Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Healthcare vs

Healthcare vs
Torture

Monday, July 13, 2009

Good Luck, Judge Sotomayor!


UPDATE BELOW

"My personal and professional experiences help me listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case," Sotomayor told senators at a nationally televised confirmation hearing.


The remarks about judicial philosophy were her first since President Barack Obama nominated the South Bronx-born and Ivy League-educated veteran of 17 years on the federal bench. They appeared aimed at Republicans who have questioned her commitment to impartiality in light of a 2001 remark that experience as a "wise Latina" might give her an advantage over white males.

In her remarks, Sotomayor said, "The progression of my life has been uniquely American," that of a child of Puerto Rican parents who moved to New York during World War II. "I want to make one special note of thanks to my mom," she said. "I am here today because of her aspirations and sacrifices for my brother Juan and me."

"Mom, I love that we are sharing this together," said Sotomayor, whose father died when she was 9.


On the first day of Sotomayor's hearing, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee celebrated the life story of the Bronx-born federal judge who is poised to become the high court's first Latino justice. Republicans warned, however, that she could be an "activist judge" who would "make the law" and may be biased toward disadvantaged minority groups. Several appeared set to oppose her.


Chart of Supreme Court justice...
Sotomayor's judicial philosophy: 'Fidelity to the law'
"The president has done his part and made a historic nomination," said Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the judiciary committee. "Now it is up to the Senate to do its part on behalf of the American people."At the moment, Sotomayor's confirmation appears likely. With the swearing-in last week of Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Democrats have the 60 votes necessary to thwart any Republican filibuster attempt. Leahy went as far as to pledge Sotomayor "will be confirmed," and he suggested that Republicans would oppose her at their political peril.
UPDATE
FOX News' very own Idiot-in-Residence, Glenn Beck continues to embarrass himself and hang on to the title as "DUMBEST PERSON ON CABLE TEEVEE."
There's no doubt now that he is FOX News' pre-eminent clown, and is crazier than radio comedian, Rush Limbaugh:
Glenn Beck is very upset with the softball questions that the Senators offered up to Judge Sonia Sotomayor during her first day of confirmation hearings. To prove his point, Beck played a video montage of Democratic senators praising Sotomayor, notably in statements and not questions.
Unfortunately for Beck, there were no questions today. The first day of the hearings is when Senators and the nominee make opening statements.
Beck did include one clip of a GOP senator, Lindsey Graham, telling Sotomayor "unless you have a complete meltdown, you're gonna get confirmed. And I don't think you will." Beck ridiculed Graham for this: "Does anybody remember when Lindsey Graham wasn't a worm?"

51 comments:

I Ain't Got No Blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shaw Kenawe said...

To I Ain't Got No Blog,

If all you can contribute to these comments are misynogistic slurs about accomplished women such as Judge Sotomayor and Mrs. Obama, you'll continue to be deleted.

dmarks said...

Did he comment about Mrs. Obama's butt again?

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

I'll put it this way: If people like I Ain't Got No Blog were in charge of selecting women for prominent positions in government, this is what we'd get.

I Ain't Got No Blog said...

No it wasn't about Mrs. Oamba's butt again?
I happen to have a hell of a sense of humor, and it's a shame that you folks know how to dish it out but can't take a joke.
Every one of us is different, and each of us interprets humor in our own way. I thought what I wrote was VERY funny, but Shaw is much too sensitive when it comes to Sonia Solitaire puss.

And dmarks, well he's a real Drama Queen!

Geez man, ya gotta lighten up.

Christopher said...

I am ambivalent about the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor.

I'm pleased that President Obama didn't nominate a white man from Yale or Harvard. It's just bizarre to me that women make up 51% of the nation but there's only one woman on the SCOTUS and poor health could make this no women on the SCOTUS.

But Sotomayor's opinion in Flamer v. City of White Plains was a shocking attack on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and the civil rights of atheists and troubling.

I have also been unsuccessful in finding anything illustrating her thinking on LGBT rights and gay marriage equality as it pertains to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment will form the basis of the argument Theodore Olsen and David Boise will make to the High Court in challenging the legality and constitutionality of the viciously homophobic Prop 8 which narrowly passed in California and was upheld by the state Supreme Court.

