192 Comments

1. Instapundit » Blog Archive » ILYA SOMIN ON THE SOTOMAYOR PICK: “My general sense is that she is very liberal, and thus likely to…:

[...] Plus, thoughts from Roger Kimball. [...]

May 26, 2009 - 7:13 am 2. Pajamas Media » Why You Should Oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s Nomination to the Supreme Court:

[...] the entire story here [...]

May 26, 2009 - 7:20 am 3. Cybergeezer:

Where’s the mullah?

May 26, 2009 - 7:23 am 4. Stop The ACLU:

Video: Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor: Judges Make Policy…

You can bet this video will be a sticking point in the fight about to happen. At least it should be.
Partial transcript:
This month…a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 [during a panel discussion for law students] that a ‘court …

May 26, 2009 - 7:27 am 5. Fred Beloit:

She calls herself a Latina with a “richer” background than any white man. This is good. Having a good grounding in the dead language of Latin must be a valuable asset for a high justice. And, having a lot of empathy for the white man couldn’t hurt either. Congratulations, your honor.

May 26, 2009 - 7:33 am 6. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:

Bleating about blocking nominees from the same MSM that didn’t say anything about Bush’s in 5.. 4.. 3..

May 26, 2009 - 7:37 am 7. Andy from San Diego:

What a surprise. NOT hard to see this coming. As David Brinkley said of Bill Clinton, “This guy is a bore”.

May 26, 2009 - 7:39 am 8. ricpic:

The main thing is to be a consistent lefty foot soldier. In that respect Sotomayor is perfect from the Dem perspective. Her mediocrity will make her a totally reliable activist voter on the court.

May 26, 2009 - 7:45 am 9. vrob125:

Jeffrey Rosen’s article was poorly written–poorly sourced, and looked like a pile of gossip. He has already been informed that he can do better from many of his colleagues and readers–you might want to find a higher quality of source of information for your articles in the future unless you want to lose credibility.
Sotomayer received her A.B. from Princeton–Summa Cum Laude. Is Princeton known for graduating people with that profile who have a “lack of brains”? She was also an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Would you have called a white man with these credentials “not that smart”? I don’t think so. It would not have occurred to you.

Check your sources in the future. This article looks petty, sexist, and racist. You too can do better.

May 26, 2009 - 7:45 am 10. WhyamInotsurprised?:

Sotomayors’ comment about “making policy” at the Appellate level is very telling, and all I need to know about her. That single statement fits nicely with BHO’s intent. But it is against the Constitution, not that a little thing like that would stop ‘ol Barry.

Surely someone can compile a list of her “accomplishments” that support her video statement. I look forward to hearing more from our “conservative” representatives in Wash. DC, and others who know how to dig into the legal field. Mark Levin should have some good insights into this woman’s liberal treachery.

May 26, 2009 - 7:51 am 11. Northern Light:

Republicans have been opposing Obama’s choice for the Supreme COurt for weeks now. I guess they’re happy that they now know the identity of the person they’ve been opposing.

May 26, 2009 - 7:53 am 12. misanthropicus:

From: Cato Institute
In Re: Sotomayor:

“Obama’s Sotomayor Nomination: Identity Politics over Merit/Posted by Ilya Shapiro

In picking Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit.
Judge Sotomayor is not one of the leading lights of the federal judiciary and would not even have been on the shortlist if she were not Hispanic.
She has a mixed reputation, with a questionable temperament and no particularly important opinions in over 10 years on the Second Circuit. Most notably, she was part of the panel that summarily affirmed the dismissal of Ricci v. DeStefano, where the City of New Haven denied firefighter promotions based on an admittedly race-neutral exam whose results did not yield the “correct” racial mix of successful candidates. Sotomayor’s colleague José Cabranes—a liberal Democrat—excoriated the panel’s actions and the Supreme Court will likely reverse the ruling next month.
If this is the kind of “empathy” the president wants from his judges, we are in for a long summer—and more bitter confirmation battles in the future. [...]
-*-

May 26, 2009 - 7:59 am 13. Fred Beloit:

#9
“Is Princeton known for graduating people with that profile who have a “lack of brains”?

Hahaha. I don’t know. But say, didn’t Michelle Obama once write a thesis about herself there?

May 26, 2009 - 8:00 am 14. susan:

“Sotomayer received her A.B. from Princeton–Summa Cum Laude. Is Princeton known for graduating people with that profile who have a “lack of brains”? ”

yes, michelle obama.

May 26, 2009 - 8:03 am 15. Alex Bensky:

Being a Latina she has, per se, richer experience than a Jew, or an Appalachian of poor white background, or someone whose extraction is Italian? Why? And why isn’t this considered simple racism?

May 26, 2009 - 8:03 am 16. WhyamInotsurprised?:

#9 vrob125 – I believe Mr. Kimball stated that he received inputs from people she has worked with in the past. As to gossip and you looking like a poor writer-researcher, you state that “He has already been informed that he can do better from many of his colleagues and readers.” Says who? We are to believe you. Who are your sources?

In any case, Sotomayor being a lib indicates a major malfunction. Your presumed Institutions of Higher Learning are liberal and so long as someone can spout the liberal line, well, why wouldn’t that institution glory in advancing the career of a woman minority?

The telling evidence of her stupidity is the video, you idiot. She admits on video, for the world to see, what her operating principles are. It is this line of thinking that makes her a less than acceptable candidate for SCOTUS. Intelligence aside, we need intellectual honesty in applying the law and interpreting the constitution, not making liberal policy.

May 26, 2009 - 8:05 am 17. David Thomson:

Sonia Sotomayor is another shallow and poorly read individual who graduated from an “elite” university—just like Barack Obama. This is almost becoming the norm. To be blunt, the woman is obviously a dummy. Sotomayor benefits from white guilt and the lowered academic standard prevalently found in modern day academic life. The fact that she embraces identity politics should alone disqualify her.

May 26, 2009 - 8:14 am 18. fred:

Yea. They should have nominated Karl Rove, or maybe Dick Chaney (he’s still looking for a job). Well if these two don’t suit your intellectual requirements, maybe good old George will…he’s embodied and exemplified the Republican intellect very well. Wouldn’t you agree? Or do you still think Alberto Gonzalez would have been a better pick? And while we are at it, it would be nice to see what academic credentials you can show for. Perhaps we can nominate you?

May 26, 2009 - 8:22 am 19. Sebastian Shaw:

President Obama would have been better of nominating a transgendered hermaphrodite half white, half black Italian, Spanish, & Canadian “female” if he wants to play Identity Politics.

As for Sonia Sotomayor, she is a Leftist demagogue just like President Obama, another Pod person who is a shallow as they come. She would drown in her own metaphors if she went into the deeper waters…

May 26, 2009 - 8:22 am 20. Macko:

whyi’mnotsurprised?

ya beat me to it.

What we need on that bench are judges that interpret the constitution. They can be left, right, black, brown or whatever but, their job is to interpret the constitution.

May 26, 2009 - 8:24 am 21. Robbins Mitchell:

Ah,no,not the ‘first Hispanic’ nominee to the SCOTUS….that would be Justice Benjamin Cardozo…of Portuguese ancestry…nominated by Herbert Hoover in 1932

May 26, 2009 - 8:26 am 22. scott:

Whatayawannabet the pubbies on the Judicial Committee take a pass? They’ll just figure its a losing proposition and lay down. This is who they are.

May 26, 2009 - 8:26 am 23. Ed Wallis:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

Dear Alex #15,

It’s only, as you say, “simple racism” when a “privileged” white male says something so bigoted…when someone like Sonia says it, it’s supposed to be “cultural pride” these days….

May 26, 2009 - 8:30 am 24. Jay:

Sonia Sotomayor is a racist like her President and his wife. She’s perfect in their eyes and the eyes of guilt ridden whites everywhere. Afterall that is how the man got elected,why is anyone surprised by any of this.Hopefully the spineless and odius members of the GOP will finally come to their senses but I won’t hold my breath.

May 26, 2009 - 8:33 am 25. Robbins Mitchell:

“The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Maloney vs Cuomo

This woman has no clue at all as to the substance of the Constitution or the original intent of the founders

May 26, 2009 - 8:34 am 26. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Oh! Great!

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. — Sotomayor

We’ve got ourselves a Supreme Court nominee who is both a racist AND a sexist.

Can’t get any ‘better’ than THAT!

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I 'hope' you're all enjoying the 'change'....]

May 26, 2009 - 8:36 am 27. Scwharzkopf's Ghost:

It looks like she said, “I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it.” I know that happened after the first ten seconds and we’re not supposed to try and remember anything that happens after that because it will hurt our brains. Sorry, for bringing it up.

May 26, 2009 - 8:37 am 28. Captain Spalding:

She’s a racist and a sexist, but since she is “PC” she can get away with it.

As a white man, I demand the same rights as a black, lesbian, handicapped person. If nothing else, I could joke like that and no one would say anything.

May 26, 2009 - 8:40 am 29. misanthropicus:

RE #9/vrob125: [...] Sotomayer received her A.B. from Princeton–Summa Cum Laude. Is Princeton known for graduating people with that profile who have a “lack of brains”? She was also an editor of the Yale Law Journal. [...]

Cher vrob125:
1) As far as how Sotomayor’s merits that made her eligible for that school, since her school records are not available (like the Obama Two’s), we cannot but suspect that she is a sorry case of oppression rectified, i.e. an incompetent being promoted while countless other better qualified candidates are left aside;
2) as far as the Princeton/ Summa Cum Laude thing: like Harvard, Princeton has a friendly approach to graduation, and Summa Cum Laude means only that you generally were around and graduated in the top… 50% of the class, situation hardly adding honor to her meritless, prior admission.

2) While I don’t know Michelle Obama’s Princeton graduation title, I suspect that she was also observed in the campus, and, accordingly, received a Magna Cum Laude certificate – however, I’ll add here that I READ a few pages from Michelle Obama’s graduation thesis at Priceton, and I, like countless others, found it barely deserving high school “C”.
Do y/self and your cause a service and don’t compare Sotomayor with Michelle Obama – Michelles Obama’s work is sheer garbage.
3) “editor at Princeton Law”: it seems that if a pansexual Buddhist Muslim Pygmy or other uber-diverse, oppressed combination is enrolled at Princeton, Yale or Harvard, it is simply unavoidable for that person not to end up appointed as editor or president of the local Law Review – as Obama glorious tenure at Harvard Law well shows.
As far as the authentic scholar work and philosophical breadth in these situations – the pansexual Buddhist Muslim Pygmy solves everything.

May 26, 2009 - 8:41 am 30. Daniel:

to vrob125
One of the disadvantages of “Affirmative Action is that it calls into question the abilities of all whose accomplishments may be consequences in part of Affirmative Action rather than of the talent and hard work required of ordinary folk.
In Ms.Sotomayor’s case this means we have to judge her by her behavior after her education and not by perhaps tainted academic credentials.

May 26, 2009 - 8:42 am 31. Momma of 4:

The ability to earn good grades and graduate with an honored degree does not necessarily indicate the ability to use common sense and logic on a daily basis. IMO, intelligence and education are two different things. However, it has been stated, and I’m sure will have to be stated again, that the simple fact that she embraces identity politics as the tool for judgement instead of the rule of law is alone enough to disqualify her.

By the way, as a mixed race (American Indian, Black, & Scottish) woman, I found his article neither sexist nor racist. I do however find the initial qualifications set down by Mr. Obama to be both sexist and racist. If he wanted to achieve true gender and racial neutrality, then these two identifiers would never have made their way onto his list of qualifications.

May 26, 2009 - 8:45 am 32. karlstro1:

This country is now in full motion to the dumbing down of rights and protection under the Constitution. Obama has has cracked open the the wall surrounding the Constitution and we will now see the beginning of judges hell bent on creating new law and dictating a country as they see it in their own mind. The era of PC and this particular appointment is disgusting.

May 26, 2009 - 8:48 am 33. tanstaafl:

The Court of Appeals, said Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, “is where policy is made.”

“My Latina rich experience trumps your white male rich experience.”

So much for “blind” justice.

May 26, 2009 - 8:51 am 34. billslayer:

Lets be logical about this! Lets play a game called, “Is this statement racist?”

A.)“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”
B.)“I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life”
Which one is RACIST? For answering correctly you win a seat on the Supreme Court!

May 26, 2009 - 9:03 am 35. ~Paules:

Ask the average American the difference between the rule of law and judicial activism and you’re likely to get a blank stare. Ditto that if you ask which branch of government is responsible for writing our laws. A republic cannot survive without an informed and engaged citizenry, so you can blame the American people if we should fall under rule by the bench. Conservatives have little right to complain when they failed to make judicial appointments an issue during the last election. Now we are stuck with the results.

May 26, 2009 - 9:07 am 36. Bohemond:

Before we leap to oppose Sotomayor- this nomination might not be as bad as it could be. Face it, BO is going to nominate a leftist no matter what. BUT- if Sotomayor really is abrasive, bullying, arrogant and none too bright, she would be far less likely to be an influence on her colleagues: SCOTUS is a very collegial institution, and the interpersonal dynamic is of tremendous importance. Far better, I think, that BO’s first Lefty justice be as isolated as Thurgood Marshall was in his dotage, than someone as personally likeable and persuasive as Nino Scalia.

May 26, 2009 - 9:14 am 37. BC:

Yep, we don’t care summa ’bout them dar cum laude from lah di dah Princeton or any other fancy pants college — if she don’t know how to loosen up a rusty nut, change spark plugs, or make a dovetail, she ain’t worth hound dog drool.

