and the Hindenberg of Gasbags, predictably says he hopes she fails.
Ha!
The heart and soul of the GOP again wishes for failure, and gives Mr. Obama's nominee a great big NO!
The Hindenberg of Gasbags also said Judge Sotomayor would be a "disaster" for this country, which elicited more howls of laughter from people with the ability to actually think.
Imagine this: A guy from a family of lawyers and judges, a family of privilege, who, in addition to failing all of his academic subjects in college, actually failed his ballroom dancing classes, is passing judgment on a woman whose parents emigrated from Puerto Rico, whose father died when she was a child, whose mother worked two jobs and instilled in her two children [her brother is a physician] all the values we hold dear, a woman who graduated with the highest honors from two of America's finest institutions of higher learning, and who was appointed by Republican President, George H.W. Bush, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York , becoming the youngest judge in the Southern District and the first Hispanic federal judge anywhere in New York State.
Meanwhile, as noted over at Atrios' blogspot, Eschaton, Mike Huckabee referred to Judge Sotomayor as "Maria" Sotomayor, because, y'know, "they" are all named "Maria."
Let's see if the GOP can out-hypocrite even themselves.
UPDATE:
Found this over at dailykos:
GEORGE H.W. BUSH: I have followed this man's career for some time, and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person, who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor. He's also a fiercely independent thinker with an excellent legal mind who believes passionately in equal opportunity for all Americans. He will approach the cases that come before the Court with a commitment to deciding them fairly, as the facts and the law require.
Speaking about Supreme Court Justice nominee, Clarence Thomas.
44 comments:
I cannot foresee the GOP using the filibuster.
To try and derail the first Hispanic nominee would be a disaster politically.
But who knows, maybe in the interest of party purity.
To bad...he should have stuck with
'ballroom dancing'..could have got on as a hippo at Disneyland....
"Let's see if the GOP can out-hypocrite even themselves."
If the GOP fillibusters this, and the Dems say that a fillibuster is so wrong, it'd be hard to say which side is out-hypocriting the other.
dmarks typed:
... it'd be hard to say which side is out-hypocriting the other.
Not at all. Demos are upfront that the filibuster is a legitimate legislative tactic.
Many, many GOPsters feel quite differently. That is it's wrong, wrong wrong for Dems to use the option but perfectly ok for the Republicans to do so. I think GOP hypocrisy remains intact. They're just better at it than the Dems. More practice I'd say.
ttp://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200905010001
Arthur said: "Not at all. Demos are upfront that the filibuster is a legitimate legislative tactic."
Read what I said. IF. If the Dems suddenly oppose the very idea of fillibusters. Watch to see what the Dems do if the Republicans try to fillibuster. Don't be too sure that the Democrats would be consistent about this.
Remember, this is the party of MoveOn.org.... the organization formed to ask America to "move on" from Clinton sex scandals, and then strongly demanded that gubernatorial candidate Schwarzennegger be held accountable for (you guessed it) sex scandals.
Personally, I think they should not do a fillibuster. I hate these things being dragged out. A simple yes/no vote, and be done with it.
(by the way, a fact check from Media Matters? Media Matters is an opinion site, not a fact site).
dmarks, are you disputing the accuracy of the media matters quotes?
The quotes at Media Matters all are legit. As always. Quotes is quotes and the are always accurate at Media Matters because they are verifiable.
The Dems would point out Repubs decrying the filibuster then embracing it.
I hope she goes the route of Alito and Roberts and just doesn't answer questions. That always pisses em off good.
Dave: Media Matters is an editorial/opinion/advocacy site that is interested in forwarding its point of view, not presenting facts. Well, they present only those facts that support their case. As they do this, they present only the quotes that support their arguments, and you won't see them present the whole picture. Or even try to.
Of course, the same is true of Heritage, AIM, and other pressure groups on the other side. Media Matters is only a place to go to to find out what Democrats think, as opposed to being a place to go to to get to the heart of matters. The same with Heritage Foundation and Republicans.