We can only hope Sotomayor will strike all the correct chords when she's on the bench. She will bring a compelling life story and high degree of intelligence to the job.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dear I Ain't Got No Blog,

I don't go to your blog and trash your pet politicians and celebs, so I'd appreciate your not doing so here at my blog.

And it's not a matter of a sense of humor. If you posted something funny instead of puerile, I wouldn't delete it.

Until then, I'll paste here what you have posted over at your own blog:

SO MY GOOD FRIEND, IF I SAID ANYTHING THAT YOU DIDN’T LIKE, I'LL TRY BEING NICER IF YOU'LL TRY BEING SMARTER.

I Ain't Got No Blog said...

Touche, you've made your witty point.

After that, I have nothing more to say. Absolutely Nothing!
It's like smoking a cigarette after sex.

Arthurstone said...

I ain't got no blog typed:

'I happen to have a hell of a sense of humor,'

Hmmm.

Pity you don't share it. But keep your matches dry.

Just in case.

dmarks said...

I was not aware of Flamer v. City of White Plains before. I looked into it. It said nothing about the rights of atheists. The right of intolerant people to silence the exression of others is not in the Bill of Rights.

She did not attack anything, but instead stood up to those whom the government would censor based on their religion. The First Amendment prohibits such regulations, after all. Sotomayor DID side with protecting freedom of expression. In fact, the regulation Sotomayor opposed limits atheists speech as well as the speech of those of other faiths.

The only atheists who could be mad at Sotomayor are those who want the religious expression of others criminalized. These people are nothing more than religious bigots.

Thank you, Sonia Sotomayor, for siding with peoples' rights and against intolerant bigots who would censor.

And thank you, Christopher, for pointing out a case where Sonia Sotomayor upheld the Bill of Rights.

I Ain't Got No Blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christopher said...

Thank you, dmarks, for showing the members of this blog that you don't know how to read a legal brief, let alone actually find one.

For clarification purposes:

In 1993, Sotomayor ruled in Flamer v. City of White Plains that a rabbi had a First Amendment right to display a menorah in a city park. The city of White Plains, New York, prohibited “fixed outdoor displays of religious or political symbols.”

The rabbi asserted that the regulation violated his free-exercise-of-religion and free-speech rights.

She wrote that the city may not “preclude a private speaker from erecting a fixed display of a religious symbol, free-standing or otherwise, in a City park on the basis of such display’s religious message.”

She rejected the city’s establishment clause-based defense that it was trying to prevent perceived state endorsement of religion: “The Establishment Clause does not provide a compelling justification for the Resolution’s content-based restrictions on expressive conduct.”

Hopefully, this will help.

Arthurstone said...

Ain't Got No Blog is one funny guy.

But enough mirth.

Here's an interesting take on 'frivolous law suits':

http://www.slate.com/id/2222087/

TRUTH 101 said...

Politics is my hobby. Politically, it made sense for President Obama to nominate someone with at least a little gray area. It's that much less the Republicans can use against her.

Obama has his hands full here and around the world. A messy fight and either denial of confirmation, or withdrawel would be tough blows. I've always said, you're never wrong to play it safe.

dmarks said...

Christopher: I did read the actual brief BEFORE you posted it, thanks. And the city's regulation was based on censorship, actually. Denial of citizens' First Amendment rights.

And thank you for driving home that Ms. Sotomayor's opinion has nothing at all to do with denying the rights of atheists.
----

Now, on the other side:

Arthur: The article on Ricci does not change the fact that Sotomayor made a mistake on the New Haven case, and her ruling did end up (for whatever reason) siding with the racists in that case. Since her ruling has been overturned, I hope that in the future, and on the US Supreme Court bench, she will instead side with the ideals of equal rights if such a case comes before her again.

Arthurstone said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arthurstone said...

