You want proof that Sotomayor is a bigoted racist of the worst kind?

Read her hate speech. It really doesn’t matter where you start because sooner or later she always gets around to it. Offering no proof. No polls. No logic.

Yet, you support her like, in 1938, a European country gone crazy once supported a mad man.

Slaughter the unborn she says. Put the second amendment in a paper shredder. Keep white men off the court. If you really lap up this bigoted, racist, sexist hate speech like it sounds you do, there’s only one thing I’ve got left to say. I genuinely feel sorry for you.

You must be a supremely tortured soul.

You have my sympathy,
Rachel

Finally, I think that Sotmayor has amply demonstrated she is a wise Latina. She is obviously not a ranter. You must hate to be constantly on the loosing side. But at least to derive succor from the wingnuts here.

I read what you write, and it seems to me you’re a little more than a tad guilty of what you accuse me of. Es decir, not backing up arguments sic, allegations with proof points.

You my little twit head, argue in conclusions. And when you do write what sounds like a proof point, it makes no sense.

Here’s a prime example, which to my way of thining makes you prima facie guilty of hypocritcal stupidity.

Fact is, I was quoting political journalist, Bob Ellis, who wrote:

“Obama-like, Sotomayor’s Legal Realism stands for the notion that the facts and the judge’s personality are the SOLE determinants of a case’s outcome”

An expression of his opinion, Ellis made perfect sense. You can disagree with him, but there is no logic problem with his words.

There is with yours.

193. The Shadow:

Statements like this one “Obama-like, Sotomayor’s Legal Realism stands for the notion that the facts and the judge’s personality are the SOLE determinants of a case’s outcome.” demonstrate your (Rachel’s I assume) talent for making things up. You are so eager,- well I guess in full rant logic goes out the window- win the argument you get sloppy.

Shadow, you write and I quote, “win the argument you get sloppy.”

Are there missing words here? A typo? The words have the the substance of fog. Are you accusing me of sloppy thinking?

Putting sloppy thinking aside for a moment, (which I realize isn’t easy for you to do, permit me to present you with an example of racist thinking.

In making judicial decisions, the experience of a wise white man will likely lead to better decision-making than that of a Latina woman.

What a bunch of pompous sexist bigotry.

Here’s another bit of pompous sexist bigotry that I fear tastes sweeter to you.

“The experience of a wise Latina will likely lead to better decision-making than that of a white man. Which of course is a direct quote of Sotomayor.

If you don’t get the point I’m making, then I think it’s pointless to continue this dialogue.

You are going to have trouble when you enter the real world where you have to back up your opinion with facts. I am going to feel sorry for your clients. “RP ‘My opponent is a socialist, judge and therefore he is working against the US.’ Judge – ‘What is your evidence.’ RP – ‘Evidence Judge. I just asserted she is a socialist. That is my evidence’ – Judge ‘Case dismissed’”

See me again in 10 years when you grow up, if you ever do. I doubt if wingnuts ever do. The similarities with other fantasists like those who believe we never really landed on the moon is striking

“Then you (rachel peepers)jump to the following conclusion: “Obama ….tells us what radio people not to listen to, says, when it comes to race, we are a nation of cowards.”

“I am not sure what you are referring to about radio listening. There are some real nuts out there preaching hatred, but we live in a free society and I think the nuts can never convince the majority of the wisdom of their nuttyness.”

Rachel:

Shadow, don’t you listen to the news on TV or read the newspapers? Or do you suffer from memory lapses?

Shadow, crazy talk spews from you like someone who’s scheduled for a colonoscopy the next day and has to drink bottles of that awful stuff the night before.

(rachel continues)

Shadow,

Or, don’t you know what I mean? I mean, how many times can you play the {I have no idea what you’re talking about}ignorance card, when everybody here knows precisely what the Peepers girl is ranting about.

But I’ll play your little game and spell it out for you.

“By Bob Ellis on January 24th, 2009″

{President Barack Obama is making it clear what it takes to get anywhere in his town.}

From the New York Post: January 23, 2009

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

(Back to Bob Ellis)

“I think that much is a given. If someone is listening to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis–and not for opposition research–they are probably not going to be too keen on President Obama’s radical socialist agenda.

