White Man's Last Stand

[DarrinS]

I needed a sick bucket after reading this drivel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/opinion/15dowd.html?_r=1





You can’t judge a judge by her cover.

Despite the best efforts of Republicans to root out any sign that Sonia Sotomayor has emotions that color her views on the law, the Bronx Bomber kept a robotic mask in place.

A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up. :rolleyes

After all, these guys have never needed to speak inspirational words to others like them, as Sotomayor has done. They’ve had codes, handshakes and clubs to do that. :rolleyes

So when Republican Senator Jon Kyl, without so much as a howdy-do, went at Sotomayor, and soon was asking her if she agreed with Barack Obama’s contention, when he voted against John Roberts, that a judge’s heart is important, the would-be justice was as adroit as her idol Nancy Drew.

“No, sir,” she said, indicating that the only bleeding-heart thing about her was the color of her jacket. She added that “it’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It’s the law.”

President Obama wants Sotomayor, naturally, to bring a fresh perspective to the court. It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men. And Sotomayor made it clear that she provides some spicy seasoning to a bench when she said in a speech: “I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging, but I accept there will be some based on gender and my Latina heritage.”

The judge’s full retreat from the notion that a different life experience is valuable was more than necessary and somewhat disappointing. But, as any clever job applicant knows, you must obscure as well as reveal, so she sidestepped the dreaded empathy questions — even though that’s why the president wants her. :wow

“We apply law to facts,” she told Kyl. “We don’t apply feelings to facts.”

She even used a flat tone when talking about the “horrific tragedy” of 9/11, when she was living near the World Trade Center. And she was mechanical in explaining to a grumpy Senator Orrin Hatch that banning nunchaku sticks did not dent the Second Amendment because the martial-arts weapons’ swing “can bust someone’s skull.”

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer gamely tried to make the judge seem even more coldhearted. Recalling the sad plight of poor families from the Bronx who sued T.W.A. after a jet crashed off Long Island in 1996, he quoted the Bronx jurist’s dispassionate dissent: “The appropriate remedial scheme for deaths occurring off the United States coast is clearly a legislative policy choice, which should not be made by the courts.”

Schumer also cited the case of an African-American woman who filed suit after being denied a home-equity loan, even after the loan application was conditionally approved based on her credit report.

Sonia Legree ruled that the woman’s claim was filed too late, the same argument that the Supremes used on Lilly Ledbetter when she belatedly learned that her male coworkers were much better paid. President Obama has cited the Ledbetter decision as a reason the court needs a more “common touch.”

“The law requires some finality,” Sotomayor explained about her case, with an iciness that must have sent a chill up the conservative leg of Alabama’s Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, even as it left Obama hanging out on an empathy limb.

Republican Lindsey Graham read Sotomayor some anonymous comments made by lawyers about her, complaining that she was “temperamental,” “nasty,” “a bit of a bully.” Then he patronizingly lectured her about how this was the moment for “self-reflection.” Maybe Graham thinks Nino Scalia has those traits covered.

But the barbed adjectives didn’t match the muted performance on display before the Judiciary Committee. Like the president who picked her, Sotomayor has been a model of professorial rationality. Besides, it’s delicious watching Republicans go after Democrats for being too emotional and irrational given the G.O.P. shame spiral. :rolleyes

W. and Dick Cheney made all their bad decisions about Iraq, W.M.D.’s, domestic surveillance, torture, rendition and secret hit squads from the gut, based on false intuitions, fear, paranoia and revenge. :rolleyes

Sarah Palin is the definition of irrational, a volatile and scattered country-music queen without the music :rolleyes. Her Republican fans defend her lack of application and intellect, happy to settle for her emotional electricity.

Senator Graham said Sotomayor would be confirmed unless she had “a meltdown” — a word applied mostly to women and toddlers until Mark Sanford proudly took ownership of it when he was judged about the wisdom of his Latina woman. :rolleyes

And then there’s the Supreme Court, of course, which gave up its claim to rational neutrality when the justices appointed by Republican presidents — including Bush Sr. — ignored what was fair to make a sentimental choice and throw the 2000 election to W. :rolleyes

Faced with that warped case of supreme empathy, no wonder Sotomayor is so eager to follow the law.

