have gone "poof"

224 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:50:02am

re: #212 Ward Cleaver

NCLR's statement contradicting Norwood's claim has been linked to several times.

225 reine.de.tout  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:50:04am

re: #219 Bloodnok

I'm sure that's the excuse you use at your next blog stop.

Exactly.
Set it up, get blown out of the water, then cry "I was banned because my opinion wasn't acceptable".

226 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:50:06am

re: #53 Honorary Yooper

However, that has been the place MEChA is coming from.

The phrase "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada" comes from MEChA's Plan Espiritual de Aztlán.

MeChA is...well, yeah. They're just like that.

227 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:50:14am

(Stinky lines up and gauges his distance with the bat...")

228 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:50:45am

re: #213 ArrowSmith

So I'm going to be banned because my opinions are not acceptable.

No, you'll be banned due to the following:
A. You're a sock puppet. Stinky no likey sock puppets.
B. You've been banned before, and snuck back in. Stinky no likey that either.

229 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:50:48am

re: #185 wrenchwench

Generally I like Hanson, but I did not like his book Mexifornia so much.

I thought his book was excellent, incisive and respectful. IIRC he has several Hispanics in his family, through marraige.
I also seem to have read an update he's made to the book, in more recent years.

230 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:50:52am

Arrow are you posting from a truck stop ?

231 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:50:55am

I'm gonna look away. I can't watch.

232 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:51:13am

re: #230 Shug

Arrow are you posting from a truck stop ?

Good one.

233 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:51:15am

re: #182 OldLineTexan

The Dems did away with those several years ago. I believe Joe Biden wrote the memo.

I'll certainly agree that for many years now SCOTUS confirmation hearings have been partisan kabuki.

That applies to both sides, and I think it's crappy when the Dems do it too, for the record.

It probably started during the vicious fight over Bork, but Bork was a creationist and a theocrat and a menace and we are all--on both sides--very lucky he didn't get in.

234 jpkoch  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:51:21am

The President made his first serious political miscalculation. He and his advisers had to realize that the Ricci Case is still pending in SCOTUS, and that Sotomayer was part of the 3 person Majority that dismissed Ricci's discrimination case. The fact that SCOTUS granted cert indicates that the SCOTUS will over-rule both the Federal judge and Sotomayer. The details of the case are not pretty, and niether is the way the 2nd Circuit Court swept it under the rug. The Democrats in the Judiciary Committee will have to defend her, and the remainder in the Senate will have to confirm her.

Rush and Newt's loud remarks draw attention to a nominee in a way that the Dems and Obama would just as soon hide. It's ugly, and to the average Joe unjust. If the GOP Senators just hammer the details of her judicial philosophy and past opinions (in a polite and respectful way), this entire episode will put the Dems are the defensive in a big way.

The 2010 mid-terms loom large.

235 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:51:22am

(WHACK!)

236 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:51:22am

re: #37 Walter L. Newton

The phrase "neither man holds an elected office..." well, when does it get to the point that ONLY elected officials have the right to state an opinion?

I don't read Cornyn's statement as suggesting that Limbaugh and Newt don't have a right to their opinion. Rather, he's suggesting they don't "speak for" the GOP, as they are not elected officials.

237 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:51:27am

re: #173 OldLineTexan

And anyone who tolerates his presence is connected with both ... why is this not applicable between these two groups?

So, under this "doesn't count" theory, two leading Republicans could conceivably found and for some period fund a new John Birch-type group, never denounce them, and that would be OK?

I can't even start to understand the strawman you are trying to build....

The judge funded for some period a group that was John Birch type?

238 Bloodnok  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:51:40am

re: #213 ArrowSmith

So I'm going to be banned because my opinions are not acceptable.

No. You'll be banned for whatever stupid thing you said in your last incarnation that got you banned. The nic can change, but the bonehead behind it remains.

239 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:51:50am

re: #230 Shug

Arrow are you posting from a truck stop ?

*zing*

240 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:52:00am

re: #220 wrenchwench

I was responding to this:

Was that not related? The book was partly about race, and Hanson's views.

That comment he wrote yesterday was not from his book.

241 Noam Sayin'  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:52:08am

Another Hanson segment - from the same article, page 2:

On matter of race, one detects beneath the therapeutic calls for inclusiveness, an unfortunate renewal of identity politics with a new harder edge-we saw that in the campaign with the slips about reparations and oppression studies, the clingers speech, Rev. Wright, and the ‘typical white person’ put down. Then with Eric Holder’s blast about Americans as “cowards” and now with the Supreme Court nominee’s somewhat derogatory remarks about the proverbial white male judge. We are not hearing praise of the melting pot ideal of intermarriage, assimilation, or integration-even if such elites in their private lives do not predicate their daily regimens in terms of racialism. I spent 21 years in a university in which quite affluent elites sought any multicultural patina possible for an edge in professional advancement and general leverage–the hyphenated name, the addition of the accent mark on the name, the non-American accentuation, occasional ethnic dress, the relabeling of one as a designated minority who otherwise had not previously emphasized race, etc.—that would suggest they were not part of the popular capitalist culture-supposedly centered on the white male-around them. Yet I left sensing the industry of race was doomed, due to the power of popular culture, the unworkable labyrinth of racial identification due to intermarriage, the laughable contradictions (the jet-black immigrant from India got no favored treatment, the light-skinned Costa Rican name Jorge piggy-backed onto the Mexican-American experience), the son of the Mexican father who used his name Gomez was authentic, the son of the Mexican mother who carried his non-Mexican father’s name Wilson was not. And on and on with this ridiculous neo-Confederate practice of adjudicating percentages of race to the sixteenth, and drops of targeted minority blood—a racist enterprise to the core. The only constant? The white male was fair game. It mattered little that more women were graduating than men, that under the racial spoils system we were beginning to see white males in less percentages than those found in the general population at the university; instead, it was sort of OK to trash, as in the manner of Sotomayor’s comment, the proverbial white male, as if we are collectively ashamed of everyone from the Wright Brothers to Lincoln to John Wayne to JFK.

242 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:52:22am

re: #230 Shug

Arrow are you posting from a truck stop ?

That's pretty savage of you.

243 ArrowSmith  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:52:28am

No doubt I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes.

244 turn  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:52:34am

re: #168 nyc redneck

the gop needs to forget abt. any fall out that may occur from simply seeking the truth.

I'm leaning in that direction, well today that is. I'm thinking what the hell could we loose at this point. Don't get me wrong, I want her to get the nod because it could be a whole lot worse.

245 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:52:37am

re: #233 iceweasel

I'll certainly agree that for many years now SCOTUS confirmation hearings have been partisan kabuki.

That applies to both sides, and I think it's crappy when the Dems do it too, for the record.

It probably started during the vicious fight over Bork, but Bork was a creationist and a theocrat and a menace and we are all--on both sides--very lucky he didn't get in.

The Dems changed the "advise and consent" role into partisan warfare.

Results aside, those are the facts.

Other people have been Borked who were not Bork.

/here come the Bork collective jokes

246 Bloodnok  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:52:40am

I think Racer X had this one pegged as a Moby a day or two ago. Well spotted, Racer X.

247 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:52:43am

re: #56 astronmr20

Hold on--MeChA is a wing of NCLR? Link please? I haven't given all these groups a thought in years, and now I'm wading through piles of acronyms.

248 MacDuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:52:59am

re: #238 Bloodnok

No. You'll be banned for whatever stupid thing you said in your last incarnation that got you banned. The nic can change, but the bonehead behind it remains.

What a waste. "ArrowSmith" was a pretty cool nic.........

249 Lee Coller  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:02am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

No doubt I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes.

Why do you think that? Has it happened before?

250 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:03am

re: #189 Ward Cleaver

What did you not like about it?

It's been a couple of years since I read it, so I can't be entirely specific, but I think there were one or two factual errors, and then a few things where my opinion differs. I haven't lived in California since 1981, so maybe I'm out of touch.

251 Bloodnok  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:06am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

No doubt I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes.

We can but hope.

252 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:16am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

No doubt I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes.

Somebody call the wahmbulance.

253 Dahveed  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:25am

re: #214 astronmr20

"....no one expects the Spanish inquisition!"

One of the best Monty Python sketches ever!

Reg : I don't know! - Mr. Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!

Cardinal Ximinez : NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise!
...Surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Hmf... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surpr.... I'll come in again.

254 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:32am

re: #210 Iron Fist

Have you got a source for that? When did La Raza quit funding MEChA? What are their connections today? If I had the time, I suspect that there is a good story there for an investigative journalist. I'm also confident that no one in the MSM would touch it with a ten-foot pole. it doesn't fit their narrative.

There's a little known codicil in the Pulitzer rules that you only win one for exposing conservative/republicans.
////

255 flyovercountry  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:34am

At the risk of sounding stupid, and since I only have about 5 minutes per day to look at blogs, what is a sock puppet? (as it pertains to blogs)

256 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:35am

re: #236 Occasional Reader

I don't read Cornyn's statement as suggesting that Limbaugh and Newt don't have a right to their opinion. Rather, he's suggesting they don't "speak for" the GOP, as they are not elected officials.

Some others have pointed that out to me. I may have read it wrong.

257 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:51am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

No doubt I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes.

You sound fairly proud of that.

258 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:53:52am

re: #249 Lee Coller

Why do you think that? Has it happened before?

I know of only one to whom that happened.

259 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:54:03am

re: #237 Buck

I can't even start to understand the strawman you are trying to build....

The judge funded for some period a group that was John Birch type?

I am sorry you are having comprehension difficulties to the point where you have to say "strawman".

If that is the game you wish to play, you will need to find another opponent.

260 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:54:12am

User ArrowSmith blocked

261 John Neverbend  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:54:19am

re: #161 Baier

I suggest that the Republicans listen to Krauthammer on this one. Sotomayor rulings have been sometime controversial, and even vile. These need to be the talking points.

Quite right. Here's Krauthammer's latest:

Rebut, Then Confirm

262 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:54:24am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

No doubt I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes.

Oh, that's telling. Tell me, are you Song_and_Dance_Man, or are you Savage_Nation?

263 lawhawk  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:54:31am

Ah, I see he's going for the martyr approach. Classic.

*goes to the kitchen to grab popcorn to watch stinky setting the C4 charges*

264 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:54:41am

re: #230 Shug

Arrow are were you posting from a truck stop ?

fixed

265 MrPaulRevere  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:54:42am

Successful political parties should be like championship prize fighters, i.e. they should know when to cover, when to attack, when to thrust and parry, and when to play rope-a-dope. Will a full throated attack on Sotomayor help the GOP in the 2010 midterms or the 2012 Presidential election? NO. I try to do a cold cost benefit analysis to these types of fights.

266 rhino2  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:54:43am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

No doubt I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes.

Could I offer you some cheese?

267 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:54:47am

Something that does bother me about this nomination is the rationalizing of her Dem supporters.
It seems that they are discounting dispassionate objectivity as desirable in a justice. It is hard not to bring ones own biases to a decision making process, but the virtue is in trying to rise above them not embracing them.

268 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:02am

New Doctrines Without Strategic Foundations

I see two things missing from the national security debate under the Obama administration.

1. A clear national political policy for any of the national security debates today, whether it is countries like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or Somalia or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. A clear grand strategy for any of the foreign policy and national security debates today, whether it is the QDR, budget cuts, or operations being conducted globally including 2 wars; not to mention several emerging problems including nuclear level issues in Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran. Ends are not well defined and means are being predetermined by budget decisions, and every major public discussion I see focuses on doctrine, education, and training (ways!) leaving strategy an upside down triangle in the context of a global economic crisis. We are missing a solid political and strategic foundation as a nation, and find ourselves literally teetering on the point and with a clear lack of symmetry. There is no question both our partners and adversaries are witness to our condition, which is why we have trouble finding help in places like Afghanistan and look powerless against third world straw men in Iran and North Korea.

269 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:07am

I heard that all the way over here.

270 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:16am

OT: Delores Hope turns 100.

271 Velvet Elvis  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:29am

Alberto Gonzalez is a member of NCLR and John McCain was a keynote speaker at one of their national conventions. They are really a mainstream organization are you smear them without taring a lot of Republicans who have supported them as well (not to mention kissing the entire latino vote goodbye).

Attacking NCLR is about as politically astute as attacking the NAACP. The organizations are similar.

272 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:36am

re: #255 flyovercountry

At the risk of sounding stupid, and since I only have about 5 minutes per day to look at blogs, what is a sock puppet? (as it pertains to blogs)

A sock puppet is a false second account (or third... etc) In general, sock puppets are so referred because of a habit amongst those who indulge in sock puppetry to argue with themselves so as to make, well, themselves look smart.

273 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:40am
274 Noam Sayin'  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:42am

Is anyone taking bets on who ArrowSmith was previously?

275 Shug  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:43am

and with that the stalker blog gets a new heroine

276 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:51am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

Thats enough. I really don't appreciate being lied to. If you had admitted the truth you might not be banned.

I have logs that show an attempt to log into your previous account earlier this month, discovering it was blocked, and then registering at the first opportunity with the same IP you tried to log in with.

Bye now.

277 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:54am

re: #248 MacDuff

What a waste. "ArrowSmith" was a pretty cool nic.........

He's collecting martyr points already.

278 Randall Gross  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:58am

re: #213 ArrowSmith

No, you'll be banned because you are a lieing sockpuppet, that's if you get banned. So it's a bit early to be playing martyr.

279 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:59am

re: #269 MandyManners

I heard that all the way over here.

"You can't fix stupid."

Ron White

280 Nevergiveup  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:55:59am

re: #260 rightside

User ArrowSmith blocked

I missed that. Was it some guy bitching and moaning about his daughter being pregnant and the bastard who nailed her?

281 dingleB  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:56:02am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

Smells like doppelgänger.

282 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:56:07am

By the way, the literal meaning of "mecha" is "fuse" (as in, to a bomb). Feel the love!

(That said, no, I don't think NCLR and MeChA are the same animal.)

283 pianobuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:56:12am

re: #255 flyovercountry

At the risk of sounding stupid, and since I only have about 5 minutes per day to look at blogs, what is a sock puppet? (as it pertains to blogs)

I think that's the alter-ego that a banned or otherwise poster uses to remove traceability to his/her original identity.

Now if someone can tell me what GAZE means, I'd be most appreciative. I've seen that several times over the last few days.

284 Pupdawg  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:56:13am

re: #16 kansas

Now a Shumer bite slamming Thomas and Scalia....Now Howard Dean lying.
How can the Dems lie so much while the Repubs can't point out the obvious?

Because whether we see it or not, the water cooler from which freedom of speech in America flows has a "Democrats Only" sign over it. Republicans / conservatives, elected or not, dare not drink there.

285 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:56:34am

re: #260 rightside

User ArrowSmith blocked

Oh well, all I have to say to ArrowSmith is, buh-bye, jerk.

286 kynna  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:56:47am

re: #256 Walter L. Newton

Some others have pointed that out to me. I may have read it wrong.

No, they said it sloppily.

287 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:56:48am

re: #282 Occasional Reader

By the way, the literal meaning of "mecha" is "fuse" (as in, to a bomb). Feel the love!

(That said, no, I don't think NCLR and MeChA are the same animal.)

Did they evolve from a common ancestor?

288 nyc redneck  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:56:52am

yesterday rush played a clip:
. . ."i want her walking up those marble steps. i want her to start providing some justice.". . .
this was o in his ethnic lilt, describing his pick for scotus.
he sounded like sharpton. classless. a fcking joke.

289 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:57:01am

re: #259 OldLineTexan

I am sorry you are having comprehension difficulties to the point where you have to say "strawman".

If that is the game you wish to play, you will need to find another opponent.

Well that does not clear up your post at all for me....

I am trying to follow what your are saying.... It does seem like you are building a strawman argument... But if you want to explain it another way, you certainly are welcome to...

Maybe it is only me who doesn't understand the 'two republican funding' part of this.

290 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:57:02am

re: #280 Nevergiveup

No, dude looked like a lady.

291 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:57:16am

re: #180 Lee Coller

There's only two ways Sotomayor is not going to be confirmed:

1) Some scandal --- unlikely given she's already gone through two senate confirmations.

2) The left decides she's not liberal enough.

I'd rather take my chances with her than Obama's next choice.


Upding and I agree, but--
One quibble-- SS is a moderate, indeed she's a centrist. Check out her rulings in re: abortion. The REAL left is already unhappy with her as a pick.

She is very much the best possible candidate the right could have hoped for, and in many ways she is a candidate that the left is unhappy with.

292 latingent  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:57:17am

The KKK is racist. La Raza is racist. The Black Panther Party is racist. And until people quit identifying themselves as belonging to a particular group we will always have it. The tie that binds us all together is America, and as Americans we are all the same. Jeez, I`m sick of this shit.

293 Randall Gross  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:57:23am

Ok pass 'im the martyr cookie now.

294 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:57:42am

re: #270 rightside

OT: Delores Hope turns 100.

Wow. I wonder how she's doing?

295 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:57:52am

re: #125 Buck

Still a pretty good story. IMO, not as good as Alberto Gonzales, but still pretty good.

Let me ask a hypothetical of everyone here. If not for the comment in the Berkeley speech, would you think her unsuitable? Take it away. How does she stack up?

296 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:58:16am

re: #262 Honorary Yooper

No, it wasn't either of those. I'm keeping the name to myself.

297 Nevergiveup  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:58:17am

re: #294 Ward Cleaver

Wow. I wonder how she's doing?

Not much would be my bet?

298 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:58:21am

re: #289 Buck

Well that does not clear up your post at all for me....

I am trying to follow what your are saying.... It does seem like you are building a strawman argument... But if you want to explain it another way, you certainly are welcome to...

Maybe it is only me who doesn't understand the 'two republican funding' part of this.

No, thanks.

You injecting "the judge" into the sentence where it did not appear, and then following with "strawman" was enough for me to dismiss any hope of a conversation with you.

299 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:58:38am

re: #255 flyovercountry

a sock-puppet is a fake or alternative username through which a troll pretends to be somebody else. People who have been banned in the past have come back wearing "sock-puppets" only to be exposed and banned again.

300 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:58:40am

re: #274 Noam Sayin'

Is anyone taking bets on who ArrowSmith was previously?

His comment about having all his posts deleted makes me guess it is either one of the ones who have had all their posts deleted (a select few), or someone who is a close associate of them.

301 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:00am

re: #273 Iron Fist

Source
Does that count?

Honestly, that's kind of thin soup; an opinion piece pointing out merely that they (MeCHA and NCLR) share similiar policy goals in a couple of areas. That's a little like Killgore's broad brush that turns all Tea Party attendees into Stormfronters.

302 albusteve  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:06am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

No doubt I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes.

just be honest..are you a sock or not?...

303 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:08am

re: #294 Ward Cleaver

She appears to be doing quite well from the image, let me find the link, a co-worker showed me on his screen.

304 Randall Gross  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:27am

I agree with Cornyn. Can you think of a single time when R's used the race card tactic that it worked for them?

It's childishly stupid and blundering to go that route, Obama & co. love our raving pundits when they do.

305 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:31am

re: #283 pianobuff

I think that's the alter-ego that a banned or otherwise poster uses to remove traceability to his/her original identity.

Now if someone can tell me what GAZE means, I'd be most appreciative. I've seen that several times over the last few days.

GAZE is just gaze capitalized. All it means is to gaze over a troll/moby/sock puppet's comments instead of answering them.

306 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:34am

Something I posted earlier today:

[Link: www.washingtonexaminer.com...]

307 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:37am

re: #301 Occasional Reader

Honestly, that's kind of thin soup; an opinion piece pointing out merely that they (MeCHA and NCLR) share similiar policy goals in a couple of areas. That's a little like Killgore's broad brush that turns all Tea Party attendees into Stormfronters.

BUT THAT'S TRUE!

/

308 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:51am

re: #273 Iron Fist

Not to me. THat article is about MEChA, and says "NCLR supports their positions." And Front Page Mag is not one of my favorites either.

309 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:53am

re: #276 Charles

Thats enough. I really don't appreciate being lied to. If you had admitted the truth you might not be banned.

I have logs that show an attempt to log into your previous account earlier this month, discovering it was blocked, and then registering at the first opportunity with the same IP you tried to log in with.

Bye now.

Youtube Video
310 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 10:59:59am

re: #247 SanFranciscoZionist

Hold on--MeChA is a wing of NCLR? Link please? I haven't given all these groups a thought in years, and now I'm wading through piles of acronyms.

They were founded by the same people, then split off eventually.

311 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:00:03am

re: #127 astronmr20

Full-stop. Time-out, lizards.


La Raza means "the Race."

How in the fuck is that not racist?

For the record, I work for a hispanic company. No one I work with is a member, nor would be.

Raza has long been used as a phrase by mixed-race Mexicans to describe themselves. In common conversation it is not used in a racist way, but as an ethnic descriptor.

NO, I'm not defending insane Chicano political groups. Just saying.

312 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:00:18am

re: #260 rightside

User ArrowSmith blocked

Some of the whines were of a troll hit where it hurts. If ArrowSmith had been innocent, only caught because of a pool IP address reassigned, he'd have behaved differently.
Although I'm pretty sure Charles can tell which IP addresses are pool and could get reassigned (like the one I have at home has a name something like Pool-Verizon-Bos-East-xx-xx-xx-xx making it pretty obvious) and which ones are permanent (like SxxNxxx.yyy2.com, replace x's and y's)

313 SummerSong  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:00:23am

re: #243 ArrowSmith

No doubt I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes.

Dream on.

314 Bloodnok  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:00:35am

re: #270 rightside

OT: Delores Hope turns 100.

Oh I know.

/

315 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:00:39am

re: #303 rightside

She appears to be doing quite well from the image, let me find the link, a co-worker showed me on his screen.

Good to hear. I still miss Bob.

316 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:00:41am

re: #276 Charles

Charles, a question out of utter techno-ignorance; isn't it quite possible for two distinct posters to have the same IP address? For instance, if someone else at my workplace started posting at LGF, wouldn't he/she probably show up with the same IP address as the one I'm using?

