Rush pulling the racism card on the judge lady?

[Mannix]

Wait, don't we disqualify people from serving on juries for trials of certain crimes if they themselves have been victims of that crime? Like, for example, not letting rape victims sit on a jury for a rape trial. If that is the case, how would it be different for a judge than for a juror?

Edit: Also, I kind of disagree with her quote. I don't think people need to have been on the receiving end of something to know it's bad. To the best of my memory Lincoln was never a slave. Common sense and empathy (one of Obama's major requirements for appointees) are pretty much all that's needed.

[Wigmund]

I'm surprised Rush's head hasn't imploded due to his sheer hypocrisy.
Top Ten Rush Limbaugh Racist Quotes.
Hell, there may be websites devoted to listing all of Limbaugh's racist, idiotic quotes - but I can't find 'em right now.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Mannix

Wait, don't we disqualify people from serving on juries for trials of certain crimes if they themselves have been victims of that crime? Like, for example, not letting rape victims sit on a jury for a rape trial. If that is the case, how would it be different for a judge than for a juror?

Edit: Also, I kind of disagree with her quote. I don't think people need to have been on the receiving end of something to know it's bad. To the best of my memory Lincoln was never a slave. Common sense and empathy (one of Obama's major requirements for appointees) are pretty much all that's needed.

To part 1: We also don't (as far as I know) let people convicted of crimes sit on juries, so why do we allow perpetrators of racism and sexism to sit on the court? If they're not disqualified by their experience of benefiting from and extending racism and sexism, then what's the objection to people who have experienced and want to end racism and sexism?

To part 2: You would hope they wouldn't need those things, but then, over a hundred years after Lincoln we still have our nearly all white, nearly all male Supreme Court handing down rulings about how it's okay to limit women's medical options because they're just not capable of making decisions for themselves. So maybe they need a little more help with these things than they're getting.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

To part 1: We also don't (as far as I know) let people convicted of crimes sit on juries, so why do we allow perpetrators of racism and sexism to sit on the court? If they're not disqualified by their experience of benefiting from and extending racism and sexism, then what's the objection to people who have experienced and want to end racism and sexism?

To part 2: You would hope they wouldn't need those things, but then, over a hundred years after Lincoln we still have our nearly all white, nearly all male Supreme Court handing down rulings about how it's okay to limit women's medical options because they're just not capable of making decisions for themselves. So maybe they need a little more help with these things than they're getting.

to part 1: an interesting point, but it doesn't really answer the question i initially posed (i am genuinely curious, it isn't a rhetorical question). of course i think that people that have committed crimes shouldn't be seated or who are even openly biased against a race or gender, and granted that would preclude a large portion of our current bench, but then it might arguably (not necessarily by me) preclude Sotomayor as well. i also recognize how difficult it is to find people that aren't 'tainted' by that sort of thing.

to part 2: and appointing a woman or a black or whatever doesn't guarantee that it will fix the problem. appointing people with an opposite bias in order to create some sort of pseudo balance creates problems in the other direction (i mean in a general sense, not directly in rebut to your example). what we need are decent, level-headed folks, not just "a woman" or "an hispanic."

[Gorefiend]

In an abstract sense, as a lower-upper-middle-class Americanized (more colloquially, whitewashed) Latino, I find that whenever someone says that because my skin's a little browner and my hair thicker and curlier I can't perform at the same level as a white person, I feel offended. Having grown up elsewhere, I find American's focus on race rather than social circumstance appalling, both when racism comes along and when people come along to 'undo' racism. Of course, the solution isn't to stop everything from both ends; people won't stop being racist overnight, the shift in focus won't happen overnight, but it'd be nice if we could remember that just being black or hispanic, on its own, without any other circumstance, can be quite meaningless. Saying things like that we need "a hispanic" or "a black person" on the Supreme Court (or any other body) just because is, to me, in the same vein of offensive as saying that I deserve an award for performing as well as a white person.

In the concrete, in part due to the race thinking I mentioned above, as well as due to historical economic factors, blacks and hispanics more often than not DO have different biographies. Sotomayor certainly does. Her experience as a hispanic has actually been one that ought to matter, and while she may seem keenly aware of this, she IS a judge, she IS meant to be a thinker and interpreter. I'd have more of a problem if she weren't introspective enough to realize that, and apparently she brought it up without hubris, as a fact like any other. This is good, acceptable, and fine.

As for her record of being overturned, we ought to look into both what the average record of overturns is and whether she was overturned for good reasons or foul reasons. If an abolitionist judge got overturned a lot by the Taney Court (of the famous Dred Scott v. Sanford) we wouldn't hold it against him (though understandably there may be choices which would represent more of a compromise).

[Kepor]

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

As for her record of being overturned, we ought to look into both what the average record of overturns is and whether she was overturned for good reasons or foul reasons. If an abolitionist judge got overturned a lot by the Taney Court (of the famous Dred Scott v. Sanford) we wouldn't hold it against him (though understandably there may be choices which would represent more of a compromise).

As far as her record of being overturned goes, during the time she spent on the 2nd District, the Supreme Court heard five of her cases and overturned three, so 60%. Which isn't really a high rate, considering the Supreme Court usually overturns a higher number of the cases it hears.

[Magus]

In my mind this is basically a non-issue, because the GOP and Rush Limbaugh would have attacked anyone that Obama wishes to appoint. And pulling the "reverse racism" card is just the thing for the GOP to attempt to get white America jerking their knees every which way. It is an absurd attack but is anyone actually surprised by it? After all, its coming from Jeff Sessions and Rush Limbaugh, and usually the first people to scream "reverse racism" are, you guessed it, racists.

[Mannix]

This is a bit of an aside, but can we (as a society) stop calling non-white racists reverse racists? They're just plain old regular racists.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Mannix

to part 1: an interesting point, but it doesn't really answer the question i initially posed (i am genuinely curious, it isn't a rhetorical question). of course i think that people that have committed crimes shouldn't be seated or who are even openly biased against a race or gender, and granted that would preclude a large portion of our current bench, but then it might arguably (not necessarily by me) preclude Sotomayor as well. i also recognize how difficult it is to find people that aren't 'tainted' by that sort of thing.

If we were going to bar people who benefitted from racism and sexism we'd be kicking out every seated justice aside from Ginsberg and maybe Thomas who would then be kicked off under your standard of booting people for having been victims of it. You can't have a test for office that invalidates people based on having experienced one side or the other for having experienced racism and sexism because you would be invalidating basically every single living human being everywhere in the entire world. Looking for people who aren't tainted by this sort of thing is "difficult" in the same way that it's difficult to find people who haven't been tainted by breathing oxygen. Which is exactly why you want a diverse Supreme Court - human experience is diverse and different experiences lead people to view things in different ways and you want that range of experiences represented when you've got nine people making decisions that impact the entire country and even at times the entire dang world.

[Magus]

Mannix:My point was more often than not those called "reverse racists" or just "racists" who are members of a minority are quite often not racist at all but are simply the target of actual racists. I'm fine with calling racists racists, but not with calling people who aren't actually racist racist simply to propagate a person's own racist agenda.

Coincidentally, here's a link to an article on Jeff Sessions. Not quite the equal of good old Rush, of course, but an elected official should worry people more than a shock jock.