Reply With Quote
So making one statement in a less than perfect way shouldn't be held against someone.
They are stating what they think it means, and I agree.
Could that statement be out of context? Could he have meant ADD? Even if you are right, it's rather ignorant to dismiss all remarks based one one, or a few. No one is always right. He's as human as the rest of us and makes mistakes.
Why do liberals give liberal a bye on such statements, and call whites and males racist for making any similar statement? Stop advocating the double standard please. What would your opinion be is the same statement was made by Robersts, saying he would hop a white male could make better decisions that a [insert race] female?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-30-2009 at 04:33 PM.
So making one statement in a less than perfect way shouldn't be held against someone.
What the did irony ever do to you guys that you must continuously butcher it, over and over and over...
Except Savage is not an expert of what you attack his words for. Sotomayor is suppose to be a legal expert.
Is she? Then there's the ruling about this recent Fireman case. I think Savage has a clip on that in part 2. I marked down a time of 6:01, think that's it. I decided not to listen to clips 3, onward. I don't like the guy. I have found him to give good evidence of most the the things he speaks of though.
Again, why the double standard?
Jake Tapper: First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process
Now that's Kharma. Karma? Whatever...
I don't believe you're correct and, besides, that doesn't make the statement any less racist.
Latina has no place in the sentence. Period. Distinguishing between female and male, is bad enough itself. If the distinction she was making was between wise and unwise people, race and sex qualifiers are unnecessary.
Why not just say a wise person would make a better decision than an unwise one. Well, duh; I would HOPE so to, Ms. Sotomayor.
Okay, you say it better...and put it in the context of a speech about how ethnicity and race influence judicial philosophy and make it non-racist.
You can't. The whole premise of the speech was about how the law is colored by her race and ethnicity.
I'm not unhappy. At then end of the day, she's either confirmed or not and we'll have to live with it. By itself, her presence on the court doesn't change the make-up. But, that doesn't mean one shouldn't raise concerns based on her public speeches, court decisions, associations, and temperament.
After all, the person who nominated her voted against both Justices Alito and Roberts when Bush appointed them. In fact, he joined 29 other Senators in an attempt to filibuster the Alito nomination. Both of whom are imminently qualified and, as far as I can tell (and, I'm sure we would have heard) never made a decision based on their ethnicity or race...but, instead, fairly applied the law to all parties.
He can't come back now and say his nominee should get a free ride.
Out to make yourself look as stupid as ChumpDumper? Well, have fun with that.
And, one more thing. If she's wise, (Latina woman or not), would she have misspoke as is now being asserted?
Wisdom and such agregious errors, in public, don't seem to go hand-in-hand.
I mean, no one's accusing Joe Biden of being wise.
This is pretty rich.
When White House spokesperson, Gibbs, was trying to respond to a question about Sotomayor's racist remark, he -- as has become his ritual -- ran for cover behind Rush Limbaugh...
Gibbs jumped on that.
I'm guessing Robert "Sheets" Byrd wasn't in the room.
But, it's a good point. If her statement raised latina women above white males...it's not better than Byrd, or Duke, raising white men over everyone else. Racism is racism.
Judge Sotomayor is just like Byrd was. Sotomomayor was 46 when she made her statement. Byrd was 46 when he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Not the same impact, of course, but the same racial superiority nonsense. All Latinas are the same is like saying all the white males are the same.
She has a problem with her mouth. It is not very judicial outside the courtroom, and perhaps within.
Too bad for you it didn't.If her statement raised latina women above white males.
If denying something made it go away, you'd be an expert.
I'm not even close to being alone on the assessment her statement is racist.
If repeating a lie made it true, you'd be powerlineblog.
There are millions of idiots in this country. You are one of them.I'm not even close to being alone on the assessment her statement is racist.
If the White House is now saying she "misspoke" there must be something wrong with the statement.
Something like -- oh, I don't know -- that it's a racist statement that can't be defended other than to say, she didn't say what she meant to.
