Guest Post by: W. E. Messamore, The Humble LibertarianLast week news broke that Sonia Sotomayor would be President Barack Obama's pick for the Supreme Court of the United States. In the aftermath of his announcement, there has been a flurry of articles analyzing the racial issues underlying Sotomayor's appointment, like an article on CNN.com, which said:
"The Republican Party risks further alienating Hispanic voters if it challenges the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who would become the first Hispanic, and the third woman, on the Supreme Court..."Or one on Bloomberg.com, which said:
"By nominating Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the first Hispanic justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Barack Obama all but dared Senate Republicans to risk alienating Latinos by trying to block her confirmation."It is sad to see that in our supposedly post-racial country, presided over by our first black president, that if Senate Republicans have legitimate, non-racial concerns about Judge Sotomayor sitting on our nation's highest court, that they will be shut down and written off as racist, that there can be no argument, that there can be no debate, and that Sonia Sotomayor's race is the final argument to which there can be no answer.
If this is the state of the Union, then perhaps Attorney General Eric Holder's words ring true, if not quite the way he meant them. When it comes to race, we may in fact be a nation of cowards.
Sotomayor's Own Racially Charged Rhetoric
According to the New York Times, Judge Sotomayor gave a speech in 2001 declaring that a judge's sex and ethnicity "may and will make a difference in our judging." She is likely correct. Even empirical studies have validated the idea that the sexual composition of a court has an effect on its rulings.
The moral question here is whether that should make any difference, or whether justice should be blind and grounded objectively in the exercise of human rights irrespective of sexual or ethnic differences. On that question, Judge Sotomayor dispenses with objective justice in favor of racism and sexism, departing from the philosophy and liberal values that undergird the modern Western system of justice:
"In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.This in itself should disqualify Sotomayor from sitting on any court, much less the Supreme Court of the United States. But it gets worse...
'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,' said Judge Sotomayor."
Sotomayor's Personal Qualifications
The Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro noted that "Judge Sotomayor is not one of the leading lights of the federal judiciary and would not even have been on the shortlist if she were not Hispanic. She has a mixed reputation, with a questionable temperament and no particularly important opinions in over 10 years on the Second Circuit." It would appear his words ring true.
Jeffrey Rosen at The New Republic writes the following in "The Case Against Sotomayor:
"I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court...Judge Sotomayor's Record
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,' as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. 'She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue...'
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees... Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues."
Sotomayor's legal skills however are less troubling to me than her record of trampling on our basic freedoms as enumerated in the Constitution. Take her extreme stance on the 2nd Amendment as an example:
"Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.Then there's Sotomayor's dubious record on the 1st Amendment:
A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that 'the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.'"
"[I]n a case that was later reversed by the Supreme Court as Randall v. Sorrell, Judge Sotomayor voted to leave intact a ruling that not only upheld extremely low candidate contribution limits imposed by the State of Vermont, but also more than suggested that candidate expenditure limits might be constitutional, too, despite the First Amendment."And that's not all. Listen to this:
"Sotomayor was criticized by some student-speech advocates after a decision in May 2008, in which she joined two 2nd Circuit colleagues in deferring to Connecticut high school administrators who had punished a student for an off-campus blog entry about a canceled student event."The list goes on and on. There's Judge Sotomayor's weak stance on private property rights, her activist ruling on the 90s baseball strike, and her decidedly unempathetic decision in Ricci v. DeStefano to summarily affirm a district court's ruling against a hispanic firefighter who was denied a promotion by the city of New Haven because no black firefighters passed the race-neutral exam they had to pass in order to qualify.
In addition to all of these dreadful aspects of Judge Sotomayor's record, there's one other thing you need to know. She said this once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
Editor's Note - Wes is Editor of the Humble Libertarian. He is a "Rand Paul Republican." His blog recently released the list of the Top 100 Libertarian websites and blogs.
LINKS
This piece was picked up by CNN What the Blogs are Saying.
Editor's Note - As always we are grateful to our friends at CNN. They have the most excellent of political coverage, and all LR readers are urged to follow their site.