May 26, 2009 - 9:16 am 38. D-wah:

Rush is dismantling her rt now.

May 26, 2009 - 9:17 am 39. Mark Arnold:

We are going to get a left-wing idealogue from this president. Better one who is arrogant and not that bright than another Brennan. At least, she will be less influential than he was.

May 26, 2009 - 9:17 am 40. Telly:

So she’s a bullying leftist who perpetuates and profits from reverse discrimination. No surprise at all that Obama would nominate such a candidate.

May 26, 2009 - 9:21 am 41. Ozzie:

I don’t think racists should be allowed to serve on the supreme court. Her comments regarding her race being superior to white is a clear racist statement. She thinks the very fact of her racial heritage provides her a superior ability. The fact she is on record holding the exact OPPOSITE of judicial ethics that is supposed to be assumed is beyond belief. Only leftists could be so politically correct and bigoted to blind themselves to this nominee’s flaws.

May 26, 2009 - 9:28 am 42. John Frary:

As a matter of easily established fact, Roger has often had occasion to comment critically on the intellectual quality and attainments of graduates from Ivy League intitutions.

No point in whipping out the Sensitivity Phaser and setting it at “Sexist-Racist.” In these degenerate latter days a man who has not be blasted in thie style is deficient in honesty and honor.

May 26, 2009 - 9:29 am 43. B L Patton:

Just asking-does anyone remember Miguel Estrada being nominated for the Supreme Court by Bush 43? That would make him the first Latino, yes? The Democrats would not hear of him being on the Supreme Court.

May 26, 2009 - 9:41 am 44. Mrs. Jackson:

Guess what Mr. Kimabll?

Chances are excellent that with this cracking piece you’ve angered the President.

Good show!

May 26, 2009 - 9:43 am 45. Sonja:

Haven’t the Romans (Latinos) dominated Western Civ for too long? Why go back to the Roman Empire?

May 26, 2009 - 9:44 am 46. Morton Doodslag:

RK re: SSTFHNTTSC.

LOL.

May 26, 2009 - 9:49 am 47. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:

I understand the need to make accusations in an intellectual vacuum. However, it should be noted that:

—Sotomayor was accepted to Princeton at a time when the institution had only recently begun accepting women. As sexist as it sounds today, Princeton had a policy at that time designed to limit the number of women allowed in. Thus, as has been noted by alums of that period, women who made it into Princeton at that time were much more intellectually and academically advanced than their peers, many who were legacies along the lines of GW Bush at Yale.

—In the Youtube clip, Sotomayor is DESCRIBING a reality, not endorsing it. It is widely acknowledged that the circuit court does have the unintended role of creating policy in that it only handles rulings where the actual intent and purpose of the law have come into question. Subsequent rulings on the law in lower courts are based on these precedents. If you don’t like it, then you should try to change our justice system, but don’t blame Sotomayor.

—Sotomayor has had a long career including being a prosecutor and a judge. She is qualified for the position. No one here has substantiated their accusations that she is not bright; they have just claimed it, using an article based on gossip and unsourced statements.

In conclusion. I’m not calling you all racists or sexists, but come on, you certainly are deserving of the appellations. Live up to your ideals and question the things you read here, otherwise you’re just digging a deeper hole for yourselves.

May 26, 2009 - 9:56 am 48. Toronto Girl:

America is going to hell in a hand basket. The monster is out of control.

May 26, 2009 - 9:57 am 49. tanstaafl:

A republic cannot survive without an informed and engaged citizenry, so you can blame the American people if we should fall under rule by the bench.

I blame the American educational system which, for decades now, has failed to teach the Constitution and the nature of the Representative Republic, including, but not limited to, the role and function of the judiciary.

Given the philosophy of the NEA and the “thinking” of many of the teachers I’ve encountered in my life, I have concluded that much of this failure to enlighten has been intentional.

May 26, 2009 - 9:58 am 50. Toronto Girl:

#47 Jews were also excluded from many academic and social venues until as recent as the 1970’s. Instead of whining, they did something about it. They built their own schools and social clubs and did not blame anyone else if they did not succeed. Why are so many blacks and latinos always on the victim bandwagon? It is getting soooo tiresome and boring. It is racist to expect special treatment based on past discrimmination. GET OVER YOURSELVES AND GROW UP.

May 26, 2009 - 10:01 am 51. SoberHorseThief:

The president probably wishes that she were in a wheelchair; that would have made the nomination completely ironclad.

May 26, 2009 - 10:08 am 52. Ed Wallis:

#47,

Why do I keep hearing echoes of “macaca” whenever I read her words?
You hypocrite.

May 26, 2009 - 10:10 am 53. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:

#52: “Why do I keep hearing echoes of “macaca” whenever I read her words?
You hypocrite.”

That’s between you and your psychiatric practitioner.

May 26, 2009 - 10:27 am 54. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:

“As a matter of easily established fact, Roger has often had occasion to comment critically on the intellectual quality and attainments of graduates from Ivy League intitutions.”

So easy, you left up to someone else to take care of.

May 26, 2009 - 10:28 am 55. susan:

“As sexist as it sounds today, Princeton had a policy at that time designed to limit the number of women allowed in. Thus, as has been noted by alums of that period, women who made it into Princeton at that time were much more intellectually and academically advanced than their peers”

this is gossips and at most speculations. Political correctness trumps everything. Then and now.

On Hotair there is a good list of the decisions she made that were on a dubious basis (such as favouring blacks or other minorities, OOOOOPS, my bad).

So technically you’re right, she might not be that dense, (although you don’t need a big brain to climb the ladder when you’re liberal), but she’s surely maliciously biased.

May 26, 2009 - 10:30 am 56. Войска ПВО:

#47 BooBoo Netanhoohoo writes:

“In conclusion. I’m not calling you all racists or sexists, but come on, you certainly are deserving of the appellations.”

WTF? You’re not calling us racists..but you’re calling us racists?

May 26, 2009 - 10:32 am 57. tanstaafl:

It is racist to expect special treatment based on past discrimination.

Identity politics and class warfare are the lifeblood of the Left.

Sotomayor’s educational background and professional rise are not supposed to be possible in the America espoused by Obama.

For that matter, Obama’s not supposed to be possible, either.

May 26, 2009 - 10:34 am 58. Dave:

Get ready for the pig search the lipstick brigade in the MSM is about to embark on.

May 26, 2009 - 10:35 am 59. Ozzie:

47. …I’m not calling you all racists or sexists, but come on, you certainly are deserving of the appellations….

Coward. Please come out and just say it. Then resign yourself to the unthinking, emotion driven masses that are hurting our country and killing America’s future. Your really in that group, you know. Your just having trouble admitting it. That’s why your sentence contradicts itself.

Just say it ….”everyone who disagrees with me is a racist” ….you know you think it. Then flush yourself over to the leftist nut crusade.

May 26, 2009 - 10:35 am 60. The Shadow:

Fred B and Susan – Do I detect a little envy in your comments – I take it you and the other nitwits here did not graduate Summa

David Thompson – your comments are the rasist rant that semm to typify the looney right

May 26, 2009 - 10:42 am 61. G Alston:

35 — Ask the average American the difference between the rule of law and judicial activism and you’re likely to get a blank stare.

I’d stare as well. There’s no such thing as judicial activism. People fond of that phrase are generally using it to indicate displeasure at the courts failure to suppress others as per their own prejudices or preconceived notions.

#41 — Her comments regarding her race being superior to white is a clear racist statement.

She didn’t say that. She was saying that her experiences being ‘other than white’ allowed her to see that which whites may not. It’s not racist to note that one’s race played a part in shaping experience; in fact, she was merely stating the obvious.

I’m certainly not saying she’s the best pick; in fact, I know nothing of her. But bouncing off the walls making silly accusations by people who in all probability know just as little as I do sounds reactionary. Wouldn’t it be better to get all of the relevant data before making sweeping pronouncements?

May 26, 2009 - 10:48 am 62. tanstaafl:

Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

Cough

May 26, 2009 - 11:02 am 63. D-wah:

Ozz59–the tactic’s called “repressive tolerance”. It’s what drives political correctness–intolerance for any viewpoint not of their own. From Herbert Marcuse–who also preached “polymorphous perversity” towards their nihilist goals, as well as recruiting minorities and students as agents of revolution. They fell for it hard. Sick, destructive and manipulative bunch.

May 26, 2009 - 11:07 am 64. Wacky Hermit:

#21 Robbins Mitchell: Believe it or not, Portuguese doesn’t count as “Hispanic” under many definitions. It is sometimes specifically excluded from definitions of “Hispanic,” which vary according to who’s defining it and for what purpose. In some cases, people from mainland Spain are considered “Hispanic” where people from mainland Portugal, further down the Iberian Peninsula, are not. Other definitions exclude both mainland Spanish and Portuguese from being “Hispanic” but those are less common.

How do I know this? I’m Portuguese. Los Angeles Unified School District is one of those entities that excludes Portuguese.

May 26, 2009 - 11:13 am 65. susan:

“Fred B and Susan – Do I detect a little envy in your comments – I take it you and the other nitwits here did not graduate Summa ”

Her degree (and the obamas degrees) are not even worth the paper they are written on. I witnessed myself some appalling university exams where all that matter was your political orientation (in my country that’s not multiethnic). I suppose usa is paralyzed by PC so not only your political orientation can get you easily a degree but also your color, status etc.

I am not jealous of people who climb the ladder in such dubious way, and moreover whatever I achieved in life doesn’t depend on affirmative action (that in my country doesn’t exist) or political connections

plus I am usually not envious of racists.

You on the other hand, supporter of all of the above abominations, should take a look at the long list of the dubious court cases in which the latina miss in question walked all over the law to favour whatever minority she wanted to advantage, in pure racist fashion.

I guess you’re proud of her because you are LIKE her.

May 26, 2009 - 11:25 am 66. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: YOU….

She didn’t say that. She was saying that her experiences being ‘other than white’ allowed her to see that which whites may not. — G Alston

….are SUCH an idiot. Did you study English as a tertiary language? Or are you just a liar at heart?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

May 26, 2009 - 11:26 am 67. susan:

also, “the shadow” before questioning other people’s degree (or lack of it) you should at least check that you are able to spell correctly (racist is not spelled that way).

May 26, 2009 - 11:28 am 68. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:

55. Susan.

I stopped short of calling ALL of you racists. There may be one or two here who aren’t, but you, friend are racist, because you prefer your prejudice and assumption on issues to the actual facts. Your assumption that Sotomayor could only have reached her academic position through preferential treatment is one you make solely based on her ethnicity. What I wrote about Princeton and Sotomayor is common knowledge:

In 1972 (the year she was apparently admitted), Princeton was in only its third year of accepting women at all. The number of women was strictly limited so that the women admitted had significantly higher qualifications than the men admitted in the same year.

From the book “The Chosen”, by Jerome Karabel:

“In 1970, with a “fixed ratio” of 4 men for every woman, this meant that only 14 percent of the female applicants were accepted, compared to 22 percent of the men. …[T]he women who were admitted to Princeton were even more elite both academically and socially than their male classmates” (p. 437).

“While the degree of male advantage in the admissions process declined in 1971 and 1972, the continued unequal treatment of female applicants was becoming less acceptable both at Princeton and in the larger society” (p. 438).

“On January 19, 1974 … Princeton’s trustees announced that, effective immediately, the university would adopt sex-blind admissions” (p. 439).

So Ms. Sotomayer gained admission into Princeton in the face of a fixed quota against women. Did she receive any special consideration as a Puerto Rican? Perhaps. Hers was only the fourth class for which Princeton made any attempt to recruit Puerto Rican students:

“1968-1969 was also the year Princeton began to recruit Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Native Americans and expanded its efforts to recruit more ‘disadvantaged’ whites” (p. 398).

In 1972, Princeton reported that the freshman class included 22 Latino students, 15 Chicano students, 27 “Oriental” students, 5 Indian students, and 113 black students, for a total of 181 “Third World students” (as Princeton then called them) out of a class of approximately 1127 (p. 399).

To compare, the number of students admitted as athletes was 310 (p. 477) and many spaces (approximately 200-250) were taken by legacies, who were admitted with significantly lower qualifications (p. 467, 478):

“Princeton … was careful not to tamper with legacy preference. Admissions rate for alumni children never fell much below double the rate for other applicants, and in the mid-1970s preferences for legacies actually increased. In 1975, 48 percent gained admission – a rate 2.3 times higher than other applicants.” (p. 478)

So Sotomayer was discriminated against in admissions to Princeton because she wasn’t male, a scholarship-worthy athlete, or a legacy, but she probably received positive consideration because she was Puerto Rican. And if she required financial assistance to attend Princeton (as seems extremely likely from her family circumstances), she needed to be even more qualified, because:

“At the time the least wealthy of the Big Three, Princeton could not offer financial aid to all the admits who needed it. Though admissions was officially need-blind, Princeton lacked the resources to make it ‘full-aid’” (p. 399-400).

She still managed to graduate summa cum laude and that was a much greater accomplishment in that environment than it would be today. The truth is that Sonia Sotomayor got into Princeton DESPITE deeply unfair admission quotas that discriminated AGAINST her.

May 26, 2009 - 11:35 am 69. Ed Wallis:

“That’s between you and your psychiatric practitioner.” – some nutty Leftist posting here

#63 D-Wah has him pegged alright…the projection of seeing us as the bigots, but not the “…wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences [who] would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…”.

