Racism- Sotomoyor

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...0/vp/30968650#31005313

(poor white people, they have to sit in the back of the bus and drink from different water fountains now!)

Republicans.txt

Jesuchristo!!!

Rush is saying that the Obama administration hates white people.

let me repeat that in Spanish:

Rush es decir que la Obama administracion odia los blancos (gringos)

I hope everyone just lets that sink in for a moment.....

And conservatives are confused as to why Obama wants Rush front and center as the GOP's leader. The GOP is solidifying itself as the party of the south.

 

[Mani]

Well, it turns out she does support racists...just not that kind.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mani
Well, it turns out she does support racists...just not that kind.

b-b-b-b-b-b-ut i thought she hates whites!!!!!oneoneone republicans.txt

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I don't think she is racist. I do think it's a very bad choice of words coming from a judge.

If she said something along the lines of "a person who grew up in a well off family" instead of "white male" there would be no issue.

As for racism, I don't think any of us are arguing that racism does not exist in this country. My opinion is that policies such as affirmative action and welfare in its current form has no place in this society, and it has been an utter failure to improve socioeconomic gap amongst our different ethnic groups. I blame that on liberals who implemented them without thinking things through.

I think the problems with liberals is that they do not see that you do not help people if you do not help them help themselves. Nobody values what they do not earn.

I think the problem with conservatives is that, our of their unrecognized self hate, they are so busy flattering themselves over the achievements they have realized to earn a living, they spend all their time putting others down who have not by accident themselves reached that same level of achievement. They have an inbuilt need to righteously condemn because, often, to achieve what they imagine to be their own success, they have wasted their spiritual lives and are actually just miserable little pricks.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I don't think she is racist. I do think it's a very bad choice of words coming from a judge.

If she said something along the lines of "a person who grew up in a well off family" instead of "white male" there would be no issue.

As for racism, I don't think any of us are arguing that racism does not exist in this country. My opinion is that policies such as affirmative action and welfare in its current form has no place in this society, and it has been an utter failure to improve socioeconomic gap amongst our different ethnic groups. I blame that on liberals who implemented them without thinking things through.

I think the problems with liberals is that they do not see that you do not help people if you do not help them help themselves. Nobody values what they do not earn.

I think the problem with conservatives is that, our of their unrecognized self hate, they are so busy flattering themselves over the achievements they have realized to earn a living, they spend all their time putting others down who have not by accident themselves reached that same level of achievement. They have an inbuilt need to righteously condemn because, often, to achieve what they imagine to be their own success, they have wasted their spiritual lives and are actually just miserable little pricks.

Moonbeam...I didn't know you were a conservative. Wonders never cease.

 

[Moonbeam]

Difficult issue, no? We live in a society where whites are in general better off because of past racism and past advantage and now things are going the other way, being white may be a disadvantage.

So do we fix this with whites way out ahead or fix it when minority advantage equals things out.

I can imagine a time in the future when the liberal majority of color decides white people need affirmative action with the colored conservatives screaming reverse reverse racism.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: Mani
Well, it turns out she does support racists...just not that kind.

LoL LoL LoL LoL... You mean she actually adheres to the Constitutionality of the cases she sees? Wow, what a radical activist Judge! I vote Yes for Judge Sotomayor!


SHUX

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Don't get me wrong, I think that she will make a fine cheif justice and most of her statements suggest that she will make judgments based on law not politics. That said, I am getting a bit irritated at the openly racist statement coming out of some folks lately. She states that her experience as a latino female would lead to wiser choices than that of a white male. Flip those demographics and every one would be on you like flies on dung.

Why is it acceptable to assert that as a white male, I am privileged and culturally biased. I have had no special advantages. I went to public school in a mixed race suburb. I worked my way through school. Neither, I or any of my ancestors ever owned a slave.

Reverse racism is just as bad as racism.

It's not reverse racosm, it's just racism.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I think the problems with liberals is that they do not see that you do not help people if you do not help them help themselves. Nobody values what they do not earn.

The problem is that liberal idealism often smacks into the wall of government bureaucracy, and we get into the pattern of expecting the government to legislate equality of outcomes as opposed to equality of opportunities.