56 comments:
Haven't you heard? If you aren't "white", you're supposed to be a bigot, man! It's solidarity, down with the struggle and all that shit.
"Down With Whitey" is a cultural pathos embraced by about half the country.
People with a color(even if its an adopted color like latheena) are encouraged to denigrate people who don't have a color.
Its a brave new world. Run by a bucktoothed communist chipmunk.
And by the way; if the life of a "Latheeena Mujer" is to be considered "rich", just how the hell are the lives of others to be described? Pale and boring? How would a mindless bigot like Satomato know? Would she ask the grinning chipmunk in chief? The guy raised by white bankers in Hawaii?
A bit harsher than I would have put it (you don't have to call Obama a chipmunk... "communist" is quite denigrating enough!), but your point is quite correct: if a white nominee for Supreme Court had once said that white men can come to better legal decisions than latino women, the outrage would be deafening. He would certainly not be confirmed.
Harsh? The guy looks just like a chipmunk. C'mon man.
Just gotta be careful- our political adversaries love to take statements like that way out of context, and even though you were just poking a little fun at our president (which is a great American tradition), their spin machine will paint you as a bitter, biased, racist partisan. I hate that it's that way, but because it is, I try to keep it as polite as possible (while not shying away from the substantial issues like Sotomayor's racist comments and Obama's shades of Marxism).
Racist? WTF is the race of a chipmunk?
Brakabama is about as African as Justin Timberlake anyway.
He's mostly white, and 100 percent communist piece of shit.
They'll say... "You're calling him an animal which is racist blah blah blah..." And yeah, Obama is 50% white and even if he were 100% black, he isn't from Africa, so he's not African. My white friend who was born and grew up in Africa because his parents were missionaries... he's an African American- not Obama.
W. E. Messamore said...
"Just gotta be careful- our political adversaries love to take statements like that way out of context."
Got news for you pal, they take EVERYTHING we say out of context anyway. I agree with Levin and Rush on this: We have been way too damn careful and all it has done is paint us into a corner and close to out of existence.
Instead of tiptoeing around with tepid criticism that they are going to label as the equivalent of rhetorical cross-burning anyway, why not speak the truth and dare the dirty mother-fuckers to refute it. And when they refuse to refute it by way of evasion, SCREAM THE TRUTH and dare the dirty mother-fuckers to refute it.
I'll be goddamned if I'll let these sniveling fucks define the manner in which I communicate.
I'm the good guys. Fuck them.
What Chuck said! Hahahahaha Right on Chuck!
W. E. Wessamore,
"if a white nominee for Supreme Court had once said that white men can come to better legal decisions than latino women, the outrage would be deafening. He would certainly not be confirmed."
Justice Scalia expressed the exact same sentiments as Sotomayor. Fortunately, most people are intelligent enough to understood what was meant when both of them said what they did.
@William "Got news for you pal, they take EVERYTHING we say out of context anyway." Can't argue with you there!
@bint alshamsa Could you link me to a source with the exact quotation from Scalia?
And rather than implying that I'm unintelligent, please be charitable and do correct what you believe is a misunderstanding on my part by sharing what you believe was meant by Sotomayor and why it's not racist.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an honest response from Bent Alabama.
That creature is an enemy of the truth.
Excellent article! -
Just to note - Bush has been referred to as the "smirking chimp". I think Obama is fair game for the chipmunk accusation. It may be "species"-ist though.
zendawg
@ccoffer I really am curious to see if she responds, and if she does, to see what her response is.
@Anonymous zendawg Thanks! And yeah, I know. There's also plenty of this this to go around. The double standard is really atrocious.
That's exactly why I try to be as careful as possible, to give them one less thing to complain about.
Why let them waste my time quibbling over it so they can avoid admitting that I've pinned them down on a substantial point of disagreement (like Sotomayer's racist comments)?
"Why let them waste my time quibbling over it so they can avoid admitting that I've pinned them down on a substantial point of disagreement (like Sotomayer's racist comments)?"
W, you don't mind if I call you "W" do you? Hahahaha, just having one on ya, man. Why worry? Hell, I don't even read a tenth of the bullshit that spews from her mouth.