(Er... not that I'd ever post from work, you understand... heh heh)

317 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:00:48am

re: #201 quickjustice

I think it's appropriate for sitting U.S. Senators to take a temperate tone in discussing Judge Sotomayor or any other judicial nominee. I just wish the Democrats were so constrained. That's a major problem here. We demand good behavior from Republican Senators, while excusing execrable behavior from Democratic Senators in their treatment of Republican judicial nominees.

I think Sotomayor should be grilled, especially about her "Latina females good, white males bad" statement, which stated in reverse by a white male candidate, would have disqualified him on the spot.

Time to end the double standard. And if Democrats want to lynch GOP judicial candidates, some hard shots at Democratic nominees are in order.

Since LBJ and prior to this pick, there have only been two Democratic SC nominees, Breyer and Ginsburg. And with one of those picks, Ginsburg, there may have been some concessions by Cllinton before hand, meaning Ginsburg's age at the time of her nomination. She was much older than the average recent Republican SC nominee. So not a lot of information to guage the difference in tone between Dem and Gop senators. If Clinton had nominated a very liberal 48 year old, do you suppose there might have been a difference in the tone of the GOP Senators?

318 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:00:55am

Throw RINO Judas Cornyn out of the party right now!

/GOP base

319 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:01:09am

re: #188 Charles

Really? Your IP address tells a different story.

I like to watch the professional anglers who can reel them in without them even knowing the hook is set. Heh.

320 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:01:13am

re: #294 Ward Cleaver

Here you go.

321 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:01:30am

This is what bugs me about Sotomayor. Bothers me a lot.

322 neocon hippie  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:01:37am

re: #313 SummerSong

Was briefly back in the saddle again, but no longer.

323 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:01:41am

re: #295 SanFranciscoZionist

Overall we could do a lot worse. The comment holds a lot of weight, however.

She will be confirmed most likely, but that does not mean we should count our blessings and be silent. Now is the time to illustrate the race politics and degrading quota-mongering of the left.

324 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:01:43am

re: #318 drcordell

Throw RINO Judas Cornyn out of the party right now!

/GOP base

When you see that in print somewhere reputable, do please post it.

325 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:01:44am

re: #285 Honorary Yooper

Oh well, all I have to say to ArrowSmith is, buh-bye, jerk.

He'll be showing up at lgf2 in 3..2...1....

326 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:01:46am

re: #316 Occasional Reader

No.

327 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:02:03am

re: #288 nyc redneck

That actually is Obama describing himself. It's about the fantasy of being President, or a Supreme Court Justice. "I want her walking up those marble steps"? It's like MTV, images set to music.

It's politics for the underclasses, Obama-style.

328 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:02:19am

re: #265 MrPaulRevere

Successful political parties should be like championship prize fighters, i.e. they should know when to cover, when to attack, when to thrust and parry, and when to play rope-a-dope.

You gotta know when to hold them...know when to fold them!

Youtube Video
329 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:02:28am

re: #316 Occasional Reader

Charles, a question out of utter techno-ignorance; isn't it quite possible for two distinct posters to have the same IP address? For instance, if someone else at my workplace started posting at LGF, wouldn't he/she probably show up with the same IP address as the one I'm using?

(Er... not that I'd ever post from work, you understand... heh heh)

While technically true, from Charles's earlier statement, he went through the logs in a bit more detail than that. There was already a blocked account on that IP, and the very next open registration produced this glittering gem of stupidity. Also, users sharing an IP address would often show overlapping login times.

330 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:02:44am

Please note that there are TWO groups that use the name "La Raza." One is La Raza Unida, which definitely is a much more extremist group.

But comparing the National Council of La Raza to the KKK is completely ridiculous. The KKK was a terrorist group that murdered many people.

You may not agree with everything the NCLR does or stands for -- and I certainly don't -- but the fact is that they are recognized as a legitimate advocacy group by nearly everyone on the political scene. Top GOP politicians address their conferences. Attempting to compare them to the KKK is an epic fail.

331 Nevergiveup  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:02:53am

In the article, Abbas is quoted as saying that "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," adding "until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life."

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

But But But I thought because of the cruel Israelis that people on the West Bank were being persecuted and living a sub-standard life? Gee Now I'm confused?

332 Randall Gross  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:03:01am

re: #321 wrenchwench

This is what bugs me about Sotomayor. Bothers me a lot.

Good point that one bugs me to, and it needs to be brought up in the hearings.

333 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:03:13am

re: #302 albusteve

just be honest..are you a sock or not?...

You won't get an answer now, darn it.

334 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:03:41am

re: #325 Kosh's Shadow

He'll be showing up at lgf2 in 3..2...1....

Oh, I'll wager anything that he's already there, and has been a continuing commentor there.

335 LeonidasOfSparta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:03:45am

Sotomayor's ruling against the white firefighters claim of reverse-descrimination says it all-- IMHO

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

"Marcarelli got the top score on a promotions exam. He was first in line for captain. But not everyone did so well.
In fact, not one of the 28 black candidates, in a field of 118, scored high enough to be promoted.
For New Haven, that was a problem."

(That doesn't make them unqualified to be firemen, it makes the ones who took the test unqualified for the promotion to CAPTAIN. )

"Sotomayor and two fellow appellate judges dismissed the white firefighters' claims -- and 2,000 pages of court papers and filings -- in a one-paragraph ruling.
"We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration," but the firefighters who filed the case don't have a "viable" claim under the law, the opinion said."

If a firefighter, regardless of color, cannot pass the various tests required by the JOB, then they don't get the promotion-- and that is NOT RACIST.

But to toss out the EXAM so that unqualified men CAN be promoted is as racist as can be. To dumb down the "testing process" because someone of color failed says, in essence, "awww you poor person of color, you will never be able to master this difficult test, we will give you the promotion without it because you are such a pitiful person of color."

What a wretched mindset it is that "rules" from the bench in this fashion.

336 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:03:49am

re: #325 Kosh's Shadow

He'll be showing up at lgf2 in 3..2...1....

Unless he's already there, if you get my drift.

337 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:04:03am

re: #333 Kosh's Shadow

You won't get an answer now, darn it.

You don't have to toe the line, but try not to be a heel.

338 Lee Coller  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:04:10am

re: #312 Kosh's Shadow

Some of the whines were of a troll hit where it hurts. If ArrowSmith had been innocent, only caught because of a pool IP address reassigned, he'd have behaved differently.
Although I'm pretty sure Charles can tell which IP addresses are pool and could get reassigned (like the one I have at home has a name something like Pool-Verizon-Bos-East-xx-xx-xx-xx making it pretty obvious) and which ones are permanent (like SxxNxxx.yyy2.com, replace x's and y's)

Actually even though technically you are correct, in reality those dynamic IP addresses are rather sticky. With the way home routers are frequently set up, they constantly renew the IP address and it never changes.

A bigger issue for identification is IP addresses of firewalls of large corporations and some ISPs (such as AOL). These IP addresses are shared by tens of thousands.

339 Nevergiveup  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:04:18am

re: #315 Ward Cleaver

Good to hear. I still miss Bob.

Bob Hope - Thanks For The Memories

Youtube Video
340 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:04:30am

re: #291 iceweasel

Upding and I agree, but--
One quibble-- SS is a moderate, indeed she's a centrist. Check out her rulings in re: abortion. The REAL left is already unhappy with her as a pick.

She is very much the best possible candidate the right could have hoped for, and in many ways she is a candidate that the left is unhappy with.

I don't think that she actually has a track record on abortion rulings.
She did join in an opnion to allow pro life demonstrations near clinics, but that was a First Amendment case.

341 VioletTiger  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:04:36am

re: #325 Kosh's Shadow

He'll be showing up at lgf2 in 3..2...1....

Uh oh. Village of the Dammed Banned

342 pianobuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:04:36am

re: #305 Honorary Yooper

That clears that up. Thank you.

343 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:04:38am

re: #292 latingent

The KKK is racist. La Raza is racist. The Black Panther Party is racist. And until people quit identifying themselves as belonging to a particular group we will always have it. The tie that binds us all together is America, and as Americans we are all the same. Jeez, I`m sick of this shit.

Is "France" racist? It's named after the Franks who were a "race"... I guess that proves it.

344 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:04:48am

re: #322 neocon hippie

Was briefly back in the saddle again, but no longer.

I wonder if he'll ever walk this way again?

345 SummerSong  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:04:51am

re: #322 neocon hippie

Was briefly back in the saddle again, but no longer.

Ain`t That A B*tch.

346 justabill  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:05:00am

A actually have some hope for her as a justice. She seems to respect legal president, at least up till now. Of course, until now, she always had to worry about being overturned. Still I see a small glimmer of hope that she will not be as bad as we think she might be...

347 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:05:09am

re: #316 Occasional Reader

Charles, a question out of utter techno-ignorance; isn't it quite possible for two distinct posters to have the same IP address? For instance, if someone else at my workplace started posting at LGF, wouldn't he/she probably show up with the same IP address as the one I'm using?

(Er... not that I'd ever post from work, you understand... heh heh)

Yes, it's possible -- but in this case there's other corroborating evidence. I never make these kinds of assessments based on IP alone.

348 Ward Cleaver  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:05:12am

re: #320 rightside

Here you go.

Wow, she went to Mass on her birthday. That's cool. She looks pretty good for 100. And Gloria Stuart is 99? Wow.

349 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:05:20am

re: #330 Charles

Totally agree. We had NCLR recruiting booths at my law school, if memory serves. The KKK booths, not so much. NCLR just seems like a standard-issue ethnic advocacy group. Not my favorite kind of politics (the "identity" sort), but hardly the same thing as dragging people out of their homes and hanging them.

350 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:05:40am
351 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:06:10am

re: #295 SanFranciscoZionist

Let me ask a hypothetical of everyone here. If not for the comment in the Berkeley speech, would you think her unsuitable? Take it away. How does she stack up?

I don't think she is unsuitable. She has a good background, and has been vetted for federal court twice before.

I think she is a shoe in, but I would like to see the process continue, but in a civilized manner.

Would I prefer someone who is more 9/12? Of course.

352 aggieann  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:06:31am

re: #333 Kosh's Shadow

You won't get an answer now, darn it.

Leave it to Charles to gold toe the line.

353 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:06:38am

And now, the lighter side -- or should I say heavier side -- of the racism debate:

Racism makes you fat!

It's not my fault that I eat so much -- it's the fault of all those people who make me feel bad!

Perceived racism linked to weight gain, Boston researchers say

Perceptions of racism -- from being treated with suspicion in a store to unfairness in employment or housing -- can heighten stress levels and affect health, research has shown. A new study from Boston University links these smoldering signs of racism to weight gain in black women, suggesting a possible explanation for the their higher obesity rates compared to white women.

Yvette Cozier, an epidemiologist at the Slone Epidemiology Center at BU, led a survey of more than 43,000 women enrolled in the long-running Black Women's Health Study. Writing in the June issue of Annals of Epidemiology, she and her co-authors describe participants' reports on their weight, body mass index, and perceptions of racism.

At the beginning of the eight-year study, the women were asked if they sometimes felt they were treated poorly in a restaurant or store, whether they thought people considered them dishonest or less intelligent, and if they had felt unfairness on the job, in housing, or from police. The women, 21 to 69 years old at the study's outset, were placed in four groups based on how frequently they said they experienced these signs of racism. Their weight was recorded every two years from 1997 through 2005. Their waist circumference was measured at the beginning and end.

At the end of the trial, all the women had gained weight. But the women who said they felt higher levels of racism gained more weight and had bigger waist-size increases compared to the women who felt the least racism. That held true after accounting for factors such as education, geographic region, and beginning body mass index.

"Racism is real and it has real effects," Cozier said in an interview. "It can result in real changes in the body."

This is such flawed methodology. They didn't prove any cause-and-effect correlation between perceived racism and weight gain. They simply showed that the same people who griped about being treated badly are the same people who overeat the most. There could be many personality factors which cause those two behaviors in the same person.

Flawed science supporting a political agenda. What is this world coming to?

/

354 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:06:44am

re: #347 Charles

Yes, it's possible -- but in this case there's other corroborating evidence. I never make these kinds of assessments based on IP alone.

Okey doke, thanks.

So... can you tell us who ArrowSmith "really" is?

355 albusteve  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:06:59am

re: #333 Kosh's Shadow

You won't get an answer now, darn it.

I'm crushed....but dishonesty sucks everytime and cannot go unpunished...and I did not make millions in the remodel business, I confess

356 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:07:16am

re: #175 Shug

Since people brought it up, and now I am curious : What are the major differences between groups like MEChA and the BNP and Vlaams Belang?

MeChA is pro-immigration. Duh!

357 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:07:18am

re: #326 rightside

No.

Actually, if the site uses a proxy or NAT (like home routers do), everyone behind the proxy or router has the same external IP address. But the domain info can tell Charles whether this is likely to be the case or not, and I suspect he has some other information that he isn't telling us, and I won't speculate on in public. I know some things I'd do if I had to deal with the banned trying to re-register, that would tell me if someone was trying to get in again after being banned, unless he knew about such measures.

358 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:07:24am

re: #348 Ward Cleaver

According to Wiki (yes I know, but hold on), When asked by his wife on his deathbed where he wanted to be buried, he quipped, "Surprise me!"

359 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:07:29am

re: #309 NJDhockeyfan

Major Bedhead Rules!

360 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:07:36am

re: #317 Flyers1974

Ginsburg happens to be brilliant. Breyer is something of a dunce. Clinton was working with a GOP majority in the Senate for at least one of the two (which one?). That reality certainly modified his choice.

There are no such constraints in this situation. Sotomayor will be confirmed, even if every GOP senator votes against her. The question for the GOP is whether there is a principled reason to vote against her that will resonate with the American people. "She's a racist" is the best they can do so far. She's quite charming, so it's a hard sell. It's also difficult for a man to attack a woman directly. It rubs people the wrong way.

361 brain-washed sheeple  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:07:50am

I have NO idea how anyone who expresses a belief that one race has a moral or judgmental superiority over another race could POSSIBLY be construed as racist...

Just a mystery to me.

362 albusteve  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:08:19am

re: #346 justabill

A actually have some hope for her as a justice. She seems to respect legal president, at least up till now. Of course, until now, she always had to worry about being overturned. Still I see a small glimmer of hope that she will not be as bad as we think she might be...

she's a gun grabber....bad news for the 2nd

363 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:08:31am

re: #357 Kosh's Shadow

Can you post using my IP address from my router at home?

364 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:08:44am

re: #335 LeonidasOfSparta

toss out the EXAM so that unqualified men CAN be promoted

That didn't happen. As I understand it, no one got promoted. IF unqualified people were promoted over more qualified, due to race, then they would have a case.

But that was avoided by promoting NO ONE from that test.

365 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:08:50am

re: #343 Kenneth

Is "France" racist? It's named after the Franks who were a "race"... I guess that proves it.

And "Ireland" promotes anger!

366 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:09:23am

re: #365 Occasional Reader

And "Ireland" promotes anger!

Its all the drinking. /racist

367 Dave the.....  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:09:24am

She'll get confirmed and she could be worse.

Now that Obama has thrown a bone to the Chicano...I mean Hispanic...no wait....Latino/a...crowd, his next judge may be the one that the hard left wingers want. Someone really nasty. That will be where the fight will occur.

368 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:09:33am

re: #338 Lee Coller

Actually even though technically you are correct, in reality those dynamic IP addresses are rather sticky. With the way home routers are frequently set up, they constantly renew the IP address and it never changes.

A bigger issue for identification is IP addresses of firewalls of large corporations and some ISPs (such as AOL). These IP addresses are shared by tens of thousands.

Yes, but it could happen. My point is that I'm sure Charles is aware of the possibility, and didn't charge ArrowSmith unless he was sure.

369 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:09:35am

re: #356 SanFranciscoZionist

MeChA is pro-immigration. Duh!

Yeah, but their "pro-immigration" stance only extends so far. Ask them what they think of immigration from Asia, most of the Caribbean, or Europe.

370 nyc redneck  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:09:44am

re: #244 turn

the gop needs to forget abt. any fall out that may occur from simply seeking the truth.

I'm leaning in that direction, well today that is. I'm thinking what the hell could we loose at this point. Don't get me wrong, I want her to get the nod because it could be a whole lot worse.

i agree she will get confirmed but it would be irresponsible for the republicans to not expose her record and history. and statements that relate to character and fitness for the job. we need to hear her views.
fck the msm and dems who would like us to just shut up and roll out a red carpet for her.
that would be a great way to cause gop members to flee.
showing no back bone at all.
lol no one would respect weakness like that.

371 MrPaulRevere  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:09:51am

I'm listening to Rush and his whole show has been one long Tu quoque argument re. judicial confirmation.

372 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:09:55am

re: #340 opnion

I don't think that she actually has a track record on abortion rulings.
She did join in an opnion to allow pro life demonstrations near clinics, but that was a First Amendment case.

A centrist gun-ban enthusisast.

/

373 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:10:22am

re: #329 thedopefishlives

Also, users sharing an IP address would often show overlapping login times.

two or more users sharing the same IP address would at the same time would greatly annoy the network server.

374 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:10:30am

re: #353 zombie

This study clearly proves that Michael Moore has been a victim of RACISM!

375 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:10:37am

re: #371 MrPaulRevere

I'm listening to Rush and his whole show has been one long Tu quoque argument re. judicial confirmation.

Well, that does it. I'm not voting for HIM again.

/

376 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:11:26am

We don't need no water

377 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:11:34am

re: #367 Dave the.....

In NYC, it's "Latina". That word primarily refers to Puerto Ricans or Dominicans.

378 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:11:41am

re: #368 Kosh's Shadow

Yes, but it could happen. My point is that I'm sure Charles is aware of the possibility, and didn't charge ArrowSmith unless he was sure.

Arrowsmith also reveled himself by using phrases like:

"I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes."

That is straight out of the flouncing stalker phrasebook. Not something a newbie uses.

379 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:11:44am

re: #321 wrenchwench

This is what bugs me about Sotomayor. Bothers me a lot.

Me too but I think it's not surprising. When a judge, as well as the President who nominates her, posit empathy as the highest ideal, then in effect they are saying that subjectivity takes priority over objectivity. And that essentially means that the law becomes whatever the f**k they think it should be. With one or two more picks like this we can kiss our founding principles goodbye.

380 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:11:45am

re: #357 Kosh's Shadow

Actually, if the site uses a proxy or NAT (like home routers do), everyone behind the proxy or router has the same external IP address. But the domain info can tell Charles whether this is likely to be the case or not, and I suspect he has some other information that he isn't telling us, and I won't speculate on in public. I know some things I'd do if I had to deal with the banned trying to re-register, that would tell me if someone was trying to get in again after being banned, unless he knew about such measures.

Arrow tried to login to a banned ID, from that IP address. Then registered a new account from that IP address, THEN was annoying (and came to Charles attention), AND THEN lied about it....

Now maybe he is posting from a large workplace with hundreds of people all using the same IP address.... but the being annoying enough to get Charles attention.... well that sort of clinches it.

381 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:11:53am

re: #372 OldLineTexan

A centrist gun-ban enthusisast.

/

A wise Latina woman can shoot straighter than you, you Anglo Zionist Y-chromosomed Honco.

/

382 KenJen  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:12:00am

re: #321 wrenchwench

This is what bugs me about Sotomayor. Bothers me a lot.

Did the girl's own attorney call Sotomayor's view on the 1st amendment "fairly conservative"? Did I read that right?

383 MacDuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:12:18am

re: #299 Kenneth

a sock-puppet is a fake or alternative username through which a troll pretends to be somebody else. People who have been banned in the past have come back wearing "sock-puppets" only to be exposed and banned again.

Sort of like being a Hindu and being reincarnated as a cockroach time after time after time after time..........

384 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:12:26am

re: #356 SanFranciscoZionist

MeChA is pro-immigration. Duh!

Hmmm ... I thought they considered everyone ELSE an immigrant.

385 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:12:26am

re: #365 Occasional Reader

And "Ireland" promotes anger!

Just don't irk the Turk!

386 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:12:57am

re: #363 rightside

Can you post using my IP address from my router at home?

No, but if you, your wife, and your dog all tried to get login names at LGF, they'd all show up with the same IP address.
If I spoofed your IP address, the problem is, the replies would go to you, not to me. That is done by hackers in denial of service attacks. Typically, they spoof the target address, and then send requests to random hosts, which then reply to the target, overwhelming it.

387 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:13:13am

re: #374 Occasional Reader

This study clearly proves that Michael Moore has been a victim of RACISM!

Was that when he and Pluto were demoted from planet to planetoid?

388 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:13:29am

re: #372 OldLineTexan

A centrist gun-ban enthusisast.

/

Yeah, she does not see the right to own arms in the Constitution.

389 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:13:45am

re: #381 Occasional Reader

A wise Latina woman can shoot straighter than you, you Anglo Zionist Y-chromosomed Honco.

/

Honco?

I finally made it?

/the poor Angles. Always blamed for everything, dead for a thousand years.

390 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:13:52am

re: #378 DaddyG

Arrowsmith also reveled himself by using phrases like:

"I'll be banned and all my posts deleted. Into the memory hole it goes."

That is straight out of the flouncing stalker phrasebook. Not something a newbie uses.

The squeal of the stuck pig, not the innocent.

391 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:13:59am

re: #335 LeonidasOfSparta

Do you understand the role of the appellate courts? Sotomayor wasn't ruling on whether or not she agreed with what happened to Ricci. She was ruling on whether or not the city of New Haven's actions were against the law. Sotomayor found that under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New Haven was forced to throw the test out, lest they open themselves up to lawsuits alleging racial discrimination.

Let me guess, you would have preferred Sotomayor ignore what the law says and support Ricci's petition because you don't agree with Title VII? I had no idea you were such an ardent supporter of judicial activism!