May 26, 2009 - 11:41 am 70. Ed Wallis:

FROM: http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTZiYjQ1M2EyOTViMDUwOTU3OGRhNGFhZGYzMDc0OGM=

“President Obama abided by his dismal and lawless “empathy” standard and, in his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, picked a nominee whom he can count on to indulge her own liberal biases. Sotomayor’s outrageous shenanigans in Ricci v. DeStefano—the case now awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court in the next four weeks or so—shows what the Obama “empathy” standard means in practice: disfavoring politically incorrect litigants, in this case firefighters who devoted their spare time and their scarce resources to study hard for and pass a promotional exam.

See here for more on Sotomayor’s incoherent account of her selective empathy, here for her sorry record of Supreme Court reversals (a record made worse by the Court’s recent reversal of her ruling in the Riverkeepers case), and here for Jeffrey Rosen’s recounting of liberal concerns that Sotomayor just isn’t smart enough.

May 26, 2009 - 11:45 am 71. G Alston:

#66 Pelto — YOU….….are SUCH an idiot.

Ahhh, there’s that superior mensa ability shining through again.

Highly informative as usual.

What’s next, loser? Questioning my sexual orientation?

May 26, 2009 - 11:49 am 72. Robert King:

Here’s a satirical news report of the Sotomayor nomination hearings. Check it out:

http://www.optoons.blogspot.com

May 26, 2009 - 11:55 am 73. susan:

“Your assumption that Sotomayor could only have reached her academic position through preferential treatment is one you make solely based on her ethnicity. ”

I added political orientation too, but still your drabble doesn’t convince me, BTW, I come from a latin country too, this makes me a racist or an uncle tom?

I guess if I am racist I am exactly like your darling Sonia, the only difference is that I am not employed in a kind of job that can morph a body of law into what I desire.

Next you will be writing that a latina woman cannot be racist. Yawn. You’re wasting my time.

May 26, 2009 - 11:55 am 74. susan:

“What’s next, loser? Questioning my sexual orientation?”

well, the discussion is largerly about who is more racist, but you’re right, you leftists can beat anybody greatly in this field

May 26, 2009 - 11:58 am 75. Ed Wallis:

G Alston #71,

While I do not (yet) think you are an “idiot”, I think you are an intellectual fraud.

She spoke about how she, as a Latina and as a female would come to better judicial decisions than white males.

So SPARE US ALL HERE YOUR pseudo-”fair” CLAPTRAP about her speaking only about her “experiences.”

May 26, 2009 - 12:09 pm 76. robotech master:

To 61. G Alston

“She didn’t say that. She was saying that her experiences being ‘other than white’ allowed her to see that which whites may not. It’s not racist to note that one’s race played a part in shaping experience; in fact, she was merely stating the obvious.”

O I completely agree… being able to make racist comments, benefiting from huge racism, being a racist and a sexist are clearly obvious….No white male could ever get away with that(even democrats have a hard time of it).

May 26, 2009 - 12:14 pm 77. G Alston:

#75 — She spoke about how she, as a Latina and as a female would come to better judicial decisions than white males.

Which was said at a diversity lecture and within that framework is likely to be true.

Context. Does this mean anything to you?

May 26, 2009 - 12:19 pm 78. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:

Ed Wallis. No she didn’t. Do you have the courage to read the quote in context? I’d be impressed if you read it and had some comments based on what you found there, and not in your prima facae view:

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. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

May 26, 2009 - 12:22 pm 79. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Glad….

Ahhh, there’s that superior mensa ability shining through again.

Highly informative as usual. — G Alston

….I could help.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. BUT!!!!!

You didn’t answer my question about whether your problem stems from poor understanding of English or whether your an outrageous liar.

Which is it?

May 26, 2009 - 12:22 pm 80. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ed Wallis
RE: Thanks

While I do not (yet) think you are an “idiot”, I think you are an intellectual fraud. — Ed Wallis

I WAS giving her the ‘benefit of the doubt’. But since you’ve provided your input on her capabilities, I suspect I was being too generous….and hopeful….

Oh well…..such is life. And the amoral people are ALWAYS with US. Indeed. A study I read a decade or so ago, suggested that one-in-five people have no sense of regard for telling the truth.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....and G Alston is going to look pretty sorry for it.....]

May 26, 2009 - 12:26 pm 81. D-wah:

This issue really draws the trolls. The only way to justify this insane nomination is with noise, accusations, confusion and intimidation, so watch the volume and attacks heighten.

I doubt these angry lefties know what they’re ascribing to. It’s from a Marxist think tank and called “critical theory”. Sounds academic. However, all it is is the use of “unremitting destructive criticism” to the point of “politicizing logic” and the negation of reason or normal standards.

Ring a bell with anyone?

We’re seeing the fruition of pure, streamlined, updated Marxist/socialist/statist ideology. The trolls are their pawns.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236

(thanks again, Moogs)

May 26, 2009 - 12:26 pm 82. Blackwater:

Oh yay. An anti-male and anti-white racist leftist radical on the most powerful court in the world for the rest of her life. She’s so racist and so steeped in “screw whitey” activism that she even tried to screw over those poor white firemen in New York that I saw a news report on. They totally aced the tests for promotion but were rejected by the “diversity” leftist mongers in the government simply because they were white and they wanted to get brown skinned people in those positions instead even though they were far less competent and intelligent. And mind you these people would be responsible for saving your loved ones lives in an emergency. I’m sick of this blatantly anti-white male bullcrap. We’re the majority in this country and yet we’re allowing this crap to happen to ourselves because leftists have brainwashed us into feeling white guilt? Screw that. My ancestors were poor as hell and were abused by brown skinned people for decades. And they still overcame that racist BS by getting good grades, not breaking laws, not doing drugs, serving their country in several wars and working hard and being overall decent people. My family and I don’t owe anyone anything. In a capitalist society the best and brightest naturally rise to the top. If that means not everyone is equally represented in every single company or profession then so be it. I mean where the heck does this identity based BS end? Are we going to mandate that businesses hire a certain number of trannys, homosexuals, muslimes, Jews, Chirstians, Mormons, Buddhists, native Americans, asians, hispanics, whites, blacks, males, females, atheists, Republicans, Democraps, Independents, communists, racists, etc, etc, etc? I support providing legal framework for people to sue someone if they feel they were discriminated against but quotas are BULLCRAP and totally absurd. What’s next? Are they going to start demanding the National Bagpipe Association hire a certain amount of asians? Well as long as they hire an equal number of whites and hispanics to be sushi chefs then I guess it balances out. Seriously, screw anyone that’s opposed to making a color blind society. And no, descrimating against whites isn’t ok because some whites owned slaves 200 years ago. Take race out of the equation when making public policy PLEASE. End racism against everyone.

May 26, 2009 - 12:43 pm 83. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:

Susan:

Its pretty obvious that if you read what I posted, you didn’t understand. In any case, you had no rebuttals to any of the points made except that you weren’t convinced. If you’re not convinced by facts, but can point to no underlying reason why the facts should be discounted. Then being a racist is the least of your problems.

May 26, 2009 - 12:46 pm 84. Toronto Girl:

#82 blackwater.

BRAVO!!

May 26, 2009 - 12:58 pm 85. D-wah:

Rush had a really good point on this nomination today. This is the perfect opportunity to expose Obummer’s true agenda and background. (He was talking about the GOP doing it but they won’t, self-preserving cowardly weenies that they are.)

He wasn’t ever vetted and now’s the time, and do it thru exposing her and the whole agenda. Hope it happens but the media blockade’s a toughie. Only Cheney has the nads to speak up so far. Maybe he’ll continue, or someone steps up to the plate. Let’s hope so. But I agree—as we do here, keep hammering at all the “inconvenient” facts, untruths and missing information.

But I guess we can always get everything we need from his “autobiography”—”Dreams of My Author”…ooops, did I say author?

May 26, 2009 - 12:59 pm 86. Paul of Alexandria:

G Alston (61):

35 — Ask the average American the difference between the rule of law and judicial activism and you’re likely to get a blank stare.

I’d stare as well. There’s no such thing as judicial activism. People fond of that phrase are generally using it to indicate displeasure at the courts failure to suppress others as per their own prejudices or preconceived notions.

Wanna bet? The classic example is Roe v Wade. Judicial activism made a Supreme Court decision out of a case that never should have been there in the first place. The real issue in Roe v Wade is that of state’s rights. The constitution gives the Federal government no power in cases like this and abortion should be controlled by state law. Justice Harry Blackmun’s “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights is a perfect example: “Blackmun felt that the right of privacy, wherever it comes from, includes the right to abortion. Do not look any further for legal argument amidst the voluminous opinion, because it does not exist. Perhaps the extensive historical analysis was included to compensate for the lack of legal analysis. ” (Mark Levin, “Men in Black”).

#41 — Her comments regarding her race being superior to white is a clear racist statement.

She didn’t say that. She was saying that her experiences being ‘other than white’ allowed her to see that which whites may not. It’s not racist to note that one’s race played a part in shaping experience; in fact, she was merely stating the obvious.

And this is not racist why? As per the previous citation, what she sees with her experience is irrelevent. Her personal biases and history are irrrelevent. How she interprets the law is the only important thing. Justice Blackmun found specific meanings in the Constitution by assuming words which aren’t actually there!

Justice Hugo Black, in his dissent, was not impressed. He attacked the way Douglas had turned constitutional law into semantics by replacing the language of actual rights with the phrase “right to privacy.” He wrote, “The Court talks about a constitutional ‘right of privacy’ as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the ‘privacy’ of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities.”

Black, normally an ally of Douglas, feared that using such a phrase as “right to privacy” could be a double-edged sword. “One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning…. ‘Privacy’ is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures.” Black concluded by saying, “I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision.”

(ibid, emphasis mine)

May 26, 2009 - 1:00 pm 87. WR Jonas:

I suppose the real question that no one has asked is, how does she compare to Justice Souter ? As I recall he was supposed to be a safe conservative pick , endorsed by John Susunnu, when Bush the elder nominated him. As it turned out he was a wolf in sheeps clothing.
So perhaps Sotomayor is a closet conservative just waiting to reek havoc on that strong liberal block on the SCOTUS . Yeah,sure.

May 26, 2009 - 1:01 pm 88. D-wah:

Chuck 80:

“one-in-five people have no sense of regard for telling the truth.”

Reminds me of another known fact: 57% of all statistics are made up.

(thought you could use a signature chuckle…)

May 26, 2009 - 1:03 pm 89. Chuck Pelto:

TO: G Alston
RE: Obviously….

Context. Does this mean anything to you? — G Alston

….it means NOTHING to you.

And you STILL haven’t answered my question.

But that’s okay, as Ed Wallis has clarified the obvious answer….

….you feckless liar, you. You’re a bane on civil society. And the more people who recognize you for what you are, the better…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

May 26, 2009 - 1:05 pm 90. robotech master:

To 83. BooBoo Netanhoohoo

Your kidding right… that “context” you supplied makes her comment even more blatantly racist and sexist then it was before.

Thx for sharing though…

May 26, 2009 - 1:06 pm 91. G. Clark:

I don’t know why some here blanch at being called raaaaacist (the proper spelling, btw). It should instead be welcomed. Let us send this essentially meaningless word to the dustbin of history where it belongs. The only purpose it serves is for the left to end debate. They don’t have arguments, so they call you a name instead. As another blogger pointed out, just say “Yeah, I’m a raaaaacist, so what? Do you have any arguments or do just want to call me names?”

May 26, 2009 - 1:07 pm 92. Moogie:

I just watched the clip provided in the article of Sotomayer.

Is she related to jeaneane garofolo? They look alike and sound alike.

Aside from the garofolo resemblance, I can see exactly why Obama chose Sotomayer (not that he chose her because of her resemblance to garofolo, although it’s possible that he made this choice of someone who looks and sounds like garofolo on a subconscious level)… is one of “them” and that’s all that matters.

I said it before, but I’ll repeat it here: the Constitution is very clear about separation of powers – the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the executive branch. What happens when the executive branch and the legislative branch are the majority? Things like the passage of the stimulus bill happens.

But, now let’s assume the executive branch wants the judicial branch to have the authority to set policy – makes laws – essentially, legislate. The executive branch will, of course, decide what policies the judicial branch will legislate. What will that look like?

It will look like tyranny. It will also act like tyranny. It might continue to talk like a centrist in order to continue fooling the brainwashed masses, but all of its actions will be based on its tyrannical need for power. And that kind of power is made possible when the separation of powers are no longer separated: when they become One.

May 26, 2009 - 1:15 pm 93. D-wah:

Careful Blackwater, they’re gonna haul you in for sensitivity training. Can’t you get it through your think head that guilt is king? And if you’re NOT feeling guilty, you should feel guilty about THAT!

Now get in line. This critical thinking is nothing but trouble. They know better than we do, so just submit. (ram ram ram ram ramalamadingdong….repeat 20 times and take your soma..)

May 26, 2009 - 1:16 pm 94. Moogie:

P.S. You’re welcome D-wah. Thanks for passing the video around!

May 26, 2009 - 1:17 pm 95. asdf:

And fear of being labled rascist will keep the questioning to a 3rd grade level, bunch of cowards on capitol hill now a days.

May 26, 2009 - 1:24 pm 96. susan:

“Which was said at a diversity lecture and within that framework is likely to be true.

Context. Does this mean anything to you?”

the sentence is racist, said by an unashamed racist, context means nothing.

“If you’re not convinced by facts, but can point to no underlying reason why the facts should be discounted. ”

facts = the opinions of a deranged liberal like you? no thanks

So a latina is a better judge than a white male just because she’s a latina…

Do you think a white man can say that he’s a better judge than a black woman just because of his race?