W. E. Messamore,
"Could you link me to a source with the exact quotation from Scalia?"
"Scalia, Alito Quotes Blunt Conservative Attacks on Sotomayor""And rather than implying that I'm unintelligent"
I don't need to nor do I mean to imply this. I am not afraid to state it plainly if I believe you lack the intelligence necessary to understand what these judges have said.
"please be charitable and do correct what you believe is a misunderstanding on my part by sharing what you believe was meant by Sotomayor and why it's not racist."
If you believe that Sotomayor said something racist, then the onus is on you to prove that it is. For instance, let's say I claimed that unicorns exist. Could you prove that they don't? And if you managed to overcome the logical barrier necessary to do so, is there any reason why you should prove it?
In order for something to be racist, it has to meet the definition of the word. Sotomayor's comments do not. It's that simple.
William,
I see you're still nursing that butthurt. You're going to get bedsores sooner or later, my friend.
"William,
I see you're still nursing that butthurt. You're going to get bedsores sooner or later, my friend."
See, this is why I pay no attention to 90% of what Bint says. Predictable as she is, it wasn't ten minutes for her to respond to my remark. That's why I came back to check, and true to my words... she lurches in the darkness of her apartment, waiting to lash out with no constructive criticism.
"Butthurt?" What ever are you on about Bint? Are you having delusions again that my butt hurts? It certainly wasn't from one of your "clever" remarks. But if you put it in the context that you are a pain in the ass, well maybe you have something there.
By the way, how are things down in the Big Easy? Getting hot N humid yet? Did you go to the jazz fest this year? I was in Chicago at the time and couldn't come down, but my mind and spirit was with those great musicians... and cooks! ;).
William,
"That's why I came back to check, and true to my words... she lurches in the darkness of her apartment, waiting to lash out with no constructive criticism."
I'm more than happy to offer you some constructive criticism. In fact, here's some:
If you stopped acting so butthurt every time the subject of race comes up, you might see that I agree with much of what you write. Ever since I pointed out what was problematic with your "my best friend is" comment, you've had a bug up your butt. Now, it's your choice to keep it there if you want, but it isn't going to affect anyone other than you.
""Butthurt?" What ever are you on about Bint? Are you having delusions again that my butt hurts?"
Teh google is your friend, William.
"By the way, how are things down in the Big Easy? Getting hot N humid yet?"
It's been hot and humid for a while now. I've been dying to take my daughter down to the pool, but it has been raining every day. Hopefully we'll be able to hit it tomorrow so that girl can get a tan before she turns absolutely translucent. :)
I didn't go to JazzFest this year. Hey, did you ever see my message offering to send you and Eric some food packages? My brother says that up there in Oregon he can't get seasonings like we use here. Maybe we could make it a peace offering. I really do like you, you know.
There is something more insidious about all this. Clausewitz spoke of Nationalism (rage) as being part of the Trinity (rationality, probability, and rage). Many of the touchy feely programs that the left has invented over the years directly attack and restrain rationality and rage. Rationality is distorted by irrational dogma that everyone wants democracy, we can all get along, we all have similar interest, etc. At the end of the day, this discounts thousands of years of human behavior. Rage is throttled by programs that teach Political Correctness, Cultural Awareness, etc. These programs have been used by the media to stifle free speech and thinking to suicidal proportions. If our government is inhabited by irrational New World Order types that think giving away our country will make people like us AND we the people can't or won't muster the outrage necessary to take action because we are frozen by fear of being called racist, we are on the path to our own self destruction.
"If you believe that Sotomayor said something racist, then the onus is on you to prove that it is."..
And once again, the dungmonkey proves beyond the shadow of any doubt that she is a mouth-breathing retard.
The racism in Satomato's racist statement is self evident. Try googling the term "self evident".
Holy shit, what a dumbass.
Cchoad,
"The racism in Satomato's racist statement is self evident. Try googling the term "self evident"."
*Yawn*Saying something is self-evident isn't proof that it's true. In the world of rationality, supposed "self-evidence" is invalid.