392 VioletTiger  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:14:27am

re: #379 LGoPs
Impartiality in a judge is one of the most important qualifications. Empathy does not imply impartiality IMO.

393 TheMatrix31  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:14:29am

My professor just called all Republicans "racists".

Oh, blanket statements!

394 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:14:36am

re: #388 opnion

Yeah, she does not see the right to own arms in the Constitution.

Sometimes the penumbras do not emanate in favorable directions.

But, as OR has pointed out, I am not qualified due to race and background.

/

395 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:14:56am

Google nukes Norks

We're not quite sure what's going on down at Google Maps, but the search monolith's cartographical service has decided that the world would be a better place if North Korea were one big blank

Heh.

396 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:15:01am

re: #385 Kenneth

Just don't irk the Turk!

A key moment in European history was when Turkey, the Franks, and Bologna formed the League of Lunchmeats.

397 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:15:05am

re: #377 quickjustice

In NYC, it's "Latina". That word primarily refers to Puerto Ricans or Dominicans.

I wish I had studied Latin in college, so I could talk to some of those sexy Latinas!

398 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:15:19am

re: #393 TheMatrix31

My professor just called all Republicans "racists".

Oh, blanket statements!

When I went to college, we had an "Honor Council" for that kind of crap, as well as accusations of cheating, plagiarism, etc.

399 avanti  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:15:28am

Steele weighs in on the issue at hand.

Steele..

400 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:15:28am

re: #360 quickjustice

Ginsburg happens to be brilliant. Breyer is something of a dunce. Clinton was working with a GOP majority in the Senate for at least one of the two (which one?). That reality certainly modified his choice.

There are no such constraints in this situation. Sotomayor will be confirmed, even if every GOP senator votes against her. The question for the GOP is whether there is a principled reason to vote against her that will resonate with the American people. "She's a racist" is the best they can do so far. She's quite charming, so it's a hard sell. It's also difficult for a man to attack a woman directly. It rubs people the wrong way.

I agree she gets seated regardless of the what the GOP does. As I've said earlier, the GOP should use this as a teaching point to instruct the American people on the dangers of judges who impose their empathy / personal preferences over the rule of law. They will lose the nomination fight but they can plant some seeds that if cultivated properly may bear fruit in the future. Stay away from the racism and focus on the fundamentally flawed thinking she represents.

401 Dave the.....  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:15:29am

377 Quick

In NYC, it's "Latina". That word primarily refers to Puerto Ricans or Dominicans.

For myself, instead of being an American whose ancestors came from Norway 110 years ago, I want to be known as a "Scandia". Or is the male version "Scandio"? I am a victim.

402 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:16:02am

re: #389 OldLineTexan


/the poor Angles. Always blamed for everything, dead for a thousand years.

Those Angles were awfully obtuse. Although I suppose there must have been acute one from time to time.

403 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:16:03am

re: #383 MacDuff

Sort of like being a Hindu and being reincarnated as a cockroach time after time after time after time..........

Except that the cockroach has more integrity and honesty than these folks.

404 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:16:24am

re: #335 LeonidasOfSparta

Sotomayor's ruling against the white firefighters claim of reverse-descrimination says it all-- IMHO

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

"Marcarelli got the top score on a promotions exam. He was first in line for captain. But not everyone did so well.
In fact, not one of the 28 black candidates, in a field of 118, scored high enough to be promoted.
For New Haven, that was a problem."

(That doesn't make them unqualified to be firemen, it makes the ones who took the test unqualified for the promotion to CAPTAIN. )

"Sotomayor and two fellow appellate judges dismissed the white firefighters' claims -- and 2,000 pages of court papers and filings -- in a one-paragraph ruling.
"We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration," but the firefighters who filed the case don't have a "viable" claim under the law, the opinion said."

If a firefighter, regardless of color, cannot pass the various tests required by the JOB, then they don't get the promotion-- and that is NOT RACIST.

But to toss out the EXAM so that unqualified men CAN be promoted is as racist as can be. To dumb down the "testing process" because someone of color failed says, in essence, "awww you poor person of color, you will never be able to master this difficult test, we will give you the promotion without it because you are such a pitiful person of color."

What a wretched mindset it is that "rules" from the bench in this fashion.

U.C. Berkeley and many top universities are trying to eliminate the SAT from admissions standards, for this exact reason. They want to increase "disadavantaged minority" admissions (which specifically refers only to Blacks and Hispanics; other minorities, such as Asians, Indians, Arabs, Jews, etc. do well on the tests, so they are automatically disqualified as being "disadvantaged"), which would necessarily entail decreasing Asian admissions, since there are a limited number of slots. But SAT scores are a stricking point, because they are standardized, and often contradict the inflated GPAs some students get from "raise their self-esteem"-style teachers. So, the top schools are now throwing out the SAT as a neutral benchmark, and denying admission to the highest scorers -- for no other reason than it suits UC's agenda.

Sotomayor would agree with this policy, obviously.

405 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:16:31am

re: #360 quickjustice

Ginsburg happens to be brilliant. Breyer is something of a dunce. Clinton was working with a GOP majority in the Senate for at least one of the two (which one?). That reality certainly modified his choice.

There are no such constraints in this situation. Sotomayor will be confirmed, even if every GOP senator votes against her. The question for the GOP is whether there is a principled reason to vote against her that will resonate with the American people. "She's a racist" is the best they can do so far. She's quite charming, so it's a hard sell. It's also difficult for a man to attack a woman directly. It rubs people the wrong way.

Absolutely, I agree. I find it interesting that some have been splitting so many hairs and chasing ghosts, i.e., her 70% overturn rate that was an issue the other day. If I were a conservative, I'd be against her simply because she's an Obama pick and likely to be liberal, no explanation needed. Obviously if you are a senator, you can't say that, but if you're a regular person with no constituency to answer to, just say, I don't want her, she's liberal. Although in this case, it does seem that she is less liberal than what Obama could have gotten through.

406 rightside  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:16:38am

re: #386 Kosh's Shadow

Right, I understand that part, but I am pretty sure, if they all registered accounts, Charles would deny them based on coming from the same IP, unless I emailed ahead of time, specifically requesting it.

My answer was more generic, in that those with dialup, etc, only get one IP at a time, and is not duplicated. I am curious if people who work in large companies, military networks, have been denied accounts before because of they are all on the same network.

Anyway, thanks for the reply, I am outta here! Heading home for the weekend.

Stay safe.

407 MrPaulRevere  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:16:40am

re: #371 MrPaulRevere

I find it fascinating that people who scream at the tops of their lungs that Republicans need to be 'different' from Democrats espouse behaving like them.

408 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:16:42am
409 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:16:52am

re: #378 DaddyG

Good catch. That was the tell.

410 KingKenrod  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:17:00am

I can't believe Gingrich said something that stupid. Rush, yes, but Gingrich no.

Sotomayor isn't a racist, she's a racialist.

411 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:17:02am

re: #380 Buck

.... but the being annoying enough to get Charles attention.... well that sort of clinches it.

It is the chewy center of the whole thing.

;)

412 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:17:16am

re: #394 OldLineTexan

Sometimes the penumbras do not emanate in favorable directions.

But, as OR has pointed out, I am not qualified due to race and background.

/


Well then you do not have the proper empathy.

413 MacDuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:17:22am

re: #392 VioletTiger

Impartiality in a judge is one of the most important qualifications. Empathy does not imply impartiality IMO.



Sorry for pokin' my nose in, but IMO, empathy implies just the opposite as impartiality.

414 MacDuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:18:07am

re: #403 Honorary Yooper

Except that the cockroach has more integrity and honesty than these folks.

True, that.

415 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:18:15am

re: #396 Occasional Reader

Where shall I send the bill for my new keyboard, dude?

ROFLMAO!

416 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:18:49am

re: #381 Occasional Reader

A wise Latina woman can shoot straighter than you, you Anglo Zionist Y-chromosomed Honco.

/

(Not necessarily my wife; she tends to chew up the range's ceiling a bit. But the Colombian gal I dated before her? Total deadeye.) (And yes, for you single guys, the shooting range makes for a GREAT "memorable" date.)

417 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:19:26am

If I were a sitting U.S. Senator, I think I'd explore the subject of identity politics with her. That's the festering sore on the body of the Democratic Party, and one that has dragged it down into the sewer. Sotomayor's buy-in to identity politics should be explored fully to educate the public.

Identity politics, the centerpiece of the Democratic Party, is inherently divisive. That's because the concept, together with "white privilege" was developed by the radical communists in the Weather Underground precisely to divide the country by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

"The Weathermen were outspoken advocates of the critical concepts that later came to be known as “white privilege” and identity politics. As the unrest in poor black neighborhoods intensified in the early 1970s, Bernardine Dohrn said, “White youth must choose sides now. They must either fight on the side of the oppressed, or be on the side of the oppressor.”"

418 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:19:42am

re: #369 Honorary Yooper

Yeah, but their "pro-immigration" stance only extends so far. Ask them what they think of immigration from Asia, most of the Caribbean, or Europe.

I was being snarky. Forgot the sarc tag.

419 tfc3rid  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:19:44am

We're in the post-racial period folks. There are no longer such things as racists...

420 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:20:30am

re: #406 rightside

Right, I understand that part, but I am pretty sure, if they all registered accounts, Charles would deny them based on coming from the same IP, unless I emailed ahead of time, specifically requesting it.

My answer was more generic, in that those with dialup, etc, only get one IP at a time, and is not duplicated. I am curious if people who work in large companies, military networks, have been denied accounts before because of they are all on the same network.

Anyway, thanks for the reply, I am outta here! Heading home for the weekend.

Stay safe.

Actually, dial-up users will get different IP addresses, so if I used dial-up, I could get one just used by a banned user in the same area.
But Charles uses additional data (he admitted it earlier), and I remember one case of two roommates, one with a nic and one without. They used the same computer, so they shared more than just IP address. Charles asked, and the new user explained the situation. Charles let her keep the account. (I think it was ILikeCandy, but I'm not sure)

421 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:20:33am

re: #416 Occasional Reader

(Not necessarily my wife; she tends to chew up the range's ceiling a bit. But the Colombian gal I dated before her? Total deadeye.) (And yes, for you single guys, the shooting range makes for a GREAT "memorable" date.)

The ceiling-protective deflector immediately downrange of the firing line of an indoor range I used to frequent was known to the operators as the "Larry Stop", for some reason. ;)

I'm just glad I never shot there at the same time as Larry.

422 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:20:51am

re: #404 zombie

Madness.

I guess there's a certain survival of the fittest here, though... those schools that adopt "feel good"-based admissions will watch as their rankings (and perceived solidity) dissipate in the eyes of prospective employers and graduate programs.

423 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:21:02am

re: #393 TheMatrix31

My professor just called all Republicans "racists".

Oh, blanket statements!

Calling names really helps create an atmosphere where we can all try to work together, huh?

424 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:21:04am

re: #400 LGoPs

You'd have a point to make if there was any evidence that Sotomayor has been anything but a centrist while on the bench. She's got 380+ rulings, and the best muck anyone can rake about her "fundamentally flawed thinking" is a single line from a speech she gave. Those are some pretty strong accusations you're throwing around, where's the beef?

425 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:21:14am

re: #419 tfc3rid

We're in the post-racial period folks. There are no longer such things as racists...

Obama meant post-glacial.

/do you see any mammoths?

426 n2stox  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:21:20am

And, according to Barney Frank, Scalia is a "homophobe."

I'm not going to worry about some grandstander's name calling.

Of course, if it's a sitting Dem, they can call the CIA liars, Bush a war criminal, and throw out any other term they want without rebuke.

427 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:21:27am

re: #401 Dave the.....

I agree, Dave. You're definitely a fashion victim! I mean, hats with horns?

428 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:21:46am

OT:Rube Goldberg for Drinkers....
Caféen? Domino

Youtube Video
429 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:21:56am

re: #417 quickjustice

If I were a sitting U.S. Senator, I think I'd explore the subject of identity politics with her. That's the festering sore on the body of the Democratic Party, and one that has dragged it down into the sewer. Sotomayor's buy-in to identity politics should be explored fully to educate the public.

Identity politics, the centerpiece of the Democratic Party, is inherently divisive. That's because the concept, together with "white privilege" was developed by the radical communists in the Weather Underground precisely to divide the country by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

"The Weathermen were outspoken advocates of the critical concepts that later came to be known as “white privilege” and identity politics. As the unrest in poor black neighborhoods intensified in the early 1970s, Bernardine Dohrn said, “White youth must choose sides now. They must either fight on the side of the oppressed, or be on the side of the oppressor.”"

Ding ding ding!

430 KenJen  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:22:23am

re: #399 avanti

Steele weighs in on the issue at hand.

Steele..

I don't appreciate being told to "acknowledge" the "historic" aspect of this nomination by Steele. I'm sooo sick of everything Obama does as being "historic".

431 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:22:39am

re: #377 quickjustice

In NYC, it's "Latina". That word primarily refers to Puerto Ricans or Dominicans.

In addition:

'Chicano' is ethnic-specific to Central America. 'Latino' works for the whole Spanish-speaking Americas, and has no racial specificity.

432 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:22:48am

re: #399 avanti

Steele weighs in on the issue at hand.

Steele..

Clearly, he's a RINO. ////

433 Drider  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:22:57am

OMG, Rush and Newt called a woman who made a racist statement a racist, we cannot have that. Frankly this woman did not say the racist statement with malice, she said it from the heart and soul and it doesn't make it any less the racist statement that it was.....Hell replace the word "white" in her statement and replace it with the word "black" and what do we have...............A racist.

You know, with everyone in whats left of the Republican party walking on egg shells and not fighting for what they believe in, half our big tent will be filled with Powell's and Specter's. If we keep hiding our heads in a hole, the next thing we know there will be blatant voter intimidation at polling places (our most sacred right as Americans)by the Black Panthers of which, those in the current administration will use them as simply another tool in the tool bag.....Oh wait.

434 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:23:06am

re: #392 VioletTiger

Impartiality in a judge is one of the most important qualifications. Empathy does not imply impartiality IMO.

Which is the whole reason why the famous statue of justice has a blindfold on.
I understand that the President has a law degree from a prestigious university and is a constitutional scholar but I have a special advantage over him. I graduated summa cum laud from fucking kindergarten and I learned that there.
Sheesh.

435 turn  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:23:24am

re: #370 nyc redneck

i agree she will get confirmed but it would be irresponsible for the republicans to not expose her record and history. and statements that relate to character and fitness for the job. we need to hear her views.
fck the msm and dems who would like us to just shut up and roll out a red carpet for her.
that would be a great way to cause gop members to flee.
showing no back bone at all.
lol no one would respect weakness like that.

Yes, this racism issue can be addressed with tact. Simply ask her how she would view such a statement had it been made by a white male with the roles reversed, then watch her squirm. Any way this goes popcorn futures are looking pretty good.

436 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:23:24am

re: #431 SanFranciscoZionist

In addition:

'Chicano' is ethnic-specific to Central America.

I thought it was ethnic-specific to Mexico?

437 legalpad  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:23:26am

re: #423 Sharmuta

Calling names really helps create an atmosphere where we can all try to work together, huh?

Yes it does. Having 2 parties is divisive. Unity in thought, in feeling, in ideology, all controlled by the U.N./

438 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:23:27am

re: #432 Sharmuta

Clearly, he's a RINO. ////

He's in on the plan.

439 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:23:56am

re: #391 drcordell

Do you understand the role of the appellate courts? Sotomayor wasn't ruling on whether or not she agreed with what happened to Ricci. She was ruling on whether or not the city of New Haven's actions were against the law. Sotomayor found that under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New Haven was forced to throw the test out, lest they open themselves up to lawsuits alleging racial discrimination.

Let me guess, you would have preferred Sotomayor ignore what the law says and support Ricci's petition because you don't agree with Title VII? I had no idea you were such an ardent supporter of judicial activism!

Thank you for this comment.

440 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:24:16am

re: #381 Occasional Reader

A wise Latina woman can shoot straighter than you, you Anglo Zionist Y-chromosomed Honco.

/

I don't have a Y-chromosome, but other than that, description fits me to a T.

441 Ojoe  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:24:22am

As a white male, I am tired of the implied insults. I do my best to be as fair and helpful a human being as possible.

442 TheMatrix31  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:24:33am

re: #423 Sharmuta

Calling names really helps create an atmosphere where we can all try to work together, huh?

Calling names really helps create an atmosphere where I want to beat the hell out of my professor.

If I didn't need these fucking lecture notes (About Political Islam, no less) for the Final, I would have gotten up and left.

443 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:24:38am

re: #409 Kenneth

Good catch. That was the tell.


I learned to spot trolls moderating a religion web site a few years back where we were trying to discern genuine people who were honestly misinformed from those who intentionally perpetuated slander.

IP addresses were a good start for sniffing out sock puppets but their own postings often revealed them quicker than any other intelligence.

Troll behavior is almost universal regardless of the forum topic.

(Is that racist? /)

444 tfc3rid  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:24:45am

re: #435 turn

Yes, this racism issue can be addressed with tact. Simply ask her how she would view such a statement had it been made by a white male with the roles reversed, then watch her squirm. Any way this goes popcorn futures are looking pretty good.

That question will never be asked.

445 CommonCents  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:25:14am

Why does Cornyn have to express approval or condemnation of what a radio entertainer has to say? When was the last time any Democrat had to validate comments by Olbermann or ANYONE else on TV, Radio, etc.?

446 neocon hippie  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:25:20am

re: #431 SanFranciscoZionist

Isn't "Chicano" derived from Mexicano, thus applicable to Mexicans and Mexican immigrants only?

447 lawhawk  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:25:24am

re: #321 wrenchwench

That and the Tasani case (dealing with IP and copyright held by writers that the NYT tried to usurp).

448 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:25:26am

re: #433 Drider

OMG, Rush and Newt called a woman who made a racist statement a racist, we cannot have that. Frankly this woman did not say the racist statement with malice, she said it from the heart and soul and it doesn't make it any less the racist statement that it was.....Hell replace the word "white" in her statement and replace it with the word "black" and what do we have...............A racist.

You know, with everyone in whats left of the Republican party walking on egg shells and not fighting for what they believe in, half our big tent will be filled with Powell's and Specter's. If we keep hiding our heads in a hole, the next thing we know there will be blatant voter intimidation at polling places (our most sacred right as Americans)by the Black Panthers of which, those in the current administration will use them as simply another tool in the tool bag.....Oh wait.

Huh?

449 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:25:42am

re: #396 Occasional Reader

A key moment in European history was when Turkey, the Franks, and Bologna formed the League of Lunchmeats.

I always wondered how New Deli was established.

450 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:26:06am

"Por la Raza, Todo. Fuera de la raza, nada."
I became aware of that slogan when a person who had been appointed to the parks board here in KC was found to be a member of the Minutemen. LaRaza had a convention scheduled for here and demanded that she resign. She eventually did, but not before LaRaza had canceled the convention. I see they denied the statement. But then Sotomayor denied the statement she made about courts making policy by using quote unquote handsigns and laughing, so I have some concern about the statement, just like I have concern that there is a group called "The Race", that a future Supreme Court justice is a member of it.

451 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:26:11am

re: #448 MandyManners

Huh?

The Black Panther voter intimidation charges were thrown out.

452 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:26:27am

re: #426 n2stox

"an agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."
-Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas

Not a fan of Barney Frank by any means, but that quote seems pretty clear cut to me. What does moral outrage over homosexuality have to do with the laws and Constitution of the United States? Why would Scalia even bring it up?

453 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:26:38am

re: #449 DaddyG

I always wondered how New Deli was established.

Just remember they need to be kept on Iceland.

454 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:26:58am

re: #446 neocon hippie

Isn't "Chicano" derived from Mexicano, thus applicable to Mexicans and Mexican immigrants only?

That's what I think, too.

"To be a Chicano is to be proud! To cruise, up and down the boulevard, all day and all night, in big cars, low to the ground!"

-John Belushi, SNL skit, circa 1978

455 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:27:21am

re: #424 drcordell

You'd have a point to make if there was any evidence that Sotomayor has been anything but a centrist while on the bench. She's got 380+ rulings, and the best muck anyone can rake about her "fundamentally flawed thinking" is a single line from a speech she gave. Those are some pretty strong accusations you're throwing around, where's the beef?

Yeah, they're strong accusations because the rule of law is not something to be trifled with. And her comments regarding her unique abilities based on her background and her comments on legislating from the bench cast grave doubt on the role she is going to play in fashioning the laws that we all will be living under.

456 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:28:01am

re: #449 DaddyG

I always wondered how New Deli was established.

That's a mystery to me. But I do know that when the Ottoman Empire expanded into the area formerly known as Gaul, that's when the Turkey Franks were born. (They were much healthier, and lower in fat.)

457 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:28:03am

re: #433 Drider

You are confusing the concepts of "racist" and "racial". What Sotomayor said was showed a racial bias, no argument there. But she did not use that statement to harm anybody. Racism means an act causing harm flowing from a racial bias. Refusing to hire somebody because of their race is therefore racist. Believing one race is better than another is racialist.

Considering that distinction, I still do think her comment raises some serious questions about her fitness for the post.

458 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:28:21am

re: #453 Honorary Yooper

Just remember they need to be kept on Iceland.

If their enemies were brought up on international crimes would the charge be attempting to beat the meat?

459 VioletTiger  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:28:30am

re: #413 MacDuff

Sorry for pokin' my nose in, but IMO, empathy implies just the opposite as impartiality.


Yes, I think we are in complete agreement on this.

460 MrSilverDragon  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:29:06am

re: #458 DaddyG

If their enemies were brought up on international crimes would the charge be attempting to beat the meat?

You're such a ham.

461 Velvet Elvis  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:29:19am

re: #417 quickjustice

I don't think the Weather Underground came up with the concepts, just employed them.

462 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:29:44am

re: #460 MrSilverDragon

You're such a ham.


Smokin'

463 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:30:04am

re: #460 MrSilverDragon

You're such a ham.