Sotomayor didn't 'side with the racists'. She ruled on a point of law.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon makes some excellent points:

"(a) she was affirming the decision of the federal district court judge; (b) she was joined in her decision by the two other Second Circuit judges who, along with her, comprised a unanimous panel; (c) a majority of Second Circuit judges refused to reverse that panel's ruling; and now: (d) four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices - including the ones she is to replace - agree with her.

Put another way, 11 out of the 21 federal judges to rule on Ricci ruled as Sotomayor did. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that she ruled erroneously, but it's definitively unreasonable to claim that her Ricci ruling places her on some sort of judicial fringe."

Or teaming up with 'the racists'.

Affirmative action is one legal remedy we use (among many) because real racists work day and night to maintain their privilege in all sorts of areas.

As for 'equal rights' one would think that after all this time there have been more than two (soon to be three) women and two African-Americans serving on our highest court?

I certainly wonder.

And it's one reason affirmative action continues to be relevant.

As for Mr. Ricci I'm waiting for someone like Senator Kyl or Cornyn stand up and make a speech talking about the importance of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Apparently we should all be deeply grateful for the robust civil rights laws that protect Americans from unfair discrimination in the workplace.

Right?

dmarks said...

"Sotomayor didn't 'side with the racists'. She ruled on a point of law."

Which ended up siding with the racists in the case. Supporting the New Haven idea that it is in the city's interest to have incompetant firefighters with the "correct" skin color. But note that I did not call her decision a racist one. I made that point earlier. I would not say that she teamed up with the racists on this. Only that her decision benefited them, the way it worked out.

"Affirmative action is one legal remedy..."

Discriminating against individuals because they are of the "wrong" skin color does not remedy anything. One racial injustice does not do another. Typically, the victims of such discrimination did not commit any racial discrimination themselves.

"And it's one reason affirmative action continues to be relevant."

Affirmative action is more than just the preference/goal/quota part, which is rather controversial and nothing but racism. This part is not relevant, and makes the sitution worse: it increases the numbers of people who are victimised by racial discrimination. But there is always room for that part of Aff.Action which makes sure that there is outreach to those who have been excluded before, to make sure they are considered.

The New Haven government was/were certainly the "real racists".

"As for 'equal rights' one would think that after all this time there have been more than two (soon to be three) women and two African-Americans serving on our highest court?"

So, what do we do? Do what the past few Presidents have done (in which African Americans, women, other minorities have always been on the short list and have been considered for nominations? That seems reasonable.

Christopher said...

My favorite part of the hearings came when Miss Lindsey Graham went into personal attack mode and tried to pepper Sotomayor with questions from anonymous listings in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.

"When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the second circuit you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament," said Miss Lindsey, and went onto to call her a "bully."

Tomorrow ought to be fun too. I can't wait to see TX Sen. John Conyers make a fool of himself.

I have to say, I think Pat Leahy was overly generous to Miss Lindsey. I've been watching these things for 20 years and I don't ever recall seeing anonymous sources allowed into the official confirmation record.

Christopher said...

DMarks, if you read the brief and the opinions then you clearly failed to understand it. I can't help you with this other than suggest you return to your source and start at the beginning and go slow.

dmarks said...

Christopher: Actually, John Conyers is a Michigan congressman caught up in a bribery scandal.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks wondered:

'So, what do we do?'

In my opinion we continue to provide opportunities for minorities. Integration remains our goal. And that may include using the tool of affirmative action. To do so is simply not 'nothing but racism'.

I find this an excellent discussion. Note #9 in particular.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/#9

Christopher said...

I'll defer to your expertise on TX Republicans.

Who is the one from TX??? The one whose grandparents owned slaves? I'm sure you will know. You may have even voted for him.

dmarks said...

Christopher: I did read it and understand it. It was a clear case of the government vs a citizen's free expression rights.

Arthur said "And that may include using the tool of affirmative action". You have my support as long as no racial discrimination is used.

The link you gave has this summary, and apparently supports it "Pick the African-American neurosurgeon's son (however advantaged he may be) over the white coal miner's son (even if he is the most deserving creature imaginable).". It recommends a blatantly racist decision.

Christopher: I know little about Texas Republicans. But I do know what John Conyers (not from Texas) looks like, what area he represents, and what he sounds like.