Logic fail.
There's nothing wrong with going back and getting your GED, Choad. It's not too late for a high school education to help you out in life.
More inane gibberish. Further confirmation of the obvious...you are dumber than a sack of dog shit.
Cchoad,
"More inane gibberish."
No, you're just not smart enough to comprehend it.
You just keep telling yourself whatever helps a dungmonkey sleep at night. Okie dokie?
ccoffer,
Since there are only three self-evident axioms in logic, Sotomayor's statement can't be regarded as such.
Clever little boy,
How about you explain to everyone reading your scribblings how Satomato's declaration of Latina superiority is NOT racist.
Whenever you're ready, squirt.
I won't hold my breath. I know what you're made of. There is some of it stuck to the bottom of my shoe.
Héctor,
"Since there are only three self-evident axioms in logic, Sotomayor's statement can't be regarded as such."
Do you really think that The Choadster knows what axioms are? If someone told him to prove that he isn't a racist, he wouldn't even know how to explain why it can't be done.
The Cchoad,
"There is some of it stuck to the bottom of my shoe."
People actually wear shoes out there where you're from? Color me surprised!
Its cute the way you ape the words of your betters in a pathetic attempt at taking a shortcut to actual wit.
If you were a human being and not an animal, I would consider it a compliment.
res ipsa loquitur, Shitnugget.
If you aren't able to grasp the reality that Sotomato proclaimed that certain races of people are superior to others when it comes to being a judge, you are a fucking moron. If you do realize it and maintain your position, you are a fucking liar.
Either way, you are a piece of shit.
Is that what you wanted to be when you grew up? A low-life piece of shit?
Why?
How about you explain to everyone reading your scribblings how Satomato's declaration of Latina superiority is NOT racist.
I'm sorry the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one affirming something. You see, that's how logic works: if I say A is B, it is on me to prove it. Ergo, if you say "The comment is racist" it is on you to prove it. If you claim self-evidence, you are delusional.
No, son. That's not how it works. I've stated a positive. The text speaks for itself, boy.
The onus is on you to disprove my positive and universally obvious assertion.(Or explain your personal version of English)
Would you like to put down the sippy cup and play in the big boy world? Any time you're ready, squirt.
I don't need to prove anything, son. My statement is either true or will be proven false...by you.
Any time you're ready, squirt.
Is there a store in Mexico City where you can rent a pair of balls?
Héctor,
"I'm sorry the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one affirming something. You see, that's how logic works: if I say A is B, it is on me to prove it. Ergo, if you say "The comment is racist" it is on you to prove it."
You know, sometimes I feel a little bit bad about making fun of The Choad. Down here in Louisiana, there are plenty of folks like him. They aren't racist because they have any proof that whites are better than people of color. They simply need to believe that whites are better than people of color in order to make themselves feel better about the fact that so many of us have accomplished more than them despite living in a society that was designed to benefit them.
There's a common characteristic among all of the really ridiculous characters on this site: they are all in the lower socio-economic level of society. It's apparent that The Choad has no college education. Even though Eric has a college education, he only makes about twenty thousand dollars a year. Some of my friends spend more than that on tuition alone every year!
I think their racism is a way of lashing out. It's like when toddlers scream and throw tantrums. They don't have all of the skills they need in order to be able to deal with living in a world that seems to have failed them somehow. Lashing out erratically and illogically is often the only way they know how to react to it.
All they know is that they work hard, but they aren't getting ahead or, at least, not as much as they see others getting ahead. So, who do they blame? Well, we know what groups are the most popular targets: people of color, immigrants, women--all groups that have won more civil rights struggles over the years. Watching others groups gaining political power while they are feeling more and more helpless contributes to why some folks create false cause and effect arguments, blaming others for what they are going through.
ccoffer,
1) Stop calling me son. If I was related to yo, I'd be disgusted.
2) Again, you have the burden of proof, since it is you who is stating a positive.
3) If you can't prove it without claiming it to be "universally obvious", it is apparent that you cannot prove it at all.