Oh. Jim Bohannen is reporting on his radio program that Sotomayor is a lesbian. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But this is sure to fire up those to whom such a thing matters.
dmarks wrote:
Remember, this is the party of MoveOn.org.... the organization formed to ask America to "move on"Oh come on, dmarks. MoveOn.org is one aspect of the Democratic Party-- it is most definitely NOT the party of MoveOn.org. Otherwise we'd have to say the Republican Party is the party of the Council of Conservative Citizens--a white supremacist group.
And Sonia Sotomayor is a centrist.
dmarks, I am not contesting whether or not Media Matters is an opinion site or not.
My question, which you dodged, is whether or not the quotes that they presented [admittedly to bolster their side of the argument] are accurate.
What say you?
Shaw: Is MoveOn really as bad as a racist group?
Dave: I dodged nothing. I do wonder what the whole story is, and what is missing (context, the rest of quotes, etc).
That "compelling" personal narrative story of her life brought tears to my eyes, NOT!
An Affirmative Action candidate with LOTS of empathy for minorities, regardless of their guilt. If other information is accurate, she also believe the *law* is written from the bench .... NOT in the Congress. The woman is a RACIST pig, and ADMITS IT.
Racism is once again alive and well in Obamaland. Next Sotomayor will appear on Okra's show to be slobbered all over by that other racist pig Okra ..
Hey Sonia: How does it feel to be a token nomination And an intellectual lightweight at that.
To the sorrowfully stupid Miss Molly:
Affirmative Action does not put a student at the top in her class. Ms. Sotomayor graduated Numnber 1 in her class, and was Phi Beta Kappa. But you wouldn't have the intellectual tools to understand that.
However, you are really good at parroting Rush Limbaugh's pathetically idiotic talking points.
Molly want a cracker?
She does have an impressive resume. I agree that her race did not put her at the top of the class. Nor does she appear to be any sort of intellectual lightweight.
Racist? I need to find out more about the New Haven firefighters case, in which Judge Sotomayor supposedly sided with the city's clearly racist personnel hiring policies.
But whether or not she is, she fits the expectations of the President nominating a leftist for the Supreme Court. If she gets borked in the Senate, do you honestly think that a chastened Obama would nominate a centrist or conservative as the next one? No. He will nominate another one just like Judge Sotomayor.
Pig? Well, Molly, who is the intellectual lightweight now? You might consider finding something substantive to disagree with this nominee on.
Good golly.... Thanks for meeting the worst stereotype of conservatives, the one that this blog so often operates on.
dmarks, it is not just Molly. Check out Bits by Bob also.
No facts, just a statement that he heard somewhere that Sotomayer... .
The decision which you reference is one that is likely to be overturned, giving her a total of 4 reversals in over 380 opinions. Not a bad rate.
In that particular case, she followed precedent in making her opinion. This is usually something conservatives applaud, even if it is wrong.
Oh, and Molly, would you provide the link to where Sotomayer admits she is a racist?
dmarks,
You are completely off the mark in calling Judge Sotomayor a "leftist." No one who actually read the majority of her rulings calls her that.
Only those on the extreme right who listen to FOX and Limbaugh have swallowed that uninformed piece of propaganda.
Even the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that Judge Sotomayor is NOT an extremist.
Shame on you.
Dave: Thanks for the elaboration. This was what I was guessing, and why I was not jumping the gun.
-------------------------
Shaw: "You are completely off the mark in calling Judge Sotomayor a "leftist." ....
Even the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that Judge Sotomayor is NOT an extremist."
Where did I call her an extremist? Please find it. I personally consider only a few leftists to be extremist. I use the term leftist for those who are left of center, politically. That is what it means. That is ALL. Shame on you for attacking me for saying something I never said.
The WSJ editorial (your source) names her as a liberal. Princeton defines a leftist as "a person who belongs to the political left". YourDictionary.com defines a leftist as a "person whose political position is liberal or radical; member of the left"
I am not off the mark in correctly identifying her as a leftist. I would have been off the mark if I had identified her as an extremist. But I did not. You bungled that comment completely, being as angry and careless as MissMolly.