Without googling it, the Texan must be John Cornyn (sure of his last name and spelling, not sure of first name). White haired white dude.

Julie's Jewels said...

This woman is symbolic of all the idiocy being rammed through congress right now.She's a left wing activist Trojan Horse.
Being a member of the radical La Raza I would say that it is pretty obvious she fits in like a glove with this Congress and Administration. Revolution 'without a shot!'

Viva la one-world pseudo religion!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Julie's Jewels,

Could you supply some evidence for your claim that La Raza is "radical?"

I mean real evidence and proof of its "radical" agenda--not rightwing opinion based on ignorance that passes for fact.

La Raza is no more radical than the NAACP.

Your fears about a government takeover are grossly irrational.

The majority of the SCOTUS is white Americans as is Congress.

What are you fearful of?

Julie's Jewels said...

You might want to remember the radicals in the women's movement of the 1970s. One of their basic assertions was that women could do things better than men because, well, because they were not men. What Sotomayor said on various occasions, mostly to pimp out her audiences, was simply a variation on that 1970s theme.
And yet Lindsey Graham and the rest of our elected limp wrists will vote to confirm her

dmarks said...

La Raza often gets confused with the "Aztlan" movement. The Aztlan movement is a Latino pro-genocide movement, sort of like Nazis. La Raza denounces these groups.

The unfortunate problem with La Raza is its name, "The Race", which comes across as racist. Time to change the name.

Julie: "And yet Lindsey Graham and the rest of our elected limp wrists"

Christopher called him a woman yesterday. I looked him up on Google and found many people bashing him for being homosexual. Now with this comment, I see that is a common meme.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Julie's Jewels wrote:

"What Sotomayor said on various occasions, mostly to pimp out her audiences, was simply a variation on that 1970s theme."

She said just about the same thing that Judge Alito said when he was being confirmed. He said that as an American of Italian descent, he would have a more empathetic ear to those who came before him with grievances having to do with discrimination. And yet when a white American male said almost the same thing as did Judge Sotomayor, no hurricane of indignation was heard from on the right.

And here are Justice Alito's words to back up my assertion:

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because 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.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. 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. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.


IOW, he's saying that his experience as an American of Italian descent--a group that had in the past experienced discrimination and prejudice--he would have an advantage of understanding those issues as they apply to that particular ethnic group and perhaps make a wiser decision because of his unique background.


Julie, if you want to participate in this discussion, use your facts and logic, and leave out loaded words like "pimp" while referring to a highly qualified candidate for the Supreme Court who happens to be of Puerto Rican heritage.

That sort of talk demeans you more than it does Judge Sotomayor.

Thanks.

Thayer Nutz said...

From Julie's Jewel's blog on Sotomayor:

Taking an oath only means something if you have morals and honor and believe in the God that you are taking the oath to.
This woman is symbolic of all the idiocy being rammed through congress right now.She's a left wing activist Trojan Horse.

She is a Demon-rat, so clearly she does not have morals, honor or a belief in any god except Obama.

So she can lie, lie, lie all she wants. She knows all she has to do is survive and she has the job for life and can fule with all the bias and prejudice that her ''wise'' hispanic female tiny little brain wants to...

Sotomanure would stand on her head with panty-hose flying, cross her eyes, and chatter like a monkey to get confirmed. What makes any conscious person think she wouldn't lie for the job.

The Republicans don't believe Sotomayor? Heck, not even Leahy believes what she said. She can't quote herself, so she doesn't believe herself either, and neither do I!


shaw, JJ is obviously not a person to take seriously--just another hate-filled blogging hack. I wouln't give her the time of day, let alone a place here to spew her invective and illiterate rantings over Sotomayor.

Arthurstone said...

Keep it up GOP Senators.

There is a large, large audience watching you clowns at work.

And an ever decreasing number of them live in Dixie.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Thayer,

I had to visit JJ's blog to believe that this was posted there:

"She is a Demon-rat, so clearly she does not have morals, honor or a belief in any god except Obama.'

In one sentence, JJ tells her readers, based on absolutely NOTHING except her own special brand of fantasy, that Judge Sotomayor has no morals? [what does she base this on? Nothing, I'm assuming] No honor? [This has to be the silliest charge.] And believes in no god except Obama? [How does JJ know this?]

It doesn't get any nuttier than that, does it?

Thank you for informing me of this strange blogger.

I wonder how JJ would like it if someone wrote those awful things about her?

I'm sure she wouldn't like it very much.

Lynne said...

To make a point of how a person's background and life experiences play a part in how they form opinions: Does anyone think for a second that Cheney would support gay marriage if his daughter wasn't gay? No. Of course not, his opinion about gay marriage is changed and is in direct opposition of his political beliefs because of circumstances in his life. This is EXACTLY why diversity on the supreme court is necessary.

dmarks said...

Nice new photo in the upper right. Suggestions for captions:

"I bet I'll do this better than that wimp Bush"

"All I have to do is pitch this right... oh wait, I see a pretty girl in a dress in the first row"

"I dare you to knock this one over the roof of Sarah Palin's house and into Russia!"

------------

Lynne said: " Does anyone think for a second that Cheney would support gay marriage if his daughter wasn't gay?"

Obama campaigned against gay marriage. Does this mean he would have supported it if he had a gay daughter too?

"This is EXACTLY why diversity on the supreme court is necessary"

Your example ends up being an argument against "diversity" as you define it (the willingless to impose personal choices on the whole nation's law system). The justices should rule on the LAW, and not change their mind due to life experiences! If diversity means what you describe (changing views on the law due to personal circumstances, rather than anything meaningful and required by the job), we don't need any of that.

dmarks said...

In other words, excellence and real qualification is a meaningful criterion for a Supreme Court justice. Not a racist/sexist appeal to "diversity".

Arthurstone said...

Go dmarks go.

'In other words, excellence and real qualification is a meaningful criterion for a Supreme Court justice. Not a racist/sexist appeal to "diversity".'

Sounds like you've described Sotomayor to a tee.

As you can see working for diversity isn't 'sexist' or 'racist'. It isn't as if Sotomayor is only the third qualified woman jurist worth of consideration.

dmarks said...

Arthur: Sotomayor and her supporters are making the case that she is qualified due to valid factors such as experience, the Constitution, and the law. As they should.

Not Lynne's idea, that would have her flip-flop on things based on family situations. Lynne's ideal person might make a good legislator, but would completely lack any sort of temperament to be on the Supreme Court.

"As you can see working for diversity isn't 'sexist' or 'racist'."

Entirely aside from this nomination process, "working for diversity" is sexist or racist, if you hire people for their race or gender (instead of real qualifications).

Christopher said...

Beauregard Sessions
Miss Lindsey Graham
John "My grandparents were proud slave owners" Cornyn

They took their turn at the mound and lobbed fast balls, curve balls, change-ups, whacko balls, race balls, and loon balls and they couldn't strike Sonia Sotomayor out.

The Bentley and Simon Robe Factory in Salem, VA is just waiting for the phone call from Sonia Sotomayor placing the order for a dozen justice robes.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

You are 100% right Shaw, Julie's Jewel's is a hateful person. I agree with you completely. The way I see it is pride not only in your country, but in your race and your family that makes Americans what they are. When your proud of something you feel pleasure or satisfaction over something. for example Im proud to be an African American not because I have pride but because I'm proud of my Black history.
My president is Black and I’m proud of him.
And when I think of my Black History, Let us Not forget

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Malcolm X
Medgar Evans
Rosa Parks
Emitt Till
Huey P. Newton
Stokely Carmichael
Assata Shakur
Angela Davis
Linda Brown
Ruby Bridges
Homer Plessy
Dred Scott
Nat Turner
Harriet Tubman
Jackie Roberson
Ralph Abernathy
I have no problem with being proud. Heck, I was out in the Harlem streets whooping it up with my friends, hugging strangers, and totally devouring the moment of ecstasy that came over the crowd when Barack became the projected winner over John McCaine.I feel that he is really breaking down more walls for all of us so we can have the courage and strength to make a better way in this country.
. Yes I’m black and I’m proud; but knowing that Barack is the world’s choice is a part of understanding that he’s much bigger than his blackness. Barack’s blackness is huge; but his humanity is even bigger.

In history you have dynamic human beings, who transcend race. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Oprah, and now President Obama.
So Julie's Jewel's you know where you can stick your hateful blog.
I believe we as Black people have earned a right to be PROUD. Why not be proud of a man so eloquent, humble, poised and who brings people of all backgrounds together? The fact that he happens to be Black… is only icing on the cake!

dmarks said...

Grey: You named a real bad person in there. Angela Davis. Soviet operatives like her meant both black and white people a great deal of harm.

But of course there are names that can be added to the list, like Doug Wilder, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, and Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali.

All African-Americans who advanced, overcame, and broke barriers. Regardless of what party or political affiliation one associates them with.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

I have an entirely different perspective about the Obama presidency and what it represents.

Understand that Obama was supported by whites NOT BECAUSE he was black and NOT BECAUSE of his ideals but foremost because he was an Ivy-Leaguer WITH a socioeconomic affiliation that they gave credence to. But mostly because the whites knew better than to support an old outdated fart like John McCain.

This Obama victory does not mean that America is no longer racist. Far from it.
I keep reading blogs of black people saying that “now the barriers are shattered” and they are living on Fantasy Island because NOOOOO the class barriers are not shattered and a black boy from the projects has the same probability of being gunned down by the age of 18 as he did BEFORE November 4th… black women have the same probability of dying from HIV as they did BEFORE November 4th.

I am happy that you are happy for his victory but Obama will not change how blacks are viewed in this country as long as classism is alive and well.

As for Lynne's comment, I don't know if she is Black or White, but I do know that she is clueless, her comments make no sense at all.
Do you think that Black people should THANK white people for voting for a black guy? There will always be some form of racism. We can never escape it.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

Yes, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, and Dennis Rodman. I'm not sure I'd agree with you on Clarence Thomas,or Michael Steele.
Glad you had time to drop by. It's been a while since I've heard from you.

Anonymous said...

Lynne's comment was about Dick Cheney and the fact that he most certainly is influenced by the fact that he has a gay daughter and that influence leads him to support gay marriage and gay rights.



Lynne said nothing about racial issues.

Lynne said...

dmarks: You are exhausting and not in a good way. If you are married, may I say that your wife must be a saint. I'm sure she's entitled to an opinion as long as it's yours.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

Anonymous (Lynne) said..."Lynne said nothing about racial issues."

I think that I am smart enough to know that.
I know the difference between a racial issue and a gay issue. It's racial issues that continue to plague the whole country, not gays or gay marriages.
Still, my comment holds.

dmarks said...

Good point: "But mostly because the whites knew better than to support an old outdated fart like John McCain."

The age difference trumped issues in this election.

Lynne: Do you have a point? Probably not. You did not dispute the facts I presented.

Grey: I don't think Rodman broke any ground, or distinguished himself other than becoming a famous trashy celebrity worthy of C-list reality shows.

"This Obama victory does not mean that America is no longer racist."

If "has racists in it" is what means that a country is racist, then this will never change. You won't find a country in the world without racists in it.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

dmarks said...Grey: I don't think Rodman broke any ground, or distinguished himself other than becoming a famous trashy celebrity worthy of C-list reality shows.

No he did not, but he stood up for what he was.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

dmarks we forgot the great Willie Mays.

H.R. said...

"Justice [Sandra Day] 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."–Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 2001

"But I can just tell you one thing: If I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over."–Lindsey Graham, Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, July 13, 2009

So true, Lindseypoo! In fact, you were a Latina, I’m very sure you never would even have had a Senate career, as South Carolina likes its senators male and white. But just imagine, Lindseypoo, the possibilities if you were a Latina! You could be a star!

Arthurstone said...

H.R.-

We have received this transmission. Somebody just nudge you awake?

Over.

dmarks said...

Arthur: I'm wondering if it is H.R. Clinton, H.R. Perot, or H.R. Pufnstuf.

Any guesses?

Whoever he is, he seems to be waxing racist about Latinas.