4) Why do you always have to make a "manhood" claim like "rent a pair of balls"? Are you unsure about your manhood?
"I don't need to prove anything, son. My statement is either true or will be proven false...by you."
Biy, you really have no idea of how logi, science or math work, do you?
bint,
I don't know if that is the common characteristic of them all. William seems pretty educated to me. So does Right Guy. Ccoffer, however, lacks basic logical and communcation skills, so I assume he is (loosely) home-schooled.
Héctor,
Maybe this will make it easier for The Choad to understand what you're saying:
Chuck Coffer loves to eat shit.
Chuck Coffer has sex with roadkill.
Chuck Coffer faps to donkey porn.
Chuck Coffer once tried to marry his favorite blow up doll.
Now, all someone has to do is say that these assertions are self-evident and universally obvious. Since he can't prove these assertions are false, they must be true. At least, that's what The Cchoad claims logic dictates.
Héctor,
I put William, The Right Guy, Stefan and Valerie in a different category. I may disagree with them, but they are at least capable of creating coherent arguments. Hell, sometimes I even agree with *them*. :)
Gee, you really suck at this Hicter. I'll help you out.
racism n1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular raceSee, son, when a person like Satomato announces her belief in her superiority to another on the basis of their race, the statement is, by definition, racist. Self evident. Got it?
Now we are left with two options;
a. You didn't know the definition of the word racism and have been arguing from a position of abject ignorance, or..
b. You did know the meaning of the word and you are simply a greasy little liar.
c. There is no c.
Either way, you are useless.
Integrity is destiny, son. I'd suggest you try and develop some or you are in for a miserable life.
Cchoad,
I swear, you are dumber than a box of rocks. You provided the definition of racism. You did not prove that Sotomayor's statement meets that definition nor are you using the term "self-evident" in a logical manner. Furthermore, if what Sotomayor said was racist, then it was also racist when Scalia and Alito expressed the same sentiments. You still haven't been able to address that fact nor have you addressed the holes in your logic about how arguments are proven.
People are trying to cut you some slack, because it's obvious that you're not quite as educated as you might need to be in order to formulate a logical argument. However, if you're going to claim that you know how to do it and then keep failing like this, then people are going to point it out and you'll just get your panties in a bunch all over again.
By the way, "Latina" is a description of one's ethnic origin. It is not a race. Latinos can be white or black or Asian or any other racial category that one can come up with.
ethnicity =/= race
God, what a bunch of useless invective and sophistry!
I was a bit detained yesterday (promoting Rand Paul's moneybomb which has raised nearly 8K as of 1:10 PM CDT today), and I return to see a startingly low ratio of substance to words in this thread.
Is anyone here really interested in having an earnest conversation about Sotomayor, or are we all just content to snipe at each other with baseless and cruel insults?
@bint alshamsa The link you provided doesn't have any quote from Scalia about ethnicity (unless I missed it?) but it does have one from Alito- so I'm guessing you meant Alito in your original comment.
Now as for what Alito said, it is not at all the same as what Sotomayor said. Alito said his background and experiences have shaped him. He also said when he gets a discrimination case, he thinks about his family who suffered discrimination.
Sotomayor said that a Latina woman "would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male." Don't you agree that there's a difference? Alito simply says he draws on his experiences.
Sotomayor however, says that she is superior to white men in her legal ability. Alito isn't saying anywhere that one race is categorically superior to another. Sotomayor is.
In fact, Alito is saying he would rule against the idea that one race is superior to another, because his family has suffered from and been victimized by that idea in the past.
Alito is disavowing racism. Sotomayor is embracing it. The distinction is stark. I ask again: can't you see there's a difference in what they said?
Even if you don't believe Sotomayor is racist, can't you concede that your original argument is faulty- that the two statements simply do not compare?
Bent Alabama isn't going to concede anything. That is something that would be the product of integrity.
Animals aren't capable of demonstrating integrity.
She's not an animal, ccoffer- but a human being made in God's image. Calling her an animal is cruel (not to say that her own behavior on this thread has been anything less than cruel and unfeeling) and only gives her a chance to deflect and evade the argument I presented to her.