I never sausage puns in all my life.

464 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:30:08am

What's for lunch?
School Lunch From Around the World

465 KenJen  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:30:22am

re: #456 Occasional Reader

That's a mystery to me. But I do know that when the Ottoman Empire expanded into the area formerly known as Gaul, that's when the Turkey Franks were born. (They were much healthier, and lower in fat.)

Link?

466 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:30:32am

re: #458 DaddyG

If their enemies were brought up on international crimes would the charge be attempting to beat the meat?

Not if it was only against one of them, then the charge would be attempting to bop the Bologna.

467 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:30:32am

re: #463 MandyManners

I never sausage puns in all my life.

Biscuit used to it.

468 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:30:41am

re: #399 avanti

Steele weighs in on the issue at hand.

Steele..

RNC chair Michael Steele, guest-hosting on Bill Bennett’s radio show early this morning, repeatedly distanced himself from Republicans and conservatives who have been harshly attacking Sonia Sotomayor, saying the assault risked damaging the party.

Steele also appeared to suggest that such attacks were a non-starter because the liberal media, and MSNBC in particular, would use them to damage the GOP.

In what seemed like an effort to distance the party from claims that Sotomayor is “racist” and an “Affirmative Action” pick, Steele repeatedly said that Republicans should be hailing the historic nature of Obama’s pick.

“I’m excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position,” Steele said. He added that instead of “slammin’ and rammin’” on Sotomayor, Republicans should “acknowledge” the “historic aspect” of the pick and make a “cogent, articulate argument” against her for purely substantive reasons.

469 turn  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:31:09am

re: #444 tfc3rid

That question will never be asked.

Maybe, but it should be. I would be very disappointed if not one single Republican has the spine to ask it.

470 Dave the.....  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:31:10am

427 Quickjustice

I agree, Dave. You're definitely a fashion victim! I mean, hats with horns?

So we have African-Americans who, even though their ancestors have been here since..ahem...before the Civil War, wear traditional African style clothing. I am also part German. I wonder what would happen if I showed up to work some day wearing lederhosen.

471 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:31:14am

re: #340 opnion

I don't think that she actually has a track record on abortion rulings.
She did join in an opnion to allow pro life demonstrations near clinics, but that was a First Amendment case.

You are correct--she has no track record in re: issues involving Roe v Wade, and very little info is around about what she might think about Roe.

She has three cases involving abortion issues--one involving prolife demo's, which she allowed. and another on the federal funding of abortion, where she ruled that the gov has the right to withhold funding if that's what they want to do. In all three cases she ruled in favour of the anti-choice people.

These are rulings that should reassure conservatives and are currently causing liberals a lot of alarm.

Here is a good article in the WSJ describing the cases and explaining why the info we have suggests she's a centrist or a moderate:

[Link: blogs.wsj.com...]

472 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:31:26am

re: #436 Occasional Reader

I thought it was ethnic-specific to Mexico?

Guatemalans and Salvadorans also use it sometimes. IME, anyway.

473 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:31:43am

re: #468 Sharmuta

He added that instead of “slammin’ and rammin’” on Sotomayor

Er... Mike, you feeling okay?

474 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:31:43am
475 pat  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:31:47am

Of course she is a racist. She revels in it. Her dislike of white men is out in the open. It is her identity. She considers it a badge of honor. I dare say her dislike of white women, although she is one, is likely near to the surface also.

476 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:31:49am

re: #456 Occasional Reader

That's a mystery to me. But I do know that when the Ottoman Empire expanded into the area formerly known as Gaul, that's when the Turkey Franks were born. (They were much healthier, and lower in fat.)

Fortunately they were defeated by the Beefeaters at the Siege of Hamburg.

477 MacDuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:32:11am

re: #431 SanFranciscoZionist

In addition:

'Chicano' is ethnic-specific to Central America. 'Latino' works for the whole Spanish-speaking Americas, and has no racial specificity.

Pardon me from opining this can o'worms, but I've always believed that thre are only three basic races; White, Black and Asian, with all others being combinations thereof. Am I wrong in this assumption?

478 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:32:33am

re: #441 Ojoe

As a white male, I am tired of the implied insults. I do my best to be as fair and helpful a human being as possible.

Guy I worked with--a raving moonbat and not much fun otherwise--used to respond to any mention of 'dead white men' with "Watch it! I plan to be a dead white man myself someday."

479 itellu3times  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:32:43am

re: #274 Noam Sayin'

Is anyone taking bets on who ArrowSmith was previously?

Or who he'll be in the future?

480 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:33:03am

re: #436 Occasional Reader

I thought it was ethnic-specific to Mexico?

It is. Chicano/Chicana.

481 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:33:25am

re: #271 Conservative Moonbat

Alberto Gonzalez is a member of NCLR and John McCain was a keynote speaker at one of their national conventions. They are really a mainstream organization are you smear them without taring a lot of Republicans who have supported them as well (not to mention kissing the entire latino vote goodbye).

Attacking NCLR is about as politically astute as attacking the NAACP. The organizations are similar.

Two organizations based on race. Similar like that?

482 shiplord kirel  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:33:48am

The far right purists who refused to support the "RINO" McCain have only themselves to blame for this appointment.

483 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:33:50am
484 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:34:03am

re: #474 Iron Fist

Agreed. He would be (white bread) toast by now.

485 Wendya  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:34:12am

re: #7 pat

Republicans are always apologizing. It would be easier just to say he does not agree and that is not his approach. This is a media/MSM trap that never seems to fail.

Apparently, the only time republicans are allowed to use the word "racist" is when they are calling out members of their own party.

486 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:34:29am

re: #477 MacDuff

Pardon me from opining this can o'worms, but I've always believed that thre are only three basic races; White, Black and Asian, with all others being combinations thereof. Am I wrong in this assumption?

IIRC that's the traditional taxonomy of "race" for ethnographers (with, I think, Aussie Aborigines being a small but distinct fourth group).

487 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:34:39am

re: #470 Dave the.....
My Ancestors came over on the Mayflower (steerage). My native costume is a Wonder Bread bag.

488 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:34:45am

re: #470 Dave the.....

427 Quickjustice


So we have African-Americans who, even though their ancestors have been here since..ahem...before the Civil War, wear traditional African style clothing. I am also part German. I wonder what would happen if I showed up to work some day wearing lederhosen.

Well, I had a coworker, Jewish guy, who showed up to work one day dressed as a West African king. But that was just because the kids in his class were reading about Sundiata that day.

489 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:35:18am

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people who are complaining about the "Latina female" statement have not read the full speech it was pulled from, but are just reacting based on those few words.

Here's the entire speech:

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

This comment has been seriously distorted and taken out of context.

And again -- please note that I'm NOT agreeing with everything Sotomayor says by pointing this out! But I really wish people would stop being so easily manipulated by cynical politicians and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, without finding out the full context for themselves.

490 TheMatrix31  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:35:20am

re: #468 Sharmuta


In what seemed like an effort to distance the party from claims that Sotomayor is “racist” and an “Affirmative Action” pick, Steele repeatedly said that Republicans should be hailing the historic nature of Obama’s pick.

“I’m excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position,” Steele said. He added that instead of “slammin’ and rammin’” on Sotomayor, Republicans should “acknowledge” the “historic aspect” of the pick and make a “cogent, articulate argument” against her for purely substantive reasons.

With all due respect to Steele, I'm getting really sick of these classifications. I can't speak for others, but I'm ONLY concerned with how she does stuff on the bench. She seems okay, I guess. How do people expect to get past this racism/bias/prejudice that exist in the world when those things are CONSTANTLY brought up. It was like this in the election season. Yeah, it's cool that Obama is the first "black" President (half, whatever) and it's historic too, but let's focus on the things that actually matters.

Other than that, he's right.

491 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:35:22am

re: #433 Drider

I didn't roll over for the Panthers who intimidated voters in Philly. Neither did the career prosecutors at Justice. Screw you.

492 Mikey_Dallas  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:35:37am

C'mon Folks, don't you know?

'That's not the La Raza that I know'

It's not nice to point out people's associations.....if their Democrats.

493 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:35:37am

re: #463 MandyManners

I never sausage puns in all my life.

You ain't seen muffin' yet.

494 MacDuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:35:40am

re: #482 shiplord kirel

The far right purists who refused to support the "RINO" McCain have only themselves to blame for this appointment.

You couldn't be more correct!

495 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:35:43am

re: #476 Kenneth

Fortunately they were defeated by the Beefeaters at the Siege of Hamburg.

That was the wurst pun yet.

496 J.S.  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:35:48am

re: #353 zombie

This is pretty much standard for survey research...(with these types of studies, the researchers are not interested in "proving" a cause and effect relationship; the goal is simply to establish that two variables (in this case, perception of racism and weight gain) are related...and that, apparently, there is a positive correlation (that is as one variable increases, the other variable also increases.) To find the study's flaws (methodological, etc.) you would have to have access to the actual, published study...

497 astronmr20  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:35:56am

re: #353 zombie

And now, the lighter side -- or should I say heavier side -- of the racism debate:

Racism makes you fat!

It's not my fault that I eat so much -- it's the fault of all those people who make me feel bad!

This is such flawed methodology. They didn't prove any cause-and-effect correlation between perceived racism and weight gain. They simply showed that the same people who griped about being treated badly are the same people who overeat the most. There could be many personality factors which cause those two behaviors in the same person.

Flawed science supporting a political agenda. What is this world coming to?

/


Perhaps, but actually there IS a connection to stress, negativity, and discontentment and weight-gain.

I am in no way applying this to the judicial nominee, however.

498 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:36:17am

re: #470 Dave the.....

You'd get compliments on your legs? ;-)

499 MandyManners  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:36:18am

re: #482 shiplord kirel

The far right purists who refused to support the "RINO" McCain have only themselves to blame for this appointment.

I hope they're fucking happy now.

500 avanti  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:36:42am

Bush still a class act, as shown in a speech last night.

The former president said none of his current or future statements should be seen as passing judgment on President Barack Obama or the new administration's policies.

"There are plenty of people who will weigh in, trust me," he said. "I didn't like it when a former president criticized me, and therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best."

501 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:36:45am

re: #477 MacDuff

Pardon me from opining this can o'worms, but I've always believed that thre are only three basic races; White, Black and Asian, with all others being combinations thereof. Am I wrong in this assumption?

I don't think it's that simple. 'Race' is basically a social invention, and I don't think there's really a scientifically more-valid-than-any-other way to split up our variations.

502 legalpad  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:37:27am

re: #482 shiplord kirel

The far right purists who refused to support the "RINO" McCain have only themselves to blame for this appointment.

I think we can blame Bush 41 too.

503 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:37:30am

re: #455 LGoPs

Right. Comments on judicial activism similar to the ones that noted "leftist" Justice Scalia has made?

Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. - Antonin Scalia

If this woman is a crazy judicial activist who rules on emotion instead of law, she would have done so in ONE of her previous cases. Yet you cannot cite a single instance where she has done so. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you have no proof of the accusation you are leveling.

Beating the same dead-horse quotes that have been kicking around the internet for the past week isn't making your argument stronger. Where's the beef?

504 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:37:54am

re: #495 DaddyG

That was the wurst pun yet.

You're full of bologna. I liked it.

505 Dave the.....  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:37:54am
People would point at you and giggle. In the right courtroom, you could probably get five million or so for your hurt feelings :-)

Germano/Germana's like myself are victims.

506 Velvet Elvis  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:37:59am

re: #445 CommonCents

Why does Cornyn have to express approval or condemnation of what a radio entertainer has to say? When was the last time any Democrat had to validate comments by Olbermann or ANYONE else on TV, Radio, etc.?

What Rush and Newt say gets reprinted in the MSM while nobody gives a damn what Olberman rants about.

Cornyn represents a state that's 35% hispanic and wants to be reelected.

507 Occasional Reader  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:38:17am

re: #489 Charles

without finding out the full context for themselves

As previously discussed; yes, I've read the speech, and I don't think the quote is "out of context". The speech to me reeks of PoMo reasoning (and its law school cousin, "Critical Legal Theory"). She gives a mere "salute to the flag" in terms of even attempting to put aside one's prejudices. Note that I am not part of the "she's the equivalent of a Klansman!" crowd; but I do not care for the mindset revealed in this speech.

Later... work beckons. Or threatens?

508 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:38:30am

re: #500 avanti

Bush still a class act, as shown in a speech last night.
...
"There are plenty of people who will weigh in, trust me," he said. "I didn't like it when a former president criticized me, and therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best."

That was a private issue between him and his dad. /

509 TheMatrix31  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:38:31am

re: #500 avanti

Bush still a class act, as shown in a speech last night.

The former president said none of his current or future statements should be seen as passing judgment on President Barack Obama or the new administration's policies.

"There are plenty of people who will weigh in, trust me," he said. "I didn't like it when a former president criticized me, and therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best."

I fuckin' love him.

510 legalpad  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:38:44am

re: #501 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't think it's that simple. 'Race' is basically a social invention, and I don't think there's really a scientifically more-valid-than-any-other way to split up our variations.

Yes, and they change over the millenniums.

511 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:38:59am

To focus for a sec on the gender portion of the "wise Latina" remark:

One of the things that convinced me that feminists were not interested in facts was their denial of differences between the sexes. That Sotomayor acknowledges the existence of differences, and admits that those differences may be reflected in the rulings of judges, I saw as a breath of fresh air. I believe she sees allowing the differences to be reflected in rulings from the bench as something to be avoided, but denying their existence does not help to avoid them.

The same concept applied to race gets a different reaction. I think it is racist to say there are differences between the races the same way there are differences between the genders. But it is silly to deny there are differences in the experiences of humans of different races. And again, the denial of those differences does not help in the effort to be impartial on the bench.

512 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:39:18am

re: #490 TheMatrix31

Maybe it's different for some of us- I don't know. I wept when Sarah was nominated- does that make me a sexist because I was inspired by the first republican woman on the top ticket?

I don't think it's always wrong to note these things, but I also agree with you that we should be more concerned with substance.

513 wiffersnapper  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:39:30am

If not racist, associated with racist groups.

514 neocon hippie  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:39:36am

re: #477 MacDuff

Or to use the technical terms, caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid.

515 slokat  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:39:45am

This might help...

Are Chicanos the same as Mexicans?

516 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:40:15am

re: #486 Occasional Reader

IIRC that's the traditional taxonomy of "race" for ethnographers (with, I think, Aussie Aborigines being a small but distinct fourth group).

But when geneticists started studying the DNA of people around the world, the issue of races became much more complicated. Intermixing of races is much more widespread than ever thought before, and a few new distinct "races" were discovered. For example, the Kalahari Bushmen have little common DNA with other Africans. Black Africans share common genetic markers with Australian Aborigines, but the Kalahari do not.

Then there are the Dravidians of South India, Arabs, Turks...

The genetic evidence makes it difficult to squeeze humanity into 3 races. it just don't fit.

517 Wendya  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:40:17am

re: #489 Charles

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people who are complaining about the "Latina female" statement have not read the full speech it was pulled from, but are just reacting based on those few words.

Here's the entire speech:

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

This comment has been seriously distorted and taken out of context.

No, it hasn't. Her words do not require parsing.

Law should not be "interpreted" based on gender or ethnicity.

518 Drider  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:40:26am

re: #457 Kenneth

You are confusing the concepts of "racist" and "racial". What Sotomayor said was showed a racial bias, no argument there. But she did not use that statement to harm anybody. Racism means an act causing harm flowing from a racial bias. Refusing to hire somebody because of their race is therefore racist. Believing one race is better than another is racialist.

Considering that distinction, I still do think her comment raises some serious questions about her fitness for the post.

I disagree, Racial terms or words are meant to demean other people, they don't physically hurt the person.
And you summed it up with your last line.......Believing one race is better than another is racialist.
That is exactly how she views race/justice/rulings by her own words.

519 Creeping Eruption  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:40:45am

re: #501 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't think it's that simple. 'Race' is basically a social invention, and I don't think there's really a scientifically more-valid-than-any-other way to split up our variations.

/ I am not sure I agree that you cant split up the variations. For example, you have stock-car racing, rally racing, Formula-one racing, drag racing (not that there is anything wrong with that), off-road racing, etc. Or am I missing something here?

520 svines  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:40:45am

Senator Cornyn needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Criticizing a fellow republicans who are plainly speaking the truth about Ms. Sotomayor's judicial and racial philosophy it totally unwarranted. It also makes me take a look at his moderate stance on the issues.

Cornyn has never been a solid conservative and in the last few years has been leaning ever more to the left.

Cornyn needs to remember that even many Hispanic voters have very conservative beliefs in the areas of religion, abortion, and taxation. These conservative beliefs are solid and if a politician truly believes and runs on those ideals he will win a majority of the voters.

521 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:40:47am

re: #514 neocon hippie

Or to use the technical terms, caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid.

So I'm technically a Pasty Caucasoid?

522 NY Nana  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:41:11am

re: #339 Nevergiveup

Bob Hope - Thanks For The Memories

May he rest in peace. I miss him.



523 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:41:12am

re: #511 wrenchwench

To focus for a sec on the gender portion of the "wise Latina" remark:

One of the things that convinced me that feminists were not interested in facts was their denial of differences between the sexes. That Sotomayor acknowledges the existence of differences, and admits that those differences may be reflected in the rulings of judges, I saw as a breath of fresh air. I believe she sees allowing the differences to be reflected in rulings from the bench as something to be avoided, but denying their existence does not help to avoid them.

The same concept applied to race gets a different reaction. I think it is racist to say there are differences between the races the same way there are differences between the genders. But it is silly to deny there are differences in the experiences of humans of different races. And again, the denial of those differences does not help in the effort to be impartial on the bench.

Really well said.

524 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:41:21am

By the way, Alberto Gonzales is also a member of the National Council of La Raza, and he served on the board of directors of one of their major affiliates.

Focusing on the La Raza membership of Sotomayor is not going anywhere. The GOP has just as many connections to the NCLR as Sonia Sotomayor does.

525 Wendya  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:41:36am

re: #500 avanti

Bush still a class act, as shown in a speech last night.

The former president said none of his current or future statements should be seen as passing judgment on President Barack Obama or the new administration's policies.

"There are plenty of people who will weigh in, trust me," he said. "I didn't like it when a former president criticized me, and therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best."

He's a better man than his successor, who can't seem to address any problem without blaming Bush.

526 LeonidasOfSparta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:41:44am

re: #364 Buck

That didn't happen. As I understand it, no one got promoted. IF unqualified people were promoted over more qualified, due to race, then they would have a case.

But that was avoided by promoting NO ONE from that test.

Yes, Buck, I see that. But, I think that changing the rules and tossing out all exam results just to make it easier for persons of color who cannot pass the exam to get the promotion based on something "else" is to dumb down the qualifications for a job in order to "accomodate" ....what? persons of color who are deemed by the courts unable to get the promotion without changing the rules?

If this is the case, then anyone who has a mental disability should be able to have the methods of qualifications changed so that they can become anything they want -- WHETHER THEY ARE ACTUALLY QUALIFIED OR NOT.

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

"For decades, people of color across the country have filed scores of discrimination lawsuits to challenge testing in fire departments, police departments and public schools."

When does it end?

It's a slippery slope, IMHO, this "quota" mind-set that seeks Federal mandates and Supreme Court legislations to regulate hiring, promoting, college entrance, etc, as it regards race.

And why stop with "race?" -- why not allow anyone to qualify to do anything, NO prejudicial exams or qualification requirements. /sarc

527 turn  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:41:59am

re: #500 avanti

Hey you are risking neutral karma with comments like that avanti. ha

528 TheMatrix31  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:42:07am

re: #512 Sharmuta

Maybe it's different for some of us- I don't know. I wept when Sarah was nominated- does that make me a sexist because I was inspired by the first republican woman on the top ticket?

I don't think it's always wrong to note these things, but I also agree with you that we should be more concerned with substance.

I think it's fine to note the historical significance, but it seems like it's all that's mentioned. At least, this was the case with him and Sotomayor. Ironically (and not surprisingly), we didn't hear too much about it with Palin, presumably because there has been a woman VP candidate before?

529 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:42:11am

re: #489 Charles

There you go with the "facts" and "reason" and "research" again, Charles. Jeesh! Why won't you just let us get a good ignorant lather up and rave about shit like they do on those other blogs?

530 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:42:22am

No meat puns in a while. Are the punsters in a pickle or loafing?

531 BARACK THE VOTE  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:42:29am

re: #487 DaddyG

My Ancestors came over on the Mayflower (steerage). My native costume is a Wonder Bread bag.

That is one of the funniest things I've ever read. :)

532 Velvet Elvis  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:42:38am

re: #481 kansas

Two organizations based on race. Similar like that?

And purpose, the social advance of their constituent races, as well as civil rights.

533 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:42:40am
534 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:42:44am

re: #518 Drider

You misunderstood my post.

535 tfc3rid  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:43:02am

re: #469 turn

Maybe, but it should be. I would be very disappointed if not one single Republican has the spine to ask it.

Senate GOP members are too spineless... The threat of the MSM has them cowering in their wingtips...

536 DaddyG  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:43:13am

re: #531 iceweasel
Thank you I'm here all week. ;-)

537 pat  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:43:49am

There is nothing wrong with a "female" perspective. Indeed Palin just gave an interesting talk on the same thing in Indiana. Motherhood and reproductive burdens are unique to females. Once you get away from the extremist political thought of conservative or liberal feminism, you still have a distinctively female perspective on many things.

538 Creeping Eruption  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:44:17am

re: #536 DaddyG

Thank you I'm here all week. ;-)

Just flew in from the coast? Arms tired?

539 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:44:39am

re: #524 Charles

I was just about to say exactly what #529 Kenneth did, but he beat me to it. It's not about "facts" or "reason" or any of that. It's about red meat for the base. Giving people whose minds were already made up something to scream about to justify their pre-determined disposition.