[MannyIsGod]

Care you be more specific about which parts you disagree with and why. In detail?

The emoticons are great and all, but perhaps you'd like to expand your thoughts beyond rolly eyes.

[DarrinS]

Care you be more specific about which parts you disagree with and why. In detail?

The emoticons are great and all, but perhaps you'd like to expand your thoughts beyond rolly eyes.



I'll summarise her article for you.


The GOP is a group of cranky, old, racist white men.

Bush lied, people died. Cheney is the antiChrist.

Bush stole the 2000 election.

Sarah Palin is dumb.





So, what's your point?

[I. Hustle]

That's too much reading.

[clambake]

I'll summarise her article for you.


The GOP is a group of cranky, old, racist white men.

Bush lied, people died. Cheney is the antiChrist.

Bush stole the 2000 election.

Sarah Palin is dumb.

thats pretty accurate. you're more opened minded than people give you credidt for. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

I'll summarise her article for you.


The GOP is a group of cranky, old, racist white men.

Bush lied, people died. Cheney is the antiChrist.

Bush stole the 2000 election.

Sarah Palin is dumb.
Don't forget, President Bush tried to appoint a Latino, but there was a filibuster.

My God... That bitch is dumb.

Secret handshakes belonging to republicans.. Idiot.. Children of both parties were members of such clubs.

How can anyone tolerate someone who is either so ignorant, or intellectually dishonest?

[balli]

The GOP is a group of cranky, old, racist white men.
http://uncle-semite.com/wejissue/images/fleischer-nose-medium.jpg

Welp? No?

[jack sommerset]

I'm glad people are saying and reporting " if a white male said that they would not be nominated" It is true. It is a fact. I'm glad people are calling bullshit on the minorities for being racist pigs that some of them are. What I don't get is the response the people who support these types of minorities. I'm 38 and I shouldn't pay for what white dudes did to black or mexicans before I was born. We have a black president for crying out loud. Get over yourselves!

[jman3000]

So racism and discrimination ended in 1971?

I should put that on Wikipedia so WC can use it later as evidence.

[SonOfAGun]

http://b9.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00147/97/56/147166579_m.jpg

[jack sommerset]

So racism and discrimination ended in 1971?

I should put that on Wikipedia so WC can use it later as evidence.

:lol apparently not, the new judge to be is a racist. but overall the civil rights movement worked and every american citizen have equal rights. you should know this jman3000. you should read about rosa parks,martin luther kind,malcom x,charles ever,susan b anthony,john lewis,etc......welcome to 2009.

[jman3000]

:lol apparently not, the new judge to be is a racist. but overall the civil rights movement worked and every american citizen have equal rights. you should know this jman3000. you should read about rosa parks,martin luther kind,malcom x,charles ever,susan b anthony,john lewis,etc......welcome to 2009.

Man it must be nice being white. I could only dream of living in your fantasy world.

[mookie2001]

^thats stupid though sommerset, how many hispanic woman have ever been on the supreme court and why?

how many black senators have we had?, how many hispanic senators have we since the civil rights movement "worked"?

people on both sides need to learn to shut their mouths

[Wild Cobra]

Man it must be nice being white. I could only dream of living in your fantasy world.
All you have to do is step up and shed your hatred towards us.

[jman3000]

What hatred?

[jack sommerset]

All you have to do is step up and shed your hatred towards us.

Yup. And what a well thoughtout comeback. "Must be great being white" Lets forget the judge to be said latino women are better then everyone else. When I say that is racist I get "must be great being white".... Pathetic.

What she said was racist. This is one of the top positions in our goverment. It is a job for life. It's a job not to make policy but to judge on the laws of our country. It is a position where color or race does not matter. She should not be the judge. Sad thing is Dems are running the show so it does not matter.

[mookie2001]

she didnt say that

i dont want to speak for jman but i think he is white

so that just makes him a sellout?