Conservatives on the other hand over emphasize equality of opportunities, and fail to recognize the entrenched biases and prejudices in our society that infringe upon truly achieving this endstate.

Each ideology swings the pendulum to an extreme that ultimately only serves to perpetuate the very socio-economic dynamics that are the basis for this whole debate.

Opportunity comes in many different forms, and different biases tend to create or close off many of them.

I will repeat a previous point in that the media talking heads immediately framed the debate about Sotomoyor not based on her credentials but on her race and gender.

Alito is a perfect and more recent example. As the descendant of Italian immigrants, the journey of Alito's family is probably not that far off from Sotomoyor. Italians at one time endured hardships as a cultural group, and were subject to economic and political exclusion and exploitation.

Here is an interesting article from back when Alito was stealing the headlines. The left dismissed Alito because they could not comprehend how someone from humble ethnic origins could possibly adopt a conservative or libertarian worldview.

Alito Article

The left is unable to accept that some disadvantaged individuals do manage to rise above the stereotypes and glass ceilings of our society, and not all embrace the left as any better equipped or positioned to advance the cause of the disadvantaged.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: Mani
Well, it turns out she does support racists...just not that kind.

LoL LoL LoL LoL... You mean she actually adheres to the Constitutionality of the cases she sees? Wow, what a radical activist Judge! I vote Yes for Judge Sotomayor!


SHUX

lol that was for her resume' she wanted a higher post she was padding it. Hell the SC overruled her more times than not. There is no doubt she is an activist judge. As clear as day she bragged about making policy in the court of appeals. That is proof positive.

 

[Siddhartha]

I work for large multinational company. About 15 years ago it started to talk about the importance of having a diverse work force. Basically the company decided that it would be more profitable to have a work force including decision makers that reflected the make up of the US. Not just having white guys making decisions.

When I was first hired, I would go to meetings and typically there would be 10 people attending with one or two non white guys. Now the CEO and the head of research are women. I am in research so I do not know about the other departments.

My point is was Ms Sotomoyor talking, in a politically stupid way, about the importance of having a diverse judiciary?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: EXman
Hell the SC overruled her more times than not. There is no doubt she is an activist judge.

There truly are no more intelligent conservatives are there.

The SC overrules nearly EVERYONE more than it affirms them. It does this because the cases to which it denies cert tacitly become law. Why take up a case just to re-affirm what the court below said? (To nationalize the ruling, but that's generally not necessary.)

It's a useless metric in determining judicial quality. Unless the SC explicitly says "the reasoning of the court below is suspect/specious/poor", then you simply cannot read into their reversal as critique. Especially since the SC promulgated rules REQUIRING App Cts to adhere to SC precedent even when they know the SC will reverse the case on appeal.

Go listen to limbaugh or something so you can feel smart nodding along and avoid opining on subjects clearly above your pay grade.

PS. Alito had both of his appealed opinions flipped, zomg!

 

[BansheeX]

The reason Sotomayor's comments are racist in that context is because a SC judge, of all people, isn't supposed to inject emotion or personal experience into anything. They are supposed to be impartial ENFORCERS of the constitution regardless of personal belief. A Latina woman should not come to a better conclusion than a white male as an enforcer of an impartial document. That's the main problem with the judicial system today, it is not doing it's job, it is not serving as a check to political agendas, it is contributing to it.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: BansheeX
The reason Sotomayor's comments are racist in that context is because a SC judge, of all people, isn't supposed to inject emotion or personal experience into anything. They are supposed to be impartial ENFORCERS of the constitution regardless of personal belief. A Latina woman should not come to a better conclusion than a white male as an enforcer of an impartial document. That's the main problem with the judicial system today, it is not doing it's job, it is not serving as a check to political agendas, it is contributing to it.

Today? You must have forgotten the good old days of judges denying the rights of women and racial and sexual minorities (these days are not over, BTW).