----------
Arthur: Looks like no fillibuster.
dmarks,
I typed "extremist" instead of "leftist," and that word triggered the rest of my reply.
I was wrong. You called her a leftist, not an extremist, but I was influenced by having read at least a half dozen conservative blogs that were labeling her an "extremist," "moron," etc., and anger crept into my answer to you.
Here's what the NYTimes wrote yesterday about Judge Sotomayor:
WASHINGTON — Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial opinions are marked by diligence, depth and unflashy competence. If they are not always a pleasure to read, they are usually models of modern judicial craftsmanship, which prizes careful attention to the facts in the record and a methodical application of layers of legal principles.
Judge Sotomayor, whom President Obama announced Tuesday as his choice for the Supreme Court, has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security. In cases involving criminal defendants, employment discrimination and free speech, her rulings are more liberal than not.
But they reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language. Judge Sotomayor’s decisions are, instead, almost always technical, incremental and exhaustive, considering all of the relevant precedents and supporting even completely uncontroversial propositions with elaborate footnotes.
Shaw, you miswrote!
Just poking you.
I will be excited to hear the "official" GOP response to this nomination.
It was interesting to hear Rush say the nomination was political.
Aren't they all, at least to some degree?
Dave Miller typed:
'It was interesting to hear Rush say the nomination was political.
Aren't they all, at least to some degree?'
Ya think?
Conservatives who endlessly wring their hands over 'affirmative action' and 'racial preference' are strangely silent when it comes to the case of Clarence Thomas.
What about Clarence Thomas, Arthur?
It is true that as long as programs such as affirmative action exist to propel unqualified people higher than they otherwise would go, individuals who happen to be members of groups "boosted" by it will get tarred with the "you are not really qualified" jab when they reach pinnacles of achievement. Regardless of whether or not the individual is boosted by affirmative action, or gets there by their own hard work.
As just happened to Judge Sotomayor in MissMolly's comment.
dmarks typed:
"It is true that as long as programs such as affirmative action exist to propel unqualified people higher than they otherwise would go, individuals who happen to be members of groups "boosted" by it will get tarred with the "you are not really qualified" jab when they reach pinnacles of achievement. Regardless of whether or not the individual is boosted by affirmative action, or gets there by their own hard work."
The same can be said of legacy students getting into Ivy League schools. This type of affirmatiave action has been going on for generations, but since it was practiced by the majority white population, no one howled about it, nor do I remember political factions calling into question the legacy students' achievements based on their families' contributions to a particular college or university or the fact that a famous parent had graduated from said institution.
For example, if you read John McCain's autobiography, he himself acknowledges that the fact that his grandfather and father were distinguished Naval officers helped him quite a lot when he was flunking his studies at the USNA and when he was on the verge of being booted out of it for too many demerits. McCain's mother went in person to the Commandant of the Naval Academy and begged him to keep her son at the academy. It worked.
John McCain owes his career to affirmative action.
And so does George W. Bush.
There is also the affirmative action of powerful and wealthy families getting their sons and daughters into high-powered corporations and law firms based on family connections, or based on the fact that the family owned the business.
But since they're the sons and grandsons of famous, powerful, and in the Bush case, wealthy, families, it's an accepted form of affirmative action.
Double standard there. One for the majority whites and a negative take on the same exact action for minorities.
dmarks typed:
What about Clarence Thomas, Arthur?
Clarence Thomas's was a political appointment. Politically it was impossible not to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first and only black supreme court justice with a person of color. And quite rightly so. That Thomas was likely one of the very few hardcore conservatives anywhere in the judiciary made the appointment palatable to the right.
Clarence Thomas attended Holy Cross after the college instituted a minority recruitment program. Likewise his admission to Yale Law coincided with a similar program aimed at growing the number of minority students.
