To all Republicans in Congress who are afraid to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor because she is a Latina….
Are you kidding me ?!?! Grow a pair.
Sotomayor's ethnicity has nothing to do with her qualifications (or lack thereof) for the Supreme Court. Sure, the Democrats will play the race card (as they always do) if you oppose her, but those same Democrats had no problem opposing a Latino Bush nominee, Miguel Estrada, to the D.C. Appeals Court in 2001. The Democrats filibustered Estrada's nomination, and Sotomayor's own legal group helped sink Estrada. Somehow, the Democrats opposition to Estrada didn't alienate the entire Hispanic vote, which is what some GOP wimps fear if they oppose Sotomayor.
I'm not even saying Sotomayor shouldn't be confirmed. It's too early to make that judgement, but, as I outlined in a previous post, there are some significant questions that must be asked of Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings, and if Republicans don't ask them, nobody will.
The Washington Examiner describes the alleged "box" the GOP is in regarding Sotomayor:
Some Republican operatives fear that GOP senators will dig through Sotomayor’s past but do little about it during the nomination hearings out of fear that heavy criticism will paint them as insensitive. Sessions in particular has a problem. He lost his 1986 bid to become a federal judge after Judiciary Committee Democrats accused him of being a racist, citing past statements about the American Civil Liberties Union and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Democrats and especially the liberal blogosphere are watching Sessions closely, looking for any move they could label a racial attack, and their scrutiny could undermine his ability to go after Sotomayor on her record.
“Unless a shoe drops, I think there will be limited discussion and then her nomination will pass,” one GOP operative said.
Complicating matters for the GOP is that Sotomayor is not just a minority, she is Hispanic. Hispanics represent a fast-growing segment of voters whom Republicans hope to win over.
“Republicans want to placate their base, but they aren’t going to want to alienate Hispanics,” Soper said.
What a crock that is. What, because Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions was accused of being a racist by Democrats 23 years ago, now Sotomayor gets a free pass, even though Sotomayor has made her own race-based comments that need further clarification ? I don't think so.
For whatever reason, the Republicans have never confronted Democratic Supreme Court nominees with the same level of bloodlust in which Democrats have gone after Republican nominees (think Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas). Bork's nomination was so hostile that it even gave rise to a new verb – to get "borked." It's worth listening to "Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy's disgusting attack on Bork one more time:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."
Democrats are even warning Republicans not to go after Sotomayor, she of the inspiring story, who went from a Bronx housing project to the Supreme Court. President Obama referred to Sotomayor's "extraordinary journey," as if she is Sojourner Truth or something. Do you remember anyone ever talking about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas like that ? Thomas journey was every bit as extraordinary as Sotomayor's, if not more so. Here's a bit of it:
Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia, a small, impoverished African American community. His family are descendents of American Slaves in the American South. His father left his family when he was two years old. After a house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother Myers were taken to Savannah, Georgia, where their mother worked as a domestic employee. Thomas' sister Emma stayed behind with relatives in Pin Point.
When Thomas was 7, the family moved in with his maternal grandfather, Myers Anderson, and Anderson's wife, Christine, in Savannah. Anderson had little formal education, but had built a fuel oil business that also sold ice. Thomas calls his grandfather "the greatest man I have ever known." When Thomas was 10, Anderson started taking the family to help at a farm every day from sunrise to sunset. His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance; he would counsel Thomas to "never let the sun catch you in bed."
Yet, the centerpiece of the Thomas confirmation hearings was a pubic hair in a Coca-Cola, because, you know, you can't have an inspirational story if you're a conservative. If you're a conservative, you get the "high-tech lynching of a black man."
Republicans have to get over this fear of being called racists, especially when it's coming from loons, such as MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who said the following about Republican opposition to Sotomayor:
"I think that she’s [Sotomayor] going to have to defend everything that Republicans choose to attack her on, that’s the nature of the adversarial process at this point. In fact I think that it is, it’s rich to have Rush Limbaugh, he of Barack The Magic Negro fame, attacking people for being racists at this point. I mean, certainly the attack on Sotomayor, to the extend that it is based on her race, to the extent that the attacks on her are based on the idea that she was an affirmative action choice – I think that’s probably the weakest ammunition they’re going to have against her. I mean you don’t get to be summa cum laude at Princeton on the basis of some sort of favoritism, you don’t get to be Phi Beta Kappa on the basis of somebody trying to do you a favor or trying to redress some past wrong. So if they want to lead with attacking her on the basis of race and affirmative action, I think it means she’s going to have a pretty easy confirmation process."