Don’t answer, we already established who is the real racist here. I love when leftist retards defend the indifensible. It reminds me why it’s always a wise decision to avoid you like scum. There must be something in your mental development that didn’t go right.

May 26, 2009 - 1:24 pm 97. John:

She is a sexist and a racist.
If a white male had made the statement below or one similar changing the sex and race, he would be vilified and certainly never would be allowed to be a member (for life) of the US Supreme court.
There is no excuse for this type of bigotry.

A few issues are going to be at the forefront of her confirmation. First will be her remarks during a 2001 speech to law students in Berkeley, California, where she said that “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.”

So what she is saying is that because she is Latino and a female, she can make a better decision than any WHITE MAN, no matter what that person’s background or experience may be. Simply because she is female and NOT white she is better qualified.

Discrimination and racist, sexist statements are not tolerated in the USA unless of course they are directed against the WHITE MAN…….

Do you think she will be appointed or kicked to the curb as a racist?
I vote kick to the curb….next!

May 26, 2009 - 1:30 pm 98. Retro:

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Besides, don’t you know? It’s only racism if you’re a Republican.

May 26, 2009 - 1:34 pm 99. Chuck Pelto:

TO: D-wah
RE: Facts

Reminds me of another known fact: 57% of all statistics are made up. — D-wah

Yeah….

There is something of an ‘issue’ with that. One needs to develop a set of reliable sources. [Note: Something I learned at the US Army Command and General Staff College, in the mid-1980s, while attending the Combined Arms Staff Service School.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I think I can believe the source of the report on 1-in-5 people are habitual liars. And G Alston certainly bears proof to that…..

May 26, 2009 - 1:39 pm 100. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Reading the Information….

…provided by BooBoo Netanhoohoo….

….I get the distinct impression that if Sotomayor achieves a seat on the Supreme Court….

….all the Latinos had better cover their a–.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. She apparently has no more love of men than she does of WHITE men.

May 26, 2009 - 1:46 pm 101. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. Why am I suddenly reminded of that feminazi song from the 70s….

I am woman. Here me ROAR!

Think things are bad in ‘family [what a misnomer]‘ court today?

Just wait…..

May 26, 2009 - 1:48 pm 102. BooBoo Netanhoohoo:

Robotech master:

You’re obviously free to have an unsubstantiated opinion. Do you care to argue your point? Or like Susan, is your position, “I said so”.

May 26, 2009 - 1:50 pm 103. realitycheq:

Chuck @79

It is hilarious when you accuse others of poor English understanding while using poor English.

“You didn’t answer my question about whether your problem stems from poor understanding of English or whether your [sic] an outrageous liar.”

I think G Alston @71 is correct.

“… there’s that superior mensa ability shining through again.”

Keep up the good work.

May 26, 2009 - 1:52 pm 104. Jeb:

Rosen mentioned Sotomayor’s temperament (hot) and her intelligence and legal competence (questionable).

Graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, JD from yale 3 years later, editor of the Yale Law Journal. Yep, those are the sure signs of questionable intellect.

May 26, 2009 - 1:56 pm 105. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Well…

….I’ve called MY Senators. And asked them if we need a racists-sexist on the Supreme Court.

We’ll see how they respond……

….if at all.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....and it might become a bloody-mess.....]

May 26, 2009 - 1:57 pm 106. Chuck Pelto:

TO: realitychik
RE: Heh…

I think G Alston @71 is correct. — realitychik

…long time no see.

Recovering from your previous bashing? Up to the point you can afford another one?

What YOU ‘think’ has been proven to be somewhat ‘lacking’ in cogent intellect.

And I’m not surprised that you’d stand up for a raving sexist like Sotomayor. But it doesn’t really matter to me. Why? Because in due time, I’m convinced that you’ll learn the error of your ways. Probably the ‘hard’ way…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The feminist movement collapsed one milli-second after the fit hit the shan. -- Niven and Pournelle (paraphrased)]

May 26, 2009 - 2:01 pm 107. susan:

BooBoo Netanhoohoo

“Do you think a white man can say that he’s a better judge than a black woman just because of his race?”

your silence is already a reply about who has got FACTS and who’s got opinions.

Too bad the opinions of leftist retards are groundless and based on pure emotion and political calculus

May 26, 2009 - 2:01 pm 108. D-wah:

Moogs–I keep the notes from those vids next to my laptop–it’s like a decoder manual. So many concepts/tools they use that explain sooooo much!

Psycho-repression; dismantling the socio-economic substructure; sexual alienation; domination of nature; liberating tolerance; repressive tolerance; politicizing logic–all planned out years ago! Alinsky’s play book is one thing–this has been like reading their scriptures!

And that all that Marxism etc. really does is give the intellectual justification for societal breakdown by giving people permission to do the base things they always wanted to do…i.e. hedonism, irresponsibility, violence, theft..especially when in service to a government and culture that provides and reinforces that right! Until they takeover. That’s when they reign it in and establish THEIR rules.

Kind of like listening to the voice of Satan in all out rebellion against God. Hmmmm, Alinsky dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer.

Here is Saul Alinsky’s dedication to his own book:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

May 26, 2009 - 2:06 pm 109. robotech master:

To 102. BooBoo Netanhoohoo

I won’t take the “I said so” AKA global warming approach to it… however unless your going to argue that the KKK is a white “civil rights” group(thus her comments are of the same “civil rights” vein). I’m having a hard time seeing how your going to be arguing much of anything….

May 26, 2009 - 2:16 pm 110. realitycheq:

Chuck @106

“Heh…long time no see.”

Been busy working – slumming today.

“Recovering from your previous bashing?”

What previous bashing?

“What YOU ‘think’ has been proven to be somewhat ‘lacking’ in cogent intellect.”

Proven when and by whom?

“And I’m not surprised that you’d stand up for a raving sexist like Sotomayor.”

Didn’t say anything about her.

May 26, 2009 - 2:34 pm 111. MiamaMan:

I wish to be written off from the Hispanic group, especially from Sotomayor’s crowd, I have little in common with her, finally.

I am tired of the Hispanic BS. Being branded around here as a Hispanic, whatever that s..t is. When applying for a job, the “hispanic” category: “people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, bla, bla, bla, ancestry…”. I look as Mexican as your mother-in-law. In fact, I am “hispanic” and my ancestors killed all them Aztecs and more, then brought the black slaves over. I ain’t wasp but as white as you can get it. I ain’t no Hispanic and no Spic.

Yes, may be Ms. Sotomayor is Hispanic, or Puertorican, or Yeworican. I can’t relate to her, while she may have some ghetto memories, I bet food was not far from the table. In contrast, I have savored Fidel’s jails, been whipped in the ass twice a day, no food. I grew so bitter that my heroes are Franco and Pinochet. Hitler sweetened more than one lonely night.

I am from that Cuban tribe that shunts goverment, cheat on taxes, is thoroughly Republican and hates Che Guevara. The crowd of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Balart brothers and Senator Menendez.

No, please, we ain’t your Hispanic folks, we are usually racist, reactionary to the core, we have been molded in the crucible of communist BS. We did not vote for Obama, and never will.

May 26, 2009 - 2:50 pm 112. John:

The one thing that kinda irks me is that there are a lot of cherry picked quotations from this woman but I can’t find the full text of the speeches. I like to verify the context of the statements but have been unable to.
I’ve seen some quotes in the past that when put back into context weren’t as bad as they were made out to be and I want to be thorough and fair. If she is as bad as she seems, she does not deserve the seat!

May 26, 2009 - 3:08 pm 113. Broadsword:

Drawing on my experiences as a white man, I’d say this woman is a buffoon.

May 26, 2009 - 3:08 pm 114. Macko:

I guess it would not have been racist if she had said “typical” white man.

By pointing out she is a “newyorican” we know that she is a “latin supremist”. Just ask any puerto rican.

May 26, 2009 - 3:10 pm 115. G Alston:

#86 — The constitution gives the Federal government no power in cases like this and abortion should be controlled by state law.

I’ve heard this argument repeated ad nauseum. So? Repeated assertion doesn’t make it right. The fact is that the court ruled as it did and for reasons that are known, and nearly 40 years hence, despite the efforts of more learned individuals than you, it remains. One might conclude that your argument isn’t correct, and the charge of judicial activism isn’t either. QED.

May 26, 2009 - 3:13 pm 116. Rashputin:

15. Alex Bensky

When they were simple racists, the democrats still wore their white robes like Byrd did. Now, they’re complicated racists and rely on black robes in high places.

May 26, 2009 - 3:13 pm 117. Ed Wallis:

#78 (another Axelrod TROLL) quotes from the Animal Farm “pig” (ya see, she’s “more equal” than us…) but here’s more of the quote along with some decent commentary:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/26/video-rush-calls-sotomayor-a-racist-gets-called-a-racist-in-return/

Pathetic how the trolls lay out so blatantly for all to read just HOW much of a bigot this “pig” is, and then claim it is merely an intellectual argument.

The National Socialists were pretty open and rather blase about their work, too.

May 26, 2009 - 3:15 pm 118. Roy M:

Susan, can a white man say he is a better judge than a black women just becaus of his race?

Depends on the context.

If the white man lives somewhere where black women and white men all live under the same legal system, and yet for various reasons the experience of living under that system is different for WM and BW, AND white male judges are rare THEN a being a white man might add a useful perspective to a legal body full of black women.

But if the bench is already lousy with white men, not so much.

This context thing is why an argument that begins “Well, what if a white man said that….” often doesn’t make sense. The problem with a white man saying something like “My experiences as a white male will bring a new and valuable perspective to the bench” isn’t that it would be racist, the problem is that it just wouldn’t be true. White men, we’re everywhere already.

(Unless the white man is gay or transgendered. Then he gets valuable perspective from that. (kidding (kind of) ) )

Of course Sonia’s claim about female latinoness being a good thing should be a begining to her explaining WHY, not a trump card.

May 26, 2009 - 3:28 pm 119. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Just Got a ‘Letter’….

….from Obama bragging on his ‘nominee’.

Told him, politely, he was full of s—.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

May 26, 2009 - 3:36 pm 120. ReConUSMC:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor was” Purposely ” Picked by Obama because she is racist and a bigot and a far left radical Socialist and wants a new Living Constitution as does Obama insanely . She is said to be a very nasty arrogant women
among many other bad idea choice of her .
This Judge has lost 5 out 6 cases that went to the Supreme Court on Appeals .
She has a case pending there not as well “”On Reverse Discrimination with White Fighters in Conn. she will surly lose as well .
President Obama abided by his dismal and lawless “empathy” standard and, in his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, picked a nominee whom he can count on to indulge her own liberal biases. Sotomayor’s outrageous shenanigans in Ricci v. DeStefano—the case now awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court in the next four weeks or so—shows what the Obama “empathy” standard means in practice: disfavoring politically incorrect litigants, in this case firefighters who devoted their spare time and their scarce resources to study hard for and pass a promotional exam.

See here for more on Sotomayor’s incoherent account of her selective empathy, here for her sorry record of Supreme Court reversals (a record made worse by the Court’s recent reversal of her ruling in the Riverkeepers case), and here for Jeffrey Rosen’s recounting of liberal concerns that Sotomayor just isn’t smart enough.And that is coming from a very Libearl Lawyer as well .

May 26, 2009 - 4:06 pm 121. lefroy:

Judge Sotomayor:

“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 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.”

Note that having just pooh-poohed the idea that the word “wise” has any fixed meaning, she immediately deploys the word to qualify her “latina woman”. How typical of the left! The meaning of words is a social construct, blah blah blah, but of course words have very precise meanings when it suits the purpose of the moment.

Moreover the observation is racist, and laughably so. Why exactly does such a person reach a better conclusion than that dreadful oaf, the white male? And why would it not be racist for me to say (and I DON’T say it) that I would hope a wise white male would reach a better conclusion that a latina woman? Imagine the howls of rage!

Quote:

“However, to understand [the experiences of others] takes time and effort, something that not all people [read: white males] are willing to give. For others, their experiences [read: white males] limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Others [read: white males] simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench.”

In other words, they can understand whitey, but it doesn’t work the other way round? What claptrap.

Quote:

“For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.”

This would be risible if it were not so outrageous. I would consider it infinitely patronizing to say “For black and latino lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other black and latino lawyers in different circumstances have been able to reach.”

Unbelievable.

May 26, 2009 - 4:17 pm 122. DavidN:

It looks like she said, “I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it.” I know that happened after the first ten seconds and we’re not supposed to try and remember anything that happens after that because it will hurt our brains. Sorry, for bringing it up.

If you watch the extended portion of the seminar, she says all of that, and then sort of chuckles and pretty much winks at the audience. The sense I got from the whole thing was that she was “speaking the truth” when she said it, and then retracting it for form’s sake, afterwords, with the understanding that everyone in the audience knew that she *had* to retract what she’d just said, because it is true, but no one’s supposed to actually *say* it out loud. Sort of pitiful.

May 26, 2009 - 4:26 pm 123. misanthropicus:

Divide et impera – and Barry Soetero has surely entered the American history as the one who instead of discharging objective & positive leadership, has made of the White House power a a wedge to further, cynically divide the nation.
How long the dems will cherish Soetero’s spiels, I don’t know – however, since contemporaneity is a very fast age, they’ll pretty soon see and bear the consequences of having allowed the ascent of such a cynical and destructive individual like Soetero in the POTUS position. Yes, we sure can destroy America.