No human being is beyond reaching and changing with what we believe is the truth. If we think that anyone is beyond hope, then what are we wasting our time doing here?
I'm a small government libertarian because I believe that a free, civil society is necessary to human flourishing. What does it mean for a human to flourish? It means to shine brilliantly with Love.
If we do not love the people with whom we disagree, why are we fighting for their freedom? If we are simply fighting for our own freedom, what freedom are we fighting for?
If it is the freedom to be ugly to one another or pander to our every whim and unbridled passion, then our fight is empty. If it is the freedom to become transcendent, loving beings, then we cannot treat others as many of the commentators have been treating each other in this thread.
Let us Love- all of us. And let us have an earnest discourse- which means no evasions or sophistry. bint alshamsa, I standby for your answer.
PS: If you all are simply good friends that usually carry on in this manner and are all fine with it, please forgive my misunderstanding and pontification. In that case, things here aren't anything worse than a little odd for my taste.
That's a beautiful sentiment, W.E., but you need to remember what Bent Alabama is all about. She hates virtue. She hates this country, and you can bet your ass she despises you.
You need to disabuse yourself of the notion that bent alabama has any interest in what the truth is. She exists to harm. That's all. Nothing else. She defecates in her hand and throws it. That is her only means of expression.
W. E. Messamore,
"The link you provided doesn't have any quote from Scalia about ethnicity (unless I missed it?) but it does have one from Alito- so I'm guessing you meant Alito in your original comment."
The link I provided shows how Scalia has expressed some of the same sentiments as Sotomayor AND so has Alito. The one from Alito expresses the same thing that people are claiming was racist when it came from her.
"Now as for what Alito said, it is not at all the same as what Sotomayor said. Alito said his background and experiences have shaped him. He also said when he gets a discrimination case, he thinks about his family who suffered discrimination."
That is the same thing she expressed. If you're going to claim that Alito said something based on his entire comment, then you have to do the same thing with Sotomayor's entire comment. If you're going to use a portion of one sentence from Sotomayor, then we could do the same thing with what Alito said and make the very same claim about him.
"Sotomayor said that a Latina woman 'would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.'"
Have you read her entire statement? What you're quoting isn't even an entire statement. Do you even know what she was referring to? Or are you just taking your piece of a sentence and making your claims based on that?
"Sotomayor however, says that she is superior to white men in her legal ability. Alito isn't saying anywhere that one race is categorically superior to another. Sotomayor is."
No, actually she never said that at all. If you'd like to prove otherwise, feel free to include the entire statement where she supposedly claimed this.
"Alito is disavowing racism. Sotomayor is embracing it. The distinction is stark. I ask again: can't you see there's a difference in what they said?"
Wrong. As I stated before, "Latina" does not describe a race. It describes an ethnicity. Race is not the same as ethnicity. Latinas can be a put in any racial category. Some are white. Some are black. Some are Indigenous. So, even if you use your sentence fragment to try and make a point, it won't and can't be an example of racism because she didn't mention her race at all.
"Even if you don't believe Sotomayor is racist, can't you concede that your original argument is faulty- that the two statements simply do not compare?"
You have yet to compare their statements. You've only compared one person's statements with a sentence fragment from the statement of someone else. If you want to have a serious discussion about this, wouldn't it make more sense to compare both of their comments in entirety?
"and only gives her a chance to deflect and evade the argument I presented to her."
I treat people as individuals. I don't base whether I respond to you on what The Choad does. He enjoys whatever attention he can get around here. There aren't many people who take him seriously. I entertain myself by responding to him when the conversations get slow here.
I will always respond to you with the same level of respect that you show me. I believe in reciprocity of treatment. The Choad isn't really capable of interacting with people in any other way than what you've seen here. Everyone he disagrees with gets called the same tired names. I hope it doesn't bother you too much. If you are as you have been so far, then I'm pretty sure you won't have to worry about anyone talking to you in the way that The Choad gets spoken to.
Cchoad,
"She hates virtue. She hates this country, and you can bet your ass she despises you."
