PDA

View Full Version : NEW supreme court nominee makes racist statement ON RECORD


Pages : [1] 2

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 07:35 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

MLK is turning is his grave--what ever happened to judging people on the content of their character rather than by the color of one's skin? Why does this nominee think that a wise LATINA lady would make BETTER decisions than a wise WHITE male? Are white people incapable of living 'RICH' lives?She is differentiating people based upon skin color and race--are there not white males who have grown up in similar impoverished circumstances? This ON THE RECORD RACIST/RACIALIST statement alone should disqualify her from serving on the highest court in the land. Racism is apparently a ONE way street in our current political climate........flame away you libs and apologists.........

Rulon Velvet Jones
05-26-2009, 07:39 AM
False sense of entitlement.

Gcver2ver3
05-26-2009, 07:48 AM
i just take it as a person saying that a person's experience in a situation should have them better prepared to make the best decision...

if you take away the Latina and White part of the statement, then you're left with is her saying a wise person with experience in something makes a better decision than a wise person without the experience...so her adding Latina and White only illustrates a more specific example...if the roles were reversed it would still be the same to me...a White male with experience in something will better decide than a Latina without experience...

maybe it sounds racists on the surface to some, but i wouldn't call it that...

footstepsfrom#27
05-26-2009, 07:51 AM
I'm sure you would all love for me to get into this. ;D

yerner
05-26-2009, 07:53 AM
i love it when white people claim racism.

Spider
05-26-2009, 07:55 AM
well as long as she dosnt have sex with monica , she still has a shot

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 07:58 AM
i love it when white people claim racism.

You cannot be that much of a dullard. It's 2009 not 1809, not 1909, not 1959 She made the statement that a wise latina would make a BETTER decision than would a white male counterpart. I am offended and appalled that you would be so apologetic if not down right supportive of such tripe...........

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 07:59 AM
I'm sure you would all love for me to get into this. ;D

We'd welcome it.

55CrushEm
05-26-2009, 07:59 AM
i love it when white people claim racism.

I love it when liberals imply that racism is only perpetrated by white people.

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 07:59 AM
She refers to something specific by saying "...that life." Obviously, this statement is taken out of context and refers to something that is not included in the statement. Of course, who needs reason in this day and age? We don't need the whole statement. We only need to pass judgment and go berserk.

fdf
05-26-2009, 08:00 AM
i just take it as a person saying that a person's experience in a situation should have them better prepared to make the best decision...

if you take away the Latina and White part of the statement, then you're left with is her saying a wise person with experience in something makes a better decision than a wise person without the experience...so her adding Latina and White only illustrates a more specific example...if the roles were reversed it would still be the same to me...a White male with experience in something will better decide than a Latina without experience...

maybe it sounds racists on the surface to some, but i wouldn't call it that...


LOL. You changed the wrong part of the quote. Suppose a white guy trying to get on the court had said:

"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 an hispanic woman . . . "

Would you be rationalizing that statement? He'd sure be off my island.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-26-2009, 08:03 AM
You cannot be that much of a dullard. It's 2009 not 1809, not 1909, not 1959 She made the statement that a wise latina would make a BETTER decision than would a white male counterpart. I am offended and appalled that you would be so apologetic if not down right supportive of such tripe...........

Better call Rush. He needs to hear about this latest oppression of white men in America.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:03 AM
i just take it as a person saying that a person's experience in a situation should have them better prepared to make the best decision...

if you take away the Latina and White part of the statement, then you're left with is her saying a wise person with experience in something makes a better decision than a wise person without the experience...so her adding Latina and White only illustrates a more specific example...if the roles were reversed it would still be the same to me...a White male with experience in something will better decide than a Latina without experience...

maybe it sounds racists on the surface to some, but i wouldn't call it that...

The fact that she chose to differentiate herself by using the terms 'latina' and 'better' lends a little bit of light onto her true persona and how she views the world. Sad that someone who is so accomplished can be so small minded and divisive.

Smiling Assassin27
05-26-2009, 08:07 AM
Oh, there's PLENTY of reasons why Sotmayor is not the right person for the job. As a Hispanic, it does our 'cause' no good if you appoint idiots, even if they are Hispanic idiots.

Sadly, the 'most ethical congress ever', and the congress who's infamous for not even reading bills they pass will most assuredly not read this woman's record, nor will they dare to stand up to the Hispanic hordes who want ANY Hispanic put into a position of power simply because she's Hispanic.

I'm less upset about this comment, as nobody has given it any context. But Sotomayor has gone on record as claiming that the place where policy is made is the courts. She upholds morality (specifically, her own) at the expense of the law--not a good way to fly. Still, she should fly through easily as Republicans and Dems alike are too lazy, too fat, and too stupid to actually vet her properly.

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:07 AM
She hates white people ............. White males , we elect her to the SCOTUS , and she will take away our guns , force us into white labor camps , and give all the minorities the best parking spots ...........

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:08 AM
Better call Rush. He needs to hear about this latest oppression of white men in America.

Rush is a blow hard of the highest order. I have no use for him or you if you feel that this view is anything other than racist. The masses implore white people to 'get in line' yet others are free to take liberties in today's political climate with the masses taking the same view as you.....

HILife
05-26-2009, 08:08 AM
False sense of entitlement.

I agree with you on this. She feels that because she is one thing she has more claim to something then the other person. It shouldn't be able that, but more about the persons capablities.

Also the OP needs to calm down. No where in that statement did she say anything racist. She is stated that because she is a Latin woman she would better understand what's going on, then a White male. That statement is wrong, but not racist.

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:08 AM
Cinco De Mayo will replace Independence day .......

Smiling Assassin27
05-26-2009, 08:10 AM
She hates white people ............. White males , we elect her to the SCOTUS , and she will take away our guns , force us into white labor camps , and give all the minorities the best parking spots ...........


FYI, we don't elect SC justices... :welcome:

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-26-2009, 08:12 AM
Rush is a blow hard of the highest order. I have no use for him or you if you feel that this view is anything other than racist. The masses implore white people to 'get in line' yet others are free to take liberties in today's political climate with the masses taking the same view as you.....

Yawn.

I guess you have no use for me. Watch how hurt I am.

Considering there's never been a Latino on the SCOTUS, I'd say that she has a different outlook on important issues. But racist. Got it. Everyone get in line.

/rolleyes

HILife
05-26-2009, 08:12 AM
I love it when liberals imply that racism is only perpetrated by white people.

I love it when disagreeing with someone makes you a liberal.

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:13 AM
FYI, we don't elect SC justices... :welcome:

Figure you would chime in with facts on a perfectly good racism rant laced with no facts .....;D

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:13 AM
I agree with you on this. She feels that because she is one thing she has more claim to something then the other person. It shouldn't be able that, but more about the persons capablities.

Also the OP needs to calm down. No where in that statement did she say anything racist. She is stated that because she is a Latin woman she would better understand what's going on, then a White male. That statement is wrong, but not racist.

That is the VERY definition of racism sir..........