[elbamba]

I think that a better test to racisim, if we are looking at elected officials, would be to look at state and local politicians. I live in a small town outside of Kansas City which is probably 98% white. Our current mayor is hispanic and the last one was black. Out of seven city council three are minority women.

[mookie2001]

thats not noteworthy at all

i guess the town has more than 100 people huh

[jack sommerset]

she didnt say that

i dont want to speak for jman but i think he is white

so that just makes him a sellout?

Yes she did. Sotomayor had said she hoped a "wise Latina" often would reach better conclusions than a white male who lacked the same life experience. Son, that is racist and not how we want the highest court in all the land to believe.

What makes you think jman3000 is white? Shouldn't matter anyways. I'll say he is anything but white because you think he is.

Sellout? What dumb ass conclusion did you come up with to ask that dumb fucking question?

[jack sommerset]

thats not noteworthy at all

i guess the town has more than 100 people huh

It's yet another example the civil rights movement worked! Something you and the jman do not think happened.

[clambake]

you're right jack. i thinks it's time that whites should re-claim their domineering roll.....like god and jesus would have it......americas god and jesus!

go USA go!

[ElNono]

Poor oppressed whitey...

[mookie2001]

i was right, she didnt say that

thats what quotes are for



i judged jman by appearence when i met him, i could be wrong








sorry you cant take someone life experience away

i happen to agree with her

i dont know much about sodomayor other than what ive seen online and tv, she could turn out to be horrible, anti constitution globalist, stupid facist bitch


when you scoff her for being hispanic and say that her sex and ethnicity shouldnt matter its wrong

its like the people who were bitching last year saying blacks are voting for obama just because hes black, they hear that as "dont vote for obama because hes black"

[jack sommerset]

you're right jack. i thinks it's time that whites should re-claim their domineering roll.....like god and jesus would have it......americas god and jesus!

go USA go!

Another gay ass response to nothing I said but that is the idiots in the world today. That is what is wrong with most Obama democrats. A white dude calls a minority a racist and they get this bs. Just for the record fag, I don't believe in Jesus Christ or any cult God. And I am not a republican, my mom is canadian,my brother is mexican and so are my 4 of my cousins, my dad is married to a mexican and I have black friends. Oh My Goodness!!! This can't be true! Sommerset is WHITE!

I grew up in New York, My wife is from Arkansas and I can't stand faggots such as yourself. Now run and do ur gayass sarcastic cheer about how whites think and go fuck yourself.....:lol

[jack sommerset]

i was right, she didnt say that thats what quotes are for i judged jman by appearence when i met him, i could be wrong

:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Another gay ass response to nothing I said but that is the idiots in the world today. That is what is wrong with most Obama democrats. A white dude calls a minority a racist and they get this bs. Just for the record fag, I don't believe in Jesus Christ or any cult God. And I am not a republican, my mom is canadian,my brother is mexican and so are my 4 of my cousins, my dad is married to a mexican and I have black friends. Oh My Goodness!!! This can't be true! Sommerset is WHITE!

I grew up in New York, My wife is from Arkansas and I can't stand faggots such as yourself. Now run and do ur gayass sarcastic cheer about how whites think and go fuck yourself.....:lol

are u a meat smoker jack?

[balli]

are u a meat smoker jack?

Seriously. It raises a pretty big question that this guy can't get through a single post, on any topic, without launching into a hate filled screed against "fags".

Normal, healthy, hetero men just aren't that threatened by homosexuality that they need to remind everyone, every time they have an opportunity, that they full on hate gay people.

Which would suggest (more than suggest IMO) that Jack has some untoward, yet powerful, homoerotic thoughts bouncing around in his skull that he's extremely afraid of and obviously agitated by.

IDK definitively, but if I had to set the over/under on whether or not jackoff sommerset meets men in rest-stops for butt-sex, I'd say the odds are pretty good. And I'd say it's almost a lock that he secretly fantasizes about it.

And I'm not saying this to be funny or to mock the guy, it's just that I do seriously think he's a self-loathing gay man. And I'm sick of seeing that self-loathing presented in such an ongoing and public fashion.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/stillgh3y.jpg

[gtownspur]

If only wise latinas wrote our constitution.

