Rush pulling the racism card on the judge lady?

[Tev]

So yeah, I heard about this yesterday. Apparently Supreme Court nominee to-be, Sotomayor, said some things a while back that somehow Rush and Newt thought were racist. As my roommate summed it up for me; "Rush said that if some business case came to court, and the plaintiff/defendant was like some Asian/Mexican combo, then she'd side with the Mexican because she's Mexican. Apparently only old white guys can be impartial."

That of course made me laugh a little. Anyway, here's a more journalistic look at the situation at hand.

In her 2001 speech in California, Sotomayor said: "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."

Conservatives seized on the quote to argue that Sotomayor, 54, is an activist liberal judge who would place racial and ethnic characterizations above the law in her decisions. In private meetings with senators, Sotomayor has insisted she would follow the law, not personality, in reaching decisions.

But the remarks became part of the debate over whether she should be elevated from the federal appeals court to the Supreme Court. Led by Gingrich and Limbaugh, conservatives called Sotomayor a racist.

But Sessions added he was still concerned about Sotomayor's past statement because it raised questions. "It's inevitable that your personal views would affect your decision-making," Sessions said. "And to me, that's directly contrary to our great history of blind justice in America."

Hah...ahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

So yeah, where do we draw the line at reverse racism?

[Fifthfiend]

Just so it's clear upfront the speech they're spot-quoting actually runs:

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.

She was saying that a Latina woman judge who has had experience with sexism and racism would probably issue better rulings on sexism and racism.

So yeah it's unshocking that racists like Limbaugh and Newt would be opposed to her.

[Tev]

Thanks Fifth. I was looking for where they stole that byte from.

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

She was saying that a Latina woman judge who has had experience with sexism and racism would probably issue better rulings on sexism and racism.

So yeah it's unshocking that racists like Limbaugh and Newt would be opposed to her

It IS, how DARE she assert that someone knows more about racism than white people!
REVERSE RACISM!

[Kepor]

This is politics. Of course race is a factor. Everything is a factor. I'm still reading about Sotomayor, so I don't have a real opinion one way or another. She has a decent amount of experience, so that's a good thing.

Wanted to post an interesting article I found: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-04e10199a085

Don't know where that site is politically, but I thought it was worth reading.

edit again: Judicial experience, I mean.

and again: another article from the same place that says Sotomayor should be confirmed: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...d-d6f1ba708867

[Fifthfiend]

No problem. Rush and Newt and their ilk have been trolling on this subject for a while now.

Incidentally, link.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Edit: Misunderstood the Original post.


I find it incredbile that Rush maintains his support from the Republican part at this point. The man is a radio talk show host. What possible reason do they have to listen to what he has to say on a political issue, let alone actively allow him to speak for an entire party.

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by grthwllms

Edit: Misunderstood the Original post.


I find it incredbile that Rush maintains his support from the Republican part at this point. The man is a radio talk show host. What possible reason do they have to listen to what he has to say on a political issue, let alone actively allow him to speak for an entire party.

Because as the last Grand Old Party candidate showed us, they buy into the Bushisms that Rush dearly adores. It's a lot easier to stick blame on people and then bomb the shit out of them and claim it's in the name of democracy than to acknowledge the truth that many people in both countries we're invading have been oppressed for so long giving them choices is almost unheard of. It's a lot easier to push someone into the spotlight and say it's their fault rather than give them a hand so they can do something about it themselves. The vitriolic hate Rush is famous for, the McCarthy-esque patriotic fervor he inspires, and the abandonment of ration thinking he subtly encourages is what inspires a lot- not all - but a lot of the Republican party today.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by grthwllms

I find it incredbile that Rush maintains his support from the Republican part at this point. The man is a radio talk show host. What possible reason do they have to listen to what he has to say on a political issue, let alone actively allow him to speak for an entire party.

He is pretty entertaining. Although I'm split between calling him a racist or not (I have seen the top ten list and have also been listening at the time when half of those quotes were said...quoted out of context in the midst of a joke, usually impersonating someone else). He also quotes news stories that I never would have heard in the first place and links them all on his website along with his full transcript. I think part of his eagerness to call not only Sotomayor, but the entire Democratic party in power racists stems from when Clarence Thomas and Roberto Gonzalez were destroyed during their hearings. Didn't a memo come out stating that one of the reasons to block one of them was because they were hispanic? I'll try to dig it up, but I've heard that more than once.

Not to make excuses for the guy, him calling her a flat-out racist is over the line. He really should be more interested in her other statement about how policy is made from the bench. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the law, not make the law.

I'm also getting a little tired of the coverage of her. Sure she has a trillion times as much schooling and experience as the average court appointee, but really, stop talking about her "story". A rags to riches tale shouldn't be a requirement for the SC. Either way, just let her through.

[Edit] I've been honestly debating whether to just jump ship and go independant, if for nothing more than to avoid all the damn generalizing from BOTH sides.

Actually, I withdraw my "just let her through". She's been overturned 60% of the time. But then, wouldn't that mean the rest of the judges sitting with her were as well?

[Fifthfiend]

The first TNR piece you link has been roundly derided as gossipy bullshit that bears no relation to anything any knowledgeble non-anonymous person has ever said about the woman, which would make it pretty bad even if the author himself didn't cap it off by outright admitting that he had no business writing the piece in the first place.

See

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.co...s-utterly.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxf...diversity.aspx