540 Dave the.....  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:44:43am

Things like the New Haven firefighters test, or SAT scores...they are treating a symptom, not the problem.
These people should focus on issues in the Black community. Instead they are trying to make the sympton go away, but not do anything about the underline issue.

541 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:45:37am

re: #523 Sharmuta

You seem to get the "chick" stuff. :)

542 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:45:53am

re: #540 Dave the.....

Things like the New Haven firefighters test, or SAT scores...they are treating a symptom, not the problem.
These people should focus on issues in the Black community. Instead they are trying to make the sympton go away, but not do anything about the underline issue.

And Bill Cosby gets a lot of shit when he tries to point out the underlying issues.

543 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:46:06am

re: #490 TheMatrix31

Steele wasn't hired to be a cheerleader for the other side. His strategy seems breathless and half-baked. In short, he doesn't know what to do. Sotomayor will be confirmed. Even acting in unison, the GOP doesn't have the votes to stop her. The question for the GOP is how to turn this "shoo-in" into an opportunity for them, a "teaching moment".

I think it must be a judo strategy. Sidestep the "American Dream, Horatio Alger" aspect of the story, i.e., "I was born a poor black child" (with apologies to Steve the Comedian), and focus on the new obstacles that reverse racism and identity politics present to the American Dream. Acknowledge her rags to riches story as vintage American, but explore how identity politics destroys that dream. Sotomayor is a walking contradiction in terms, an American success story we should celebrate, harboring the seeds of the destruction of that same success for others with her identity politics, which we should condemn.

Like it?

544 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:46:18am

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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

It's a long article, but the statement in context is not better, in my opinion. Better conclusion? What is better? What does that have to do with the law? At least Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to her that 9 white men have made decent rulings. Seems like until he pointed that out she might not have realized it. She obviously sees much through the prism of race.

545 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:46:53am

re: #471 iceweasel

You are correct--she has no track record in re: issues involving Roe v Wade, and very little info is around about what she might think about Roe.

She has three cases involving abortion issues--one involving prolife demo's, which she allowed. and another on the federal funding of abortion, where she ruled that the gov has the right to withhold funding if that's what they want to do. In all three cases she ruled in favour of the anti-choice people.

These are rulings that should reassure conservatives and are currently causing liberals a lot of alarm.

Here is a good article in the WSJ describing the cases and explaining why the info we have suggests she's a centrist or a moderate:

[Link: blogs.wsj.com...]

We will know a lot more about her after she is on the bench for a time.
It does bother me tough that she emphasizes her background over dispassionate legal reasoning.
She will have a chance to walk that back at the hearings.

546 neocon hippie  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:46:54am

I'm getting a lot of double postings of comments.

547 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:46:56am

re: #533 Iron Fist

I've said it repeatedly and linked it more than once (and I'm not the only person who has noted it), her position on the Second Amendment is unacceptable. Jurisprudence and precedent are moving in the direction of greater protections from government overreach on the Second Amendment issue. She is a step backwards on the issue.

The NRA is withholding judgment until they get more information. More people should follow that example.

Sotomayor, however, sat on a panel that issued an opinion in a controversial case that could impact gun-owners’ rights, Maloney v. Cuomo. Sotomayor and other members of the court ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, only to the federal government. The plaintiff in the case argued that a state law barring him from owning nunchucks, a martial arts weapon, violated his constitutional right to bear arms.

Sotomayor’s court also ruled that the Supreme Court’s decision District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated the District’s law against handgun possession, did not go so far as to apply the Second Amendment to state law.

This ruling has given some Senate Republican aides and conservative activists hope that the NRA would immerse itself in the debate over Sotomayor.

But a spokesman for the organization said it’s staying on the sidelines for now.

“Right now we have a lot of concerns and questions and we hope to have those addressed during the confirmation hearing and throughout the process,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. “As far as our actions, we reserve the right to do anything based on what we find out.

“All options are on the table,” he added. “As we speak today, we’re waiting for the confirmation process. A research team is looking into her record on our issue.”

548 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:47:13am

re: #537 pat

There is nothing wrong with a "female" perspective. Indeed Palin just gave an interesting talk on the same thing in Indiana. Motherhood and reproductive burdens are unique to females. Once you get away from the extremist political thought of conservative or liberal feminism, you still have a distinctively female perspective on many things.

And then there are us men, who are often accuse of thinking with our d*cks.

549 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:47:15am

re: #503 drcordell

Right. Comments on judicial activism similar to the ones that noted "leftist" Justice Scalia has made?


If this woman is a crazy judicial activist who rules on emotion instead of law, she would have done so in ONE of her previous cases. Yet you cannot cite a single instance where she has done so. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you have no proof of the accusation you are leveling.

Beating the same dead-horse quotes that have been kicking around the internet for the past week isn't making your argument stronger. Where's the beef?

I did not say she was crazy. Those are your words. I also don't say she is a centrist, again your words. She is appointed by the most left wing idealogue this country has ever elected and centrist isn't in his vocabulary.
I believe that both his philosophy and her meeting his standards are worthy of opposing and using as a teaching point to start laying out the differences between the 2 parties and their judicial philosophies.
And lastly, my opposition to her is no where near as rabid as the lockstep opposition and knife fighting that the Democrats used on all of George Bush's appointments, many of whom sat in limbo for years or were withdrawn. And the only standard the democrats held to was that they were conservative.

550 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:47:57am

re: #489 Charles

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people who are complaining about the "Latina female" statement have not read the full speech it was pulled from, but are just reacting based on those few words.

Here's the entire speech:

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

This comment has been seriously distorted and taken out of context.

And again -- please note that I'm NOT agreeing with everything Sotomayor says by pointing this out! But I really wish people would stop being so easily manipulated by cynical politicians and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, without finding out the full context for themselves.

"But Rush has done my thinking for me for two decades now! Thinking hurts!" --Dittohead

551 Joel  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:48:11am

What elected office does Rush Limbaugh or Gingrich hold? Why does the RNC have to comment on everything Gingrich or Limbaugh says when those two gents are not elected officials but private citizens? Must the DNC have to comment on everything that Matthews, Olbermann and Mr. Maddow say over at PMSNBC? I guess not.

552 VioletTiger  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:48:25am

re: #511 wrenchwench

To focus for a sec on the gender portion of the "wise Latina" remark:

One of the things that convinced me that feminists were not interested in facts was their denial of differences between the sexes. That Sotomayor acknowledges the existence of differences, and admits that those differences may be reflected in the rulings of judges, I saw as a breath of fresh air. I believe she sees allowing the differences to be reflected in rulings from the bench as something to be avoided, but denying their existence does not help to avoid them.

The same concept applied to race gets a different reaction. I think it is racist to say there are differences between the races the same way there are differences between the genders. But it is silly to deny there are differences in the experiences of humans of different races. And again, the denial of those differences does not help in the effort to be impartial on the bench.


I agree that it is tough to deny that there would be no influence of one's make-up and background. However, I think a judge should at least aspire to the ideal of impartiality and objectivity. Also, she did not just say she would reach a different decision, she said a better decision. Better how?
As I said before, I would very much like to hear her explain this statement further.

553 tfc3rid  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:48:38am

I am glad she is proud of her heritage but not once in that speech does she refer to herself as American...

Whatever happened to the melting pot where all races, languages and creeds could come together and unite as one and grow together as one nation? We seem to be splintered special interest groups who are all heading in separate directions... It's sad.

554 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:48:50am

re: #546 neocon hippie

I'm getting a lot of double postings of comments.

Do you have the autofeed on for new comments? I always get doubles when I use it.

555 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:49:30am

re: #541 wrenchwench

You seem to get the "chick" stuff. :)

My first reaction to Sotomayor was as a woman- I was glad to see the third female nominee. When I was young- there were no women on the court at all. Now we'll have our third. I think that's great for women.

Since then, I've been looking into her decisions and trying to get a feel for her away from the pundits, whom I no longer trust. She strikes me as a moderate.

556 KenJen  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:49:43am

re: #530 DaddyG

No meat puns in a while. Are the punsters in a pickle or loafing?

No. Just casing the thread.

557 NY Nana  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:49:45am

When we stop using hyphenated names, and all those who are American citizens, either by birth or immigration, are just Americans, IMHO we will be far better off.

Yes, I am a Jewish-American, but that does that have to do with the price of tea? ;) I am an American. Period.

558 MrPaulRevere  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:49:47am

Trading Souter for Sotomayer is trading a predictable vote for another predictable vote. I don't see what the big deal here is, seriously.

559 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:49:56am

re: #533 Iron Fist

An article from Fox News, what a credible source of legal analysis! In all seriousness, still don't see what everyone is up in a lather about. In the case referenced she took another relatively conservative stance, which was to apply the principle of stare decisis. I.E. she purposefully avoided legal activism by upholding previous rulings on the issue. Why are conservatives upset about this? I am so beyond confused.

560 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:50:28am

re: #502 legalpad

I think we can blame Bush 41 too.

It probably seemed like a good compromise at the time.

561 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:50:36am

re: #546 neocon hippie

I'm getting a lot of double postings of comments.

I had that yesterday and the day before........

562 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:50:54am

re: #539 drcordell

I was just about to say exactly what #529 Kenneth did, but he beat me to it. It's not about "facts" or "reason" or any of that. It's about red meat for the base. Giving people whose minds were already made up something to scream about to justify their pre-determined disposition.

Do you suppose kissing up to Charles is going to make you look better? If I were him, that would annoy me.

563 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:51:07am

re: #553 tfc3rid

I am glad she is proud of her heritage but not once in that speech does she refer to herself as American...

Whatever happened to the melting pot where all races, languages and creeds could come together and unite as one and grow together as one nation? We seem to be splintered special interest groups who are all heading in separate directions... It's sad.

That is completely false. Large portions of the speech are about being an American. For example:

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puertorriqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it.

564 zombie  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:51:08am

re: #540 Dave the.....

Things like the New Haven firefighters test, or SAT scores...they are treating a symptom, not the problem.
These people should focus on issues in the Black community. Instead they are trying to make the sympton go away, but not do anything about the underline issue.

Precisely.

If you are concerned about (warning: progressive buzz-phrase coming up) "social justice," then address the root of the problem. Don't destroy the efforts of others in order to put a band-aid on a problem that is completely unrelated to them. An Asian student who studies 10 hours a day for her entire teenage years and as a result gets a 1600 on the SAT ought not to be kicked to the curb to let in a less-qualified student, simply because by so doing the powers-that-be can superficially and temporarily rectify what they perceive as a "problem" in racial admission rates (i.e. too many Asians). What needs to happen is to improve the educational and family dynamic situation in bad school districts -- not to subsequently punish other kids for doing well.

565 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:52:40am

re: #547 Charles

I'm starting to wonder if this woman can win on any points. Here they show deference to states' rights, and conservatives are still upset. I thought states' rights was near and dear to the right....?

566 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:52:42am

re: #564 zombie

Precisely.

If you are concerned about (warning: progressive buzz-phrase coming up) "social justice," then address the root of the problem. Don't destroy the efforts of others in order to put a band-aid on a problem that is completely unrelated to them. An Asian student who studies 10 hours a day for her entire teenage years and as a result gets a 1600 on the SAT ought not to be kicked to the curb to let in a less-qualified student, simply because by so doing the powers-that-be can superficially and temporarily rectify what they perceive as a "problem" in racial admission rates (i.e. too many Asians). What needs to happen is to improve the educational and family dynamic situation in bad school districts -- not to subsequently punish other kids for doing well.

And when this is suggested, the person doing the suggesting is called a racist or an Uncle Tom, even if he is Bill Cosby.

567 lawhawk  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:52:49am

re: #559 drcordell

Some of the criticism is because she took a lengthy case and record, and all she came up with is a 1 paragraph opinion.

Perhaps Cardozo could get away with something like that, but she's not Cardozo. Then again, maybe the issue in that case speaks for itself.

There's a lot of sound and fury generated by an entire cottage industry to gin up support or opposition to judicial nominees, and this is one of the issues they came up with. It's not much of an issue, although I would love it if the Judiciary Committee asked her for a more in depth accounting of that case and her ruling.

568 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:54:10am

re: #549 LGoPs

She is appointed by the most left wing idealogue this country has ever elected and centrist isn't in his vocabulary.
I believe that both his philosophy and her meeting his standards are worthy of opposing and using as a teaching point to start laying out the differences between the 2 parties and their judicial philosophies.
And lastly, my opposition to her is no where near as rabid as the lockstep opposition and knife fighting that the Democrats used on all of George Bush's appointments, many of whom sat in limbo for years or were withdrawn. And the only standard the democrats held to was that they were conservative.

Ah, finally we are getting somewhere. It has nothing to do with Sotomayor, it's just about opposing anything that Obama does. At least you're being honest now. If you want to oppose her solely because she's Obama's pick, go right ahead, nobody is stopping you. Just letting you know that you risk making yourself look like a clueless partisan hack when you keep trying to paint Sotomayor as someone who rules based on emotion instead of the law.

569 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:54:16am

re: #565 Sharmuta

I'm starting to wonder if this woman can win on any points. Here they show deference to states' rights, and conservatives are still upset. I thought states' rights was near and dear to the right....?

"State's Rights" means different things to different people, and there are conservatives such as myself who tread carefully near the issue.

570 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:54:29am

Cornyn gets it. He is from an area with a large Latino population. He would be a shitty politician if he didn't say what he said. He'd be pissing away his largest potential pool of future votes.

571 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:54:30am

re: #550 Cato the Elder

"But Rush has done my thinking for me for two decades now! Thinking hurts!" --Dittohead

I was a dittohead for many years and respect what Ruch has done to give conservatism a voice. I've always found it supremely ironic that the 'robot minded' insult was always levied by the left, the same left that is in absolute lockstep on every liberal view that the MFM trots out for it.

572 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:54:58am

re: #565 Sharmuta

I'm starting to wonder if this woman can win on any points. Here they show deference to states' rights, and conservatives are still upset. I thought states' rights was near and dear to the right....?

It looks more like projected ODS. I can understand real concerns, but some of these are just crazy, IMHO.

The right is just as afflicted with ODS as the left was with BDS.

573 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:55:26am

re: #543 quickjustice


I like it Quickjustice. But who among the Repubs can deliver the message? And can they avoid the verbage that will be turned into a 5 second sound byte used by the MSM to "show" how anti-diversity that fat white guy party really is.

Face it...Republican leadership is weak. No one has emerged. I can dream of a bunch of fresh faced conservative gen-xers taking over the House in 2010...but it's not likely.

574 abbyadams  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:55:34am

re: #511 wrenchwench

But it is silly to deny there are differences in the experiences of humans of different races.

Bingo. Thank you.

575 MrPaulRevere  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:56:10am

re: #570 _RememberTonyC

At least Cornyn and Steele have the sense not to walk into a political trap.

576 rumcrook  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:56:29am

re: #78 Charles

ok, but if MEChA is a wink wink nudge nudge, an autonomous wing of la raza, isnt it sort of like sinn fien, and the irish republican army? one is spouting the true militant line the other has political deniability?

if you name your org, "the race" your not getting a pass from me whether your group is made up of brown black or white people.

and asociations help me determine who someone is.

577 Curtain of Oz  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:56:57am

The Krauthammer article: Sotomayor: Criticize, then confirm

578 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:58:12am

re: #569 OldLineTexan

"State's Rights" means different things to different people, and there are conservatives such as myself who tread carefully near the issue.

Well- I'm with you. I still find it a little ironic she's being attacked for supporting state law.

579 MacDuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:58:20am

re: #501 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't think it's that simple. 'Race' is basically a social invention, and I don't think there's really a scientifically more-valid-than-any-other way to split up our variations.

re: #510 legalpad

Yes, and they change over the millenniums.

I guess my point was to underscore that "race" is a construct and a bit of a misnomer. All of this talk about Black, White, Latina, Chicano, Hispanic et al is more about culture and environment than anything else. This constant dividing, sub-dividing and sub-sub-dividing ourselves, all the while congratulating ourselves on our embrace of diversity seems to be akin to creating a problem for the express purpose of solving it.

What happened to the "color blind" society to which we were to aspire? It seems that the closer we get, the more divisions are created that we have to overcome.

580 rumcrook  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:58:43am

I should have said, if you name your org, "the race" it makes me suspicious and your not getting a pass from me.

581 Kragar  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:59:14am

Any other news out of Iran? So far I've seen about a bombing and shootings at Dinnerjacket's offcies.

582 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 11:59:23am

re: #568 drcordell

Ah, finally we are getting somewhere. It has nothing to do with Sotomayor, it's just about opposing anything that Obama does. At least you're being honest now. If you want to oppose her solely because she's Obama's pick, go right ahead, nobody is stopping you. Just letting you know that you risk making yourself look like a clueless partisan hack when you keep trying to paint Sotomayor as someone who rules based on emotion instead of the law.

That is Obama's position and what he supports. And yes, I do oppose Obama and what he stands for as well as what his party stands for. And I understand that the true legacy of a President is the court he leaves behind because we live with that court long after he's gone. And you can take the hack comment and apply it to yourself.

583 korla pundit  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:01:45pm
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people who are complaining about the "Latina female" statement have not read the full speech it was pulled from, but are just reacting based on those few words.

Here's the entire speech:

I've read the entire speech. It is not out of context at all. Her defenders of course will say that, but they're banking on people NOT bothering to read the longer article, and then assume, "oh, I was misjudging it because there was some missing context there." It is instead actually a good summary of the surrounding text.

It is what it is. She's saying that a Latina would obviously have a different outlook, different experiences and thus a different bias from a white male. It's not an unusual or terrible viewpoint. The problem is that she says a Latina would make a "better" judgement based on her experiences. She has the view that it is a judge's job to apply their own sympathies in a decision, rather than following the actual Constitution. This, even after admitting that most of the civil rights victories in the Supreme Court were decided mostly by white men.

It is not a big deal if a coworker, a person on the street, or some blog commenter says such a thing. But it is incompatible with the qualities expected of a Supreme Court Justice. She should be rejected.

584 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:02:01pm
585 lawhawk  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:02:06pm

re: #581 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Someone attacked one of his election campaign offices in a province of Iran.

Gunmen attacked President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election campaign centre in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan on Friday, wounding three people including a child, the official IRNA news agency said.

It said the gunmen, on motorcycles, opened fire at the centre at around 7:00 pm (1430 GMT) a day after a suicide bomber killed 25 people and wounded 125 others in an attack on a Shiite mosque in Zahedan.

Iran's state-broadcaster said the pan-Arab television channel Al-Arabiya reported that the Jundullah (Soldiers of God) Sunni rebel group said it was behind Thursday's mosque attack.

Zahedan is the restive capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.

How long til he blames the US and/or Israel for the attacks. I give him... 2..1..0

586 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:02:12pm

re: #553 tfc3rid

Identity politics in action. QED.

587 Ben Hur  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:02:37pm
Whatever happened to the melting pot where all races, languages and creeds could come together and unite as one and grow together as one nation?

Strangely, that is now Britain.

They do not hyphenate.

588 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:02:45pm

re: #579 MacDuff

I've wondered the same thing too. But look what we do to the animal population in the name of science. King Phillip Came Over For Good Supper...Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus & Species. Some humans just love to classify things.

589 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:02:51pm

re: #578 Sharmuta

Well- I'm with you. I still find it a little ironic she's being attacked for supporting state law.

I do not expect enthusiasm for any Obama nominee from "the right" (whatever that may be).

Obviously, there are opinions. Some are better grounded in reality or fact, but we have Sotomayor herself allowing for variations in both.

It is a debate that has so far not sunk to the Clarence Thomas level of intrigue, and for that I am grateful.

However, I perceive the current crop of soundbites as a maneuvering game by the foregone losing side. I do not see it as division, rather as a strategy to show a little force before the inevitable "defeat".

An automatic deference to Obama in this case is a show of weakness that would be rewarded with more aggressive behavior.

Almost like the real world, IMO. ;)

590 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:03:28pm

re: #579 MacDuff

I guess my point was to underscore that "race" is a construct and a bit of a misnomer. All of this talk about Black, White, Latina, Chicano, Hispanic et al is more about culture and environment than anything else. This constant dividing, sub-dividing and sub-sub-dividing ourselves, all the while congratulating ourselves on our embrace of diversity seems to be akin to creating a problem for the express purpose of solving it.

What happened to the "color blind" society to which we were to aspire? It seems that the closer we get, the more divisions are created that we have to overcome.

Well it is about culture. On the other hand, culture makes us who we are to a great extent, and one of the great strengths of American society has always been that we draw on so many cultures, but also have a national identity that is not constrained by one 'official' ethnicity (as happens most places you go).

I define myself as an American. I'm also a Jew, and a Litvak-American, and an Irish American, and that is all important to me, as I know ethnic and regional identities are important to a lot of other people here.

I don't see being aware of ethnic differences as a problem that needs fixing. Racial/ethnic inequity is, and there are a lot of proposed methods for solving it--we're making progress there, God willing we'll keep doing so.

591 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:04:22pm

Trying to cite her associations with La Raza as evidence of racism is just silly. As Charles and a lot of others have noted, even if the organization has certain ethnocentric attitudes, that isn't any more inherently racist than any of a hundred other ethnic organizations. I mean would anyone here really not at least giggle if someone were to accuse the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the Sons of Italy as racist?

That said, Ms. Sotomayor's own statements are troubling, to say the least. And Sen. Cornyn's comments seem more a dodge to avoid taking a stand than a legitimate critique of Mr. Gingrich's point. I find the suggestion that Sen. Cornyn wouldn't sprint, not run, to distance himself from a fellow Republican voicing comparable views of the judicial and intellectual superiority of caucasian males highly dubious.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that her comments suggest that she is a racist. It's more than possible that she is not. Perhaps she simply said something incredibly silly without giving it much thought. I think its more than appropriate that re: #17 Baier

Do republican's have a good strategy lately? It's like the Keystone cops...