[FromWayDowntown]

How can anyone tolerate someone who is either so ignorant, or intellectually dishonest?

Irony. Oh, such delicious irony.

[Wild Cobra]

So racism and discrimination ended in 1971?

I should put that on Wikipedia so WC can use it later as evidence.
Where did the 1971 come from? I was refering to the fact the article mentioned Sotomayor being the first Latino nominated to the supreme court, and point out that she wasn't. Sure, it did specify Latino woman, but so what. Besides, why are liberals always so bent on race and gender? Why cannot they judge people by their works?



:lol apparently not, the new judge to be is a racist. but overall the civil rights movement worked and every american citizen have equal rights. you should know this jman3000. you should read about rosa parks,martin luther kind,malcom x,charles ever,susan b anthony,john lewis,etc......welcome to 2009.Man it must be nice being white. I could only dream of living in your fantasy world.All you have to do is step up and shed your hatred towards us.What hatred?
Does that help?

It's not a fantasy world. Most of us whites have no feelings of racism. I am one that gets really annoyed by those crying "racist" and blaming the past, instead of realizing the measure of a man is his own works. Losers live in the past. Living in the past also prevents you from having a good future.

So step up, grab opportunity by the horns, and run with it.

Stop blaming my white ass and others like me.

[FromWayDowntown]

And avoid black surgeons.

[ElNono]

Is that your new schtick, WC? Past is the past, doesn't matter anymore?
Did 'Republicans good, Democrats bad' wore itself out?

At any rate, 'those that don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it' (or something like that). I'm definitely looking forward, but hoping to have learned from the mistakes made in the past.

[Wild Cobra]

Is that your new schtick, WC? Past is the past, doesn't matter anymore?
Did 'Republicans good, Democrats bad' wore itself out?

At any rate, 'those that don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it' (or something like that). I'm definitely looking forward, but hoping to have learned from the mistakes made in the past.When it comes to minorities hating whites. Yes.

Let it go.

[LnGrrrR]

When it comes to minorities hating whites. Yes.

Let it go.

You honestly feel that Sotomayor hates whites?

[Wild Cobra]

You honestly feel that Sotomayor hates whites?
No, I don't think that. I was referring to the to the hatred that so many blacks have towards whites. Always blaming the white man for their problems.

[LnGrrrR]

No, I don't think that. I was referring to the to the hatred that so many blacks have towards whites. Always blaming the white man for their problems.

Sure, there's types like that. And then there are whites who say that all blacks are looking for handouts.

I think you'll find that the majority of blacks don't 'hate' whites. It's just that those who do hate or blame whites are more vocal than the rest.

WC, do you have involvement with the black community? If so, I think you'd find that it's probably about 5 to 10% of the black community that believes notions like the government created AIDS to kill black people.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure, there's types like that. And then there are whites who say that all blacks are looking for handouts.

I think you'll find that the majority of blacks don't 'hate' whites. It's just that those who do hate or blame whites are more vocal than the rest.

WC, do you have involvement with the black community? If so, I think you'd find that it's probably about 5 to 10% of the black community that believes notions like the government created AIDS to kill black people.
I interact with some black people, and have been seeing a black girl for the last several weeks. When I was in the Army, I heard plenty about how things were the white mans fault and I really got sick of it. Even the girl I've been dating has the idea she is owed affirmative action because of the sins of us white people. She actually comes from a family that's well off, but it's still the white man's fault.

[clambake]

Even the girl I've been dating has the idea she is owed affirmative action because of the sins of us white people. She actually comes from a family that's well off, but it's still the white man's fault.

:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

I interact with some black people, and have been seeing a black girl for the last several weeks. When I was in the Army, I heard plenty about how things were the white mans fault and I really got sick of it. Even the girl I've been dating has the idea she is owed affirmative action because of the sins of us white people. She actually comes from a family that's well off, but it's still the white man's fault.

I worked with a black troop who thought the AIDS thing was government-funded. But then again, I've worked with white troops who thought that UFOs and ghosts were real, that we didn't land on the moon, and that the Bible is completely literally true.