Whether Sotomayor will get the job or not is to be seen – even so, this episode shows time and again that liberals don’t give shit on whether their puppets are qualified or not for consequential public service positions – all what they want is to advance their agenda, which is a highly destructive one, by pitting groups in fratricidal conflicts.
A large Managua this country has become -

May 26, 2009 - 4:50 pm 124. ReConUSMC:

29. misanthropicus:
RE #9/vrob125: [...] Sotomayer received her A.B. from Princeton–Summa Cum Laude. Is Princeton known for graduating people with that profile who have a “lack of brains”? She was also an editor of the Yale Law Journal. [...]
_______________________________
You can’t have it both ways lefty …… It was said by her own staff and Jeffery Rosen of the FAR LEFT NEW REPUBLIC who said she was not smart .
YOU FAR LEFTIST SAID EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT BUSH GRADUATED WITH A MBA FROM YALE HE WAS STUPID AND A MORON .Clarence Thomas had a far more difficult road and a great legal Judges background as a Black Man and you far leftist beat the HELL OUT OF HIM AS YOU DID BUSH’S ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO WAS A HISPANIC AS WELL ……
LIBERALS spin the truth and ARE ALL LIER AND WILL SAY ANYTHING TO WIN ….. NO MATTER HOW INSANE AND UN FAIR IT IS …..THIS IS NOT ABOUT HER EDUCATION IT ABOUT HER RACISM , BIGOTRY AND REVERSE DISCRIMINATION AGAINT WHITE PEOPLE AND WANTING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO A LIVING CONSTITUTION AS DOES OBAMA AND THAT IS DEAD WRONG ! ”GET IT”" ? NEVER !

May 26, 2009 - 5:04 pm 125. misanthropicus:

PS to #108:
On the other hand, having just driven from Los Angeles to Santa Monica through West Hollywood, I couldn’t help notice that the massive explosion of indignation of the Los Angeles citizenry as a result of the Prop 8 ruling is… just not there (the distinguished description of this would be “Frankly, my dear, who gives a shit”).

Of course, Los Angeles Times will come with some damning editorials, of course the Prop 8 supporters will be called a bunch of imbeciles and troglos, of course purse designers with glowing hair will become whirling dervishes, sticking needles in pictures, ululating and calling for Carl Rove’s death, yet… something makes me feel – pardon, think – that liberals march on very thin ice and they might not know yet that they run short of ammonition.

So, circle the wagons, weather the storm, bid your time, praise the lord and make good use of what we have. It’s that much that this – admitedly prostrate – nation can take, so, when the time will be ripe, we’ll sure can give the liberal occupiers a nice run for the money.

May 26, 2009 - 5:10 pm 126. Chuck Pelto:

TO: realitychiq
RE: Heh

Proven when and by whom? — realitychiq

You don’t remember?

How ’sad’…..

“And I’m not surprised that you’d stand up for a raving sexist like Sotomayor.”

Didn’t say anything about her. — realitychiq

Then what are you ‘doing’ here?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

May 26, 2009 - 5:16 pm 127. sheesh:

121: Recon . . . “Judge Sonia Sotomayor was” Purposely ” Picked by Obama because she is racist and a bigot and a far left radical Socialist and wants a new Living Constitution as does Obama insanely ”

“Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825.

There are dozens more quotes from Jefferson talking about the need for accommodating change in the Constitution.

May 26, 2009 - 6:10 pm 128. fred:

“fred” at #18. You need to take another identity here. I have used mine here at PJM for over a year.

I am not a lawyer. I have only one law course under my belt and it was in my MBA studies (Contract and Business Law). Therefore, law is quite a lacuna in my c.v. If there are lawyers reading this thread, I hope that my following questions could be given their due.

When did the idea of “the living Constitution” enter into law training and practice? The little I have so far read about the Constitution and the Founders’ thinking was that the U.S. Constitution was intended, and ostensibly written as, to be a contract that the American people have with each other about the limits of the federal government (or the principles that limit government, period.). In contract law, only the parties to the contract can mutually assent to change the contract. In the Constitution the process and procedures by which it may be altered are spelled out.

How did we get from this understanding of our Constitution (a contract) to the currently in vogue view that “the law is what I say it is” ? Where and when did this start. Is there some kind of widely accepted principle that now justifies this transition?

May 26, 2009 - 6:17 pm 129. huckaffir:

Relax everybody. Sotomayer is just a sacrificial lamb. She’ll be chewed up and spat out at the confirmation hearings, and then we’ll get the real nominee. Oprah!

May 26, 2009 - 6:17 pm 130. misanthropicus:

RE #124/ReConUSMC:
#29/misanthropicus: “[...] RE #9/vrob125: [...] Sotomayer received her A.B. from Princeton–Summa Cum Laude. Is Princeton known for graduating people with that profile who have a “lack of brains”? She was also an editor of the Yale Law Journal. [...]”
#124/ReConUSMC: You can’t have it both ways lefty [...]‘

You’re barking at the wrong tree buddy – do y/self a favor and read both #9 and #29.

Yours -

May 26, 2009 - 6:38 pm 131. Nightly Ramble: All this and a hat, too | BitsBlog:

[...] a miserable choice for conservatives as Roger Kimball points out in his PJM post on the announcement. But beyond questions of qualifications, temperament, and intellectual heft, [...]

May 26, 2009 - 6:38 pm 132. Peter the Australian:

As a lawyer I find the the comments above extremely interesting, and pass the following comments.

Many otherwise good and intelligent people, seem to have fallen for the folk-marxist line; i.e. that a meber of an ‘oppressed group’ can never be guilty of anything other than betraying the group by having conservative opinions. Thus we have the efforts of some above to claim that it is acceptable for Ms Sotomayor to make comments boasting about the superior abilities of a member of one group over the member of another. The most reasoned repsonse tried to justify Ms Sotomayor’s comments on the basis that there are fewer latino women justices, and therefore it is true that they will bring fresh perspective to the bench. This may be true, but it does not mean that that perspective is any better (or worse)than that of a white male judge. And Sotomayor’s claim was that a ‘wise latino woman’ would give a better decision than a white male judge. This is just silly, inane and illogical. it hows that despite her qualifications, Ms Sotomayor is not a very bright woman.

Others may call her statement racist or sexist. However, I agree with one poster above that the word racist has become a mere ’shutdown’ word (as is the term ’sexist’)designed to stop debate. We conservatives should therefore only use such words in an ironic sense to tease the left. We shouldn’t make emotional arguments based on the prejudice of the speaker, but merely treat such pejudice as displayed by the left as evidence of their typical lack of logic.

May 26, 2009 - 7:02 pm 133. iconoclast:

Bork the quota-loving, racist, lefty b*tch. Do it now. Family? Bork them too. Burn the house down to get to her.

Maybe Obama will appoint a judge next time, instead of this useless, dishonest two-fer.

May 26, 2009 - 7:27 pm 134. mshatto:

sheesh – Jefferson did write that but he was writing about amendments not judges who believ it is their job to legislate or make policy.

May 26, 2009 - 7:38 pm 135. Jon:

We can only hope that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) will expose her for who she really is. And if and when she’s exposed, the REAL Obama will be exposed for all to see. The Republicans DON’T have the votes to stop the confirmation, they can only hope to slow it down. By taking a principled stand, they can contrast the differences between them and the Democrats.

May 26, 2009 - 8:01 pm 136. David S:

@26. Chuck Pelto:

We’ve got ourselves a Supreme Court nominee who is both a racist AND a sexist.

Nice interpretation, Chuck. The funny thing is that you are the one that comes off as racist and sexist. Not to mention rude. Sotomayor is not “a raving sexist” by any stretch of the imagination. She is well qualified and suited in temperament for the court by all accounts. Asserting that her experience is materially different from the experience of a white, male, christian person of means is not racist or sexist.

Sotomayor came from a single-parent household, and grew up in the projects, yet she applied herself and achieved in academia and beyond. There is little doubt that her perspective on the challenges faced by average Americans is somewhat more informed than the previous two justices appointed to the court. Sotomayor was appointed by GHW Bush, and has been a moderate and restrained judge throughout her tenure on the bench. There is no reason to suppose that her life experience makes her a sexist – and certainly not a raving one. There is good reason to believe that she is familiar with facets of the human condition that the other justices may not be.

Of course, your talking points are quite predictable, and easily refuted. She is an accomplished judge, and will be a very valuable addition to the court. Petty attacks on her are a waste of ammunition that you will come to regret.

Peace.

DS

May 26, 2009 - 9:35 pm 137. Moogie:

#108 D-wah – I’ve read that lovely quote of Alinksy’s before. I’ve caught a few exerpts from Rules for Radicals, but now that I’ve seen the PC documentary, I realize Alinksy was just another egotistical narcisstic copy-cat radical.

Kinda like someone else I know.

Anyway, I’ve said my piece. Not that I won’t be saying my piece again … ad nauseum if I have to.

I still say Sotomayer is jeaneane garofolo’s twin or mother or sister or doppleganger.

May 26, 2009 - 9:47 pm 138. WhyamInotsurprised?:

I know Barry well enough now that when he makes such an inflammatory decision like this, my first instinct is to ask “So he is showing me this in his right hand, what is he doing with his left?”

It is a distraction. He’s up to something else he wants ignored. Sacrificing a female minority for political expediency is not beyond him. He threw his grandmother under the bus.

I would say it is to give Pelosi cover and buy her time for her debacle to die down, but she isn’t worthy of such political capital. He is up to something much bigger. If Sotomayor does get approved, he wins double. If she is not approved, I’m sure he has someone else to nominate who will more than fill the bill for his liberal, socialist agenda.

May 26, 2009 - 9:54 pm 139. fear obama:

There is that word again- Racist

Please don’t feed the trolls.

Great man once told me that his room full of law books (on cd now) were like musical instruments in an orchestra.
Lawyers and judges can play any music they want to hear.

This Hispanic judge sounds like she wants to play the Mexican hat dance.

Never mind-

with Obama running the country out of money she won’t draw a pension.

Maybe we can barter our court costs with chickens and tomatoes?

May 26, 2009 - 11:13 pm 140. Louie:

Of course! You’re right: much better to have non-policy makers like Scalia, Alito, Thomas… Talk about hypocrisy

May 27, 2009 - 1:49 am 141. lefroy:

David S, @136:

“Asserting that her experience is materially different from the experience of a white, male, christian person of means is not racist or sexist.”

David, she didn’t say “materially different”. She asserted that the experience of a “wise latina woman” (straight after saying that “wise” had no fixed meaning) was BETTER.

Surely you can acknowledge politically correct pap when you see it? Imagine the outrage if a white male nominee had said that the experience of a “wise white man” was superior to that of a latina woman? By itself such a ridiculous statement would disqualify either for the highest judicial office in the land,

But have a look at the entire quote, at #78. It’s patronizing, illogical, doctrinaire drivel. Is that really the kind of intellect you want on the Supreme Court?

May 27, 2009 - 2:27 am 142. realitycheq:

Chuck

“You don’t remember?” No – please enlighten me.

“Then what are you ‘doing’ here?” As I stated earlier – slumming (you missed me – didn’t you?)

Been busy working. Decided to take an entertainment break to see how the Right was reacting to the choice of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. But nothing novel or interesting here – just more of the same predictable attacks – she is a sexist, racist, feminazi, dim bulb, liberal, bully, affirmative action appointee and – my favorite – judicial activist.

Decided to slum elsewhere by flipping between Charlie Rose and Larry King – the former was discussing Sotomayor – the latter the CA Supreme Court’s decision regarding Proposition 8. Some man of law stated that Scalia treats the US Constitution as scripture – a document to be interpreted literally and never changed (of course – blacks would be slaves and women could not vote). Some man of god quoted scripture then stated that female sexuality is fluid, women like being hugged and if gay marriage is legalized then more women will choose other women over men because women are more loving.

All this time I thought male Christian heterosexuals felt threatened by gay marriage because it is against scripture, sodomites are evil and generalized male homophobic panic. It turns out what they really fear is their wives will get fed up with their bullying abusive behavior, leave them and destroy their marriages by becoming LESBIANS. What a hoot!

I suggest you immediately contact both your Senators and state your profound opposition to appointing a feminazi judicial activist dyke to the Supreme Court. Not that it will make any difference since your Senators are both Democrats and you live in a state with a large Hispanic population. You might have more luck with Republican Senators. Too bad Larry Craig is no longer one of them.

May 27, 2009 - 2:29 am 143. lefroy:

And by the way, what’s with this race hustling by Judge Sotomayor? She’s a “person of color”? Really? Please.

May 27, 2009 - 2:33 am 144. D-wah:

Moogs–if you check in here again–gr8 to hear from you.

Love the Garafabuffalo comparison. Notice these women’s faces? I call them “muscle faces”. Dishonest, bitter people have distorted facial features from years of anger, negativity and scowling. Sotamayor’s face (sounds like a big desoto, or a constellation of soot) is particularly blown up. You can tell a lot in a face. Garafalobble actually got her lip done on top of her muscle face–ha! She can’t even talk right now and is constantly sucking it in, like a lot of these women do. So weird. (hope to God 24 drops her–I bet she threatened and harangued her way into that job..after all, affirmative action applies to all minorities–and she’s VERY minor…)

Keep up the gr8 work and saying “your piece”! (I’ll post this again when I catch you on another string.)

PS: Ever seen some of these career politicians faces up close in real life? Most of them are so fake and freakishly unreal it’s like watching “Horrors of the Wax Museum”!

May 27, 2009 - 6:25 am 145. Chuck Pelto:

TO: David S
RE: Still….

Chuck. The funny thing is that you are the one that comes off as racist and sexist. — David S

…..the same old stupid ‘jackass’, i.e., ignorant and proud of it.