Notice how Maddow erects a straw man by saying Republicans will attack Sotomayor based upon her race, when, of course, Republicans will do no such thing. Republicans don't care about Sotomayor's race any more than they cared about the race of Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, or a host of others. It appears only liberal nutjobs like Rachel Maddow care about race, and who fricking cares what they think ???? The race card is about the sorriest card in the deck these days.
To the fearful GOP'ers – do your job and ask the tough questions. You don't have to act like the vile Ted Kennedy did with Bork, but this is important. A Supreme Court nomination is for LIFE. You don't get any do overs.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Amen once again King,
What does the Rep. party and its elected representatives stand for? Hell if I know. Judging by their actions I can only surmise two things. Determine what course best ensures their postion at the trough and curring the stamp of approval from the media. I have long worried about the loss of free speech in this country through hate speech legislation but we are increasingly becoming unable to raise honest concerns or promote ideas without being demonized by the media whice hasbecome the self appointed thought police. Animal Farm is alive and well.
Why do you think I'm considering a switch to Libertarian, lol? The Reps seem to be trying to figure out how to define themselves, seem headed toward Democrat Lite status. On the other hand, Democrats don't even seem to live on the same planet as I do. They seem to believe that all animals are created equal, but some animals a more equal, like the donkey.
I really believe that this country, as both parties seem to be moving away from what the majority of us really want, is ripe for the addition of a few new parties. I'm not saying we'll ever be like France, which had about 30 million at last count. I hope that won't happen; that is too many options. But there's no room for middle of the road conservatives or liberals in this country anymore. Conservatives are being demonized, as I have been, for saying that we need to ensure the fiscal survival of this nation before we can even think about giving away more money than we'll ever earn. Common sense is frowned upon, somehow.
It makes me sad, sometimes angry, to see people instantly pronounce someone evil for not seeing the world exactly as they do. Both major parties do it, and it just plain sucks. I've got about a billion examples of liberals doing such, but I know that conservatives do it, too. It's stupid, and it keeps us from getting anything worthwhile done. I'll get off my soapbox now.
but some animals a more equal, like the donkey. =
but some animals are more equal, like the donkey.
I actually made an A in Typing. Twenty years ago, lol.
Mr. King,
Bork and Thomas were , what, twenty or twenty five years ago? I think that a better comparison would be Roberts and Alito. Despite views which put them solidly to the right, they received little resistance from the Dems.
From what I can tell, Ms. Sotomayor's political views are similar to Souter's. As a phi beta kappa graduating summa cum laude, I would think that she's intelligent. If it weren't for the internecine struggle for the soul and leadership of the Republican party, she would receive little opposition.
But the clowns who are jockeying for position in the Republican party have decided that she is a racist for asserting in a speech about sex and race discrimination cases that her life experience as a Latina should lead her to have a more valid conclusion about those cases than others. Seems logical to me. I mean, if you want to know what a career in the military is like, you will probably get better information asking a career soldier than if you ask someone who never served. Experience trumps anecdotal information.
It is truly hilarious watching these clowns engaging in their hyperbole contest. Each one seems to have to come up with something more bizarre than the other. Limbaugh seems to even be competing with himself. Today he compared her to David Duke, former KKK leader. They either don't notice or don't care that they are making fools of themselves and damaging their party. If the keep up their "she is a racist" meme they will lose the Hispanic vote just as they have lost the black vote. It seems that their goal is to make the Republican party like a black hole, growing smaller and smaller until it implodes upon its self. It isn't balls these characters needs, it's brains.
frank,
I agree with you that Limbaugh's comments were way over the top, but I couldn't disagree more with your apologist stance on Sotomayor's racial remark. Her remark that a Latina woman will make more valid decisions than a white male was ridiculous and biased. Her ethnic makeup has nothing to do with her credentials for the Supreme Court. President Obama has even said Sotomayor should have stated her remarks differently. Sotomayor's racial remark should not be defended by anyone who desires an equal society, but she should be given a chance to explain it.
Hundreds of court decisions….and King clings to one Soto word that can be construed by dishonest cretins as racism against white men.
That's where we are.
Mr. King,
She was specifically talking about sex and race discrimination cases. If you don't think her life experience as a woman and a member of a minority gives her a little extra understanding of those cases, I don't know what to tell you. Another example. Who can provide the best information about growing up black in the south in the fifties, a black person who lived there during those times, or somebody who read about it? I say again, experience trumps anecdotal knowledge.