The lesson? Alot of people believe stupid things.

However, to paint the majority of people due to the beliefs of a few is wrong. It seems to me you do such at times with blanket statements or implications.

[Wild Cobra]

However, to paint the majority of people due to the beliefs of a few is wrong. It seems to me you do such at times with blanket statements or implications.
I will agree with that. It's hard to set aside our own biases. The vocal few in any case often leave the impression for all of any group. That is a case where I will agree I am prejudiced in believing one way until shown otherwise. That should not be taken as being racist. That, I definitely am not. But you know what. My prejudices don't affect others. I'm not a court nominee.

[LnGrrrR]

I will agree with that. It's hard to set aside our own biases. The vocal few in any case often leave the impression for all of any group. That is a case where I will agree I am prejudiced in believing one way until shown otherwise. That should not be taken as being racist. That, I definitely am not. But you know what. My prejudices don't affect others. I'm not a court nominee.

You did see that bit where I posted the data showing that in discrimination cases, she ruled that of every 9 cases, she argued against the 'discrimination' claim 8 times?

You're using one case's outcome to determine that she is racist or predisposed against a certain color. ONE CASE. Without looking at the rest of her cases.

[Wild Cobra]

You did see that bit where I posted the data showing that in discrimination cases, she ruled that of every 9 cases, she argued against the 'discrimination' claim 8 times?
I'd have to see a summary case by case. Otherwise, how do I know if the other 8 were right or not. What if she ruled for a case that should have never been a discrimination suit? I'm not going to bother with the time of researching it. This one case to me was so blatantly obvious, I'm comfortable saying she is not qualified to try such cases. I'm already bored with the subject. Besides, I pointed out before, I can live with her getting in the court. I actually agree with rulings she has had like first amendment issues, and how often do racial cases come to the SC? I fear, if she doesn't get appointed, we will get worse. Someone who is less open, but more liberal. At least she has been an open book.


You're using one case's outcome to determine that she is racist or predisposed against a certain color. ONE CASE. Without looking at the rest of her cases.No, she has repeated the "Latino woman" theme on several other occasions. I honestly believe she is an affirmative action activist, and that really bothers me. I say the city dismissed the test for numeric outcome reasons, and she ruled with them for numeric outcome reasons. I have seen cases in the past where this selection by outcome is no longer accepted by the SC. The white litigants claiming reverse discrimination have always won in recent cases. Maybe you remember the specifics a few years ago having to do with college admissions, there a more qualified white was not accepted to make room for a less qualified black? That went to the SC, and the schools had to change their admission policies, removing racial preference.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd have to see a summary case by case. Otherwise, how do I know if the other 8 were right or not. What if she ruled for a case that should have never been a discrimination suit? I'm not going to bother with the time of researching it. This one case to me was so blatantly obvious, I'm comfortable saying she is not qualified to try such cases. I'm already bored with the subject. Besides, I pointed out before, I can live with her getting in the court. I actually agree with rulings she has had like first amendment issues, and how often do racial cases come to the SC? I fear, if she doesn't get appointed, we will get worse. Someone who is less open, but more liberal. At least she has been an open book.

I just think that you choose strange standards for your skepticism. You are quick to discredit facts from sources you don't agree with, but don't seemingly turn the same critical eye on other biased sources.

As has been pointed out before, Alito and other judges have been unanimously overturned by SCOTUS. Does that mean they're not fit to serve? Of course not.

[Wild Cobra]

As has been pointed out before, Alito and other judges have been unanimously overturned by SCOTUS. Does that mean they're not fit to serve? Of course not.
Yes, but the reasons were different. We already discussed that.

Again, this case was a no-brainer. I can only see someone with an agenda to rule against the firefighters in this case.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, but the reasons were different. We already discussed that.

Again, this case was a no-brainer. I can only see someone with an agenda to rule against the firefighters in this case.

Again, I fail to see how a 'no-brainer' can be such, when two tiers of courts ruled differently from the way you see it, and the final decision was 5-4.