For your information, my sister is married to an Iranian and my eldest daughter is seeing a Marine…..who is black. And I think it’s great that he’s a Marine. In other words a man much better than you’ll likely ever be.

So….

….tell US all how I’m a ‘racist’? Fool!

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The one who throws the race card first is most likely the REAL 'racists'.]

P.S. Sotomayor threw it first with that quote from her speech as printed in the NYT…..fool….

May 27, 2009 - 6:36 am 146. robotech master:

Here’s a great quote…

“I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don’t believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush.”

From sent… err VP joe biden…. chew on that a little.

May 27, 2009 - 6:51 am 147. Fen:

She’s a “person of color”?

To be more precise, Sotomayor is a racist.

May 27, 2009 - 6:56 am 148. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Heh

According to THIS REPORT it seems that nine other judges disagree with Judge Sotomayor more than half the time.

So much for her ‘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 Sotomayor

It seems that nine men and women of different ethnic backgrounds rejected HER ‘conclusions’ 60% of the time.

And we want THIS sort of ‘decision-making’ incompetent on the high court? Making ‘policy’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If you wouldn’t hire her as a stock broker, what makes you think she can make better decisions about the Law of the Land?

Or are you just a flaming hypocrite?

May 27, 2009 - 8:12 am 149. Chuck Pelto:

TO: realitychiq
RE: You Don’t Remember….

“You don’t remember?” No – please enlighten me. — realitychiq

….You Don’t Recall;
You have no memory;
Of anything at all. — Peter Gabriel

Better review the comments in the PJM columns:

[1] Obama and the Media: The End of the Affair by Jennifer Rubin

[2] Our Clueless Critics by Andrew Klavan

I’ve got more where that came from, from last year. But I bought a new computer and you’re not worth the effort to go and drag the predecessor up and put it on-line to do further searching.

RE: Again, with the Poor Reading Skills

I suggest you immediately contact both your Senators and state your profound opposition to appointing a feminazi judicial activist dyke to the Supreme Court. — realitychiq

Maybe you should go back and re-read comment #105 of this thread.

And even if I can’t convince them, Democrat-idiots that they are, to reject this nominee, I’ll gather MORE ammunition to deal with their constituents for the next election cycle. That includes something to beat over the head of one neighborhood-association BoD member who works for one of them.

The rank hypocrisy will REALLY show with her…..unless she converts from being a racist to an American.

RE: Missing You?

“Then what are you ‘doing’ here?” As I stated earlier – slumming (you missed me – didn’t you?) — realitychiq

With a wife like the one described in Proverbs 31? Who reminds me of the female lead in Lifeforce? On our wedding anniversary? [Note: They even have the same maiden-name.]

Get used to disappointment. — The Dread Pirate Roberts

But your projection IS ‘appreciated’….heh….heh….heh….heh….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Thanks for being SOMEWHAT ‘on-topic’…..

May 27, 2009 - 8:28 am 150. Moogie:

D-wah – I wondered what the deal was with barfolo’s mouth. I find it extremely surprising that someone who hammers feminist ideology would something so artificial, superficial, and plastic to herself in order to look better (I also find it humorous that these “enhancements” do the exact opposite of their intended purpose).

#146 robotech master: Great quote by Biden. There’s a spray that you can use in your throat to paralyze the vocal cords. I’m surprised Obama hasn’t used it on Joe yet.

May 27, 2009 - 8:47 am 151. urbanleftbehind:

#50

Toronto Girl:

Jews were also never accused of being terrorists and of subverting the state a la Black Panthers, FOI/NOI, Brown Berets, NCLR etc. So their instutions were not hamstrung from flowering into the equivalent of Brandeis, Beth Israel Hospital, Notre Dame, Knights of Columbus etc. I think most gentile whites (in the U.S., that is) were content with simple separatism-not so much with keeping the Jews under the yoke. Even in the South (the Klan needed sheets cheap, you know ).

I hope Steven Harper remains the real deal up north. In corrupt god forsaken Mexico, a Jew becomes and remains the richest man in the world (that Chapo guy is a mere servant). Under whatever “-stan” Canada may become, there can be no Carlos Slim.

May 27, 2009 - 11:39 am 152. Cybergeezer:

By her own words, she attests that she will NOT OBIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION. And since she is a latin woman, thinks she is beyond discriminating against any other class or group. Therefore, SHE IS RACIST! Any questions?

May 27, 2009 - 11:42 am 153. realitycheq:

Chuck

You disappoint me. I was expecting far more ‘bashing’ than this.

I don’t remember this one: [2] Our Clueless Critics by Andrew Klavan. Could look up, but am too lazy and disinterested

But do remember this one: [1] Obama and the Media: The End of the Affair by Jennifer Rubin.
It has been continued in another one about why the right should be more entertaining. Someone using the moniker ‘just passing through’ has been insisting for months that Obama’s approval rating is dropping. I cite polling data and keep saying y = mx + b and m is one. He (she?) keeps calling me a moron but refuses to cite any data supporting his (her) thesis. Is this what you call a bashing? Being called a moron by someone who can’t do junior high school math?

I already read (in your earlier post) that you had already contacted your Senators. But you missed the point. I am suggesting you contact them again and state unequivocally that you don’t want this racist, sexist, dim bulb, liberal, bully, judicical activist, LESBIAN appointed to the Supreme Court. And just for good measure, why not throw in the fact that she is a diabetic?

Going back to work – the Right really is very boring!

May 27, 2009 - 12:26 pm 154. fred:

What more proof do we need to solidly establish what Obama thinks of the U.S. Constitution? The MSM conspicuously was absent when the audio clip of his views about the Constitution being a flawed document surfaced.

This woman is on record, as Cybergeezer states above my comment, as being not bound by the Constitution. She has admitted at a Duke University chat that judges can make law and policy.

If this isn’t tyrannical, then I don’t know what is.

Every day things just keep getting worse and worse. I cannot imagine what it will be like in 3 1/2 years.

May 27, 2009 - 1:08 pm 155. myth buster:

G Alston, whose side are you on? I’m under the impression that you’re a closet liberal, not a libertarian like you say you are.

May 27, 2009 - 1:34 pm 156. David S:

@148. Chuck Pelto:

Disagreeing with the majority of justices on the current court would count as positive qualification by my count. Your assertion that nine other judges disagree is rather poorly supported. She did have a total of three reversals handed down from the SCOTUS, but none of these were unanimous decisions. Moreover, her rate of reversals is substantially lower than the average.

Of course, you can’t even cite one case where nine other judges disagreed with Sotomayor. The people who reversed her decisions were hardly “nine men and women of different ethnic backgrounds”. There were two 5-4 decisions and one 6-3 decision. Only the 6-3 reversal included a woman in the majority. By objective measures, she does more often than not reach a better conclusion than the average white male judge – her reversal rate of 60% is better than the 75% average for all petitions.

I would assert that Sotomayor is precisely the kind of justice that would help to improve the SCOTUS. She might not make much of a stock broker – but that’s not the task at hand. When it comes to being a judge, Sotomayor is doing it right, and I expect she will do very well on the high court. Your continued focus on out-of-context quotes only reveals a deep and abiding refusal to dispute with integrity.

Peace.

DS

May 27, 2009 - 2:11 pm 157. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Sooooo….

Disagreeing with the majority of justices on the current court would count as positive qualification by my count. — David S

….David S thinks Civil Rights laws, as invoked by the Supremes should be revoked? Along with Roe v. Wade? Let alone Lawrence v. Texas?

How VERY, ‘interesting’…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....and David S is going to look VERY 'S'orry....]

May 27, 2009 - 3:20 pm 158. Chuck Pelto:

TO: realitychiq
RE: Is THIS….

You disappoint me. I was expecting far more ‘bashing’ than this. — realitychiq

….the ONLY reason you’re ‘here’?

Get a LIFE! Puhlease!!!!!

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You haven't lived until you've almost died.]

May 27, 2009 - 3:24 pm 159. G Alston:

#155 — G Alston, whose side are you on? I’m under the impression that you’re a closet liberal, not a libertarian like you say you are.

The left is wannabe marxist. I’m on the anti-marxist side. I simply don’t share your social conservative views.

In the case of “judicial activism” being discussed I see this as the opposite; the SCOTUS reaffirmed that the state isn’t in the job of telling women what medical procedures they can have. It’s a decision for freedom and not statism. The case for anti-abortion involves the state, and I see this as wrong. If judicial activism means we can see more rulings in favour of freedom of choice, then I’m all for it. As it is there seems to be no such thing as judicial activism, just different interpretations of how best to implement what the founders intended.

Regarding the argument that this ought to be left to the states I see this as tantamount to advocating that the states ought to practice tyrrany of the majority (two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.)

In and of itself this doesn’t mean that I advocate going out and getting abortions or using it for birth control and so on. What it does mean is that I see this as a private matter involving nobody other than the doctor and patient.

In short, I side with freedom. I’m not sure what side YOU are on.

May 27, 2009 - 3:24 pm 160. Chuck Pelto:

TO: realitychiq
RE: Talking to ‘Senators’

I already read (in your earlier post) that you had already contacted your Senators. But you missed the point. I am suggesting you contact them again and state unequivocally that you don’t want this racist, sexist, dim bulb, liberal, bully, judicical activist, LESBIAN appointed to the Supreme Court. — realitychiq

Actually…..

….shortly after my comment to you, earlier today, pointing out item #105 of this thread, my neighborhood association associate, who works for the newly ‘appointed’ Senator (D-CO), called me back.

We had an ‘interesting’ discussion of my opinion of this ‘nominee’. She was, in her capacity as a rep for the Senator, not a liberty to go ‘free-form’ in the discussion. Maybe we’ll discuss it in more detail at some neighborhood ‘event’.

But I do admit to admiring her quick response to my query, less than 24-hours ago. Probably because the distaff held the position in the association that she holds now.

Sooooo…..

….what ‘exactly’ is your ‘point’ here?

I should try ‘harder’?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....and at the Judgment Seat there's going to be a LOT of 'consternation'.....]

May 27, 2009 - 3:31 pm 161. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Are You ‘Getting This’?

I would assert that Sotomayor is precisely the kind of justice that would help to improve the SCOTUS. She might not make much of a stock broker – but that’s not the task at hand. — David S

The ‘task at hand’ is the Law of the Land. And yet, David S, can’t seem to make a ‘connection’ between that and the actions of an apparent ‘racists’ and ’sexist’.

Maybe, if The One, or perhaps Bush II, had proposed a white male for a position on amongst the ‘Supremes’, he might have presented a ‘different argument’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]

May 27, 2009 - 5:03 pm 162. Just Passing Through:

153. realitycheq:

Come by a few days later and read another thread and find you there, still a lying moron. A moron, because you couldn’t get your head around the fact that you had f**k all understanding of the subject at hand. A liar, because the challenge was to search the data, not for me to supply it by link or other means. The fact that you couldn’t search other information when challenged to, and at one point I even listed percentages and terms a child could have used to successfully search if so challenged, just reinforces both the lie and the impression of moronic cognition. And this in the context where I said upfront, to either someone else or to yourself in a davis s incarnation, that the challenge was to look up data that might surprise he/she/it.

Last time idiot. Your math skills have been laughable from the first mention. You ducked and weaved when that was pointed out until you took ownership of my position, and then crowed about how right you were all along. Revisionism only works if the original records can be expunged. That is a matter of record in posts here that you can’t control.

You toss out the formula for a line and think that shows any understanding of it’s utility? Again, last time, moron, the trend that was under discussion before you put your oar in is real. There’s short term deviations, but that’s common. Cherry picking a segment of the time line and saying, ‘there, see, the trend is up!!!!’ is a fool’s position and one you seem married to.

Chuck is also correct. You reading skills are laughable. In either of the posts you tried to peddle your nonsense, the information you linked showed the exact opposite of what you thought/claimed/hoped. And it was obvious to anyone reading text through even casually, and obvious to anyone casually glancing the graphs. The only challenge there was that in a few cases one had to look for the original information when the ‘analysis’ of someone with a point to prove drew on background support data that omitted information from the original data. And that omission was immediately obvious to anyone with any better than primary school math skills.

Now, he/she/it, this is what I do for a living. I am an engineering consultant. I work for me and make damn good money doing so and contracts come to me by reputation. And wouldn’t if I have not mastered math far more sophisticated than the formula for a line and in more than one domain, and am able to use it on a daily basis. And again wouldn’t if I couldn’t recognize and apply the best method to organize data into a useful format and draw conclusions based on that data. And again wouldn’t if I EVER drew conclusions based on what I hoped that data would indicate, and NEVER by manipulating or omittng data that did not fit a premise.

And you, some sophomoric jackass whose math skills come from a poor effort with minimal understanding put into googling terms from my comments are going to tell me I have junior high math skills. This from someone whose definition of a trend in his/hers/its first comment was that it requires two points.

You were flayed and sent packing. The only part of that I found difficult, impossible, was to try to keep you on subject. Ignoring the strawman and non-sequitur diversions you put up was easy. I was laughing at your attempts the whole time and said so.

So, realitycheq, david s, the two or the one of you, the pablum you swill down on the sites that tell the nonentities like yourself how to think and what your positions are doesn’t make it. It works for the unwashed progressives that those sites draw in but only on those sites. A valid position whether it’s one supported by physical data or by opinion is arrived at through a connected series of logical steps in the world where people actually think. You were never even close to that.

May 27, 2009 - 6:56 pm 163. Big Red:

Hey guys, go easy on Garofalo, huh? She looks like the Girl Next Door, if you happen to live next door to an insane asylum.