The idea that Sotomayor corrupts the impartiality of the other Justices is ludicrous.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BansheeX
The reason Sotomayor's comments are racist in that context is because a SC judge, of all people, isn't supposed to inject emotion or personal experience into anything. They are supposed to be impartial ENFORCERS of the constitution regardless of personal belief. A Latina woman should not come to a better conclusion than a white male as an enforcer of an impartial document. That's the main problem with the judicial system today, it is not doing it's job, it is not serving as a check to political agendas, it is contributing to it.

Tell it to Alito:

"When a case comes before me involving, let?s say, someone who is an immigrant ? and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases ? I can?t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn?t that long ago when they were in that position...When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Look, judges are people. They have life experiences and backgrounds that cannot be divorced from their intellect. No, she shouldn't have said that a wise latina woman would come to a "better" result than a white man. She has since said it was a poor choice of words. But focusing on one sentence devoid of any context and claiming "that's who she is and what she believes" and ignoring the thousands of decisions she spent two decades on the bench reviewing and authoring is disingenous at best, idiotic hackery at worst.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BansheeX
The reason Sotomayor's comments are racist in that context is because a SC judge, of all people, isn't supposed to inject emotion or personal experience into anything. They are supposed to be impartial ENFORCERS of the constitution regardless of personal belief. A Latina woman should not come to a better conclusion than a white male as an enforcer of an impartial document. That's the main problem with the judicial system today, it is not doing it's job, it is not serving as a check to political agendas, it is contributing to it.

A person's environment can not help but create some influence on their perception.

The USSC has to interpret the situation; in some cases their background comes into play regarding understanding and/or explaining decissions

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: Mani
Well, it turns out she does support racists...just not that kind.

LoL LoL LoL LoL... You mean she actually adheres to the Constitutionality of the cases she sees? Wow, what a radical activist Judge! I vote Yes for Judge Sotomayor!


SHUX

lol that was for her resume' she wanted a higher post she was padding it.

And you know this how exactly?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: Mani
Well, it turns out she does support racists...just not that kind.

LoL LoL LoL LoL... You mean she actually adheres to the Constitutionality of the cases she sees? Wow, what a radical activist Judge! I vote Yes for Judge Sotomayor!


SHUX

lol that was for her resume' she wanted a higher post she was padding it.

And you know this how exactly?

The same way you can prove global warming is cause by humans. I can't. It's called a educated guess. I also cannot explain why she admitted to making policy on the bench. Pompous arrogance? Delusions of grandeur? A total disregard for our constitution? Or maybe just another activist judge showing off and wanting some adulation for being so hip and progressive.who the hell knows but she's a dumbass for doing it. I feel that would disqualify anyone from any party affiliation. Tell me shes been grilled on this? Nope not much at all...

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: Mani
Well, it turns out she does support racists...just not that kind.

LoL LoL LoL LoL... You mean she actually adheres to the Constitutionality of the cases she sees? Wow, what a radical activist Judge! I vote Yes for Judge Sotomayor!


SHUX

lol that was for her resume' she wanted a higher post she was padding it.

And you know this how exactly?

The same way you can prove global warming is cause by humans. I can't. It's called a educated guess. I also cannot explain why she admitted to making policy on the bench. Pompous arrogance? Delusions of grandeur? A total disregard for our constitution? Or maybe just another activist judge showing off and wanting some adulation for being so hip and progressive.who the hell knows but she's a dumbass for doing it. I feel that would disqualify anyone from any party affiliation. Tell me shes been grilled on this? Nope not much at all...

Global warming has thousands of scientists and decades of collected data supporting it. You on the other hand have only a number of completely baseless and ridiculous assumptions pulled straight out of your ass.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

A person's environment can not help but create some influence on their perception.

The USSC has to interpret the situation; in some cases their background comes into play regarding understanding and/or explaining decissions

Yes, they have to interpret the facts of the case, but not the constitution. The law is crystal clear. If the constitution is wrong or unclear, it should be amended. If the law is unethical, the legislative branch needs to change it. The justice department is there to rule based on what the lawbook says, not interpret what rights we can and can not have based on how they feel and what kind of life they lived. The courts are not the legislative branch.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Sotomayor's statement wasn't racist, just factual...