P.S. G. Gordon Liddy is worried about Ms. Sotomayor's ability during menstrual cycles.
Who cares what kind of cases, frank?
By your rationale, white males would make the best judges when it comes to Wall Street corruption cases, and hardened convicts would be the best judges when it comes to robbery and rape.
It's ridiculous, more 'sky is green, grass is blue' from the increasingly creepy left.
Speaking of, I see Holder decreed charges against those Black Panther voter intimidation thugs in Philly be pulled, even though a decision against them had already been rendered.
Thanks Obama!
larry d.,
I can see how, in your case, you might think that life experience means nothing.
Good one, frank. By the same token, I've seen how rational observation of fact and treating all Americans equal under the law means nothing to you.
Maybe due to life experience?
larry d.,
Ouch. Sorry I hit a nerve, but my children's mother would like you to explain childbirth to her.
I'm older than Sotomayor, so my more extensive life experience makes me a better choice for the Supreme Court than her, if we use frank's life experience "some animals are more equal than others" method of bean counting.
Or, we can use my way, larry's way, and Martin Luther King's way, and judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, even though that makes us all "cretins," according to the Reverend.
I like our way better, even though it offends liberal sensibilities by treating all people as equals.
Mr. King,
Come off it. You're smarter than that. You and larry both know that accusing me of "some animals are more equal than others" is a canard and an insult. What she was talking about was that her experience as a Latina gave her insight into sex and race discrimination cases. Sandra Day O'Connor said the same thing about her experience as a woman. Scalia even said the same thing about being the son of immigrants.
You're also too smart to think that treating people as equals means assuming that their experiences are irrelevant. You're also too smart to think that it offends "liberal sensibilities" to treat people equally.
You're also too smart to think that the criticism Ms. Sotomayor faces is judging her by the content of her character. You are also too smart to think that MLK would be joining in this insane hyperbole.
You're also smart enough to realize that the crazies on the right were going to attack whomever Obama nominated.
But I hope that you and the crazies on the right continue. Just report on what it's like to walk right into Obama's trap.
Well at least you're one up on the King, frank–no one's accusing you to be too smart to realize anything.
larry d.,
Thanks for your insight as usual. You continue to add sooo much to the discussion.
frank,
It's you who continues to defend Sotomayor's comment that she, as a Latina, would be a better judge that some white guy, so I don't think you should be questioning anyone else's intelligence.
When someone as dumb as myself hears that kind of comment, I condemn it, just as I would condemn a white guy saying he was superior to someone of a different ethnic background. That kind of talk is unacceptable. I thought we settled this issue in the 1960's. Equality means equality. It doesn't mean one ethnicity is better than another, under any circumstances.
Mr. King,
You continue to mischaracterize what she said. She didn't say that being a Latina makes her a better judge than a white guy. She didn't say that her ethnic background makes her superior. That kind of talk is unacceptable. Her comments were narrowly focused on cases involving discrimination. I would think it is only logical that someone who has encountered discrimination would be a better judge of whether or not it had occurred. I found Scalia and O'Connor's remarks to be nearly identical.
For what it is worth, I don't know whether she will make a good Supreme Court Justice or not. I'd be willing to bet that just as Souter surprised many by being more liberal than expected, Sotomayor will be more conservative than expected, especially by those who slander her as a bigot.
"…how rational observation of fact and treating all Americans equal under the law means nothing to you."
Man…the projection is getting out of hand.
Torture, anyone?
What Americans weren't treated as equal under the law when those three foreign terrorists were questioned, Reverend?
Both of my Senators are against Sotomayor, one is not standing for re-election and the other one is. Now the fastest growing segment of our state is Hispanic. Why in four sizable communities they have come to outnumber all others. Most of that growth is from illegals working in meat packing plants, but who is to say which of them will be voting in 2 years against my returning Senator? If we get an amnesty bill, as Dems have promised by that time he may be making lots of political enemies.
Anyway that Senator has already spoken out against Sotomayor. He just happens to have been one of 29 Senators that voted against her for the Court of Appeals. Maybe he remembers something from that period that still has him turned off.