Trying to cite her associations with La Raza as evidence of racism is just silly. As Charles and a lot of others have noted, even if the organization has certain ethnocentric attitudes, that isn't any more inherently racist than any of a hundred other ethnic organizations. I mean would anyone here really not at least giggle if someone were to accuse the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the Sons of Italy as racist?

That said, Ms. Sotomayor's own statements are troubling, to say the least. And Sen. Cornyn's comments seem more a dodge to avoid taking a stand than a legitimate critique of Mr. Gingrich's point. I find the suggestion that Sen. Cornyn wouldn't sprint, not run, to distance himself from a fellow Republican voicing comparable views of the judicial and intellectual superiority of caucasian males highly dubious.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that her comments suggest that she is a racist. It's more than possible that she is not. Perhaps she simply said something incredibly silly without giving it much thought. I think its more than appropriate that Trying to cite her associations with La Raza as evidence of racism is just silly. As Charles and a lot of others have noted, even if the organization has certain ethnocentric attitudes, that isn't any more inherently racist than any of a hundred other ethnic organizations. I mean would anyone here really not at least giggle if someone were to accuse the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the Sons of Italy as racist?

That said, Ms. Sotomayor's own statements are troubling, to say the least. And Sen. Cornyn's comments seem more a dodge to avoid taking a stand than a legitimate critique of Mr. Gingrich's point. I find the suggestion that Sen. Cornyn wouldn't sprint, not run, to distance himself from a fellow Republican voicing comparable views of the judicial and intellectual superiority of caucasian males highly dubious.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that her comments suggest that she is a racist. It's more than possible that she is not. Perhaps she simply said something incredibly silly without giving it much thought. Given the statement, though, I think its more than appropriate that she now be expected to provide a credible reason to believe that she isn't a racist. For one of the presumptive leaders of the opposition to be sweeping the matter under the rug and dismissing the suggestion out of hand speaks more poorly of Sen. Cornyn than it does of Mr. Limbaugh or Mr. Gingrich.

592 MrSilverDragon  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:05:05pm

re: #581 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Any other news out of Iran? So far I've seen about a bombing and shootings at Dinnerjacket's offcies.

Fox had this on their site:

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

593 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:06:13pm

re: #587 Ben Hur

Strangely, that is now Britain.

They do not hyphenate.

They can also be hair-raisingly racist in polite company. Just sayin'.

594 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:06:37pm
595 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:06:47pm

BBL

596 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:06:54pm

Gah! PIMF. Any chance of the last one getting removed?

Trying to cite her associations with La Raza as evidence of racism is just silly. As Charles and a lot of others have noted, even if the organization has certain ethnocentric attitudes, that isn't any more inherently racist than any of a hundred other ethnic organizations. I mean would anyone here really not at least giggle if someone were to accuse the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the Sons of Italy as racist?

That said, Ms. Sotomayor's own statements are troubling, to say the least. And Sen. Cornyn's comments seem more a dodge to avoid taking a stand than a legitimate critique of Mr. Gingrich's point. I find the suggestion that Sen. Cornyn wouldn't sprint, not run, to distance himself from a fellow Republican voicing comparable views of the judicial and intellectual superiority of caucasian males highly dubious.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that her comments suggest that she is a racist. It's more than possible that she is not. Perhaps she simply said something incredibly silly without giving it much thought. Given the statement, though, I think its more than appropriate that she now be expected to provide a credible reason to believe that she isn't a racist. For one of the presumptive leaders of the opposition to be sweeping the matter under the rug and dismissing the suggestion out of hand speaks more poorly of Sen. Cornyn than it does of Mr. Limbaugh or Mr. Gingrich.

597 ihateronpaul  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:07:06pm

I think it is hilarious how white people like Limbaugh are so quick to throw the word "racist" at them when most of them haven't been victims of systematic racism. Is it "politically incorrect" that a latina woman has to work harder to get to the same place in life as a white male? Because it is usually true, she might have kids and women statistically get payed less then men.

Ohhhhh so controversial aren't I?

598 Joel  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:07:58pm

re: #555 Sharmuta

You are not a New Yorker, I am - she is no moderate but I hope to be proven wrong.

599 opnion  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:08:35pm

re: #559 drcordell

An article from Fox News, what a credible source of legal analysis! In all seriousness, still don't see what everyone is up in a lather about. In the case referenced she took another relatively conservative stance, which was to apply the principle of stare decisis. I.E. she purposefully avoided legal activism by upholding previous rulings on the issue. Why are conservatives upset about this? I am so beyond confused.


Yes, unless there was reversible error at the Trial Court, it was appropriate to affirm.

600 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:08:49pm
601 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:09:13pm

re: #582 LGoPs

You just love to take single sentences from speeches and extrapolate their meaning to a ridiculous degree, don't you? I'm assuming you are referring to the fact that Obama used the word "empathy" in his speech.

"I have followed this man's career for some time, he is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."
-George H. W. Bush on Clarence Thomas

You paint Obama as a radical supporter of judicial activism because of a single word he used in a single speech. You cite his selection of Sotomayor as further evidence of Obama's inclination towards supporting judicial activism. Yet when pressed to provide ONE example of Sotomayor's radicalism on the bench, you simply refer back to Obama. Logic FAIL.

602 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:09:15pm

re: #597 ihateronpaul

So racism is OK, depending on what race you are?

603 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:09:44pm
604 korla pundit  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:10:08pm
ok, but if MEChA is a wink wink nudge nudge, an autonomous wing of la raza, isnt it sort of like sinn fien, and the irish republican army? one is spouting the true militant line the other has political deniability?

You mean sort of like the British National Party?

605 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:10:13pm

re: #603 taxfreekiller

The current GOP...

606 abbyadams  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:10:13pm

I suppose it would be mostly futile here to reiterate the futility of "But the Democrats did it against Bush" argument, just as it is mostly futile to reiterate the futility of the "But it was fine when Bush did it" on some of the more liberal blogs that I read.

As an independent, I say: Who Cares? I want to know which party is going to quit looking backward and start to look forward. I don't want to see blind partisanship, I want to see ideas and fact-based solutions. Those "arguments" show me neither.

If the GOP can produce a good reason why she should not be confirmed, then I look forward to seeing it. A quote taken out of context is, IMO, not one. We bring our experiences to every judgment we make; it would be folly to deny this. I fail to see how acknowledging this fact publicly disqualifies her from confirmation.

I will watch the confirmation hearings before I pass my personal judgment on her.

607 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:10:22pm

re: #600 Iron Fist

This is no where close to what was done to Thomas. Not within orders of magnitude of what was done to Thomas. I don't expect that it will ever come anywhere close to that, either. She will be confirmed. That is almost certain. But she has connections that are troubling and she has decided cases that are quetionable. The Republicans aren't doing due dilligance for their constituants if they don't thoroughly question her on these issues.

I agree on all points, and believe my post reflects my belief that this is a done deal after the necessary posturing has been completed.

608 Syrah  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:10:44pm

re: #597 ihateronpaul

You assume too much.

609 rumcrook  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:12:45pm

re: #596 Bill Dalasio

I mean would anyone here really not at least giggle if someone were to accuse the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the Sons of Italy as racist?

apples and oranges.

one has a stated goal of reconquista, the other is a fraternal org so old guys can get together with other old guys and drink.

610 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:12:47pm

re: #597 ihateronpaul

You speak of a sword that has two edges yet you know it not. Try being a state trooper in New England and finishing 10 points higher on the exams but being denied the job because YOU ARE NOT a minority. There are more examples than you know where being caucasian and being male works against you.

611 OldLineTexan  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:12:58pm

Well, I hate to leave just as a couple of knickers reach maximum twist, but such is life.

Later!

612 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:13:09pm

re: #551 Joel

What elected office does Rush Limbaugh or Gingrich hold? Why does the RNC have to comment on everything Gingrich or Limbaugh says when those two gents are not elected officials but private citizens? Must the DNC have to comment on everything that Matthews, Olbermann and Mr. Maddow say over at PMSNBC? I guess not.

Neither Matthews, Olberman, or Maddow are anywhere near the stature of Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is arguably the most influential Republican since Ronald Reagan. This would have been embraced, not denied by Republicans a very short time ago. Now he is turning into a liability and Republicans are saying "Rush who?" "Why are the left able to pin Rush on us?" Newt Gingrich is a possible driving force behind future Republican goals. Keith Olberman has made a little name for himself, but isn't remotely close to Limbaugh.

613 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:13:09pm
614 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:13:10pm

re: #597 ihateronpaul

It's no longer true, and hasn't been for some time, that it's "harder" for a Latina woman to get ahead than a white male, particularly in government. It's easier. I applied for a job in the W. Administration after the 2000 election. I was told I was the wrong gender (male) and wrong race (white) for the job.

This from a Republican Administration. It's worse with the Democrats. Reverse discrimination has been de facto policy of the government and academia for decades.

615 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:13:13pm

re: #596 Bill Dalasio

Trying to cite her associations with La Raza as evidence of racism is just silly. As Charles and a lot of others have noted, even if the organization has certain ethnocentric attitudes, that isn't any more inherently racist than any of a hundred other ethnic organizations. I mean would anyone here really not at least giggle if someone were to accuse the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the Sons of Italy as racist?

Hibernians and Sons of Italy versus a group called "The Race"? For goodness sake, the name of the group is "The Race." How far can you go to ignore the obvious? So using that example is not "silly", and I don't care who shows up to pander to the group.

616 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:13:50pm

re: #602 OldLineTexan

So racism is OK, depending on what race you are?

Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.

617 Wendya  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:14:02pm

re: #570 _RememberTonyC

Cornyn gets it. He is from an area with a large Latino population. He would be a shitty politician if he didn't say what he said. He'd be pissing away his largest potential pool of future votes.

Unfortunately, that's very true. You can't make it in politics today unless you pander.

618 CommonCents  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:14:36pm

re: #506 Conservative Moonbat

What Rush and Newt say gets reprinted in the MSM while nobody gives a damn what Olberman rants about.

Cornyn represents a state that's 35% hispanic and wants to be reelected.

That's not the point though. When the poop hits the fan people say that Rush and Newt aren't elected officials. That they aren't spokespeople for the party per se because they don't run for office. Yes they opine on behalf of conservatives if Republican politicians keep jumping up to rebut or approve of their statements then they fall into the trap set by the MSM. When prompted, Repub. politicians should just say "they have a right to their opinion, they don't speak for the party. Next question."

“I think it’s terrible,” Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR’s “All Things Considered” Thursday. “This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.” ...

Cornyn's comments perpetuate the "Rush is spokesperson" trap.

619 Syrah  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:14:46pm

Work has arrived.

back later in the evening.

620 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:15:02pm

re: #609 rumcrook

apples and oranges.

one has a stated goal of reconquista, the other is a fraternal org so old guys can get together with other old guys and drink.

NCLR does not have a stated goal of reconquista. Or were you referring to them as the latter?

621 Kenneth  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:15:25pm

re: #585 lawhawk

Done.


"I announce that ... those who committed the bombing are neither Shiite nor Sunni. They are Americans and Israelis" who want to stoke sectarian conflict in the country, Iranian Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said on the ministry's Web site.
622 ihateronpaul  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:15:25pm

re: #602 OldLineTexan

No, I didn't say that. But I do think that Limbaugh is gleefully using the word as an incendiary thing instead of actually examining the issue. And I also think that the concept of anti-white racism is ridiculous. I am EXTREMELY skeptical of it as well, because White Nationalist groups go on and on about it. And I oppose most everything they support.

623 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:16:32pm

I'm a democrat, I prefer liberal justices, I've listened to her speech, I've read it. IT IS RACIST. Obama can appoint a non racist liberal justice if he wants to. She presumes that minorities have some insight that whites don't have and that whites don't face any adversity. I'd like her to meet my father and tell him that he was "Advantaged" when he had a MUCH more difficult life.

624 kansas  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:16:46pm

re: #622 ihateronpaul

No, I didn't say that. But I do think that Limbaugh is gleefully using the word as an incendiary thing instead of actually examining the issue. And I also think that the concept of anti-white racism is ridiculous. I am EXTREMELY skeptical of it as well, because White Nationalist groups go on and on about it. And I oppose most everything they support.

You mean like anti white racism doesn't exist or you are against it?

625 tfc3rid  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:16:57pm

re: #563 Charles

I understand your point but she identifies herself by her heritage... She lives in a nation as a Latina woman, whose heritage and values have led her to where she is today. She talks about the melting pot vs. salad bowl but yet does not self identify as being 'American'. She self identifies as a Latina woman.

I don't think she is racist. I just think that as a justice, she would take more than the Constitution into account. I'd like to know her feelings with regard to using International Law to settle SCOTUS cases.

626 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:17:36pm

re: #609 rumcrook

apples and oranges.

one has a stated goal of reconquista, the other is a fraternal org so old guys can get together with other old guys and drink.

Well, okay, here is their website. Tell me where such a goal is stated.

627 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:18:07pm

Has Sotomayor said anything besides this one speech that can be viewed as racist?

628 [deleted]  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:18:16pm
629 rumcrook  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:18:45pm

re: #604 korla pundit

no I dont said what I meant. sien fien comes off as a moderate working in the system political party disavowing violence, but everyone knows they are just a branch from the irish republican army which has a long violent history, my point was you cant have elbow rubbing associations but get to eat your cake too, and say oooo no not us. we disavow that stuff.

I dont know whom the bnp is associated with, thier still bad but they are not my example.

630 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:19:08pm

re: #575 MrPaulRevere

At least Cornyn and Steele have the sense not to walk into a political trap.


ding ding ding

631 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:19:21pm

re: #622 ihateronpaul

Anti-white racism is "ridiculous"? Ever hear of the Bakke case? I'll keep this simple: liberals are comfortable applying their anti-discrimination principles to groups they identify as victims (blacks and Latinas), while rejecting the same principles for groups they identify as oppressors, generally white males.

It's hypocritical, and identity politics at its worse. And you're guilty of it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you're not. You carry your bigotry with pride.

632 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:20:31pm

re: #617 Wendya

Unfortunately, that's very true. You can't make it in politics today unless you pander.

fixed

633 korla pundit  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:20:39pm
And I also think that the concept of anti-white racism is ridiculous.

Wow, you haven't been around.

634 Spartacus50  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:20:40pm

re: #14 unrealizedviewpoint

The claim she's racist is pretty thin IMO.
Besides, without media assistance (only libs get that) the claim can only create greater animosity towards conservatives.

Kinda like how our foreign policy creates more terrorists?

635 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:20:59pm

La Raza means "The Race" in spanish, and it's not referring to a marathon.....

Imagine if a judge who was in proud to be white group was appointed, how would that appointment go?

636 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:21:51pm

re: #623 suntory_boss

I'm a democrat, I prefer liberal justices, I've listened to her speech, I've read it. IT IS RACIST. Obama can appoint a non racist liberal justice if he wants to. She presumes that minorities have some insight that whites don't have and that whites don't face any adversity. I'd like her to meet my father and tell him that he was "Advantaged" when he had a MUCH more difficult life.

You prefer liberal justices? What are your views on abortion?

637 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:22:22pm

The social ideal is a color-blind society in which people are evaluated on their merits, not because of their race. And that's a classical liberal ideal espoused by the earlier civil rights workers like Mickey Schwerner and the early CORE activists.

638 LGoPs  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:22:24pm

re: #601 drcordell

You just love to take single sentences from speeches and extrapolate their meaning to a ridiculous degree, don't you? I'm assuming you are referring to the fact that Obama used the word "empathy" in his speech.


You paint Obama as a radical supporter of judicial activism because of a single word he used in a single speech. You cite his selection of Sotomayor as further evidence of Obama's inclination towards supporting judicial activism. Yet when pressed to provide ONE example of Sotomayor's radicalism on the bench, you simply refer back to Obama. Logic FAIL.

Obama paints himself as a radical supporter of judicial activism and his appointee logically reflects that. And his past statements demonstrate that, not only his most recent about Sotomayer.
I accept the fact that she will be seated. I actually believe in the concept of the President getting the courtesy of appointing those who support his philosophy. But I also beleive that the Republican Party should use the nomination to define their opposition and their philosophies on the role of the judiciary.

639 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:22:34pm

Should a republican appoint David Duke to "balance" the court now given that we're once again putting open and admitted racists onto it like in the old days? Maybe we need another Justice who can't be in the same room as someone like Brandeis?

640 Catttt  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:22:37pm

re: #602 OldLineTexan

So racism is OK, depending on what race you are?

Context is important. For example, I have laughed at the following quote - I even had a bookmark similar to it once:

“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Fortunately, this is not difficult.” Charlotte Whitton

I'm not anti-man, but as a woman, I've seen men favored in the past, and seen them not so much now. Where I work, we are judged on our abilities, and consequently have a lot of different backgrounds, but women still get the above comment - and most women will chuckle at it - especially women closer to my age.

I think there is both a Hispanic and a gender context to the remark everyone is on about, and I think it is silly to assume anything ominous based on it. Literally thousands of women have said similar things.

641 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:23:32pm

re: #631 quickjustice

Well said.

642 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:24:07pm

What does abortion have to do with a racist being appointed to the court? Couldn't care less about her views. She's just once justice, and the President has a right to appoint who he wants, but I would think he wouldn't want to appoint an admitted racist who thinks her race can hold superior views to other races.

643 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:24:36pm

re: #642 suntory_boss

Has Sotomayor said anything besides this one speech that can be viewed as racist?

644 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:24:43pm

re: #627 Sharmuta

Has Sotomayor said anything besides this one speech that can be viewed as racist?

Well, let me ask you a question, if John Roberts were to say that he believed that white men were just inherently the best judges, would you give him a pass because he has no history of similar comments?

645 J.S.  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:25:23pm

re: #621 Kenneth

And yesterday there was that mosque bombing in Iran (at Zahedan)...

646 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:26:18pm

@ Cattt

"“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Fortunately, this is not difficult.” Charlotte Whitton"


Wrong, that's what someone with low self esteem thinks.

647 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:27:21pm

# 644

"Well, let me ask you a question, if John Roberts were to say that he believed that white men were just inherently the best judges, would you give him a pass because he has no history of similar comments?"

LOL. I'm sure Jimmy the Greek and Larry Summers would like to hear the answer to that given they were crucified for one time comments. Why weren't they given a pass?

648 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:28:23pm

re: #601 drcordell

Except, of course, Mr. Obama did more than use the word "empathy" in discussing his philosophy around SCOTUS picks. He was quite explicit in arguing that he believes that the role of justice should be biased in support of social justice as a goal. That, on its face, means that he wishes to see a particular brand of judicial activism on the bench.

649 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:28:24pm

re: #642 suntory_boss

What does abortion have to do with a racist being appointed to the court? Couldn't care less about her views. She's just once justice, and the President has a right to appoint who he wants, but I would think he wouldn't want to appoint an admitted racist who thinks her race can hold superior views to other races.

You said that you are a Democrat and prefer liberal justices. I thought you said the other day something to the effect that abortion is wrong and comes from sociopathic self absorption. Also that having an abortion was sociopathic. I won't quarrel with your views for one second, it just doesn't sound like the words of one who prefers liberal justices.

650 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:28:53pm

re: #640 Catttt

I don't doubt that women have been discriminated against in the past because of their gender. As a very young lawyer, I was plaintiffs' counsel in a Title IX (gender discrimination) case against a major university that wouldn't pay for varsity sports for women.

Acknowledging that discrimination has existed in the past is not the same as advocating that it be reversed in the future to disadvantage men and advantage women. That's the "two wrongs make a right theory" of civil rights enforcement.

651 Spartacus50  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:29:53pm

Since when do we have to extend Obama's judicial nominations the benefit of the doubt? The track record of judicial appointments by Democrats is atrocious and you better believe Sotomayor has already passed their litmus tests.
Democrats would never extend the same courtesy to a Republican. I can even remember the Democrats savaging David Souter for not having much of a judicial track record. Boy, were they wrong!

652 Rancher  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:30:36pm

Forget Whether She Qualifies as a "Racist." Would Judge Sotomayor Qualify as a Juror?

In every trial — every single trial — judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively — without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror.


Much less a Supreme Court Judge.

653 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:30:41pm

re: #644 Bill Dalasio

This is a logical fallacy argument. Does she or does she not have a history of similar comments?

654 NY Nana  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:31:07pm

re: #598 Joel

And I am a New Yorker, also. I agree with you, but am not all that hopeful. I feel she was a very bad choice, and it was done purely for ethnicity on the part of Obama. He has the chance to essentially destroy the Supreme Court for decades to come, and he is determined to get his way. He entered the White house with an agenda, but not one that would benefit our country.

What the hell ever happened to being nominated strictly on merit? Ha!

655 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:31:24pm

@ Flyers

Abortion is only one issue. Though I oppose it, there are more issues than abortion. One issue people are idiots.

656 Shr_Nfr  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:31:45pm

When somebody states that a "Latino Woman" can make better judgments on constitutional law than a "White Male" it is both racist and sexist. I am sorry, but that is the fact of the matter.

I fully agree that it is desirable to have a jury of your peers (in the real sense of the word) to judge your actions in court. When people are in the same situation on a regular basis, then they can understand and judge motivations better. But this is not that situation. Having a black man from the city judged by a bunch of suburban whites or the reverse can and does lead to bad decisions. But this is about law. There are methods of interpretation of the constitution that are permitted. Founder's intent, literalism, etc. Locknerizing and empathy have no place on the SCOTUS.

657 tfc3rid  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:32:50pm

re: #654 NY Nana

Remember how George W. Bush was excoriated for nominating Sam Alito to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's spot? The MSM breathlessly saying it was 'supposed' to go to a hispanic woman...

658 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:34:14pm

re: #655 suntory_boss

@ Flyers

Abortion is only one issue. Though I oppose it, there are more issues than abortion. One issue people are idiots.

No quarrel there at all. It seemed from your prior comment that you held extremely strong views regarding abortion. Usually people strongly against abortion don't like liberal justices. Exceptions to every rule I suppose.