The judge's basic meaning was that her background as a poor minority would make her wiser in judging poor minorities then a typical rich privileged white person born with a silver spoon in their mouth. This isn't racist, just a reasonable philosophical observation. One may disagree with it, but I really don't think there is really a reasonable argument against its accuracy as a generalization, although of course there are exceptions to every generalization.

She has hundreds of rulings and has sat on the federal bench for 17 years. Perhaps people like Limbaugh, Buchanan and the like could find some evidence there instead of adding to the ad hominem? Pat Buchanan needs to be tested for Alzheimer?s, all he remembers are things that happened 30 years ago, in great detail, too. I?m serious, that is a sign of the disease

The tactic that they never tire of using is simple: accuse your enemies of what you yourself truly are. Hence, with Obama, invoke the specter of religious extremism. With Sotomayor, invoke the notion that she's racist. To your audience, tell them that the enemy run entirely on emotion, not logic.

Etc. Rinse and repeat; it never fails.

I hear them bellowing "she thinks she has better judgement because of who she is." Hell, I think I have better judgement because of whom I am. People like Limbaugh certainly does. Who doesn't? There would be no identity politics without oppression. It's the necessary requisite.

These talking heads arn't blind to anything. Everything they say is intentional, in content and tone. they may not see those comments in the same way others do, but they are blind to nothing. they know that their comments are racially divisive, thats why they make them. Being blind would mean they are saying these comments without realizing that they are advancing the case of whites over those of minorities. Of course they realize that, its their primary point in making the statements, and their general political view.

Thats not being "blind to his own abiding prejudice and fear", thats accepting that fear and prejudice as part of his political philosophy without remorse or embarrassment. To say they are blind to it gives them too little credit. They know exactly what they are saying, and they know its racially divisive. Thats why they say it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

A person's environment can not help but create some influence on their perception.

The USSC has to interpret the situation; in some cases their background comes into play regarding understanding and/or explaining decissions

Yes, they have to interpret the facts of the case, but not the constitution. The law is crystal clear. If the constitution is wrong or unclear, it should be amended. If the law is unethical, the legislative branch needs to change it. The justice department is there to rule based on what the lawbook says, not interpret what rights we can and can not have based on how they feel and what kind of life they lived. The courts are not the legislative branch.

The courts are there to ensure that the law is applied fairly.

If the law is unfair; then they have the right/obligation to invalidate it.

The legislative branch then has to come up with a law that meets the standards test that the court applies.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

A person's environment can not help but create some influence on their perception.

The USSC has to interpret the situation; in some cases their background comes into play regarding understanding and/or explaining decissions

Yes, they have to interpret the facts of the case, but not the constitution. The law is crystal clear. If the constitution is wrong or unclear, it should be amended. If the law is unethical, the legislative branch needs to change it. The justice department is there to rule based on what the lawbook says, not interpret what rights we can and can not have based on how they feel and what kind of life they lived. The courts are not the legislative branch.

The Constitution is vague on purpose, there are simply way too many things that can come up in...well... the entire scope of human existence for you to put them all in one document. So no, the Constitution is most certainly NOT crystal clear. What counts as 'due process'? What is an 'unreasonable' search? Things like that. What is 'unreasonable' to one person may be perfectly reasonable to another, how do you decide that? In the end, it is the personal interpretation and perception of the judge.

What you're suggesting is simply impossible. It's not how our government works. (or any government on this planet for that matter) Oh, and judges aren't part of the Justice Department.

 

[budafied]

Here's an example of reverse racism:

To get into Yale Law School, #1 in the country, you need the following appoximate qualifications:

3.9ish GPA and a 175ish LSAT score.

Unless you are black, then you need a 3.5 and a 168.

I could get into Yale if i was black....

THAT IS BLATANT RACISM

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: budafied
Here's an example of reverse racism:

To get into Yale Law School, #1 in the country, you need the following appoximate qualifications:

3.9ish GPA and a 175ish LSAT score.

Unless you are black, then you need a 3.5 and a 168.

I could get into Yale if i was black....

THAT IS BLATANT RACISM

Link, please.