People who are serious about Republican values of individual freedom, personal responsibility, the free market, limited government, strong defense, and the traditional values that made us the greatest nation on earth…folks like this just aren’t going to get along well with folks proposing Marxist ideas that are in total opposition to the principles of Americanism.”

Me? (Bob Ellis) I plan to continue listening to Rush Limbaugh. I’m not interested in playing footsie or having cheese and crackers with Marxists. Sooner or later, those who believe in American values will be back in charge again.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

When Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) complained about the spending plan, Obama shot back, “I won,” adding, “I will trump you on that.”

(Rachel continues)

Shadow person:

I could isolate every point you dearly try to make and explain why you’re writing is as disingenuous as a President who promises not to have earmarks in legislation; than signs a bill overflowing with more earmarks that any previous bill in the history of the country.

If you really believe Sotomayor is about the red white and blue, hot dogs, mom and apple pie, then you must spend your time in Al Gore’s basement with a flashlight searching for all those hanging chads.

Sotomayor thinks there’s a right to privacy in the constitution that gives women the right to slaughter the unborn. Shadow, why don’t you enlighten us all and tell us exactly where it is.

Sotomayor thinks white men are inferior when it comes to interpreting the constitution.

Doesn’t that make even you, Shadow, wince a bit? I mean, doesn’t that sound just a smidgen racist?

Back to news person talk:

And I quote.

President Barack Obama’s nomination of United States Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to succeed retiring Supreme Court justice David Souter has roused some controversy. Critics have latched onto her comments about the advantages she believes that her ethnic background and sex give her over white male judges in performing the judicial function. Less commonly noted, however, has been the evidence her record provides concerning exactly what she thinks the judicial role is.

Sotomayor is a devotee of Legal Realism. That early-twentieth-century school of judicial thought amounts to this: Judges bound by law? Get real! In a 1996 speech at Boston’s Suffolk University Law School, Sotomayor embraced the main tenets of Legal Realism: that law is perforce indeterminate, and that lawyers’ role must be to shepherd the legal system to more and more progressive pastures. She encouraged her audience to teach non-lawyers that there was no avoiding the indeterminacy of the law, and so that indeterminacy ought to be taken as a perpetual invitation for judges to better society.

In short, Sotomayor subscribes to the idea that judges’ role is inescapably legislative. In fact, she stresses that some of society’s great advances came through judicial legislation.

Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School’s grey eminence of judicial imperialism, called Barack Obama the best student he had ever had. The skeptical were forewarned, then, that Obama would tend to nominate people for judicial posts who intended to use their positions as legislative, rather than solely judicial, offices. Obama himself gave additional support to this fear when he said that besides legal reasoning in 95% of cases, judges must be prepared to be guided by “empathy” in the 5% in which legal reasoning alone was not enough.

Not enough for what? Alas, not enough to reach the “right” conclusion. Obama infamously said that what he meant by “empathy” was willingness to rule “correctly” in cases involving affirmative action, abortion, and congressional claims to virtually unlimited legislative power under the Commerce Clause (second amendment attack) where “the constitutional text will not be directly on point” (that is, where the Constitution does not lead to the outcome Obama desires). Obama-like, Sotomayor’s Legal Realism stands for the notion that the facts and the judge’s personality are the sole determinants of a case’s outcome.

It seems to be what Judge Sotomayor has in mind when she says that the experience of a wise Latina will likely lead to better decision-making than that of a white man, and when she laments the demographic makeup of the federal judiciary.

If she thought that judging was judicial, Sotomayor would not care what the ethnic background, class background, or sex of a particular judge was.

Judge Sotomayor, alas, shares her patron’s disdain for the very idea of law. And make no mistake about it, Legal Realism is a fancy name for denial of the very idea that the people through their elected representatives can tell government officials what to do and expect them to do it. John Adams said that the Americans wanted to establish a government of laws, not of men; according to Legal Realists, the men are the laws.” End quote

Back to Rachel:

Or in Sotomayor’s case, the women.

Shadow, most everybody you disagree with you call wingnuts. Well, did it ever occur to you that well intentioned Americans can disagree with being disagreeable. Maybe you’re right. Maybe Sotomayor isn’t a racist, unborn killing machine, second amendment/constitutional shredder.

However, until you make a well reasoned, cogent argument why Soto should be made a member of the Supremes, I’ve got to believe even without a law school education, that a better supreme court judge would be Diana Ross.