This, in light of the fact that MANY analysts have described how she was bound by precedent, and the only reason that SCOTUS overturned the case was because they set a new precedent. Meaning that Sotomayor's panel HAD to rule the way they did, due to the previous precedent. (In fact, if she had ruled a different way, she would have been 'activist'.)

Yet, you disregard all this information because you believe that the answer was 'obvious'.

Perhaps, just maybe, even though the correct 'moral' answer was obvious, there could be a chance that the correct LEGAL ruling was applied, and you are out of your depth here?

[Wild Cobra]

Again, I fail to see how a 'no-brainer' can be such, when two tiers of courts ruled differently from the way you see it, and the final decision was 5-4.

Just shows how many judges we have in the system that rule by agenda or bias rather than law.


This, in light of the fact that MANY analysts have described how she was bound by precedent, and the only reason that SCOTUS overturned the case was because they set a new precedent. Meaning that Sotomayor's panel HAD to rule the way they did, due to the previous precedent. (In fact, if she had ruled a different way, she would have been 'activist'.)

And many analysts have the revers opinion. Precedent was set that such cases follow a strict review process, which none of the lower courts did. Precedent was set that whites are not to be discriminated against in favor of minorities. The city did not follow it's own law to have a thourough review of the test befor dismissing it, and I believe they even stated themself it was because they achieved the wrong outcome.


Yet, you disregard all this information because you believe that the answer was 'obvious'.

It was absolutely obvious.


Perhaps, just maybe, even though the correct 'moral' answer was obvious, there could be a chance that the correct LEGAL ruling was applied, and you are out of your depth here?

There were no legal hurdles to keep the test. All conceivable race problems were addressed prior to administering it. And again, the city failed to do a comprehensive aftermath review before dismissing the results, as required. Had they done an aftermath review, and found problems in the test, I wouldn't be so adamant.

[LnGrrrR]

So, every judge/justice who ruled opposite of what you thought is merely biased or have a clear agenda, because the case was so blatantly obvious.

Yeesh, why do we even have a Supreme Court? We should just have WC rule on each case!

[Wild Cobra]

So, every judge/justice who ruled opposite of what you thought is merely biased or have a clear agenda, because the case was so blatantly obvious.

Yeesh, why do we even have a Supreme Court? We should just have WC rule on each case!
You are taking that to in incorrect extreme. I would never presume I know more about all subjects to make proper rulings. I have simply paid attention to other reverses discrimination cases.

Why don't you address what I said? Especially the city's failure to do a post assessment of the test?

I will likely be accurate in assuming they didn't do that because it would prove there was no bias in the test. They didn't like the outcome, so they threw the test out.

Again, if they did the post review, and found problems, I would not be so adamant.

[LnGrrrR]

You are taking that to in incorrect extreme. I would never presume I know more about all subjects to make proper rulings. I have simply paid attention to other reverses discrimination cases.

Why don't you address what I said? Especially the city's failure to do a post assessment of the test?

I will likely be accurate in assuming they didn't do that because it would prove there was no bias in the test. They didn't like the outcome, so they threw the test out.

Again, if they did the post review, and found problems, I would not be so adamant.

The court though can't mandate the city does such a test, can they? The court is just working with the facts presented, AFAIK. And per what I've read, the disparate impact COULD be used against the city.

As well, even a wrong decision in this case does not, to me, immediately disqualify her as a potential justice. Current SCOTUS justices have made improper and incorrect rulings, and to assume perfection from them is a non-starter.

If you disagree with her because of her preference for affirmative action, that's fine. But you continuously try to point to her as unqualified due to this one decision, or that she is biased towards Caucasians, or any number of other things.

[RandomGuy]

I'll summarise her article for you.


The GOP is a group of cranky, old, racist white men.

Bush lied, people died. Cheney is the antiChrist.

Bush stole the 2000 election.

Sarah Palin is dumb.

You say that as if anything there is inaccurate...

[DarrinS]

You say that as if anything there is inaccurate...


That was supposed to be Manny's response, but, I guess great minds think alike. :rolleyes