I believe in affirmative action and clearly Justice Thomas benefited from those efforts. It's a pity he has since worked to raise the span after he crossed the bridge.
Clarence Thomas isn't criticized because he benefited from such programs. He's criticized, quite rightly, for being a mediocre judge and a reactionary judicial activist.
Shaw: "Double standard there. One for the majority whites and a negative take on the same exact action for minorities."
Shaw. Not at all. The programs you describe also work for the scions of rich minorities. It's economic, not racial. None of the programs you describe have a racial component. We can be sure that Obama's daughters are having doors opened to them the same way as you describe. And it is not because of skin color.
So much for that argument of yours. What you are doing is attempting to justify discriminating against people because of their skin color.
There is a single standard here: opposition to racism. In all its forms. Consistent opposition.
----------------
Arthur: "only black supreme court justice with a person of color"
Ah yes, the colored-person seat on the Court.
"It's a pity he has since worked to raise the span after he crossed the bridge."
By insisting on equal rights. That is all he has doing. Making sure that everyone can cross the bridge, regardless of skin color.
And it makes him no worse than a white who benefited from Jim Crow working to dismantle it. It similar in that someone benefited from preferential racial treatment, and then works to get rid of such racism.
"Clarence Thomas isn't criticized because he benefited from such programs."
Do you want me to find quotes where he is bashed for this?
I am opposed to any quotas, goals, preferences, "race consciousness", or set-asides as part of affirmative action, because I strongly believe in equal rights, and consistently oppose racism in all its forms.
Equal rights and justice for all.
Nice pat answers, dmarks, but they gloss over the fact that African-Americans were most assuredly passed over in favor of whites in this nation's history. They were denied equal opportunity for generations, while the white majority enjoyed all the advantages of being the favored race.
Anon said: I glossed over nothing, and there is nothing in what you say (which is true) which justifies creating new acts of racism....if you "pass over" whites (a racist act) to make up for "passing over" African-Americans (also a racist act).
To do this glosses over a lot, and the gross generalizations are so inacccurate as to be meaningless.
For example, "the white majority enjoyed all the advantages of being the favored race." claim is ludicrous in the face of the fact of the large percentage of whites who are, and have been, in the underclass. Enjoying a negligible "advantage". Especially compared to rich and well-off African-Americans.
Why not look at individual situations instead?
dmarks typed:
"Ah yes, the colored-person seat on the Court."
-Nope. But there is something unseemly about only two black justices in our nation's two hundred plus year history. And George HW Bush, to his partial credit, realized that we couldn't go back to a whites only bench.
"It's a pity he has since worked to raise the span after he crossed the bridge."
By insisting on equal rights. That is all he has doing. Making sure that everyone can cross the bridge, regardless of skin color.
-As Anatole France (and as Justice Kennedy has quoted) put it:
"A rich man has just as much right to sleep under a bridge as a poor man."
And it makes him no worse than a white who benefited from Jim Crow working to dismantle it.
Jim Crow has no place in this discussion. Suggesting affirmative action programs are equal to the racist/segregationist legacies of Jim Crow is mistaken.
It similar in that someone benefited from preferential racial treatment, and then works to get rid of such racism.
Preferential treatment isn't racist.
"Clarence Thomas isn't criticized because he benefited from such programs."
Do you want me to find quotes where he is bashed for this?
If you feel you must. But don't exclude Bush 41 saying, with a straight face, Clarence Thomas is the 'best qualified' jurist in the nation.
I am opposed to any quotas, goals, preferences, "race consciousness", or set-asides as part of affirmative action, because I strongly believe in equal rights, and consistently oppose racism in all its forms.
Equal rights and justice for all.
Good for you. I agree and now that we're done patting ourselves on the back we take a look around and realize that this is not a color-blind society and the remedy lies in increased opportunities to those still denied them.
Arthur said: "A rich man has just as much right to sleep under a bridge as a poor man."
That might indicate that the real problems involve poverty, not skin color.
Racial "goals" then even make less sense looking at this, since they are designed to give middle and upper class Blacks even more advantage over lower-class Whites.