May 27, 2009 - 7:18 pm 164. kathy:

138. WhyamInotsurprised?: I know Barry well enough now that when he makes such an inflammatory decision like this, my first instinct is to ask “So he is showing me this in his right hand, what is he doing with his left?”

Can you say Value Added Tax?

May 27, 2009 - 7:45 pm 165. So…Sotomayor, Huh? : The Sundries Shack:

[...] rule on your behalf. It’s like having a “do whatever the heck you want” card. It kind of sucks for the whole “rule of law” thing, but these days that’s not quite as important as pushing the President’s agenda. The [...]

May 27, 2009 - 7:51 pm 166. willian:

Benjamin Cordoza Supreme Court 1932 ethnicity Spanish …Hispanic ?

May 28, 2009 - 1:20 am 167. vivo:

Kimball & Rosten can’t hide their racism. It doesn’t take long to feel their constricting bellies churning desperation.

10. WhyamInotsurprised?:

“Sotomayors’ comment about “making policy” at the Appellate level is very telling, and all I need to know about her.”

Take a toothpick and make it a baseball bat. How Repug.

11. Northern Light:

“Republicans have been opposing Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court for weeks now. I guess they’re happy that they now know the identity of the person they’ve been opposing.”

That says it all.

14. susan: jealous

17. David Thomson:

“Sonia Sotomayor is another shallow and poorly read individual”

Another racist using Puerto Rican stereotypes.

41. Ozzie:

“I don’t think racists should be allowed to serve on the supreme court.”

What about the ones already there?

47. BooBoo Netanhoohoo: good posting!

55. susan:

“but she’s surely maliciously biased.”

And . . . you aren’t?

111. MiamaMan:

“I am from that Cuban tribe that shunts goverment, cheat on taxes, is thoroughly Republican and hates Che Guevara.”

I knew you were pretty crappy. You’re right, you’re not Hispanic, you’re Cuban, pure and simple. And Miama is spelled Miami . . . or you mean “miasma”?

Bottom line: Repugs going crazy because they are rapidly becoming a minority and are going to get a dose of their own medicine.

May 28, 2009 - 3:09 am 168. Steynian 358 « Free Canuckistan!:

[...] ROGER KIMBALL– “Why you should oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court” [...]

May 28, 2009 - 9:27 am 169. Typos_R_us:

It won’t matter in the long run. The Usurper is an illegal President. That means NONE of the bills he signs or appointments he makes will stand up after he is out of office.
Official, department of Labor ‘cooked’ statistics show unemployment to be 8.9% The real number has to be past 10%
Even the cookers of books say 10% by the end of the year, which is past optimism and well into delusion.
If you see unemployment as those that want a job and cannot find one, it is closer to 12% then 9%. Think any of those looking for nonexistent jobs will vote in ‘10?
Think they will vote their empty wallets and replace the democratic crooks with some republican crooks?
Do you really think the new Congress won’t demand that the Usurper produce a birth certificate? Impeach him if he doesn’t? Especially after copies of his Kenya Birth certificate go on sale at EBay? Once he is impeached, all his work will be undone in a few weeks.
The Marxists and Chicago mobsters running the Usurper know this and will either catch a flight out or fight a civil war to keep the Usurper in power. The smart ones will bail, since they have no chance of winning a civil war.

May 28, 2009 - 10:45 am 170. David S:

@161. Chuck Pelto:

The ‘task at hand’ is the Law of the Land. And yet, David S, can’t seem to make a ‘connection’ between that and the actions of an apparent ‘racists’ and ’sexist’.

There is no evidence at hand of any actions that would indicate Sotomayor to be racist or sexist. Her rulings are well regarded, and generally better than the average. There is no evidence of sexism or racism in her record, despite your continued attempt to misrepresent the facts. Quoting a speech on diversity out of context is expected, and also easily dismissed. Show me a ruling where Sotomayor does not follow the Law of the Land, or can the righteous indignation schtick.

Maybe, if The One, or perhaps Bush II, had proposed a white male for a position on amongst the ‘Supremes’, he might have presented a ‘different argument’.

Bush II proposed two white males for a position amongst the “Supremes”, but my argument against their appointments was based on their records, not on their race or gender. It is interesting to make the observation that Bush appointed less experienced and less moderate justices than Obama has in Sotomayor. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your inflammatory comments and make an argument based on Sotomayor’s judicial record? It would certainly carry more weight than your vapid mouthing of epithets.

Peace.

DS

May 28, 2009 - 12:44 pm 171. realitycheq:

JPT @162

You tried to claim in late March that there was a trend toward decreased approval for Obama. The basis of your claim was one data point – his approval rating in late March. Chuck linked to a Zogby online poll to support this (your) claim.

I pointed out that a trend cannot be discerned from a single data point because AT LEAST two points are required to define a line and you had not selected a second data point. I pointed out that the Zogby poll was a clear outlier.

You kept harping about the election. It appeared you were selecting the results of the November election as your second data point. I pointed out that this is statistical nonsense – you were mixing up apples with oranges.

You then tried to weasel your way out of it by claiming you were just setting up a trap for David S (and, no, we are not one and the same). But David S did not step in your ‘oh so clever’ trap and neither did I.

After much back and forth (and considerable abusive language from you), you FINALLY settled on a second data point: Obama’s approval rating in late Jan/early Feb, which was about 66% – as determined by the Gallup tracking poll.

I said – okay – if you want to compare his approval rating in late Jan to his approval rating in late March (when it was about 59%), then – yes – there was a slight decrease in his approval rating over this two-month time period. But I also cautioned you that drawing long-term conclusions by extrapolating data obtained over a short period of time is not always accurate.

You also tried to claim in late March that those who voted for Obama in November now disapprove of his performance. I pointed out that there was no evidence to support this conclusion. One would have to conduct a poll in which the question was asked – did you vote for Obama in November and, if so, do you now approve or disapprove of his performance? I stated I was not aware of any such poll. I said if you were aware of one then please provide me with the link.

Did you provide a link? No. You ducked. You acted like a petulant child and resorted to temper tantrums and started calling me a ‘moron’ for questioning your unsubstantiated claims. Grow up!

Although I warned you in March not to extrapolate the data, you did so anyway in the May thread. You asserted again that Obama’s approval ratings had decreased. Both David S and I provided you with links demonstrating – once again – that you were incorrect. Obama’s approval rating in early May was about 67%. In other words, his approval rating in May had increased ever so slightly relative to late March.

Did this register with you? No, of course not. The actual data did not support your foregone conclusion, so you did what you seem to be in the habit of doing. You immediately resorted to your standard retort of calling me a ‘moron’.

You then went on to assert in May that a Rasmussen Poll (which relied on likely voters) is more accurate than a poll that relies on anyone who happens to answer the telephone. I tried to explain to you that a ‘likely’ voter is a voter who has voted in many previous elections. Historically, likely voter polls tend to include more older, white republicans. I tried to explain to you that the world is changing and many ‘unlikely’ voters (especially younger and/or ethnic minorities) voted for Obama in November.

Did this register? No. You simply ignored it and called me a moron – again. Can’t you come up with something more original than calling people morons and idiots?

In the May thread you also asserted that Obama was losing support among Independents. I provided links demonstrating that Obama had gained support among Independents between March and May. David S did as well.

As expected – you resorted to more abusive language, called me a moron, claimed I did not know how to read a graph, and that the data showed the precise opposite (when – in fact – it did not).

At no point – in any of these numerous exchanges (with me or David S) – did you provide a link to support any of your assertions. Indeed, you made the utterly ridiculous statement that YOU did not have to provide links because you are giving the poor befuddled Obama supporters a much needed ‘homework assignment’. You directed us to use data from late last year. LOL!

Now you are trying to claim that I am one cherry picking the data. No. I was trying to get you to select AT LEAST TWO VALID data points in order to determine the slope of the line. YOU initially chose the second data point from late Jan/early Feb when his approval rating was about 66% in the Gallup tracking poll. The most recent Gallup tracking poll places his approval rating at about 64%. If you want to assert that this is indicative of a significant decrease in approval, then be my guest. But I feel compelled to warn you that the margin of error in this poll is +/- 3%.

Yes – of course – there have been minor fluctuations over short periods of times. They are statistically insignificant. I will say – as I have been saying all along – that if one insists on determining a trend from polling data, then the trend line has been more or less flat. And – I will say once again – extrapolating this data is meaningless. It does not mean the trend line will remain flat, it does not mean it will increase and it does not mean it will decrease. It only means that over the past several months there has been no significant increase or decrease in Obama’s approval rating. I’m sorry if this annoys you, but they are facts.

But now you no longer want to use the data point from the Gallup poll taken in late Jan/early Feb. You want to use data from some poll taken late last year. It is meaningless to attempt to discern a trend in Presidential approval rating using data from late last year because Obama was not President at that time. YOU are cherry picking data AND mixing apples with oranges – again

Based on your past performances, I have good reason to believe that my response will be met by more abuse and/or simply ignored, but – of course – you will not provide any actual data to support your claims. Your MO seems to be tell a lie, keep telling it, call your opponent a moron, accuse your opponent of lying, dodging, ducking and weaving – in short – all the sins committed by you. Whether or not you realize it, your inability to face the facts, your refusal to provide any evidence supporting your claims and your ongoing belligerent name-calling are all hallmarks of a narcissist. It is very tiresome.

And if you want to tout credentials as evidence of math skills – fine – I have a PhD in ‘hard’ sciences and perform far more complex math than this every day. I tried to dumb it down for you as much as possible. I am so sorry if my attempt to explain junior high school level math to you was unsuccessful, but – unlike you – I can only sink so low.

Here is your homework assignment, JPT: Put up or shut up!

May 28, 2009 - 7:04 pm 172. Just passing Through:

JPT @162

“You tried to claim in late March that there was a trend toward decreased approval for Obama. The basis of your claim was one data point – his approval rating in late March.”

Lie. Right off the bat. From the very start, I emphasized, repeatedly, that the trend was over a period of time. It’s an amazing lie, because anyone so inclined could check it so easily.

Tell, me, jackass, why I should read one more word?

I’ll scan to the end.

“I have a PhD in ‘hard’ sciences and perform far more complex math than this every day. I tried to dumb it down for you as much as possible.”

Another lie. Why do I know this? A PhD in ‘hard sciences’? You have a PhD in ‘hard sciences’? Tell us. What institution gave you your PhD in ‘hard sciences’. Let the terminology go for now. Let’s just make the observation that no one who achieved a PhD in any scientific discipline would say the idiotic things you said, nor would they be so reading challenged. And NO ONE with any familiarity with any of the the hard sciences would be unable to recognize a trend. And NO ONE with any familiarity with hard science would confuse the two point equation for a line with the definition of a trend and tell one and all that only two points are needed to establish a trend. It was one of the stupidest statements that anyone could have made, much less someone with math background and you were held up to well earned derision for making it. Sorry if that offended you. Don’t say stupid things in discussions that are out of your depth.

“It only means that over the past several months there has been no significant increase or decrease in Obama’s approval rating.”

More evidence of being both intellectually challenged and dishonest. As the discussion occurred several months ago, what happened over the intervening months is meaningless, and does not absolve you of being dead wrong at the time the discussion occurred using the data available at the time. You obviously have no idea how absurd that position is. And you would if you were what you claimed to be.

Give it up. You revealed yourself to be a jackass. Why keep adding to it. You can’t redeem yourself up by taking ownership of the positions you derided. No revisionism you attempt to make at this point can alter the record of what you, or I, said then.

So what do I put up? Continue to hammer away at the evidence of your moronic cognition ad infinitum? Pull direct quotes out of a thread from two months ago for everyone’s edification when I suspect that everyone with any grasp of logic reading you has already come to the conclusions about you that I did two months back?

May 28, 2009 - 9:41 pm 173. Linguist:

What a wonderful world it would be if Sonia Sotomayor both understood the role of the judiciary and demonstrated an ability to perform it. However, she does not.

This has nothing to do with race or gender; a racist is a racist no matter what their physical form. Legislating from the bench remains legislating from the bench and a cowpatty by any other name would still stink.

That Obama would put someone like this at the top of a list that includes someone like Jennifer Granholm (with NO judicial experience) says more about him than the candidate.

Sonia Sotomayor is the wrong person for the job.

http://smokebreak.blogshevik.com/2009/05/28/different-but-equally-racist/

May 29, 2009 - 4:14 am 174. D. PULLEN:

FIRST hispanic? What about Judge Cardozo??

May 29, 2009 - 4:55 am 175. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: David S & Sotomayor

There is no evidence at hand of any actions that would indicate Sotomayor to be racist or sexist. — David S

What a crock of merde. David S obviously is a blatant liar about Sotomayor, if not about everythink.

Why? Because it has been pointed out here in numerous comment how she thinks an hispanic woman can make decisions better than a white man.

David S is apparently in the pay of someone or else he has no sense of reality or morality, other than that which is outright ‘evil’.

’nuff said.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

May 29, 2009 - 9:09 am 176. Chuck Pelto:

TO: realitychiq
RE: Zogby

Chuck linked to a Zogby online poll to support this (your) claim.

I pointed out that a trend cannot be discerned from a single data point because AT LEAST two points are required to define a line and you had not selected a second data point. I pointed out that the Zogby poll was a clear outlier. — realitychiq

Don’t worry…..

….the other data-points will fall into place in due time. COUNT ON IT!

As more and more people realize their life is going to hell, thanks to The One, the polling trend will continue. This, despite the efforts of other groups to put rose-colored glasses on the faces of the idiots who put The One into the Oval Office.