You're saying it's not racist. And, you've yet to explain how that statement -- in context, out of context, where hope means hope or where hope means expect -- is not racist.
The White House is smart enough not to try. You just keep insisting it isn't, without any explanation.
That's stupidity.
Nah, it was just a throwaway sentence that could be trumped up by idiots who think they can score political points with it.
It needs no further explanation.
It wasn't a throw away sentence. Now you're just making up.
And, besides, being a throw away sentence doesn't make it any less racist.
Interesting commentary on the sotomayer thing (article is longer, I only pasted the last half):
http://www.takimag.com/article/big_m...sity_princess/
(George Will) “The … administration’s agenda of … political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of ‘economic planning’ and ‘social justice’ … is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption. The Obama administration is … careless regarding cons utional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness,” Will warned.
Will waffles a lot about “cons utional values.” I don’t like it one bit—especially since Obama does it too. In support of federal appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, the White House issued some Talking Points.
Emphasized twice therein is the paramountcy of selecting “someone who will uphold”─wait for this─“the … Cons utional values on which this nation was founded.”
Now, the president uses words cautiously and cleverly. He means what he says when he talks of “upholding cons utional values,” as opposed to upholding the Cons ution! And it is to the spirit of the law, as he divines it, and not the letter of the law, that the president is committed.
For their part, the liberal media’s judicial jiu-jitsu has been unconscionable. Are the legal writings and judicial rulings of Judge Sotomayor being scrutinized? Not on your life. Right away, the usual moron menagerie began to construct a meta-argument invalidating the GOP’s yet-to-be-made case against Sotomayor, if you get my drift.
An argument against an argument!
From NBC News’ Andrea Mitc to the lowliest Democratic strategist: all are advising viewers, first, that to oppose Sotomayor is to risk Hispanic ire. And second, that in order to dodge death by demographics, Republicans must continue to court Latinos slavishly.
For example, making too much of Sotomayor’s Wise Latina Woman cretinous comment is unwise for Republicans, the talking twits tell us. Judge Sotomayor suggested in 2001, “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.”
The consensus among the commentariat is that this is no time for the GOP to come to the defense of paleface: white judges or white firefighters. (Sotomayor washed her hands of the white, New Haven firefighters, and upheld racial discrimination against them.) The so-called incontrovertible truth at which the Obama media minions are getting is this:
The GOP’s powerbase hangs on Hispanics.
Dogged demographer Steve Sailer has been dispelling this manufactured dogma convincingly for close to a decade:
“Hispanics are no more socially conservative than blacks,” who identify with Democrats. The Hispanic electorate cares primarily “about bread and butter issues,” and most have figured out on “which side their bread is buttered,” says Sailer.
“Among Latinos 55 and up, the Democrats lead 64 percent to 17 percent.” As for Hispanic Republicans, they “aren’t terribly Republican. On the question of more taxing and spending, Hispanic Republicans are slightly more liberal than white Democrats.”
Sen. John McCain, who would wrestle a crocodile for any Hispanic, legal or illegal, received just 31 percent to Obama’s 67 percent of the national Hispanic vote.
The GOP needs Hispanics to sustain a worthwhile political life like an anaerobic organism needs oxygen.
Come to think of it, a GOP that accommodates the demands of this demographic is better off dead.
Expect Republicans to be doing an energetic “diversity” trot. The dance will be designed to appease Hispanics and dilute any substantive critique of Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy.
Mission accomplished.
Bruce Ackerman, a prominent cons utional law professor at Yale Law School, has stepped up and warned against the tactic of "stealth" Supreme Court nominations, where the ideologically driven President seeks to change the direction of the Supreme Court by nominating a relatively undistinguished appeals court judge whose lack of distinction and sparse ideological record conceals a secret agenda:
Ackerman's students at Yale Law School were urged to send a letter to Senators against the appointment of any nominee whose judicial philosophy was out of the mainstream. Suggested language:
As a Senator, you have the cons utional obligation to stand as a bulwark against the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice whose views represent only a narrow segment of our nation. Your Advise and Consent power means that you can and should ensure that American jurisprudence continues to be characterized by justice and freedom for all, rather than advancing the political agenda of a few.