What a drama queen! Maybe you have nothing better to do with your life than to hate people you've spoken to on the internet, but it doesn't mean the rest of us are like that.
""Latina" does not describe a race. It describes an ethnicity"
Satomato used the term "latina" as explicitly distinct from "white". That is a racial distinction regardless of your ability to comprehend the obvious.
Try again, dipshit.
Cchoad,
"Satomato used the term "latina" as explicitly distinct from "white"."
Of course, "Latina" is distinct from "white". So are myriad other terms. The word "lamp" is distinct from the word "green", but that doesn't mean that green lamps and non-green lamps exist. These terms being distinct simply means you can't substitute one for the other without changing the meaning in some way. It doesn't mean the two terms can't ever exist within a single category.
You can be a Latina that is white or you can be a Latina that is not white. That's why ethnicity and race are not synonymous. Do you even understand what race and ethnicity mean? So far, you've shown yourself to be quite clueless about the topic. Conflating the two won't ever produce a logical argument. Now that you've figured out that the terms "Latina" and "white" are distinct from each other, perhaps you can stop claiming that talking about her ethnicity means she was claiming that one race is better than others.
ethnicity =/= race
I've got a lot going on in the aftermath of yesterday's successful money bomb for Rand Paul, so I'll leave my parting shot here and read whatever response you give, bint alshamsa.
But I won't have time for further discussion of this subject because I believe we will have exhausted it within the space of a couple more comments.
I also get the impression that you're trolling a little for a debate rather than genuinely interested in a discussion- and that's not simply because we disagree, but rather your manner of disagreement.
You've quibbled that I didn't include Sotomayor's entire statement and that I might be taking it out of context. You asked if I even knew what she was referring to.
No where did you care to elaborate and defend your view of what the context was and what she meant. I know, I know- like you said earlier "the onus is on me." But if you could lay the matter to rest and help me see your side, why don't you?
That's what leads me to believe you're trolling for a fight. You seem to just want to prolong a debate and waste our time quibbling, while obscuring the fact that you have no argument by simply picking at and quibbling with mine, never daring to address it head on with a well-argued refutation.
I provided a fragment of Sotomayor's quotation in the interest of space, because I had already provided the entire quotation in full context, with a cited and linked source in the article above. Did you even read my article before commenting in its thread?
Sotomayor was responding to retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's belief that truth and justice are objective and that wise people of different backgrounds can come to the same correct conclusions.
Sotomayor rejected this and claimed that Latina women would more often come to a better legal conclusion than white men- claiming her own racial and sexual superiority.
(..."ethnic and sexual superiority" if your prefer, which is equally false and outrageous. Please drop your rhetorical sophistry about race, ethnicity, and the word "Latina.")
Alito's comments are in a whole different ballpark. He said that he uses his experiences and thinks about his family's experiences when making decisions. He didn't say that those experiences afford him greater insight and better legal expertise than people of other races, ethnicities, or gender. Sotomayor did.
His comments weren't a claim to superiority. Sotomayor's were. His comments weren't racist, sexist, and offensive. Sotomayor's were. And my initial comment stands: if a white, male nominee were to say the following, the country would be outraged and he wouldn't be confirmed-
"I would hope that a wise white, male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life."
Cheers.
W.E. Messamore,
"I also get the impression that you're trolling a little for a debate rather than genuinely interested in a discussion- and that's not simply because we disagree, but rather your manner of disagreement."
Seeing as I've been engaging in discussions on race and ethnicity on LR blog since before you even posted here, the idea that I'm trolling is absolutely laughable. However, if it makes you feel better to make assumptions about what I'm looking for, then I think that says a lot about you, not me.
"You've quibbled that I didn't include Sotomayor's entire statement and that I might be taking it out of context."
Feel free to elaborate on how pointing out you were comparing one person's entire statement to a sentence fragment of another person's statement is quibbling. If you are really looking for discussion, it makes no sense not to discuss them both in entirety. Of course, if you're not really looking to understand what was being discussed, then I can understand why you'd try to avoid doing so.