"Jim Crow has no place in this discussion."
Jim Crow is similar to this type of affirmative action (the quotas/goals/etc). Jim Crow is much worse, but it is similar. Both involve explicit policies of discriminating against people on the basis of race.
"Suggesting affirmative action programs are equal to the racist/segregationist legacies of Jim Crow is mistaken."
And I had told you in a previous comment that Jim Crow is much worse. Not equal.
"Preferential treatment isn't racist."
It is, if it is based on skin color. Like the unjust policy tht Colin Powell supported (discussed previously). Racial discrimination for or against people is racist. Merriam-Webster definition: " racial prejudice or discrimination". You just can't discriminate agaisnt people for their skin color and not be racist.
"Good for you. I agree and now that we're done patting ourselves on the back we take a look around and realize that this is not a color-blind society and the remedy lies in increased opportunities to those still denied them."
My 'equal rights and justice for al' statement was a goal, not a pat on the back. Yes, it is not a color-blind society. We need to make it more of one. Not less of one. Quotas/goals/etc are a step backwards. Affirmative action CAN include "increased opportunities" without including racial discrimination. Examples of this include active college and employer recruiting in minority communities. I fully support this and any effort that does not involve racial discrimination.
Don't mistake me for one of those who says there is no problem and nothing should be done. I just don't see discriminating against individuals just because of their skin color as acceptable in any circumstances. There are other solutions to the problems that involve reducing racism without adding any new racism.
The President might agree with me more than you think. He has spoken on this, and gives a low priority to quotas. Some interesting points are made in this blog post for example.
And surely there would be more support for affirmative action if the racist parts of it were removed.
I left a job I liked once because management wouldn't hire "niggers." I quit a club for the same reason. As long as there are assholes that hate because of the color of someones skin, I don't have a problem with quotas. And yes. I was once passed over for a promotion because of a quota. I don't feel cheated . Admit it or not, it's still a white man's world.
"And yes. I was once passed over for a promotion because of a quota. I don't feel cheated . Admit it or not, it's still a white man's world."
Don't be surprised, though, if when others are victims of such blatant racism, they don't submit quietly because of vague and debatable societal generalizations.
That's why I was talking about empathy long before President Obama said he wanted that in the next SCJ.
To be blunt Dmarks, we all get it in the ass. Some of us get it with a bigger dick. I have no problem trying to shrink the penis.
I apologise for offending anyone's sensibilities.
Then shrink it for all. It does not make sense to shrink it for some and lengthen it for others.
Unless those others actually did something to deserve it.
What an analogy! Here is an illustration to go with it. No, it is not a bad illustration.
SHAW, you are a chicken shit little coward.
Why did you delete MY comment?
Are you so much of a damn racist that you can't stand the truth?
To the eloquent jparchery02,
If you want to have a rational discussion, you're welcome to come here and participate.
I deleted your comment because it was full of hateful lies and trashy opinions. That's not a discussion.
You are not welcome here unless you can give a reasonable argument, not a misogynistic diatribe based on Rush Limbaugh's uninformed idiocy.
You, whomever you are, need some counseling in anger management.
So many of your ilk are so very, very unhappy and sadly resort to schoolyard name-calling and childish rants.
Pity.
White men get the smallest "ones" stuck up their you know whats Dmarks. I have no problem equalizing the length. I never said life was fair. I just think we should all receive the same size.
I agree with your last sentence, which is why I oppose both anti-black discrimination and anti-white discrimination. And any such discrimination that might come up.
Shaw, how wonderful that someone like jparchery has decided to use your blog to deride the intelligence of someone like Sotomayor.
I am sure he finished at the top of his class too.
jparchery02 is an unhappy and very possibly undereducated little troll who gets its kicks by making a sad little fool of itself all over the blogsphere. It posted the same drivel over at Susannah's blog.
Yawn.
We're not so far apart that we can't love America as much as the other Dmarks. Best wishes to you my friend.
Post a Comment