Gcver2ver3
05-26-2009, 08:15 AM
LOL. You changed the wrong part of the quote. Suppose a white guy trying to get on the court had said:

"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 an hispanic woman . . . "

Would you be rationalizing that statement? He'd sure be off my island.


wow it's as if you didn't read my post...

i DID reverse it...

try again...lol...

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:15 AM
weeeeeeeere doooooooooooooomed ........ everyone knows Latinos hold grudges ..........we all know she hasnt forgot the Alamo

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:16 AM
Yawn.

I guess you have no use for me. Watch how hurt I am.

Considering there's never been a Latino on the SCOTUS, I'd say that she has a different outlook on important issues. But racist. Got it. Everyone get in line.

/rolleyes

Why is her outlook on issues to be framed by the parameters of 'being latino'? That IS RACIST. And not only that, but she claims that her outlook will be BETTER than a white males BECAUSE of it. Go stay in step with the rest of the monkeys ........

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:18 AM
well if all white guys get in line , can we charge rush double for all of the space he takes up ?

Gcver2ver3
05-26-2009, 08:18 AM
The fact that she chose to differentiate herself by using the terms 'latina' and 'better' lends a little bit of light onto her true persona and how she views the world. Sad that someone who is so accomplished can be so small minded and divisive.

i don't know about that...

maybe you have more insight on her past thats adding to your frustration with her...

but isolating that comment and taking it at face value, i don't see it as racist...

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:19 AM
thats it , I am changing my name to Emanual Labor and i am going to go get a tan ......... they will never suspect me being a white guy

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-26-2009, 08:20 AM
Why is her outlook on issues to be framed by the parameters of 'being latino'? That IS RACIST. And not only that, but she claims that her outlook will be BETTER than a white males BECAUSE of it. Go stay in step with the rest of the monkeys ........

So if I agree with you and follow the line of bull**** you're traipsing out here, I'm NOT a monkey. But if I have a different opinion than you, and go my own way, I AM a monkey. Awesome. Love how you frame that completely ridiculous argument. Fun times.

BEING LATINO IS A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENCE THAN BEING WHITE, OR BLACK, OR ASIAN, OR NATIVE AMERICAN. Maybe she shouldn't have said "better," but it is distinctly a different America for everyone who experiences America.

But I'm a monkey. Got it. Thanks for telling me what I am and am not.

By the way: calling someone a monkey?
http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/thats_racist.gif

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:21 AM
i don't know about that...

maybe you have more insight on her past thats adding to your frustration with her...

but isolating that comment and taking it at face value, i don't see it as racist...

My ability to rationalize and draw conclusions is more profound than yours because I am an Italian American male and you are not. And I am good looking too.

HILife
05-26-2009, 08:21 AM
Cinco De Mayo will replace Independence day .......

LOL LOL :rofl: Your on a roll Spider.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:24 AM
So if I agree with you and follow the line of bull**** you're traipsing out here, I'm NOT a monkey. But if I have a different opinion than you, and go my own way, I AM a monkey. Awesome. Love how you frame that completely ridiculous argument. Fun times.

BEING LATINO IS A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENCE THAN BEING WHITE, OR BLACK, OR ASIAN, OR NATIVE AMERICAN. Maybe she shouldn't have said "better," but it is distinctly a different America for everyone who experiences America.

But I'm a monkey. Got it. Thanks for telling me what I am and am not.

By the way: calling someone a monkey?
http://rightvoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/thats_racist.gif

Like catching fish in a barrel.........

But she DID SAY BETTER. And I feel that one's socioeconomic background is more impactful than the color of one's skin on their life experiences in TODAY's America..........

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:24 AM
LOL LOL :rofl: Your on a roll Spider.

This is no laughing matter , we white guys are in serious danger here , the ramifications of this will be ever lasting like when you call a company for example and the recording tells you press 1 for English ...... well guess what press 1 will be for Spanish demoting English to #2 ........... ;D

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 08:26 AM
I love it when different ethnic groups think their struggles in life are so much more hard because of their ethnic backgroud as if it can be quantified.

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 08:27 AM
Here's the whole paragraph:
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.

Here's the whole speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I would definitely have to file that one under the "racist" category. I guess us white folk don't have "richness" in our experiences. Plus, we can't dance, we can't jump and we don't have soul.

Gcver2ver3
05-26-2009, 08:27 AM
My ability to rationalize and draw conclusions is more profound than yours because I am an Italian American male and you are not. And I am good looking too.

man you are just trying to find a way to be offended on this...

how is that taking her comment at face value?...

the key word in her statement is "experience" not "White/Latina", although thats clearly the part that has you in a tiff...

you would be more profound in determining a solution to something that you've experienced and i haven't experienced...our races are circumstantial in this scenario...

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:27 AM
New Mexico could very well become the next Capitol of North Americano ......we need to thank Broncofan7 for sharing this with us so we can come up with a plan to counter attack this evil Bitch

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-26-2009, 08:27 AM
Like catching fish in a barrel.........

But she DID SAY BETTER. And I feel that one's socioeconomic background is more impactful than the color of one's skin on their life experiences in TODAY's America..........

Bully for you. It all depends on where you're from. If you think growing up black or hispanic in the midwest or south is the same as growing up white in those places, I've got a LOT of news to deliver. And it has nothing to do with being liberal, or a monkey, or anything else. Your life experiences are different than mine, different than hers. doesn't make her "racist."

People that play the race card for innocuous statements = RETARDS

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2009, 08:29 AM
I was hoping Obama would nominate her. Pretty left wing, good replacement. Of course the GOP will go nuts over this, but they would have gone nuts over anyone since they've just become the party of dissent.

And that comment wasn't racist

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:31 AM
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.[/I]



I would definitely have to file that one under the "racist" category. I guess us white folk don't have "richness" in our experiences. Plus, we can't dance, we can't jump and we don't have soul.

Now see I take it differently , i wouldnt know the first thing about being a mexican chick , so her experiences with Law enforcement , Society , school could be alot different then mine ......

Gcver2ver3
05-26-2009, 08:33 AM
I love it when different ethnic groups think their struggles in life are so much more hard because of their ethnic backgroud as if it can be quantified.

thats an interesting point...

i grew up in Tampa and i was raised in housing projects throughtout the city...during that time i had it pretty rough along with my friends...there were little to zero white people to be found in the poorest sections of the city...

so yea for that reason i grew up thinking whites had it easy...i'm older now and realize that a blanket statement like that isn't a fair one...but it was hard for me to understand that growing up...

i will say this...after watching/reading what 3rd world countries go through, i'd say none of us know the meaning of truly having it rough or true poverty...

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:33 AM
This is no laughing matter , we white guys are in serious danger here , the ramifications of this will be ever lasting like when you call a company for example and the recording tells you press 1 for English ...... well guess what press 1 will be for Spanish demoting English to #2 ........... ;D

I don't expect a 2 bit, goat humping, trailer trash, Pabst Blue ribbon drinking in-bred, mullet -having douche to understand anything that doesn't remotely relate to faulty laptops or relationships.

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:36 AM
I don't expect a 2 bit, goat humping, trailer trash, Pabst Blue ribbon drinking in-bred, mullet -having douche to understand anything that doesn't remotely relate to faulty laptops or relationships.
hey who you callin 2 bit ?

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:37 AM
man you are just trying to find a way to be offended on this...

how is that taking her comment at face value?...

the key word in her statement is "experience" not "White/Latina", although thats clearly the part that has you in a tiff...

you would be more profound in determining a solution to something that you've experienced and i haven't experienced...our races are circumstantial in this scenario...

the WHOLE POINT of this thread is the fact that SHE DID use the terms 'latina' and 'better'--without those two words this thread is not created--

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:39 AM
thats an interesting point...

i grew up in Tampa and i was raised in housing projects throughtout the city...during that time i had it pretty rough along with my friends...there were little to zero white people to be found in the poorest sections of the city...

so yea for that reason i grew up thinking whites had it easy...i'm older now and realize that a blanket statement like that isn't a fair one...but it was hard for me to understand that growing up...

i will say this...after watching/reading what 3rd world countries go through, i'd say none of us know the meaning of truly having it rough or true poverty...

But when you were younger, you were not being nominated to the US Supreme court either--a statement such as the one offered by this nominee is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:39 AM
I wonder if they make low rider 18 wheelers ?

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 08:39 AM
Now see I take it differently , i wouldnt know the first thing about being a mexican chick , so her experiences with Law enforcement , Society , school could be alot different then mine ......

In the first place, I'm opposed to any judge using the "richness of their experiences" to decide cases. Their job is to interpret law. Hopefully, when she went to law school she studied law and knows enough about the subject to apply it in a court of law. She clearly states that a latina female's "richness of experiences" would make her judgment superior to a white male's. How so?

Try it this way: Second, 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 female who hasn't lived that life.

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 08:42 AM
She's just distinguishing the experiences of those two kinds of people.

And I say that as a wise middle-aged white man ;D

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:43 AM
I was hoping Obama would nominate her. Pretty left wing, good replacement. Of course the GOP will go nuts over this, but they would have gone nuts over anyone since they've just become the party of dissent.

And that comment wasn't racist

take off your blinders....... amazing how subjective this issue becomes when the assailant is a minority. Go post 'rich white culture makes 'X' better' and see how that is perceived........

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:44 AM
In the first place, I'm opposed to any judge using the "richness of their experiences" to decide cases. Their job is to interpret law. Hopefully, when she went to law school she studied law and knows enough about the subject to apply it in a court of law. She clearly states that a latina female's "richness of experiences" would make her judgment superior to a white male's. How so? our life experiences is what we base our decisions off of no matter who we are , Judges , Lawyers , Cops , even truckers ..... Just like you and me ......

Try it this way: Second, 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 female who hasn't lived that life.

he just might , on certain issues , just like a black man with the richness of his experience, but until women are treated equal in the work force I say she has a very unique point of view

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 08:44 AM
thats an interesting point...

i grew up in Tampa and i was raised in housing projects throughtout the city...during that time i had it pretty rough along with my friends...there were little to zero white people to be found in the poorest sections of the city...

so yea for that reason i grew up thinking whites had it easy...i'm older now and realize that a blanket statement like that isn't a fair one...but it was hard for me to understand that growing up...

i will say this...after watching/reading what 3rd world countries go through, i'd say none of us know the meaning of truly having it rough or true poverty...

I'm white and I spent a couple of years of my childhood living in the projects in Long Beach. Then we moved to South Central where I attended high school. I guess I have had a "richness of experience." Ha!

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:45 AM
She's just distinguishing the experiences of those two kinds of people.

And I say that as a wise middle-aged white man ;D

No she's not just saying that her experiences are different--she is stating that because she is latina, her conclusions will be BETTER. Hence, the issue I have with her.......

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-26-2009, 08:46 AM
No she's not just saying that her experiences are different--she is stating that because she is latina, her conclusions will be BETTER. Hence, the issue I have with her.......

Hence, the witch hunt.

War's over, 7. find another outlet for your persecution.

Dagmar
05-26-2009, 08:46 AM
*walks into thread*


*has a look about*


*exits stage left*

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:48 AM
Bully for you. It all depends on where you're from. If you think growing up black or hispanic in the midwest or south is the same as growing up white in those places, I've got a LOT of news to deliver. And it has nothing to do with being liberal, or a monkey, or anything else. Your life experiences are different than mine, different than hers. doesn't make her "racist."

People that play the race card for innocuous statements = RETARDS

Innocuous? What? In her statement, she CLEARLY states that 'a wise latina' will make BETTER judgements than would a white male. I find that statement racist.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:50 AM
Hence, the witch hunt.

War's over, 7. find another outlet for your persecution.

War? LOL

Disappointing that there are actually people like you who cannot be objective when it comes to race..........

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:51 AM
So Broncofan7 , whats our next course of action ......... i vote for viciously re arranging her underwear drawers

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 08:52 AM
She's just distinguishing the experiences of those two kinds of people.

And I say that as a wise middle-aged white man ;D

What two "kinds" of people; White males with no richness of experience compared to latinas who somehow, mysteriously, or by their very racial identity, are awarded this "richness?" I would assume that the "richness" of any person's experience is a product of their own internal journey, regardless of their circumstances. That is strictly individual and totally self-driven. She is making race-based assumptions which are ridiculous.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:52 AM
Hence, the witch hunt.

War's over, 7. find another outlet for your persecution.

God forbid a WHITE PERSON shines some light on a minority's overt racism.........
Honestly, David Duke--he's not a bad guy--just a victim of a witch hunt from people who were out to get him and his rich white cultural experiences........

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:55 AM
What two "kinds" of people; White males with no richness of experience compared to latinas who somehow, mysteriously, or by their very racial identity, are awarded this "richness?" I would assume that the "richness" of any person's experience is a product of their own internal journey, regardless of their circumstances. That is strictly individual and totally self-driven. She is making race-based assumptions which are ridiculous.

Self driven I will agree with , but if she had just said a woman then it would have been sexist , and I would be mocking Broncofan7 with feminism remarks ..
I guess there is no way for her to win ......

Gcver2ver3
05-26-2009, 08:56 AM
In the first place, I'm opposed to any judge using the "richness of their experiences" to decide cases. Their job is to interpret law. Hopefully, when she went to law school she studied law and knows enough about the subject to apply it in a court of law. She clearly states that a latina female's "richness of experiences" would make her judgment superior to a white male's. How so?

Try it this way: Second, 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 female who hasn't lived that life.

i would have no problem with that statement, but i see your point...

perhaps she could have worded it better...but i still take the comment as one that puts value on life experience...

to add to your ealier statement, i think you're undervaluing life experiences...i think life experiences can help people tremendously in making the right call...

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 08:56 AM
So Broncofan7 , whats our next course of action ......... i vote for viciously re arranging her underwear drawers

Limit her shoe allowance...... oh wait--that's SEXIST!

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 08:56 AM
Here's the whole paragraph:
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.

Here's the whole speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I would definitely have to file that one under the "racist" category. I guess us white folk don't have "richness" in our experiences. Plus, we can't dance, we can't jump and we don't have soul.

It's definitely a provocative statement, especially since she considers herself a "wise" Latina woman. She doesn't sound so wise now.

Let's simply reverse the statement and then see if we think it might be racists:

"I would hope that a wise Caucasian woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino male who hasn't lived that life."

Now if she were white and made the above statement, what ramifications would insue?

Spider
05-26-2009, 08:57 AM
Limit her shoe allowance...... oh wait--that's SEXIST!

we will call that plan B ......

lex
05-26-2009, 09:00 AM
Some would say what she says is not racist as she is part of an other group. But ulitmately, do people want double standards or do they want equality? Theres no way a white nominee gets away with that.

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:00 AM
It's definitely a provocative statement, especially since she considers herself a "wise" Latina woman. She doesn't sound so wise now.

Let's simply reverse the statement and then see if we think it might be racists:

"I would hope that a wise Caucasian woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino male who hasn't lived that life."

Now if she were white and made the above statement, what ramifications would insue?

But she isnt white ...... changing the race of the characters to fit your view doesnt work .........But if she was white and said that , I wouldnt see as racist , more of as sexist thing

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2009, 09:01 AM
take off your blinders....... amazing how subjective this issue becomes when the assailant is a minority. Go post 'rich white culture makes 'X' better' and see how that is perceived........

Trust me, im usually the first to call something racist like that...in that context, i just didnt have a problem with it.

But even if it was or wasn't, I don't really care. she's an experienced judge who holds the ideals of the "left" side of the court. She's a rags to riches story that is incredibly smart and decisive. Its a logical choice for replacement.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-26-2009, 09:01 AM
War? LOL

Disappointing that there are actually people like you who cannot be objective when it comes to race..........

Disappointing that there are actually people like you who cannot be objective when it comes to political affiliation. You know, and I know, and you know that I know, that your entire argument is based around the fact that she was nominated by a Democratic President. If she was a right-wing activist judicial nominee, and said the exact same thing, you wouldn't make a peep.

your "cannot stand" or "cannot be tolerated" or whatever nonsense you spouted sold you out completely.

She's an intelligent judge and will be a fine Justice. Regardless of one sentence she made in a speech.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2009, 09:03 AM
I'm white and I spent a couple of years of my childhood living in the projects in Long Beach. Then we moved to South Central where I attended high school. I guess I have had a "richness of experience." Ha!

What was that like?

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:04 AM
now if she had said , As a Latino woman , I am better qualified then a cracker , or a spear chucker , then I think you have grounds for a racist comment

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 09:06 AM
Disappointing that there are actually people like you who cannot be objective when it comes to political affiliation. You know, and I know, and you know that I know, that your entire argument is based around the fact that she was nominated by a Democratic President. If she was a right-wing activist judicial nominee, and said the exact same thing, you wouldn't make a peep.

your "cannot stand" or "cannot be tolerated" or whatever nonsense you spouted sold you out completely.

She's an intelligent judge and will be a fine Justice. Regardless of one sentence she made in a speech.

LIKE the rest of your posts in this thread, you are completely wrong.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 09:09 AM
now if she had said , As a Latino woman , I am better qualified then a cracker , or a spear chucker , then I think you have grounds for a racist comment

She'd take one look at your mullet having, winston cup series t-shirt and matching hat wearing self and immediately disregard anything you had to say--because of her rich latina cultural upbringing--and you are too inbred to realize that fact. You are as naive as you are hillbilly.......

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 09:11 AM
But she isnt white ...... changing the race of the characters to fit your view doesnt work .........But if she was white and said that , I wouldnt see as racist , more of as sexist thing

Yah, I know she's not white, nor is she a male. She's basically saying that she is not a white male and therefore the richness of her Latina life makes her the better candidate for becoming a jude.

My point was simple: can a white person (especially a white man) make this same kind of statement and not be crucified for it?

It' ok to be proud of who you are and where your from. I've got no problem with that, it makes us a better nation. However, when you demean another person in order to promote your personal agenda, then yes, that is wrong.

sisterhellfyre
05-26-2009, 09:12 AM
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.


Got some serious cherry picking going on here. I'd like to see the rest of the paragraph (at least, if not the whole speech) before drawing conclusions from one or two sentences picked out of context.

"Judas went out and hanged himself."
"Jesus said, 'Go thou and do likewise."

Lotsa luck with that.

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:16 AM
Yah, I know she's not white, nor is she a male. She's basically saying that she is not a white male and therefore the richness of her Latina life makes her the better candidate for becoming a jude.

My point was simple: can a white person (especially a white man) make this same kind of statement and not be crucified for it? Sure they can , for example what if a guy got up and said , " And as a white male I have been part of the fiscal economy , and I have a richness of experience, that a Latino woman doesnt have, So I would make the better decisions on credit Economy issues , that comes in front of the court ......

now that could be taken as racist , but it is more sexist then anything else

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 09:16 AM
Got some serious cherry picking going on here. I'd like to see the rest of the paragraph (at least, if not the whole speech) before drawing conclusions from one or two sentences picked out of context.

"Judas went out and hanged himself."
"Jesus said, 'Go thou and do likewise."

Lotsa luck with that.

See Roh's post

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 09:16 AM
thats an interesting point...

i grew up in Tampa and i was raised in housing projects throughtout the city...during that time i had it pretty rough along with my friends...there were little to zero white people to be found in the poorest sections of the city...

so yea for that reason i grew up thinking whites had it easy...i'm older now and realize that a blanket statement like that isn't a fair one...but it was hard for me to understand that growing up...

i will say this...after watching/reading what 3rd world countries go through, i'd say none of us know the meaning of truly having it rough or true poverty...


Amen. Excellent observation. I realized this lie the day I started delvering pizzas to trailer parks. I also grow up in a ghetto to a single parent. You literally see it all. Hard times, poverty, and lawlessness knows no color, race, gender, or political border.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-26-2009, 09:18 AM
LIKE the rest of your posts in this thread, you are completely wrong.

Thanks for clarifying. My opinion is wrong. your opinion is inspired.

Keep patting yourself on the back.

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:19 AM
see this race thing is politically driven , those on the right will shout racism , if Bush nominated some right wing activist judge ,that said the exact same thing the left would be doing the same ..... 6 in one hand half a dozen in the other

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:21 AM
Amen. Excellent observation. I realized this lie the day I started delvering pizzas to trailer parks. I also grow up in a ghetto to a single parent. You literally see it all. Hard times, poverty, and lawlessness knows no color, race, gender, or political border.
And you saw all of this in 30 minutes or less at a time ;D

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 09:22 AM
Sure they can , for example what if a guy got up and said , " And as a white male I have been part of the fiscal economy , and I have a richness of experience, that a Latino woman doesnt have, So I would make the better decisions on credit Economy issues , that comes in front of the court ......

now that could be taken as racist , but it is more sexist then anything else

If you were a white male political candidate of any kind in this country (meaning if you were a Democrat or Republican or an Independant or perhaps even a Commy) and you made the above statment, you'd have officially committed career suicide.

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 09:24 AM
What two "kinds" of people; White males with no richness of experience compared to latinas who somehow, mysteriously, or by their very racial identity, are awarded this "richness?" I would assume that the "richness" of any person's experience is a product of their own internal journey, regardless of their circumstances. That is strictly individual and totally self-driven. She is making race-based assumptions which are ridiculous.
She obviously meant "in general," not every single time. Obviously.

I wish the gender part of her comparison would get more attention than the Latino part ... the gender part has more merit than the Latino part. She should have skipped the Latino part and referred to "economic" circumstances.

Actually, I think Latino and African-American advocacy groups should step aside in favor of poverty-based advocacy groups. There are way too many successful African-American and Latinos, and way too many dirt-poor Whites.


I would assume that the "richness" of any person's experience is a product of their own internal journey, regardless of their circumstances. That's where you're wrong ... you can't live an insular life of relative privilege and expect to understand/empathize with lower socio-economic classes because of an "internal" journey ... there's just insufficient data for that.

I'll give you an example from my own life ... I'm a white male, middle-class, highly educated upbringing. But until I started representing poorer people in mostly criminal defense cases, I didn't know a lot of things ... one example, for 10 years I thought the "99 Cents Only" stores' name was just a slogan. I figured all their items prices ended in 99, like 5.99, 2.99, etc ... I didn't know it was a real thing until I had a case involving a store (at Fairfax and Wilshire in fact - dead smack in the middle of middle-class L.A.).

Another example, I had no idea what "food stamps" were. None. I had heard of them of course, but my dim understanding/guess was that they were only if you were really starving, and how it worked was maybe poor people got a card every month, and when they bought food at the store, the grocer would "stamp" their card until it was full of stamps.

Things like Food Stamps and Dollar-Stores are the daily fabric of life from birth-to-adulthood for poor, lower socio-economic classes.

There is no way we can fully appreciate their experiences without being in some manner immersed in them ... certainly not with an "internal" journey.

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:25 AM
If you were a white male political candidate of any kind in this country (meaning if you were a Democrat or Republican or an Independant or perhaps even a Commy) and you made the above statment, you'd have officially committed career suicide.

Depends on who my enemies are

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 09:25 AM
She obviously meant "in general," not every single time. Obviously.

I wish the gender part of her comparison would get more attention than the Latino part ... the gender part has more merit than the Latino part. She should have skipped the Latino part and referred to "economic" circumstances.

Actually, I think Latino and African-American advocacy groups should step aside in favor of poverty-based advocacy groups. There are way too many successful African-American and Latinos, and way too many dirt-poor Whites.


That's where you're wrong ... you can't live an insular life of relative privilege and expect to understand/empathize with lower socio-economic classes because of an "internal" journey ... there's just insufficient data for that.

I'll give you an example from my own life ... I'm a white male, middle-class but highly educated upbringing. But until I started representing poorer people in mostly criminal defense cases, I didn't know a lot of things ... one example, for 10 years I thought the "99 Cents Only" stores' name was just a slogan. I figured all their items prices ended in 99, like 5.99, 2.99, etc ... I didn't know it was a real thing until I had a case involving a store (at Fairfax and Wilshire in fact - dead smack in the middle of middle-class L.A.).

Another example, I had no idea what "food stamps" were. None. I had heard of them of course, but my dim understanding/guess was that they were only if you were really starving, and how it worked was maybe poor people got a card every month, and when they bought food at the store, the grocer would "stamp" their card until it was full of stamps.

Things like Food Stamps and Dollar-Stores are the daily fabric of life from birth-to-adulthood for poor, lower socio-economic classes. There is no way we can fully appreciate their experiences without being in some manner immersed in them.

After reading your post, I am glad that I grew up in Dover De where we had everything from million dollar homes to section 8 housing and we all went to school together and I learned to judge people on how they behaved rather than skin color. I am amazed that there are people besides Paris Hilton who are unfamiliar with food stamps, powdered milk, government cheese and the Dollar General.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 09:28 AM
She obviously meant "in general," not every single time. Obviously.

I wish the gender part of her comparison would get more attention than the Latino part ... the gender part has more merit than the Latino part. She should have skipped the Latino part and referred to "economic" circumstances.

Actually, I think Latino and African-American advocacy groups should step aside in favor of poverty-based advocacy groups. There are way too many successful African-American and Latinos, and way too many dirt-poor Whites.


That's where you're wrong ... you can't live an insular life of relative privilege and expect to understand/empathize with lower socio-economic classes because of an "internal" journey ... there's just insufficient data for that.

I'll give you an example from my own life ... I'm a white male, middle-class, highly educated upbringing. But until I started representing poorer people in mostly criminal defense cases, I didn't know a lot of things ... one example, for 10 years I thought the "99 Cents Only" stores' name was just a slogan. I figured all their items prices ended in 99, like 5.99, 2.99, etc ... I didn't know it was a real thing until I had a case involving a store (at Fairfax and Wilshire in fact - dead smack in the middle of middle-class L.A.).

Another example, I had no idea what "food stamps" were. None. I had heard of them of course, but my dim understanding/guess was that they were only if you were really starving, and how it worked was maybe poor people got a card every month, and when they bought food at the store, the grocer would "stamp" their card until it was full of stamps.

Things like Food Stamps and Dollar-Stores are the daily fabric of life from birth-to-adulthood for poor, lower socio-economic classes.

There is no way we can fully appreciate their experiences without being in some manner immersed in them ... certainly not with an "internal" journey.

:rofl:

Wow, that's deep. I mean, you hit it on the head. Boom Goes the Dynamite!

rugbythug
05-26-2009, 09:29 AM
now if she had said , As a Latino woman , I am better qualified then a cracker , or a spear chucker , then I think you have grounds for a racist comment

I watched MASH last night. Spear Chucker Jones. When will it turn around and people can be people.

I have no problem with her valuing what sets her apart from her counterparts. The Real scary thing I think is the connotation that she is going to draw on her own experience to decide cases. This is dangerous and wrong, a judge should be deciding cases based on the law and nothing else. Each person's experience is so limited and biased why in the world they think that they should take their own personal experiences and turn them into laws is narcissism pure and simple.

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 09:30 AM
i would have no problem with that statement, but i see your point...

perhaps she could have worded it better...but i still take the comment as one that puts value on life experience...

to add to your ealier statement, i think you're undervaluing life experiences...i think life experiences can help people tremendously in making the right call...

I don't undervalue life experiences at all when it comes to art, music, literature, philosophy or even making legislation. When it comes to sitting on the bench I would prefer judges rely on the Constitution. To me, that is the nature of law, and its value; It is removed from the changing trends of popular opinion. IMO, this judge's statement reflects an ongoing popular belief in a type of "groupism" based on race that I find distasteful. The Bill of Rights enshrines the rights of individuals. That is the revolutionary concept of America itself, that freedom and rights are enshrined in an individual's basic worth. Groupism of any sort is an attack on that concept.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 09:31 AM
Thanks for clarifying. My opinion is wrong. your opinion is inspired.

Keep patting yourself on the back.

You may now send your daily tribute money to me for today's lesson--broncofan7@yourleader.com via paypal

I am truly amazed at your level of tolerance for racism against white males.....

ColoradoDarin
05-26-2009, 09:32 AM
Yawn.

I guess you have no use for me. Watch how hurt I am.

Considering there's never been a Latino on the SCOTUS, I'd say that she has a different outlook on important issues. But racist. Got it. Everyone get in line.

/rolleyes

I know everyone's history starts the day they were born, but Benjamin Cardozo beat her to it by 77 years...

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:34 AM
I watched MASH last night. Spear Chucker Jones. When will it turn around and people can be people.

I have no problem with her valuing what sets her apart from her counterparts. The Real scary thing I think is the connotation that she is going to draw on her own experience to decide cases. This is dangerous and wrong, a judge should be deciding cases based on the law and nothing else. Each person's experience is so limited and biased why in the world they think that they should take their own personal experiences and turn them into laws is narcissism pure and simple.MASH is great , one of the few TV shows I followed;D

But as I said earlier , we all everyone of us , no one is immune to this , we all make decisions based off of our experiences. our experiences is what makes us , I dont think I would be the same person I am now , if it wernt for the tragic events that took place in my life , I know wouldnt be so prone to violence ........

HILife
05-26-2009, 09:34 AM
thats it , I am changing my name to Emanual Labor and i am going to go get a tan ......... they will never suspect me being a white guy

Hilarious! :giggle: Hilarious! LOL. Spider, you just moved up my list as the my all time favorite poster.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 09:34 AM
I watched MASH last night. Spear Chucker Jones. When will it turn around and people can be people.

I have no problem with her valuing what sets her apart from her counterparts. The Real scary thing I think is the connotation that she is going to draw on her own experience to decide cases. This is dangerous and wrong, a judge should be deciding cases based on the law and nothing else. Each person's experience is so limited and biased why in the world they think that they should take their own personal experiences and turn them into laws is narcissism pure and simple.

QFT.

This post is so true. A Supreme Court Justice should not interpret the law through their own subjective experiences. They should try to remain as objective as possible with court decisions. Being objective means you take yourself out of the equation and try to make court decisions based on the laws of the land.

Inkana7
05-26-2009, 09:35 AM
That statement is harmless.

Gcver2ver3
05-26-2009, 09:36 AM
I don't undervalue life experiences at all when it comes to art, music, literature, philosophy or even making legislation. When it comes to sitting on the bench I would prefer judges rely on the Constitution. To me, that is the nature of law, and its value; It is removed from the changing trends of popular opinion. IMO, this judge's statement reflects an ongoing popular belief in a type of "groupism" based on race that I find distasteful. The Bill of Rights enshrines the rights of individuals. That is the revolutionary concept of America itself, that freedom and rights are enshrined in an individual's basic worth. Groupism of any sort is an attack on that concept.

very good point...

and i don't disagree with your argument, i'm just not as extreme in my thinking...just relying on using the Constitution?...the world isn't purely black and white and more arguments have come from debating the interpretation of the US Constitution over any other text other than the Bible in the US...

pulling from life experience can assist in making the right call in all aspects of life...

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:38 AM
The problem is the law isnt black and white ......

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 09:41 AM
And you saw all of this in 30 minutes or less at a time ;D

Lead Foot Garcia would get your pizza in 20 minutes or less and insult the customer if they lived to damn far away to make that happen :)

I saw a dude get a little physical with his wife because she orderd 20 beans worth of pizza instead of cooking dinner.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 09:43 AM
That statement is harmless.

I disagree. The law doesn't single out different ethnic groups, ergo there is no reason to make any reference to it. What's she gonna do? Rule in favor of an perceived slight on an ethnic group is contradiction to the US Constitution? She said that based on her ethnic backgroud she can make better rulings. She is claiming her ethnic group is superior for being that ethnic group. There are films like this from 30's and 40's, but I couldn't really understand them because they were speaking German.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 09:44 AM
very good point...

and i don't disagree with your argument, i'm just not as extreme in my thinking...just relying on using the Constitution?...the world isn't purely black and white and more arguments have come from debating the interpretation of the US Constitution over any other text other than the Bible in the US...

pulling from life experience can assist in making the right call in all aspects of life...

You see what we are talking about here? There are two interpretations of the law and more specifically about The Constitution. One opinion is that the Constitution is not subject to interpretation. That is, its a rigid document that says certain things in specific ways.

The other opinion is that The Constitution is a fluid document. In other words, it's meaning changes with the times. What was true yesterday is not necessarily true today.

I tend to think that conservatives lean towards the rigid interpetation while liberals lean towards the fluid interpetation.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 09:45 AM
see this race thing is politically driven , those on the right will shout racism , if Bush nominated some right wing activist judge ,that said the exact same thing the left would be doing the same ..... 6 in one hand half a dozen in the other

Once I read into the Myers nomination I went through the roof. Robertson was a solid selection IMO.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 09:48 AM
This is from the DKos which I have heard is very liberal:

Sotomayor: Latinas Make Better Judges than White Males (updated)
by Ian Reifowitz
Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:42:49 PM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/15/202216/006

I really liked Sonia Sotomayor. She is exceptionally qualified, a strong progressive with a great life story, and, while maybe not as young as Clarence Thomas was when he was appointed, at 54 she’s young enough to have a long-lasting impact on the Supreme Court. Then, after reading the poorly researched, anonymously sourced hit job on Judge Sotomayor written by Jeffrey Rosen at TNR (debunked here by Glenn Greenwald), I liked her even more.


Then I read the article in today’s New York Times.

Take a look for yourselves:

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

"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," said Judge Sotomayor...(snip)
My eyes nearly bulged out of my head. Did she really say that Latinas would, simply because they are Latinas, be better judges than white males? I looked up the speech so I could read it in the fullness of the context in which the remark was made, which I did. The remark didn't look any better.

I’m sorry folks, but those sentiments reveal prejudice, and render Judge Sotomayor unacceptable as a member of the Supreme Court. In case you need any more convincing, imagine if a white male finalist to be President Obama’s nominee, when talking about judges, had said: "I would hope that a white male would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina." Prejudice is prejudice, and she is prejudiced.

If we are going to be the country, the united people that Barack Obama described in his books and speeches, if we are going to embrace the vision he laid out in his Philadelphia speech on race, then we are going to have to judge each of us by a single standard. That standard must be that we Americans believe that no one, by dint of his or her heritage, is "better" than any one else.

How can we possibly hope to achieve justice, to continue to strengthen trust across ethnic lines and thereby to fight discrimination without holding each of us to that standard. A belief that relates to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, etc. that is unacceptable when a white man expresses it must be equally unacceptable when made by someone who is neither white nor male. It really is that simple.

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:48 AM
Lead Foot Garcia would get your pizza in 20 minutes or less and insult the customer if they lived to damn far away to make that happen :)

I saw a dude get a little physical with his wife because she orderd 20 beans worth of pizza instead of cooking dinner.
well a large meat lovers does sound good right now ........

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 09:51 AM
She obviously meant "in general," not every single time. Obviously.

"Obviously?" Just because you say so? There is nothing in her statement to support your conclusion that she differentiated between the general and the specific. That is your subjective interpretation.



I wish the gender part of her comparison would get more attention than the Latino part ... the gender part has more merit than the Latino part. She should have skipped the Latino part and referred to "economic" circumstances.

Actually, I think Latino and African-American advocacy groups should step aside in favor of poverty-based advocacy groups. There are way too many successful African-American and Latinos, and way too many dirt-poor Whites.


That's where you're wrong ... you can't live an insular life of relative privilege and expect to understand/empathize with lower socio-economic classes because of an "internal" journey ... there's just insufficient data for that.

I'll give you an example from my own life ... I'm a white male, middle-class, highly educated upbringing. But until I started representing poorer people in mostly criminal defense cases, I didn't know a lot of things ... one example, for 10 years I thought the "99 Cents Only" stores' name was just a slogan. I figured all their items prices ended in 99, like 5.99, 2.99, etc ... I didn't know it was a real thing until I had a case involving a store (at Fairfax and Wilshire in fact - dead smack in the middle of middle-class L.A.).

Another example, I had no idea what "food stamps" were. None. I had heard of them of course, but my dim understanding/guess was that they were only if you were really starving, and how it worked was maybe poor people got a card every month, and when they bought food at the store, the grocer would "stamp" their card until it was full of stamps.

Things like Food Stamps and Dollar-Stores are the daily fabric of life from birth-to-adulthood for poor, lower socio-economic classes.

There is no way we can fully appreciate their experiences without being in some manner immersed in them ... certainly not with an "internal" journey.

I don't know why you would have a snide reaction to the concept of an internal journey. IMO, it's what we are here for. There is not enough bandwidth to cite the examples of individuals who have crossed the boundaries of class, race and economic status to come to a full understanding of the human condition and express it in a myriad of forms. Immersion is not a requirement. Simple human empathy is. Of course, I said absolutely nothing about an "insular life of relative privilege." As you so often do, you just made that up and went off on a tangent. This judge indulged herself in a little "group-think." Hopefully, if she makes it to the SCOTUS, she can set that aside in the future.

55CrushEm
05-26-2009, 09:52 AM
I love it when disagreeing with someone makes you a liberal.

I love it that liberals get offended at being called liberals.

Spider
05-26-2009, 09:53 AM
Once I read into the Myers nomination I went through the roof. Robertson was a solid selection IMO.
in other words she didnt put out

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 09:53 AM
This is from the DKos which I have heard is very liberal:

Sotomayor: Latinas Make Better Judges than White Males (updated)
by Ian Reifowitz
Fri May 15, 2009 at 05:42:49 PM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/15/202216/006

I really liked Sonia Sotomayor. She is exceptionally qualified, a strong progressive with a great life story, and, while maybe not as young as Clarence Thomas was when he was appointed, at 54 she’s young enough to have a long-lasting impact on the Supreme Court. Then, after reading the poorly researched, anonymously sourced hit job on Judge Sotomayor written by Jeffrey Rosen at TNR (debunked here by Glenn Greenwald), I liked her even more.


Then I read the article in today’s New York Times.

Take a look for yourselves:

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

"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," said Judge Sotomayor...(snip)
My eyes nearly bulged out of my head. Did she really say that Latinas would, simply because they are Latinas, be better judges than white males? I looked up the speech so I could read it in the fullness of the context in which the remark was made, which I did. The remark didn't look any better.

I’m sorry folks, but those sentiments reveal prejudice, and render Judge Sotomayor unacceptable as a member of the Supreme Court. In case you need any more convincing, imagine if a white male finalist to be President Obama’s nominee, when talking about judges, had said: "I would hope that a white male would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina." Prejudice is prejudice, and she is prejudiced.

If we are going to be the country, the united people that Barack Obama described in his books and speeches, if we are going to embrace the vision he laid out in his Philadelphia speech on race, then we are going to have to judge each of us by a single standard. That standard must be that we Americans believe that no one, by dint of his or her heritage, is "better" than any one else.

How can we possibly hope to achieve justice, to continue to strengthen trust across ethnic lines and thereby to fight discrimination without holding each of us to that standard. A belief that relates to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, etc. that is unacceptable when a white man expresses it must be equally unacceptable when made by someone who is neither white nor male. It really is that simple.


Oh wow! Sounds like this writer has read my posts on this thead. How very interesting...

TailgateNut
05-26-2009, 09:56 AM
You cannot be that much of a dullard. It's 2009 not 1809, not 1909, not 1959 She made the statement that a wise latina would make a BETTER decision than would a white male counterpart. I am offended and appalled that you would be so apologetic if not down right supportive of such tripe...........

"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,”

Experience does make a difference.

watermock
05-26-2009, 09:56 AM
Well, WASPs are a minority now anyway.

I hope my son gets Affirmative Action to get that electrical bid.

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 10:00 AM
I tend to think that conservatives lean towards the rigid interpetation while liberals lean towards the fluid interpetation.
Yes, that's the conventional wisdom, but don't kid yourself, conservatives will bend the Constitution every which way but loose when it suits them.

The only true "strict interpretationist" now is Clarence Thomas. He goes by absolutely the l.e.t.t.e.r of the Constituition only, and he's a laughingstock in legal circles because of it. People think Scalia is a 'strict interpretist,' but no way. Often when he's asked why he didn't join Thomas in some dissent (where Thomas is alone in an 8-1 vote), Scalia has said - and I quote: "I am for strict-ER interpretation, but I am not a nut."

Which is of course a major slam on Thomas ;D

Spider
05-26-2009, 10:01 AM
LOL Garcia posting the Daily KOS ........Garcia agreeing with Daily KOS ....... what a hippie

Pony Boy
05-26-2009, 10:01 AM
The odds Obama was going to appoint a "white Male " to the SC was about the same as "Hillis" getting a chance to start at tailback for the Broncos.

TailgateNut
05-26-2009, 10:02 AM
My ability to rationalize and draw conclusions is more profound than yours because I am an Italian American male and you are not. And I am good looking too.

Here's the Italian Stallion :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: once again.

I bet you get upset on Columbus Day.;D

TailgateNut
05-26-2009, 10:05 AM
Oh wow! Sounds like this writer has read my posts on this thead. How very interesting...

Your highlighted portion does not however qualify the one being more experienced than the other. BIG DIFFERENCE!

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 10:06 AM
The odds Obama was going to appoint a "white Male " to the SC was about the same as "Hillis" getting a chance to start at tailback for the Broncos.
LOL

I hope he nominates Diane Wood next ... she is awesome.