"You asked if I even knew what she was referring to."
Yes, I did. I could have simply assumed what you believed, but I figured it would be better to ask instead. That's what people do in good faith arguments.
"No where did you care to elaborate and defend your view of what the context was and what she meant."
You were the one who made the assertion, so what is it you think there is for me to defend?
"I know, I know- like you said earlier "the onus is on me." But if you could lay the matter to rest and help me see your side, why don't you?"
It's YOUR argument. If you aren't willing to prove it, why should I lay it all out for you? As I've said here before, I don't encourage lazy thinking nor will I enable it. I'm more than happy to discuss the context of her statement, if you're willing to show that you even know what it actually was.
"You seem to just want to prolong a debate and waste our time quibbling, while obscuring the fact that you have no argument by simply picking at and quibbling with mine, never daring to address it head on with a well-argued refutation."
You do realize that playing psychic by making these assumptions about my motives is quibbling and time-wasting, right? This is your assertion to defend, not mine. If you didn't want it to be this way, then why did you make an assertion in the first place?
"I provided a fragment of Sotomayor's quotation in the interest of space, because I had already provided the entire quotation in full context, with a cited and linked source in the article above. Did you even read my article before commenting in its thread?"
Yes, I read it. I also read Sotomayor's comment in entirety and that's why I know you didn't state it. You wrote
ctd.
ctd.
----------------
""In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
'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,' said Judge Sotomayor."---------------
In actuality, this is her entire statement:
-----------------------
"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.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."--------------------
ctd.
ctd.
Now, if you want to claim that you included this entire statement in your post, feel free to point out where that occurred. Instead of posting her statement, you quoted from a synopsis of her views written by someone else. If you were familiar with the context of her statement, you'd have seen that she was referring to the court's history with regards to race and sex discrimination cases (and who was involved in them), not which race is supposedly superior to another.
I thought that by asking you if you were familiar with the context of her statement, you might at least go back and take a look at what was actually being talked about, because you have repeatedly regurgitated claims that have been debunked by those who actually did their homework before chiming in on this topic.
"Sotomayor rejected this and claimed that Latina women would more often come to a better legal conclusion than white men- claiming her own racial and sexual superiority."
Wrong. Once again, the context shows that her comment was about the decisions that the courts have made in cases involving race and sex discrimination. She didn't mention her race nor did she claim that her race was superior to that of anyone else. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to show exactly where she did mention her race.
"(..."ethnic and sexual superiority" if your prefer, which is equally false and outrageous. Please drop your rhetorical sophistry about race, ethnicity, and the word "Latina.")"
Look, YOU are the one who claimed she made a racist comment. Then YOU claimed that her talking about Latina experiences was proof of that. Now, if you don't like the fact that race and ethnicity are two entirely different terms that refer to two entirely different concepts, then why did YOU try to conflate the two? If you think that race and ethnicity are synonymous, then where's your proof? Can you back up your claim? I should tell you beforehand that this issue was hashed out and settled by scientists around the world many years ago.
"Alito's comments are in a whole different ballpark. He said that he uses his experiences and thinks about his family's experiences when making decisions."
Likewise, Sotomayor's statement expresses how the experiences of someone from a Latino family can be used when making decisions in cases about discrimination. She doesn't even personalize it as much as Alito did. Her comment was regarding Latina experiences in general, whereas Alito made specific claims about himself and his family and how he factors that into how he judges.
"His comments weren't a claim to superiority. Sotomayor's were. His comments weren't racist, sexist, and offensive. Sotomayor's were."
You can say this a million times but it won't change what her statement says. You can choose to be offended by anything you want. Plenty of people enjoy playing the victim role, for some reason. It's not my style, but if that's what helps you get through the day, then it's okay with me.
There's a reason why very few people are even concerned about this trumped-up charge. Unless you're someone who just loves race-baiting, there's really nothing to get excited about. Even Republicans have spoken out about how ridiculous these claims are. When Democrats and Republicans are both saying that someone's comments aren't racist, that's usually a sign that there's no reason to listen to the crackpots who say otherwise.
Post a Comment