659 Catttt  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:34:31pm

re: #646 suntory_boss

@ Cattt

"“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Fortunately, this is not difficult.” Charlotte Whitton"

Wrong, that's what someone with low self esteem thinks.

That's your opinion, and I don't agree, unless you are talking about the people who made rules to keep people out of jobs in the past based on race or sex. I don't like affirmative action either - I think people should be judged on their merits - but remarks like that of Ms. Whitton were not sexist, imho - they were empowering - and I sense that this is what the judge was on about when she made the remark.

660 MacDuff  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:34:51pm

re: #590 SanFranciscoZionist

Well it is about culture. On the other hand, culture makes us who we are to a great extent, and one of the great strengths of American society has always been that we draw on so many cultures, but also have a national identity that is not constrained by one 'official' ethnicity (as happens most places you go).

I define myself as an American. I'm also a Jew, and a Litvak-American, and an Irish American, and that is all important to me, as I know ethnic and regional identities are important to a lot of other people here.

I don't see being aware of ethnic differences as a problem that needs fixing. Racial/ethnic inequity is, and there are a lot of proposed methods for solving it--we're making progress there, God willing we'll keep doing so.

Please don't misinterpret. I, too enjoy the rich tapestry that defines our country and our ability to weave new cultural aspects into that tapestry, forever changing it for the better. I have no problem in being aware of our ethnic or cultural differences, I think that it keeps the American culture fresh and renewed.

What I was trying to say (evidently not as well as would have hoped) is that I'm tired of the recrimination, on both sides, that tend to soil our tapestry. I'm tired of those assuming racism as the default attitude, when I know the opposite to be true. I'm tired of feeling that I have to constantly exhibit my lack of racism, though none exists in my heart.

Perhaps I'm expecting too much, or perhaps divisions are being perceived where no real divisions exist. As for Sotomayor, I could care less about her ethnicity or culture. What I do care about is her fitness as a jurist and perhaps I became frustrated at the talk of her heritage and how her nomination is "history making" - true history will be made when we don't really care.

That day will come, as you said, God willing.

661 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:36:34pm

re: #640 Catttt

Context is important. For example, I have laughed at the following quote - I even had a bookmark similar to it once:

“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Fortunately, this is not difficult.” Charlotte Whitton

I'm not anti-man, but as a woman, I've seen men favored in the past, and seen them not so much now. Where I work, we are judged on our abilities, and consequently have a lot of different backgrounds, but women still get the above comment - and most women will chuckle at it - especially women closer to my age.

I think there is both a Hispanic and a gender context to the remark everyone is on about, and I think it is silly to assume anything ominous based on it. Literally thousands of women have said similar things.

I agree with you completely.

662 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:36:39pm

re: #653 Sharmuta

I can't say, either way. However, I think you're the person who might be engaged in a logical fallacy. Ms. Sotomayor made a comment that was, on its face, racist. That hardly puts to burden of proof on those suggesting she is racists. Quite the opposite, the onus is on those claiming she isn't.

663 ihateronpaul  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:38:32pm

Sadly we don't live in a color-blind society. Minorities deal with racism all the time. What I am saying is that anti-white racism is extremely rare and to equate it to the racism other ethnic groups struggle with is laughable. And it seems from the tone of many comments here that some people do.

664 Creeping Eruption  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:38:56pm

re: #640 Catttt

Context is important. For example, I have laughed at the following quote - I even had a bookmark similar to it once:

“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Fortunately, this is not difficult.” Charlotte Whitton

I'm not anti-man, but as a woman, I've seen men favored in the past, and seen them not so much now. Where I work, we are judged on our abilities, and consequently have a lot of different backgrounds, but women still get the above comment - and most women will chuckle at it - especially women closer to my age.

I'm a guy and I snickered. Unfortunately, its true.

665 Catttt  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:39:37pm

re: #650 quickjustice

I don't doubt that women have been discriminated against in the past because of their gender. As a very young lawyer, I was plaintiffs' counsel in a Title IX (gender discrimination) case against a major university that wouldn't pay for varsity sports for women.

Acknowledging that discrimination has existed in the past is not the same as advocating that it be reversed in the future to disadvantage men and advantage women. That's the "two wrongs make a right theory" of civil rights enforcement.

I agree with that. I am not advocating affirmative action - I was just trying to put the judge's remark in context. I still have not made up my mind on her, but this remark is not going to be a major factor in my decision. I am no legal eagle but enjoy confirmation hearings and am looking forward to it.

As a Dem who used to vote yellow dog Dem, I remember watching Justice Thomas' hearings and being impressed with him and really royally ticked off at the way they tried to hang him out to dry. I also was deeply impressed by his wife. I've always liked him as a result.

666 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:40:02pm

@ Cattt

If you currently think women are "disadvantaged" you'd be very wrong. Perhaps in the past. Not now. How many men have the options women have? Women have choices, men have responsibilities.

667 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:40:46pm

re: #659 Catttt

“Forgiving does not erase the bitter past. A healed memory is not a deleted memory. Instead, forgiving what we cannot forget creates a new way to remember. We change the memory of our past into a hope for our future.” - Lewis B Smedes

668 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:41:56pm

How rare is antiwhite racism? I was told not to bother applying to the University of Virginia because of my skin color, as my odds of getting accepted for that reason were slim to none... Having attended the University of Michigan, where the AA case basically was centered, you know they favor certain skin colors over others. It's common. Sorry you live in a state of denial.

669 Catttt  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:43:16pm

re: #666 suntory_boss

@ Cattt

If you currently think women are "disadvantaged" you'd be very wrong. Perhaps in the past. Not now. How many men have the options women have? Women have choices, men have responsibilities.

I didn't say I think women are disadvantaged now.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

670 Catttt  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:44:05pm

re: #667 adragonknowsbest

“Forgiving does not erase the bitter past. A healed memory is not a deleted memory. Instead, forgiving what we cannot forget creates a new way to remember. We change the memory of our past into a hope for our future.” - Lewis B Smedes

Oh, that's an awesome quote. Hearted.

671 Creeping Eruption  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:45:05pm

re: #669 Catttt

I didn't say I think women are disadvantaged now.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

With a comment like his/hers, I'm kind of surprised sb didn't tell you that women should be seen and not heard.

672 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:46:39pm

re: #669 Catttt

I didn't say I think women are disadvantaged now.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I am very sceptical of claims of sexism and racism today. I will say this, though, I know a lot of female scientists who vehemently claim sexism in the science field. Not harrassment mind you but sexism as far as pay advancment is concerned.

673 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:47:40pm

@ Cattt

So what's the point of living in the past? Everyone has been disadvantaged, should they dwell on it when they are currently not disadvantaged? Should I still have issues with being enslaved by Bablyonians and Egyptians and Persians or should I get over it?

674 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:48:24pm

re: #662 Bill Dalasio

It's not a logical fallacy to ask for more evidence.

675 debutaunt  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:48:44pm

re: #213 ArrowSmith

So I'm going to be banned because my opinions are not acceptable.

No, it was the lying thing that gotcha.

676 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:49:06pm

@ Flyers

Perhaps that's due to their small numbers in science? And their small numbers in science is not due to discrimination, but choice. I took engineering classes in College, there were very few females in those classes, and when I took liberal arts classes, they were overhwhelmingly female.

677 quickjustice  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:49:19pm

re: #673 suntory_boss

Time for reparations from the Iraqi, Iranian, and Egyptian governments for past, centuries-old injustices! ;-)

678 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:49:33pm

re: #672 Flyers1974

I am very sceptical of claims of sexism and racism today. I will say this, though, I know a lot of female scientists who vehemently claim sexism in the science field. Not harrassment mind you but sexism as far as pay advancment is concerned.

Did you not pay attention during the election? Sexism and misogyny are alive and well.

679 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:51:34pm

re: #670 Catttt


Just thought I'd throw that out for ya. I must admit I can't get a good reading on you. That quote you threw out there about women having to work twice as hard to be considered half as good kind of irked me I must admit. Back in the days of Annie Oakley no doubt that was true. Today I just don't see it.

However, we agree on this. Let the best man or woman get the job. It is about merit not what quotas we can fill. If this crap doesn't stop then a sense of entitlement, complacency and utter frustration are what's ahead.

680 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:51:42pm

@ Sharmuta

You're allowed to be sexist and misogynistic if the woman is conservative. Otherwise you've committed a thought crime and need to be reeducated.

681 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:53:59pm

re: #676 suntory_boss

@ Flyers

Perhaps that's due to their small numbers in science? And their small numbers in science is not due to discrimination, but choice. I took engineering classes in College, there were very few females in those classes, and when I took liberal arts classes, they were overhwhelmingly female.

I don't know, believe me I was very sceptical (to the point of getting into trouble on a personal level, my wife is one of the scientists in the discussion.) I tended to believe them, if true maybe do to prevalence of older generation and cultures not used to professional women.

682 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:54:25pm

re: #680 suntory_boss

They did it to Hillary too. And maybe you failed to see conservative women attacking Sarah? And liberals attacking Hillary?

Seriously- if you think sexism isn't still a problem, you are blind.

683 Throbert McGee  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:55:36pm

re: #552 VioletTiger

I think a judge should at least aspire to the ideal of impartiality and objectivity. Also, she did not just say she would reach a different decision, she said a better decision. Better how?

Not only "better" rather than "different," but better "more often than not."

Personally, I don't think it's outrageous or racist to say that in some cases, a "wise latina woman" would be able to discern things clearly while a typical white man would have blinders. But she should have also acknowledged that the converse can also be true -- i.e., living as a member of a minority can potentially bring its own set of blinders, rather than inevitably bringing keener insight.

684 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:55:43pm

re: #665 Catttt

Your comments are perfectly reasonable. However, they don't get to the heart of what Judge Sotomayor said. She specifically attributed the superiority of they "wise Latina woman" to her ethnic and sexual status, not to harder work or a more thorough knowledge of the law.

685 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:55:47pm

re: #678 Sharmuta

Did you not pay attention during the election? Sexism and misogyny are alive and well.

You mean in regard to Hillary, Palin or both?

686 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:57:31pm

re: #682 Sharmuta

Well when there's only one smurfette and all those smurfs in the village then I suppose sexism is a way of life ;)

687 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:57:34pm

re: #674 Sharmuta

No, but it is a logical fallacy to ignore the sum total of the evidence available in its absence.

688 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:58:27pm

Notice when women demand equality, it's only at the top? Why don't 50% of janitors have to be female but CEOs have to be? Equality only at the top? That's convenient.

689 NY Nana  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:59:13pm

re: #657 tfc3rid

Ahhh, yes. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Issues like this really get to me, as I grew up in the days of quotas, designed not to get Jews in, but to keep them up.

As Americans we had to do everything the extra hard way.../we earned it. One cousin was Summa at Harvard undergrad, but didn't make the unwritten quota at Harvard Med., and went to Tufts Med. instead, and a lot of my classmates in High School (I graduated in 1955) also met with this undergrad. My cousin and an Uncle went to what was Boys' Latin School, in Boston, with a separate one for girls, but IIRC, they are now combined for years. My Uncle got into MIT....3 degrees. And he was first generation. I am second.

We were blessed to live here, as I have often said....the rest? No, they did not survive as far as we knew.

That is why I wish that 'G-d Bless America' was our national anthem.

690 debutaunt  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:59:33pm

re: #688 suntory_boss

Notice when women demand equality, it's only at the top? Why don't 50% of janitors have to be female but CEOs have to be? Equality only at the top? That's convenient.

You are just so cute.

691 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:59:53pm

re: #688 suntory_boss

I know a number of women janitors!

692 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:00:36pm

re: #687 Bill Dalasio

The sum total is one comment that's being misconstrued and taken out of context.

693 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:00:53pm

@ Bill


Exactly. Imagine if a white male had said his race and gender could lead to superior legal conclusions? He would be crucified, so I have to ask, why is she given a pass? Why is certain racism tolerated?

694 Rancher  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:01:32pm

re: #663 ihateronpaul

Sadly we don't live in a color-blind society. Minorities deal with racism all the time. What I am saying is that anti-white racism is extremely rare and to equate it to the racism other ethnic groups struggle with is laughable. And it seems from the tone of many comments here that some people do.


I take it you haven't lived in a 90% Mexican-American town and experienced anti-white racism. I grew up in one and while I'm half Hispanic myself I can assure you it was every bit as vile as any other racism. The few Blacks who lived there had it even worse. Racism in any form is never laughable. You sound like the idiots who claim minorities can't even be racists. They can and some are very much so.

695 tedzilla99  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:02:21pm

but but but all GOP politicians follow every word Rush says!
/sarc

696 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:02:38pm

@ Sharmuta

I know I know female engineers. My point is why does equality only happen in top positions? Why don't women demand equality everywhere? You know, garbagemen always seem to be men? You don't see women fighting for those jobs, but they seem to be in the top positions. Is that equality?

697 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:02:57pm

re: #690 debutaunt

Except, exactly who is arguing in those terms?

698 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:03:46pm

@ Sharmuta

it's not taken out of context. She seems to think that the experiences of being latina and female can lead to superior conclusions than that a white male could make. Read it. I read the ENTIRE speech. It's not taken out of context.

699 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:04:55pm

re: #696 suntory_boss

Women aren't intentionally kept from entry level jobs. But I have worked for sexist men who intentionally disregarded qualified women for advancement in favor of men. And women are misogynists too, btw.

700 itellu3times  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:06:48pm

re: #489 Charles

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people who are complaining about the "Latina female" statement have not read the full speech it was pulled from, but are just reacting based on those few words.

Here's the entire speech:

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

This comment has been seriously distorted and taken out of context.

And again -- please note that I'm NOT agreeing with everything Sotomayor says by pointing this out! But I really wish people would stop being so easily manipulated by cynical politicians and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, without finding out the full context for themselves.

OK, now I've read it in context.

Seems about the same to me.

701 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:08:17pm

re: #692 Sharmuta

The sum total is one comment that's being misconstrued and taken out of context.

Except, that one racist comment is all we have to judge by. If you can offer up any evidence contradicting the thesis, you might have a point. But, so far, I haven't seen any. That leaves us to judge by the data we have available. And as much as it would be appropriate to suspect Justice Roberts of racism if he opined on the inherent superiority of white male jurists, the evidence here supports a similar conclusion. I don't know where things stand with you, but as far as I'm concerned, something always beats nothing. And, in exactly what context is it appropriate to opine on ones racial and sexual superiority for the role of justice?

702 Joel  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:08:35pm

re: #612 Flyers1974

Neither Matthews, Olberman, or Maddow are anywhere near the stature of Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is arguably the most influential Republican since Ronald Reagan. This would have been embraced, not denied by Republicans a very short time ago. Now he is turning into a liability and Republicans are saying "Rush who?" "Why are the left able to pin Rush on us?" Newt Gingrich is a possible driving force behind future Republican goals. Keith Olberman has made a little name for himself, but isn't remotely close to Limbaugh.

Baloney. MSNBC is Obama campaign headquarters. Rush is a radio personality. That is a pathetic line of reasoning that the GOP is responsible for anything that comes out of Rush's or Coulter's mouths. Rush is not a Republican, he is a conservative. If he is the leader of the GOP how the *u** did they wind up with McLame?

703 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:08:46pm

@ Sharmuta

Yes, I know. I was listening to a woman on the BBC who said she will not hire women of childbearing age because she says they are very unreliable. I know a guy in Canada that absolutely despises being forced to hire women because they always apply pregnant then get the paid maternity leave, but he has no choice but to hire them. His company loses tons of money from that.

704 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:10:12pm

Cant stand Limbaugh or Gingrich, but they are right. It wasn't taken out of context, and had a white said the same thing, he'd be crucified. STOP DOUBLE STANDARDS.

705 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:10:43pm

re: #698 suntory_boss

Again- it's a logical fallacy. She said her life experiences have made an impact on her, and she hopes it would help her make better decisions. My life experiences have made an impact on me as well, and Justice Alito said the same thing. So- I guess only white men can admit their life has shaped them? Is that what I should think?

706 Bloodnok  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:11:15pm

re: #688 suntory_boss

Notice when women demand equality, it's only at the top? Why don't 50% of janitors have to be female but CEOs have to be? Equality only at the top? That's convenient.

It must have been hell in that time capsule for the past 100 years. How did you manage?

707 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:12:17pm

re: #526 LeonidasOfSparta

Yes, Buck, I see that. But, I think that changing the rules and tossing out all exam results just to make it easier for persons of color who cannot pass the exam to get the promotion based on something "else" is to dumb down the qualifications for a job in order to "accomodate" ....what? persons of color who are deemed by the courts unable to get the promotion without changing the rules?


Again, that is NOT what the judge was asked to rule on. You can't make rulings on what it might mean in the future. The judges are asked "Can a fire department choose not to promote from the pool of successful candidates?" the answer was yes, as long as they don't promote anyone, they can ignore the pool of candidates they created.

BTW, this happens ALL THE TIME. The government might create a pool of candidates to be managers....then never actually promote anyone from that pool. The pool expires, and they have to go through the who process all over again.

708 Joel  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:12:57pm

re: #654 NY Nana

And I am a New Yorker, also. I agree with you, but am not all that hopeful. I feel she was a very bad choice, and it was done purely for ethnicity on the part of Obama. He has the chance to essentially destroy the Supreme Court for decades to come, and he is determined to get his way. He entered the White house with an agenda, but not one that would benefit our country.

What the hell ever happened to being nominated strictly on merit? Ha!

Obama is going to prove to be the most hardcore left-wing president ever, despite some of the posters here who still claim that he is a moderate pragmatic liberal.

709 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:13:33pm

re: #701 Bill Dalasio

Except, that one racist comment is all we have to judge by. If you can offer up any evidence contradicting the thesis, you might have a point. But, so far, I haven't seen any. That leaves us to judge by the data we have available. And as much as it would be appropriate to suspect Justice Roberts of racism if he opined on the inherent superiority of white male jurists, the evidence here supports a similar conclusion. I don't know where things stand with you, but as far as I'm concerned, something always beats nothing. And, in exactly what context is it appropriate to opine on ones racial and sexual superiority for the role of justice?

Charles has quoted other comments from her that judges should strive to be impartial. I've quoted her from her first Senate confirmation hearing that she wouldn't read any rights into the Constitution that weren't there.

Why aren't these comments getting considered?

710 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:13:35pm

@ Sharmuta

Alito did not say that his background could lead to superior decisions, she did.

711 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:13:38pm

I don't agree that the context fails to change the meaning of the remark. She says several times that she agrees that justices should attempt to avoid having personal sympathies influence decisions. For example:

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.

She also says very clearly that she does NOT believe race or personal experiences must always influence decisions:

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

The speech is far more thoughtful than it's being portrayed by people who are seizing on a few words out of context.

You may or may not agree with her points, but they are made thoughtfully, and it's absolutely not correct to simply label her as a "racist" based on this.

712 Wendya  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:14:14pm

re: #659 Catttt

That's your opinion, and I don't agree, unless you are talking about the people who made rules to keep people out of jobs in the past based on race or sex. I don't like affirmative action either - I think people should be judged on their merits - but remarks like that of Ms. Whitton were not sexist, imho - they were empowering - and I sense that this is what the judge was on about when she made the remark.

You don't "empower" yourself by degrading others.

713 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:14:43pm

@ Bloodnok

Notice your strategy, if you have no counter argument, you respond with ad hominem attacks. Do you think equality should be everywhere or only at the top?

714 Wendya  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:14:55pm

re: #692 Sharmuta

The sum total is one comment that's being misconstrued and taken out of context.

How is it being misconstrued and taken out of context?

She said what she said. Words do have meaning.

715 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:15:08pm

I must have posted these excerpts five or six times by now.

716 ihateronpaul  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:16:29pm

[Link: edition.cnn.hu...]

I don't see an equivalent of thatre: #672 Flyers1974

Hm take a look at this

[Link: edition.cnn.hu...]

And then keep telling me "racism doesn't exist anymore in our wonderful post-racial society"

717 ihateronpaul  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:17:18pm

re: #716 ihateronpaul

I am sorry, I am new here and still getting used to comment formatting.

718 Bill Dalasio  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:17:48pm

re: #705 Sharmuta

No offense, but you seem to like referencing others' arguments as logical fallacies. Could you at least be so kind as to identify the nature of the fallacy as you see it?

suntory_boss's comment was an assertion. An assertion can be wrong. But, given that it is a proposition, and not a line of reasoning, it cannot be a logical fallacy.

719 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:18:29pm

@ Charles

I've read the ENTIRE thing, not just excepts, if a white man had said that, he would be crucified. It is RACIST. Do you think that whites are all the same and none face any adversity and by virtue of their skin color, they possibly have less to offer as a judge?

720 debutaunt  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:19:55pm

re: #697 Bill Dalasio

Except, exactly who is arguing in those terms?

You have the impression that I was arguing?

721 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:21:04pm

re: #718 Bill Dalasio

Argument from bad analogy. Analogies are one of the weakest arguments one can pose to support their position.

722 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:21:14pm

re: #688 suntory_boss

Notice when women demand equality, it's only at the top? Why don't 50% of janitors have to be female but CEOs have to be? Equality only at the top? That's convenient.

That is funny.... You need to think about that a bit... Maybe a good time to think about it would be walking down the halls of a hotel, while the rooms are being cleaned.

723 debutaunt  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:23:49pm

re: #715 Charles

I must have posted these excerpts five or six times by now.

Ahhh - an expectation of skulls growing thinner?

724 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:24:29pm

@ Buck

So should there be requirements that men should constitute 50% of hotel cleaning staff and legal secretaries? Say if 50% of school teachers had to be male? DO you think women might have a problem with that given that would mean it would be harder for women to be employed as teachers?

725 Sharmuta  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:24:51pm

Why did you ding me down for that, dragon? It's true:

[Link: www.don-lindsay-archive.org...]

726 NY Nana  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:25:34pm

re: #708 Joel

Obama is going to prove to be the most hardcore left-wing president ever, despite some of the posters here who still claim that he is a moderate pragmatic liberal.