Indeed, over the last week, I’ve heard a number of people ’suddenly’ complaining about how odd it is that prices are going up while income is going down.

Additionally, thinking back on the ‘conversation’ I had with Senator Bennett’s (D-CO) local staffer, I thought I sensed a bit of ‘dismay’ or at least ‘defensiveness’ about the Sotomayor nomination. And she’s Hispanic herself.

Well….

….I don’t know anyone who could call her an ‘idiot’. And maybe even SHE is ‘getting a clue’ as to what she and her fellow ‘jackasses’ have foisted on the rest of US.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....and a lot of 'jackasses' are going to be VERY remorseful.....]

May 29, 2009 - 9:25 am 177. Andrew:

Mr, Kimball…In May, 2002 you wrote an essay entitled “The Death of Objectivity”…

May 29, 2009 - 11:01 am 178. David S:

@173. Linguist:

What a wonderful world it would be if Sonia Sotomayor both understood the role of the judiciary and demonstrated an ability to perform it. However, she does not.

She’s a sharper legal mind than any of the current justices. Her legal opinions are quite sound. Continuing to denigrate this very accomplished judge as a racist or incompetent is bound to reflect poorly on the GOP when it becomes apparent that she has had a distinguished career and shows no sign of bias in her rulings. But go ahead and keep digging. Who am I to stop you?

Perhaps you can name someone who is better qualified for this appointment? I’m very curious how you would make such a determination.

Peace.

DS

May 29, 2009 - 12:15 pm 179. realitycheq:

JPT @172

“Lie. Right off the bat. From the very start, I emphasized, repeatedly, that the trend was over a period of time.”

But conveniently refused to select a period of time or provide any links to support your hypothesis.

“Tell us. What institution gave you your PhD in ‘hard sciences’.”

If you think I am going to send you a copy of my CV, then you are out of your mind. Oh, wait … you are out of your mind! I will reveal that I spent at least 5 years doing scientific research at Caltech at some point during the past 40 years. I think that is both sufficiently informative to establish my credentials and sufficiently vague to maintain my anonymity.

“And NO ONE with any familiarity with hard science would confuse the two point equation for a line with the definition of a trend and tell one and all that only two points are needed to establish a trend.”

I said one must have AT LEAST two, never said ONLY two, while you claimed you had discerned a trend using ONE AND ONLY ONE data point. And the one and only data point you latched onto was a discredited Zogby online poll claiming an approval rating of about 50-50. What a F****** moron!!! Are you happy now? I used words you can understand.

Only after being pressed, did you finally pick a second data point that could be used to establish a time frame (Jan to Mar), which conveniently demonstrated a slight decrease in approval rating. What a surprise that you chose that time frame. You cherry picked data to support your hypothesis.

“As the discussion occurred several months ago, what happened over the intervening months is meaningless.”

Oh, no, you’re not getting off the hook. It is MEANINGFUL. After you cherry picked data to establish a time frame that conveniently showed a decrease in approval rating between Jan and Mar, you claimed this was a trend that would be continued into the future. Well, the future is now and your predicted trend did not continue as you predicted. Jan to May the trend is flat (ignoring minor fluctuations up or down). And because it is flat, your hypothesis (from Mar) has now been discredited.

So, what do you do? If you adhered to the scientific method, you would discard your hypothesis. But, no, you now want to pick a different time frame and – of course – one that will conveniently demonstrate how right you were all along. But in order to find a different time frame that supports your hypothesis, you now have to go back to the end of last year and pick a data point BEFORE Obama was inaugurated. Let me say it again. What a F****** moron!!!

Go back to your own posts and read WHY it is invalid to compare data obtained prior to inauguration to data obtained after inauguration. The former is a measure of expectation; the latter a measure of job performance. You are mixing apples with oranges. May I please say it one more time? What a F****** moron!!!

“So what do I put up?”

Put up links to data that support your hypothesis. Stop cherry picking data, mixing apples with oranges and resorting to the lame ‘that was then but this is now’ excuse. Something both David S and I have been asking you to do along. Like many posters here, you demand proof from those with whom you disagree, but think you do not have to abide by the same set of rules. What makes you think you are so special?

You (and others at this site) erroneously assume all Obama supporters are a bunch of young pot smoking slackers supported by their parents, paid DNC trolls, tree huggers, tree sitters, vegan PETA members, Hollyweird celebrities or poor ethnic minorities on the dole. If those were Obama’s only supporters, then he would not have won the election. Many of us are older, highly educated, gainfully employed, hard working, taxpayers fed up with 8 years of disastrous Republican rule. I can’t say why so many others became fed up because I did not take a poll. But for me, the number one reason was the utter disdain and disregard for all things scientific.

It was because of this disdain for science that I – for the first time in my long life – decided to give money to Democratic candidates last year. Now I am on their list. Last night I received several email requests for money to buy TV ads to support Sotomayor. After reading the vicious and unfounded attacks about Sotomayor on this site, I decided to give money. Although I am a registered Independent, I also decided I just had to have MANY of those I AM A PROUD DEMOCRAT eco-friendly tote bags, so I gave more money. And I am going to continue to give money to the Democrats because 1) I want to and 2) I have a lot of money to give. It is DRUG MONEY – drugs designed and developed from years of scientific research.

So, JPT, the DNC thanks you and your ilk on PJM for turning one wealthy Independent into A PROUD DEMOCRAT!

May 29, 2009 - 4:18 pm 180. Just Passing Through:

You are so full of BS it’s amazing.

The problem liars face is that once they are exposed as such, you can believe nothing they say at face value. On the other hand, it easy to see the nonsense in your new claim. I will repeat. You are lying about your background. You’re desperate for credibility to defend a failed and discredited position you can’t let go of. You are failing miserably in that effort also. I knew that when you first made the PhD claim.

I interact on a daily basis on my current contract with several physicists. PhDs. Consultants and staff. Their responsibility is the conceptual design. There’s an engineering group that will implement their design. My responsibility in that second group is the lead system engineer defining and designing the telemetry scheme. All parties negotiate the requirements in meetings that get very lively. But they all, physicists and engineers, share one quality when it comes to the treatment and description of data of any sort that you completely lack. Intellectual honesty. They are precise when they transcribe or describe data, or any other information, directly taken by, presented to, or researched by them. They are precise when they present the reduction and/or analysis of that data, or any other information, to others. You are as far from showing any characteristics of a trained scientist or a competent engineer as you could be.

Thankfully, it’s been many years since I’ve worked at a level where the idiots haven’t already been filtered out. Still happens now and again though. If you worked for me or with me in any capacity I would consider you an illogical waste of time and space the first time you held to a demonstrably false position and get rid of you if possible, or utterly ignore you if not.

You are also still lying about both my and your contributions to the original discussion.

‘But conveniently refused to select a period of time or provide any links to support your hypothesis. ‘

Since you saved the link to the post of over two months ago where you made such a fool of yourself, (saving it in itself says a lot about you), go back and do what I said the first time your obsession resurfaced. Have someone read and carefully explain my posts to you. Take responsibility for the lying about what I clearly and repeatedly said, (including PRECISELY stating a time span), and about lying about what you said. It’ll do you good.

Or, don’t bother and just fade away. I don’t often comment anywhere and never follow a fools lead once it’s apparent that they’re determined to pile it on. Your lying offended me enough to continue this a bit, but your gyrating about it just bores me at this point.

Into the bozo bin you go.

May 30, 2009 - 7:19 am 181. shaui-jan:

reality cheq. “If those were Obama’s only supporters, then he would not have won the election.”

well aware of that point….that’s that makes it so depressing.

” Many of us are older, highly educated, gainfully employed, hard working, taxpayers fed up with 8 years of disastrous Republican rule.”

so are alot of people here,too.we just did not want to trade in disaster for catastrophy.

“So, JPT, the DNC thanks you and your ilk on PJM for turning one wealthy Independent into A PROUD DEMOCRAT!”

it is highly doubtful a blog would influence you so,but enjoy your earnings why you still have them.remember,it is now considered “patriotic” to “spread the wealth around.”

May 30, 2009 - 7:21 am 182. Linguist:

@ 178. David S: Do you understand the conditions under which justices serve? Please consider their oath of office and tell me how “empathy” and identify politics fits into it?

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Justice is blind. Deliberately, and ultimately most wisely. To consider the law any other way is the shortcut to favoritism and partiality; it is a sure means to a quick reversal of the benefits of affirmative action and equal opportunity.

The problems with a lack of blind, impartial Justice is what we see in countries like Iran and North Korea, Venezuala and Cuba.

I should hope that not even the most progressive, liberal Democrat would not aspire to this, for as surely as they revel today in perceptions of being the “favored ones”, they will one day find themselves on the short end of the stick. But by then there will be no recourse, no redress.

Deride Conservatives all you like. Just remember that it is the Conservatives who gave you the right to show the world your stupidity without fear of anything more than social ostracism.

May 30, 2009 - 8:57 am 183. Rodger Harris:

If a white male made the same statements that this narrow minded bigot made. David S and the liberal left in America would have wanted him tarred, feathered and run out of town. The double standard in this country is getting terrible. Her career shows a history of bias rulings and over 60% have been over turned. She has stated that laws are made on from the bench; her bench is what she is talking about. This woman is inept because of her background and will be the biggest far left wing bigoted individual to taint our great court. Being a bigot even in reverse whatever that means is terrible but the left wing in America wants to keep being a racist alive and well in this country. Somehow in America if you are any race that is capable of producing more babies then the other races you can become the majority and no longer the minority. Even if the father’ of those babies have no intention on supporting those babies and letting the current majority support your kids. She grew up in a single house hold raised by her mother and wants us to think that she somehow has risen up from the ashes. I bet if you took a look at the free money we have given her to go to school because she got minority favor and support it would be amazing. She will get this post because the GOP will be afraid of losing the huge Hispanic vote if they trash this bigot. That’s too bad that this race has become the majority on the backs of the rest of us as they seem to be unable to support their own race.

May 30, 2009 - 9:37 am 184. realitycheq:

JPT

You think I didn’t see that one coming? I knew the truth would be so painful you’re only option would be to accuse me of lying about my scientific background. Perhaps you can find solace in this: invite Chuck over, draw the shades and enjoy your right wing circle jerk.

Shaui-Jan

I have no problem with Obama raising my taxes. It was another reason why I voted for him.

May 30, 2009 - 2:36 pm 185. realitycheq:

Sorry, I meant “your” not “you’re”. I’ve clearly spent far too much time at this site since I am making the same errors as Chuck Pelto.

May 30, 2009 - 2:48 pm 186. Just passing Through:

I shouldn’t respond as my usual practice is to ignore the mutterings from anyone I’ve consigned to the bozo bin. However, it sounds like you’re finally giving it up. Which will be good for you.

Since I did respond, I’ll address your muttering.

There’s actually two options I’ve exercised in deconstructing your inanity. The first refusing to be sidetracked into responding to strawmen and non sequiturs, instead emphasizing your sophomoric commitment to lying about the recorded comments in a debate where you displayed the reading comprehension, understanding of math, and cognition of a moron. The second was pointing out the glaring contradictions between your background claims and the intellectual failings and dishonesty that make that claim such obvious nonsense.

I have been substantially and demonstrably correct in what I said originally and as a followup. I have little doubt that I’m correct in deriding your background claim as a last desperate attempt to gain some imaginary intellectual credibility – transparently contradicted by the available evidence indicating that, instead, you came off as rather stupid.

May 31, 2009 - 8:54 am 187. Brian Watkins:

Excellent choice.
She will make an outstanding Justice.
I wish her all the best.

Jun 1, 2009 - 1:11 am 188. Weekly Reads 5-31-2009 | The American Freedom Network:

[...] Roger’s Rules [...]

Jun 1, 2009 - 2:44 pm 189. D.S.:

As a hispanic, I’m ashamed that she’s a hispanic and has stated such a racial statement! She SHOULD NOT BE placed as a judge!

Jun 7, 2009 - 2:06 am 190. Confused in Virginia:

I will say that I have not read all the comments. I did read a couple that sounded rather racist – the chest thumping of the white male majority, who only wants to deal with minorities in the sense that we should be worshipping at the white man’s feet and show gratitude for all he has done for us.

As a Latina, who has had years of life experience, I will say that not all minorities are alike, much as not all white men are alike. However, the question about Justice Sotomayor is not one of racism. The issue is whether she is qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge.

If she believes, as most of the video and transcript evidence has shown, she is not qualified. Justice must be color-blind, and judges, regardless of what court they are appointed to, should realize that they are there to interpret the law and the constitution, and not to make policy from the bench.

Maybe if by some miracle she is not confirmed, she will learn this the hard way. And from what has been said about her, she has overcome bigger obstacles.

I am just saddened that all Latinos/Hispanics will be colored by the broad brush that some people wish to use.

Jun 18, 2009 - 11:55 pm 191. chris/independent:

Sotomayor quotes Norman thomas…look at her yearbook and other things she has said!!!…it should show you where her mind set is

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas

Jun 26, 2009 - 2:23 pm 192. joao:

Benjamin Cardozo was a Portuguese Jew(very rare by the way). Cardozo is a Portuguese name. How he is even being considered a spic, is beyond me. Portugal and Spain are two totally different countries in every aspect(language, culture,cuisine, etc…). The only thing these two countries have in common, are that of being neighbors. France also neighbors Spain and i doubt people are confusing the French of being spics. Such ignorance! I am Portuguese/American, and would be furious if someone confused me with being spic.

Sep 14, 2009 - 2:16 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: