Seems like George Orwell would be proud of BO rewriting history for his own convenience:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_sotomayor
Said Sotomayor in 2001: “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.”
Of course if a White Man had said that, his nomination would have been DOA right from the start. I find it ironic that a Political Party that feigns it’s alleged dislike of discrimination would embrace a person who made a statement like this. But this is common in this Party, so it’s easier to dismiss eight years later by saying the person would have chose differently now. Of course they would now, but Sotomayor had eight years to repudiate this statement and didn’t. Words have meanings, and these words are not the words I would want in a Justice on the Supreme Court. What other words does she harbor to look down on others?
It’s no doubt this woman will be confirmed. But this says to me that the feelings of this woman reflect upon the person who nominated her. For a Party that embraced Dr. King and said judge people by the content of their character, this judgement of this nominee says different, and the person who nominated her agrees.
Sotomayor may be a bit racist but the SC could use a racist or two. Let’s really go all out since discrimination seems to be the PC way to go. Besides, she’s a good Catholic and I hear she is very anti-abortion and very anti-gay marriage. We have to make trade offs.
She is on the wrong side of the second amendment but if she or anyone else thinks they can disarm 85 million gun owners (the vast majority of whom are conservatives)good luck to them.
I doubt very much she will “vote Catholic” on abortion and gay marriage. Barry Hussein Soetero would not have appointed her if there were any chance of that.
The Democrats see “diversity” merely as a cynical tool for dividing Americans. It is about turning individuals into members of grievance groups. Maximized liberty is a boon to any individual regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity or sexual persuasion. The most terrifying thing for Democrats is the specter of people thinking of themselves and each other as individuals rather than as representatives of some coalition. They are the anti-Martin Luther King Jr. Party.
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
Aaaaaaand:
But keep on stamping your little feet over the issue. You’re so cute when you pretend to be serious adults.
Phoe, I don’t disagree in major principle with what you say. It was one line from a half-hour speech. Given what it is, the Left has blown this off as you have done. However, in the absolute double standards applied to the right by the left, if a statement like this was said by a white male going for an associate justice, it would not have matter one bit if it was a careless remark in a 2000 page book, or a three hour speech, the nomination would have been dead. It’s just the way things are. But I do resent someone coming along eight years later saying oh, they didn’t mean this. Sotomayer had eight years to correct the record, and didn’t.
Face it. This gal makes Harriet Miers look like Oliver Wendell Holmes!
Phoenician: “But keep on stamping your little feet over the issue. You’re so cute when you pretend to be serious adults.”
You nailed it, Phoenician. I doubt that there will be any rebuttals, because there are none.
It is noteworthy that several prominent Republicans, like RNC Chair Michael Steele who said: “You want to be careful! … “You don’t want to be perceived as a bully.” Moreover, Conservative Senator Cornyn (TX) said of the Gingrich, Limbaugh and Tancredo screaming: “It’s terrible!”
So there is a little bit of civility, sanity, and adult behavior remaining in the Republican Party, but not evident on this blog so far!
Yorkie, it didn’t need clarification, because it’s perfectly clear what she meant in the first place if you read the entire speech. The problem is laziness by the media – very few people in the media bothered to give context to the quote and realize what the point she’s making actually is (that point being that people who have experienced discrimination are more likely to understand discrimination than those who haven’t… which is a rather elementary point).
Now I’d like to think that if a white guy made a similar comment, I’d be just as charitable with the context, but we all use cognitive shortcuts sometimes. Which is why the world needs people calling bullshit on those who do so inappropriately…
Keeping it simple: if Sotomayor is what her p.r. leads us to believe – that she says what she means and means what she says, and that she is caustic, direct and unhesitating, then why would Obama need to start a walk back?
Two words – Robert Bork
She wouldn’t be qualified to be a juror. But I guess this sort of thought pattern is ok in justices.
She is not a stupid person, as witness her decisions in some intellectual property cases. However, she may carry far too much baggage to be trusted with our liberties.
Sharon, I highly doubt anyone on the Supreme Court would be “qualified” to be a juror.
Also, Sharon, point me to a couple of cases where Sotomayor made a ruling that went against the law because of her personal sympathies. Enlighten us with evidence, please.
Jeff:
Now I’d like to think that if a white guy made a similar comment, I’d be just as charitable with the context, but we all use cognitive shortcuts sometimes. Which is why the world needs people calling bullshit on those who do so inappropriately…
Now let’s talk Trent Lott. Or how about the the Gonzales nomination, or Alito, or Roberts, or the proposed filibuster of BO on some of these nominations. Jeff, it’s a two way standard. Dems can trash anyone with impunity, but Reps are supposed to be civil and said they should act more like Dems. In some ways I hope they act like Dems and act the same way Kennedy and others acted during the Alito nomination. It would be refreshing to see Reps with balls. Sotomayor’s race based decision making comment, her temperment in the court which lawyers think is abominable, her writings where fellow jurists have admonished her openly, and her overturned decisions by the Supremes. But somehow I see a recipe exchange of a hearing where Dems will find no fault, and Reps will be Mr. Milquetoast.
Yorkshire, you are hyperbolic and without attribution.
Just one example where you are off: Judge Sotomayor, in 11 years, has had 5 cases ruled upon by SCOTUS. Three were overruled, and two were upheld. Justice Alito, as a judge, had all his cases overturned by SCOTUS. So what does that tell you? Overall, the SCOTUS reverses about 75% of its cases.
It is also noteworthy that Sotomayor’s opinions have been cited a fairly high 703 times in her 11 years as a Circuit Court Judge.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202431087253&Critics_pounce_on_Sotomayors_reversal_rate&slreturn=1
I think you need to modify some of your statements, Yorkshire!
She’s a Catholic?? If so, then she’s like Jawn Francois Kerry and The Tedster, a CINO (Catholic In Name Only)
Does anyone on this link, think that a court decisions should be in accord with the Constitution or settled Law? Does anyone here think that what Obama said he wanted in a justice is what we should have? Anyway you look at it, anything other than “BLIND” obedience to the Constitution or settled law is nothing less than personal prejudice. Does anyone else find it interesting that those justices who do adhere to a strict reading of the Constitution are called “conservative” and/or “right-wing”? Why is not the strict adherence to the Constitution simply “AMERICAN”?
Second guessing! Looking back on history, one mistake I NOW think the founding fathers made was to make the term of Justices a LIFETIME term. For whatever ills elected Justices might have brought, I do not think the American people would have tolerated the mass murder (as in Nazi Germany) of infants (of any age). I do believe that those Justices who supported the mass murder would be out’uv here at term end or before. I’m 82, and I doubt I will be alive when, as it may come later, to save on medical costs doctors are authorized to “pull the plug” on the old geezers! Hitler did it, and we are half way there now. For you people 50 or younger, it’s something for you to worry about, as well as paying for debts with money, as in Hitler’s day, it was said a man need a wheel barrow to carry enough money to the bakery for a loaf of bread! True? I doubt it, but it makes a point about conditions in Germany. It seems that few people see that Obama has a “free ride” when it comes to paying off the national debt. I think it came when the Wife and I each got a check from the US Government for $250. If you don’t understand, that’s a small step in creating inflation. That master of all “Capitalists” Joe Stalin, had it all figured out. You people know about Joe Stalin being the world’s greatest capitalists, don’t you? He really owned everything. really everything. Old Joe, what a guy!
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, the maker of heaven & earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in the one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father – God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, One in Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men & for our salvation, He came down from heaven, by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scripture; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father & the Song; with the Father & the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy Catholic & apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin(s). We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
As far as I know, no version of the creed includes “and be a Republican, and believe what the Republicans believe.” I’ll take the word of the Apostles over yours about what it means to be a Catholic. Catholics who presume to stand in judgement of who is or isn’t Catholic, are, unless they speak with Rome’s say-so, treading very close to heresy.
Zachary:
Does anyone on this link, think that a court decisions should be in accord with the Constitution or settled Law? Does anyone here think that what Obama said he wanted in a justice is what we should have? Anyway you look at it, anything other than “BLIND” obedience to the Constitution or settled law is nothing less than personal prejudice. Does anyone else find it interesting that those justices who do adhere to a strict reading of the Constitution are called “conservative” and/or “right-wing”? Why is not the strict adherence to the Constitution simply “AMERICAN”?
Welcome to CSPT!