I totally agree. He is also the true Manchurian Candidate....he is frightening, and his agenda is that of the man who he and Shrillary worship: Alinsky.

727 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:26:37pm

re: #710 suntory_boss

@ Sharmuta

Alito did not say that his background could lead to superior decisions, she did.

Only because you are not willing to take HIS comments out of context.

He was telling a group of people, during what is basically a job interview, about his past. And how he thinks about his past when he makes decisions. THAT SEEMS VERY CLEAR that he meant that thinking about his past helps him make BETTER judgments.... or do you think he meant, again during a job interview that he would be making inferior decisions?

728 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:28:13pm

re: #725 Sharmuta

I never started dinging until today. Got carried away. Since you care I gave you a good ding on the one I jsut responded to.

729 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:29:28pm

re: #726 NY Nana


Interesting fact for the day: Who here knows who Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky was dedicated to?

730 Flyers1974  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:32:20pm

re: #702 Joel

Baloney. MSNBC is Obama campaign headquarters. Rush is a radio personality. That is a pathetic line of reasoning that the GOP is responsible for anything that comes out of Rush's or Coulter's mouths. Rush is not a Republican, he is a conservative. If he is the leader of the GOP how the *u** did they wind up with McLame?

I don't know why you included Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter does not have anywhere near Limbaugh's power and influence. I don't know of any politician who had to "clarify" his remarks regarding Ann Coulter. Because Rush Limbaugh is extremely influential doesn't mean he has the power to choose the GOP's presidential candidate. Comparing Limbaugh to Olbermann, etc... is invalid. Limbaugh has been a Huge Republican star for a long time. Maddow? Never heard of her until the past year. Olberman? Where will he be 5 years from now. You would have been very proud one year ago, five years ago, ten years ago to claim Rush. Now you wish to disown him because he has become inconvienient. You have a very tough sell to make.

731 NY Nana  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:35:11pm

re: #729 adragonknowsbest

I cheated! I Googled it, as he is not on my 'To read' list...Lucifer.

732 Bloodnok  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:36:11pm

re: #713 suntory_boss

@ Bloodnok

Notice your strategy, if you have no counter argument, you respond with ad hominem attacks. Do you think equality should be everywhere or only at the top?

If you want an answer I reject your insinuation that 1) sexism and/or misogyny no longer exists and that 2) job equality for women falls apart because (as you see it) there are not enough women janitors. #1 is flat out false and #2 is wrong because you are arguing that women don't want to be janitors because it is not "convenient" for some kind of agenda that you think they have. That's wrong and it's a sexist argument. A product of another time. Hence my remark.

733 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:36:15pm

re: #724 suntory_boss

@ Buck

So should there be requirements that men should constitute 50% of hotel cleaning staff and legal secretaries? Say if 50% of school teachers had to be male? DO you think women might have a problem with that given that would mean it would be harder for women to be employed as teachers?

I find it hard the believe you want to keep digging... but ok...

IF there is even one male who is denied work as a hotel room cleaning person, it would be very wrong. I would fight very hard to make sure that man is not denied the job, if he was qualified. However I suspect he would instead be given the Janitor job at 1.3 times the pay....

What you need to do is look at the lowest paying jobs going on around you and ask yourself if the fact that a great majority of these positions are filled by women, and mostly minority women for any reason? Is it because that is all they are qualified for? That somehow it is just a coincidence?

Maybe there is something else at work here.... a history of some kind of suppression. As per your OP. They don't have to fight for the bottom, they are already there!

The most important point is that in BOTH of these cases (the judge getting the SCOTUS nomination or the Firemen) no one is mandating 50% have to be female.

734 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:37:56pm

re: #731 NY Nana

Yup. Leave it to a leftist to hold up the one and only satan (lowercased for lack of respect) as inspiration.

735 NY Nana  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:39:07pm

re: #734 adragonknowsbest

/Wasn't Alinsky Lucifer's sockpuppet?

736 adragonknowsbest  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:41:57pm

re: #735 NY Nana

I like you NYNana. I have a hunch Alinsky is still his sock puppet....hahhahaha!

Anyway I got to run. Peace in the middle east.

737 NY Nana  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:55:41pm

re: #736 adragonknowsbest

Anyway I got to run. Peace in the middle east.

Take care..re peace in the Middle East? For me that would be when Israel wins.

Under Obama? No help is expected. he is trying to give part of Israel away, and it is not Mans' to give.

738 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 1:58:09pm

@ Buck

Yes, there are no formal, legal requirements in the US for 50% of CEOs to be female, but they do have such rules in Scandinavia. I'm curious why whenever women seek out "equality" it's only at the top? I don't see many campaign for equality in blue collar jobs that are male dominated.

739 drcordell  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:07:58pm

re: #638 LGoPs

Obama paints himself as a radical supporter of judicial activism and his appointee logically reflects that. And his past statements demonstrate that, not only his most recent about Sotomayer.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is a complete paucity of evidence to support your contentions. Aside the infamous "empathy" quote, where does Obama state he is a "radical supporter of judicial activism."?

You repeatedly insist that Sotomayor is a prime example of Obama's radical judicial views. Yet when you comb through case after case of Sotomayor's judicial record, there is ZERO evidence that she is a radical. She holds to the letter of the law in Ricci v. New Haven. She applies stare decisis in Maloney v. Cuomo to uphold previously established legal precedents. In Jocks v. Tavernier she OVERTURNED a jury award against an undercover cop for unlawful arrest. You have no idea what you are talking about when you label this woman a radical.

740 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:11:42pm

@drcordell

It's a judge's job to apply stare decisis in a common law country. You're acting like she should be rewarded for doing her job. You can become more of an activist when you sit on a higher court, because your opinion becomes binding, mandatory precedent.

Do you even know why she overturned a the jury award? I have not read the decision, but that could be plain legal reasoning for overturning a jury award that has nothing to do with who the plaintiff or the defendant is.

741 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:13:04pm

I wonder how long before Steele Gingrey Sanford Cornyn makes his ritual public apology to Limbaugh?

742 Buck  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:22:23pm

re: #738 suntory_boss

@ Buck

Yes, there are no formal, legal requirements in the US for 50% of CEOs to be female, but they do have such rules in Scandinavia. I'm curious why whenever women seek out "equality" it's only at the top? I don't see many campaign for equality in blue collar jobs that are male dominated.

You just are not looking. Certainly there was a lot of work that went into women getting equal pay and equal work on factory floors. Women firefighters? Women Police officers? Women Bus drivers? These things did not just happen automatically.

743 jimmyk  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:28:08pm

re: #489 Charles

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people who are complaining about the "Latina female" statement have not read the full speech it was pulled from, but are just reacting based on those few words.

Here's the entire speech:

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

This comment has been seriously distorted and taken out of context.

And again -- please note that I'm NOT agreeing with everything Sotomayor says by pointing this out! But I really wish people would stop being so easily manipulated by cynical politicians and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, without finding out the full context for themselves.

Of all the people saying that this quote is taken out of context, I have not yet seen one explanation of how it means something very different in the context of the speech (which I have read). I think if she had used the term "different" rather than "better", there would be many fewer objections. So I ask: How does the context change the interpretation of her statement?

744 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:32:50pm

re: #742 Buck

You just are not looking. Certainly there was a lot of work that went into women getting equal pay and equal work on factory floors. Women firefighters? Women Police officers? Women Bus drivers? These things did not just happen automatically.


Okay, say if female dominated jobs were required to open up to more men? Say if 50% of school teachers had to be male? Do you think women might protest?

745 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:33:27pm

re: #743 jimmyk

Of all the people saying that this quote is taken out of context, I have not yet seen one explanation of how it means something very different in the context of the speech (which I have read). I think if she had used the term "different" rather than "better", there would be many fewer objections. So I ask: How does the context change the interpretation of her statement?


It doesn't at all.

746 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 2:43:07pm

re: #743 jimmyk

Of all the people saying that this quote is taken out of context, I have not yet seen one explanation of how it means something very different in the context of the speech (which I have read). I think if she had used the term "different" rather than "better", there would be many fewer objections. So I ask: How does the context change the interpretation of her statement?

I've posted excerpts from the speech that clearly answer your questions.

747 loudguitars  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:02:03pm

How is the Nominee's supposed membership in La Raza "The Race" and that groups arguably racist agenda. (Sponsoring anti immigration reform rallies in CA where the American Flag was replaced with the Mexican flag,
distributing posters with Texas and CA part of Mexico etc.) not damaging to her nomination? The nominee, when Justice Clarence Thomas was introduced for a speech she was asked if she, like others present, sat on her hands, she replied "I take the fifth". This woman (if truthful about her beliefs) wouldn't be seated on a jury, much the Supremes.

She is an activist, this is undeniable. She makes policy from the bench (by her own admission) and is not of the temperament or quality for this appointment.

748 Yosemite Bill  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:39:38pm

489 & 746 - Charles
Thanks for the link. I just read and re- read the entire transcript.
To be charitable the speech was an exercise in identity politics / judicial "empathy" based on sex or ethnicity. I am sorry but Sonia has other priorities besides equality before the law.
I have spent my life - since the ripe old age of nine- being transposed into a school in Princeton, NJ from '67-72 in first person, face to face situations with "progressives. " I know the mindset, I know the lexicon, I know the outcomes they desire and what they say versus what they do.
Sonia's mouth gave her away. You can't wish that bigotry back in the bottle.
You can claim out of context - I will have to come down on the side of unintended honesty that has come back to bite her.

749 wrenchwench  Fri, May 29, 2009 3:56:01pm

re: #748 Yosemite Bill

To be charitable the speech was an exercise in identity politics / judicial "empathy" based on sex or ethnicity.


The speech she gave was the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture.

This annual lecture honors the Honorable Mario G. Olmos '71 who dedicated his life to promoting equality and justice for people from diverse national, economic, racial, and cultural origins. Born on July 24, 1946, in Nogales , Arizona , Judge Olmos graduated from Reedley Junior College and University of California , Berkeley where he was named to Phi Beta Kappa. At Boalt Hall he was an Ayer fellow and a Regents Scholar. Although he was nominated to the California Law Review, he chose instead to work in the community and to recruit students of color to Boalt.

It was at a symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."

What was she supposed to talk about?

750 Throbert McGee  Fri, May 29, 2009 4:21:58pm

Thought experiment:

Suppose Sotomayor had said something like, "My life experience as a latina woman has helped me to appreciate the fact that affirmative action often has unintended negative consequences for minorities, instead of benefits -- a point that many white males have trouble grasping, particularly if they're politically liberal."

Or suppose she'd said, "As a latina woman, I understand the importance of protecting traditional marriage even better than most white males can ever hope to."

Would Gingrich or Limbaugh be complaining about how racist her statement was?

751 Mr Pancakes  Fri, May 29, 2009 4:30:19pm

re: #663 ihateronpaul

What I am saying is that anti-white racism is extremely rare and to equate it to the racism other ethnic groups struggle with is laughable.

That's funny........ I lived and worked in TJ Mexico from 95 through 01. I love the Mexican people in general, in fact I married one.

I lived in an area (close to work in my wife's apt) where the white man never goes. I'm white and know racism first-hand ...... it wasn't laughable by any means. I couldn't wait to get out of there. Everywhere from the kids' snide remarks to my kid for being half white, to getting the correct change back at a store, shook down by cops who suggested I pay more protection money because I was a guero (white skinned person) to remain safe, to my truck being vandalized over and over again...... I could go on and on.

You say "anti-white racism is rare" .... I think you meant "acceptable". Watch any sitcom on TV and I guarantee you the major idiot doofus on the show will be the blue collar, middle aged, white guy.

Saw a parking lot dispute between a Mexican and African American a few weeks ago...... the African American called the Mexican an "illegal alien" and said he was going to "call immigration"...... the Mexican replied with the "N" word....... yep yep yep......must be the white man's fault.

752 SGTTED  Fri, May 29, 2009 4:35:57pm

If it's racist to be for "white pride", it's racist to be for "Latina pride" as well and it needs to pointed out more than it is. Not to mention the sexism of her comment.

Sotomyer was caught using the typical leftwing racist language of group identity politics. Yea I said it; its racist to the core, and goes right along with her membership in "La Raza". She has no business being on the Supreme Court.

753 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 4:48:26pm

re: #749 wrenchwench

It was at a symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."

What was she supposed to talk about?

Exactly. She was invited to give a speech on that very topic.

But you know, people really don't seem to care about context very much any more. It's all about the hysteria.

The GOP base must be fed.

754 ladycatnip  Fri, May 29, 2009 4:56:18pm

#750 Throbert McGee

Thought experiment:

Suppose Sotomayor had said something like, "My life experience as a latina woman has helped me to appreciate the fact that affirmative action often has unintended negative consequences for minorities, instead of benefits -- a point that many white males have trouble grasping, particularly if they're politically liberal."

Or suppose she'd said, "As a latina woman, I understand the importance of protecting traditional marriage even better than most white males can ever hope to."

Would Gingrich or Limbaugh be complaining about how racist her statement was?

Problem is, Throbert, she didn't say it that way. Standards of speech cut both ways - what she said was racist and unacceptable coming from a judge. Thought experiments are nice in the classroom, but not in politics when choosing a supreme.

755 suntory_boss  Fri, May 29, 2009 5:34:09pm

even the BBC took up this issue months ago.

[Link: worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com...]

756 Yosemite Bill  Fri, May 29, 2009 6:50:46pm

753 - Snort ! The GOP called this very afternoon and I in no uncertain terms told the solicitor what he could do with it.
"Hysteria" my foot.
Under ANY circumstances had a person of pallor said what this one of about to be nine said any judicial or political future would be finished - done- game over and rightly so.
But hey, I am too jaded to expect that the double standard the "progressives" have enjoyed in the area of race/ gender identity politics will be contested by anyone but us "bitter clingers."

757 Banner  Fri, May 29, 2009 6:59:46pm

Remember, it's only racism when a white man or a republican says it.

And of course, both white men and republicans are always in the wrong when they point out the racism of democrats and minorities.

758 Frater Eosphoros  Fri, May 29, 2009 7:06:12pm

Evidently, we are supposed to lay down and die... Accept the fact that a 'pure' socialist/welfare state is being built up, where non-"white male's" are exalted victims and class warfare is the law of the land. Hopefully I'll be dead by then.

At least at the RASCIST demarxist party. Comrade Sotomyer and Exalted Cyclops Byrd can find true love together.
Wow, this is just amazing. Left Racism is ok and to be rewarded.
Gee, I guess Trent Lott was in the wrong party. If this most wise and benevolent Latina is not shown the same rule. Then what?

759 Obsidiandog  Fri, May 29, 2009 7:21:32pm

re: #482 shiplord kirel

The far right purists who refused to support the "RINO" McCain have only themselves to blame for this appointment.

What about the Republicans who didn't vote for McCain because they couldn't accept Sarah Palin? They only have themselves to blame.

760 mioilman  Fri, May 29, 2009 8:39:31pm

I refused to vote for McCain because of McCain and in spite of Sarah Palin.

Republican "leadership" has drifted so far from Reagan that a vote for McCain would have amounted to a ballot cast for McGovern in 1972.

The first politician of either ilk that proclaims their goal to run the bums out of Washington (New Moscow) will be carried on the shoulders of a disaffected citizenry to victory.

Palin might have the chops but hence she will be destroyed by both sides of the aisle.

761 Joel  Sat, May 30, 2009 5:19:54am

re: #730 Flyers1974

I don't know why you included Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter does not have anywhere near Limbaugh's power and influence. I don't know of any politician who had to "clarify" his remarks regarding Ann Coulter. Because Rush Limbaugh is extremely influential doesn't mean he has the power to choose the GOP's presidential candidate. Comparing Limbaugh to Olbermann, etc... is invalid. Limbaugh has been a Huge Republican star for a long time. Maddow? Never heard of her until the past year. Olberman? Where will he be 5 years from now. You would have been very proud one year ago, five years ago, ten years ago to claim Rush. Now you wish to disown him because he has become inconvienient. You have a very tough sell to make.

You are talking through your liberal hat. I don't feel the need to own anyone. Lincoln freed the slaves in case you have not discovered that fact. Rush Limbaugh is his own man and his opinions (although shared by millions) are his own. Olbermann has enormous influence with the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party and his colleague Mr. Rachel Maddow is an up and coming star of the Left. Let me know when you have written Howard Dean that the Democratic Party needs to moderate and separate itself from Oblermann, Kos, Matthews, Wright, Dowd, et al, then get back to me. By the way McCain and his Maverickism certainly worked out well huh?

762 harpsicon  Sat, May 30, 2009 6:00:48am

re: #330 Charles

Please note that there are TWO groups that use the name "La Raza." One is La Raza Unida, which definitely is a much more extremist group.

But comparing the National Council of La Raza to the KKK is completely ridiculous. The KKK was a terrorist group that murdered many people.

You may not agree with everything the NCLR does or stands for -- and I certainly don't -- but the fact is that they are recognized as a legitimate advocacy group by nearly everyone on the political scene. Top GOP politicians address their conferences. Attempting to compare them to the KKK is an epic fail.

Charles,

I'm coming late to this thread, but couldn't the same thing be said about CAIR? Even Bush had them up on the dais immediately following 9/11, and it took the FBI some eight years before they decided that they really weren't any help, but were in fact more often assisting the terrorists as a matter of course (which a lot of people had figured out long before now).

This doesn't mean that everything NCLR does is terrible, but again CAIR has a long history of pleading the same, that really all they do is feed poor children. That's what the Holy Land defendants are yelling right now as they are sentenced to long terms for promoting terrorism.

You're probably right that NCLR isn't murdering people like the KKK used to do, but that's so not current - I'm not sure the Klan or David Duke have actually murdered anyone lately. But it's not conducive to civil discourse to have any of these groups starting from the premise that they only need to consider their own needs, and not what's good for the common weal. The common weal isn't doing all that well at the moment, it seems to me.

The Democratic party seems to be nothing but a collection of such groups at this point - unions, minority advocacy orgs, various other "rights" orgs - whose platforms are theoretically at odds, but who manage to unite, often in dislike for the white male. It's not surprising to me that 4/7 of undergraduates are female at this point, and it will be 3/5 within a few years. My own boys take it as a matter of course that a minority person can yell racism the way a lady used to yell rape, and get them in trouble instantly. It doesn't make their racial attitudes very good to be in this position, and it is ironic indeed that this should happen at a time when I think it's safe to say that real racism is at a low ebb.

763 Charles Johnson  Sat, May 30, 2009 11:23:35am

re: #762 harpsicon

I'm coming late to this thread, but couldn't the same thing be said about CAIR?

No. The Council of American Islamic Relations has actual ties to an actual terrorist group, Hamas. When Bush and the FBI and others were associating with them, I was highly critical of them -- and eventually, the facts came out about CAIR during the Holy Land Foundation trial, and the FBI cut off ties to them, as they should have long before.

The cases are not even close to being comparable. The NCLR has never been involved in terrorism, and never had ties to terrorist groups. Again -- you may not like what they stand for or their agenda, but comparing them to the KKK or CAIR is just ludicrous and wrong. It's not going to work, and anyone who does it is going to end up with massive egg on their faces.

764 harpsicon  Sat, May 30, 2009 2:33:56pm

re: #763 Charles

Your point is of course well taken, in the context of this nomination. But what I was trying to get at is that there seem to be quite a few of these "interest groups" that are about as friendly to American liberal ideals as CAIR is.

MALDEF, I'm pretty sure, is about 99% a creation of the Ford Foundation and gets an enormous majority of its funding from them. Ford, of course, became a fountainhead of this kind of funding when it was basically taken over in the 1970s by a coterie of pretty radical African-Americans who were invited on the board by the white liberals running the show, very much in the spirit of Leonard Bernstein and his radical cocktail parties. Boards being what they are, the whites were voted off before long, and now essentially every penny of the Ford Foundation money goes to "minority" causes or to Africa, which has been a serious loss to the arts in America, and probably has Henry Ford rolling over in his grave (and which is an interesting payback in its own way!).

My point was that I think there are quite a number of such foundations and interest groups who are essentially unfriendly to the nation as it was given to us by the founders. They are essentially unexamined, as CAIR was for quite a while. They may not have an ongoing war to fund as CAIR does, but if we dug deep into the Aztlan bunch, are you sure that there would not be some connection or other to the more interesting drug gangs currently carving out their own state in the north of Mexico, as the narcotraficantes in Colombia tried to do not so long ago? Who knows!

In Dallas we have a genuine grass-roots Latino org called LULAC (League of Latin-American Citizens), and they are remarkably practical types, and very unlike these ideologically created orgs like MALDEF. They reflect what Latinos here are actually interested in, as opposed to academic fantasies like "Aztlan" that may be very interesting but don't really have any basis in the reality of how Latinos live and what they strive for. As a Latino friend once put it to me, "Mexicans who are in Texas aren't here to be in Mexico."

Of course Obama himself seems to be of the same academic fantasy foundation world, at least to me, and while Sotomayor herself may not be necessarily of this ilk, there is a golden opportunity here to shed some light on all this crazy stuff confected by foundation money (probably similar to however David Duke keeps going - a few rich patrons).

These groups present themselves as speaking for minorities, which isn't exactly true, and they get away with all kinds of nonsense in the name of minorities. They are acknowledged by politicians of all stripes because of this, and because of their general availability for immediate press and meeting gratification for the politicians. Their actual agendas and ideals are about as well-known at the Reverend Wright's were before Obama's campaign, even though they are "hidden in plain sight", as it were. CAIR operated in very much the same way.

If more Americans were aware of the nature of these groups and their foundation and Soros-like funding, and how they don't seem to be too interested in our constitution, or history, or economics - except to change them a la Obama - maybe they would have to behave better. It's hard not to believe that reality has ambushed Obama to some extent, which is a good thing, and it would be an equally good thing for these groups if reality ambushed them as well.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
2 hours ago
Views: 42 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 159 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1