Ummm, no. Chumpdumper has been saying "expect and change" to you on every thread. I hadn't read much of this thread so I didn't know why the he was saying that. It's stupid but now I get it, that's all.
One of the firefighters who qualified for the promotion based on that test was Hispanic.The consensus among the commentariat is that this is no time for the GOP to come to the defense of paleface: white judges or white firefighters. (Sotomayor washed her hands of the white, New Haven firefighters, and upheld racial discrimination against them.)
The decision to not certify the tests and deny the firefighters a promotion was race-based.
No one has claimed the exam or promotional process was racially biased. In fact, the City of New Have took pains to insure a fair process by hiring a third-party firm, specializing in crafting such exams, to craft and administer their promotional exam.
When the results became known, a local chapter of the NAACP became a fixture at subsequent city council meetings and intimidated the City Council by making threats to sue.
The city of New Haven admitted they refused to certify the exam results because of racism. They said they were afraid of being sued because no blacks were able to promote because none passed the exam. That's a race-based employment decision.
The District Court allowed ignored the discrimination and allowed the City of New Haven to perpetrate the discriminatory action. That's a race-based finding.
The three-judge panel, led by Sonia Sotomayor, ignored the clear statutory and cons utional issues raised by the case and issued a summary order upholding the city of New Haven and the District Court's racism.
It's really that simple Chump.
it's that simple yoni.... the 2nd Circuit ruled -- in an opinion written by one of Sotomayor's colleagues -- that precedent in interpreting an employment discrimination statute compelled the decision. ...
Isn't your issue with le VII's employment discrimination prohibitions?
"not certify the tests and deny the firefighters a promotion was race-based"
a ing lie, as usual from wrongies.
The ruling was whether the fire dept had the right to cancel the tests.
The appeals court did, as wrongies are always whining about how they want the courts to act, called only "balls and strikes" (no "activism", aka for wrongies as "calling them against wrongies' biases") and said strictly that the fire dept did have the right. end of case, end of story.
The wrongies are so desperate to Bork Sotomayor that they are grasping at straws, eg, calling Sotomayor and Magik Negro racists, and calling out Sotomayor as an menstruating unstable woman (G. Gordon Liddy).
The bias towards ins utions over individuals in the SC right-wing radicals could easily be based, for Scalia and Roberts, on the backgrounds as members of a ins utionally authoritarian organization, the Catholic Church.
Of course, the wrongies here parrot dumbly the RL/NG/Repug/Fox talking points.
The menstruating/activist racist bull is nothing but a distraction, since they have no case against Sotomayor.
It's a winning political issue for them with Hispanics..
Why didn't you post the link to the blog from which you copied that material?
Further, you didn't even fully copy the post from that blog.
Here's the rest:
linkThe year was 2005. Ackerman's admonition in February 2005 against the Senate confirming stealth nominees was directed at the prospective nominees of then President George W. Bush. The law student group was "Law Students Against Alito" and the letter was in opposition to Samuel Alito upon his nomination in October 2005. Ackerman would go on to warn that "the confirmation of Samuel Alito carries a clear and present danger of a cons utional revolution on a very broad front" and that Alito was "a judicial radical."
Do the same standards apply to nominees of President Barack Obama?
It's one thing to have questions about decisions that are tough ones to make. Obama's pick is a bad one, simply because there is no excuse for the overt abuse of her power.
It's plain as day she is an activist judge. Justice is suppose to be blind to emotion, and be based on facts. Anyone who thinks she is a good pick placed agenda above integrity.
How do you live with yourselves?
So following precedent amounts to activism?
You guys who scream about judicial activism can't seem to get your definition straight. In some instances, activism is a refusal to follow precedent; in other cases, apparently, activism is the refusal to stray from precedent.
At the end of the day, it certainly appears that activism really means "didn't decide the case the way I would have liked." It's become a largely unprincipled criticism that is, ironically, entirely results-centered.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