Frank, I am tired of having people tell me what the lady in question really meant when she made her racist statement. She said words that can't be regrouped to make her innocent. Redefining her words this far from when she said them is nothing less than trying to rewrite history and a weak attempt at defending her.
roysoldboy,
If you wish to believe what Rush, Liddy, and the rest of those clowns say, that's your right. But if you were the least bit objective, you would realize that is they who are redefining her words.
By the way, do you realize that those illegal aliens are being recruited by the meat packing companies? Why don't you write your senators and demand that the law prohibiting companies from hiring illegal aliens be enforced?
Frank, maybe a for-instance could help you explain the nice Hispanic lady's comment.
Can you think up a fictional (or true) case in which a white man and a hispanic woman would come to different decisions that are both within constitutional limits, yet the hispanic woman's is superior due to her richness of ethnic experience?
"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." – Sonia Sotomayor
You are the one doing the mischaracterizing, frank.
Now, her comment doesn't mean Sotomayor is a racist, as some of the knee-jerkers on the right are saying. It just means she made an unacceptable race-based comment that needs to be brought into question and clarified during her confirmation hearings. Though her comment is unacceptable, it was only one comment. There are other concerns, such as the Ricci case. If that was an example of an empathetic Latina judge reaching a "better conclusion," then we should want no part of it. Another concern is Sotomayor being on the council of an organization called The Race (La Raza), a group that has promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. If Sotomayor lets her "empathy" for illegals trump the rule of law in those instances, that should disqualify her from the Supreme Court. I'm not saying Sotomayor should be disqualified, I'm only saying these are legitimate areas of concern on which she should be closely questioned.
To put this in proper perspective for liberals, imagine if Sam Alito had said white males would reach better judicial conclusions than minorities, and Alito belonged to a civil rights group for white people that wished to exclude whites from certain laws, and Alito didn't overturn a case where black firefighters weren't promoted because no white persons got a high enough grade on the promotion test. Would Alito have been confirmed ? Not in a million years, and liberal groups would be screaming "racist" from the rooftops. They'd probably be marching on Washington D.C., and my fellow blogger, the Reverend, would probably be on his tenth "See, I told you the GOP was racist !" post by now.
There is only one standard, not two.
Mr. King,
Once again, Ms. Sotomayor's comments were narrowly confined to race and sex discrimination cases. She was not claiming that her minority status would make her a better judge generally. Sandra Day O'Connor made the same claim based upon her status as a woman. Scalia made the same claim as the son of immigrants. The only parallel that white males can make would be reverse discrimination cases. If you can find white male judges who have experienced reverse discrimination, they would probably have more insight than someone who hasn't experienced reverse discrimination.
I haven't mentioned the Ricci case because I haven't studied it. But it seems that the your defense of the Ledbetter decision by Roberts applies here also. The Ricci case seems about whether the city could reserve the right to throw out the test results.
larry d.,
There are overt and subtle forms of discrimination. Refusal to hire someone based on their race would be an overt act of discrimination. Creating a requirement, such as having to be able to lift 100 lbs when the job didn't involve lifting 100 lbs, could be seen as a subtle form of discrimination designed to disqualify otherwise qualified women. In the second instance, I can see how a ruling could go either way.
You mean otherwise qualified sciatica patients?
I don't see how someone could defend such a qualification if it was bogus, frank. Why would a white male judge go for that?
larry d.,
Because one could argue that the company offering the job had the legal right to define the parameters in their search for employees.
Mr. King et al,
Here is another quote from the same speech by Ms. Sotomayor:
"I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions, and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires."
Not if those parameters were discriminatory, frank. Otherwise they could just set the parameters at "no sciatica patients." This is silly, even for you.
frank,
And once again, I don't care if Sotomayor's comments were restricted to certain cases or not. That is completely beside the point. She still said a Latina would reach a better conclusion than a white male, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the law.
You are spinning. Neither O'Connor nor Alito said anything like what Sotomayor said.
I have experienced reverse discrimination personally, but that would not make me a better judge of those cases. What would make me the best judge of those cases would be a THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW. Period.
The Ricci case is not only about whether the tests were thrown out. It's also about WHY and WHEN the test results were thrown out. In the Ricci case, the test results were only thrown out because no black firefighters scored high enough. The criteria for promotion were changed after the fact, because the "desired" results were not achieved. The discrimination was obvious to me, and I hope (and expect) the Supreme Court to agree when it hears the case this year. Sotomayor should be overturned.
This just in. Sotomayor made a similar comment in 1994:
“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.” – Sonia Sotomayor