Stevens and Ginsberg are both



*And BTW* Sonia Sotomayor is a HUGE anti-crime judge, anti-violent crime.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2009, 10:09 AM
She is incredibly smart and qualified despite this one quote. And no matter what, you're going to get a progressive judge to replace Souter. So if you want to pick and pick because you don't like her politics, you're just going to get one with a similar thought process anyway.

Rock Chalk
05-26-2009, 10:13 AM
"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,”

Experience does make a difference.

Experience does make a difference you are correct. And her experience will say that white america has done her race wrong. And her experience will lead to judgements against an entire race for the actions of a few.

And just because one has experience as a pauper or poor hispanic or poor black or poor white or right person or whatever, doesnt make them more qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

The ONLY experience that matters here, the absolute ONLY experience that matters is experience in the law. experience in judging cases based on the law that has been passed down and written by those that came before. The ONLY experience that matters is the experience in dealing with constitutional rights as given to us by the founding fathers.

Supreme Court Justices are there to interpret the constitution and laws passed that were written by congress to determine whether or not they fall within the constitution.

Your experiences in a barrio or ghetto or trailer park or affluent neighborhood have absolutely NO BEARING on whether or not you will make a fine supreme court justice. Your experiences in the court of law, your past record in judging cases and those cases that were overturned by a higher court have more weight than any other factor (or should have) when meeting one's qualifications for the SCOTUS.

Furthermore, whether or not what she said can be construed as racist I will elave to the race rioters. However, what she said WOULD be considered racist if the terms were reversed and it was a white man in lieu of a minority person, male or female.

The problem is, if we are going to be uber politically correct, it needs to be uniform across the board. How does dispariging the vast majority of white people in this country diminish racism? it breeds more hatred. As we attempt to level the playing field for everyone, by limiting what white people can say you essentially tip the balance in favor of minorities. That is wrong. The only thing that is right in this whole racial/predjudice discussion is being equally fair to everyone regardless of color, religion, race, language or any other social or economic standard.

Poor latina women are no more qualified than rich white men and vice versa, and that is the point. What she said is that she is more qualified to be a judge based on being poor when in fact, she is not. She may be more qualified than the rich white man based on her experiences AS A judge or a lawyer, but not how she grew up or how she has been impoverished.

In fact, I would counter than a poor person has less experience to be a supreme court justice than a rich person would. As a rich person is likely to have grown up around law their entire life, and studied law for longer. It is likely that it is in their family upbringing as lawyers and judges tend to have lawyers and judges as children in a pseudo caste system.

Whatever happens, it wont matter as someone else so astutely announced, that the congressional dip****s regardless of political affiliation will likely not read her record or the merits of her candidacy and that, my friends, ruins the entire checks and balances system and SC Justices have more power than nearly anyone else in government. They can determine presidencies, strike down law and enact law, based on their whims and they are there for LIFE.

Annointing a new justice is one of the most precious things our government does and has a long lasting effect on how our country moves forward from here. It should not be taken lightly by the politicians yet it so very often is.

Right wing and left wing nutjobs need not apply. Constitutional judges, those whose record is consistent for upholding the constitution are the ONLY people that should be given a chance and sadly, that is rarely the case.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 10:20 AM
Ricci v. DeStefano. In this case she out right did the wrong thing and it was racist.

The Sotomayor Mystery
Why didn't she explain herself in this year's big race case?
By Emily Bazelon
Updated Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 10:46 AM ET

President Barack Obama and Judge Sonia SotomayorJudge Sonia Sotomayor is smart and sharp, and her formidable track record on the bench should put to rest any lingering doubts that she isn't. (Speaking of which: Why was the left, or at least the center, criticizing one of its own?) But there is a mystery in Sotomayor's recent history: a brief, unsigned opinion in the difficult race case now before the Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor punted when Ricci came before her, to such a degree that she raised more questions than she answered.

PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
SINGLE PAGEYahoo! Buzz FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSERicci is a hard case with bad facts—a case that could do serious damage to Title VII, one of Congress' landmark civil rights laws. In 2003, the city of New Haven, Conn., decided to base future promotions in its firefighting force—there were seven for captain and eight for lieutenant—primarily on a written test. The city paid an outside consultant to design the test so that it would be job-related. Firefighters studied for months. Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. None of the African-American candidates scored high enough to be promoted. For both positions, only two of 29 Hispanics qualified for promotion.

In other situations like this, minority candidates have successfully sued based on the long-recognized legal theory that a test that has a disparate impact—it affects one racial group more than others—must truly be job-related in order to be legal. You can see why New Haven's black firefighters might have done just that. Why promote firefighters based on a written test rather than their performance in the field? Why favor multiple-choice questions over evaluations of leadership and execution? It's like granting a driver's license based solely on the written test, only with much higher stakes.


Faced with these complaints, which translated into both political and potential legal fallout in a city that is nearly 60 percent African-American, New Haven withdrew its test. But that fueled an intense and also understandable frustration on the part of the white firefighters who'd spent time and money on test-prep materials. They'd succeeded by scoring high, only to be told that now their investment counted for nothing. Frank Ricci is a 34-year-old "truckie"—he throws ladders, breaks windows, and cuts holes for New Haven's Truck 4. His uncle and both his brothers are firefighters. He studied fire science at college. He has dozens of videos about firefighting tagged on a Web site he set up to recruit for the department. He is also dyslexic, which means that his high score on the promotion test was especially hard-won. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law. They said that New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the test.

The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed. The court heard argument in Ricci in April. New Haven didn't fare well.

The high court's decision in the case will come in June, before Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. The problem for her will not be why she sided with New Haven over Frank Ricci. The four liberal-moderate justices currently on the court are likely to agree with her, in the name of preserving Title VII as a tool for fair hiring. There's even an outside chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy will follow along. The problem for Sotomayor, instead, is why she didn't grapple with the difficult constitutional issues, the ones Cabranes pointed to. Did she really have nothing to add to the district court opinion? In a case of this magnitude and intricacy, why would that be?

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 10:22 AM
The odds Obama was going to appoint a "white Male "


I really don't think that's an issue. What I want is someone that will enforce the constitution. She doesn't even understand the 14th Amendment.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 10:23 AM
She is incredibly smart and qualified despite this one quote. And no matter what, you're going to get a progressive judge to replace Souter. So if you want to pick and pick because you don't like her politics, you're just going to get one with a similar thought process anyway.

She is not qualified as her ruling, that she didn't even want to sign, in Ricci v. DeStefano.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 10:30 AM
Ricci v. DeStefano. In this case she out right did the wrong thing and it was racist.

The Sotomayor Mystery
Why didn't she explain herself in this year's big race case?
By Emily Bazelon
Updated Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 10:46 AM ET

President Barack Obama and Judge Sonia SotomayorJudge Sonia Sotomayor is smart and sharp, and her formidable track record on the bench should put to rest any lingering doubts that she isn't. (Speaking of which: Why was the left, or at least the center, criticizing one of its own?) But there is a mystery in Sotomayor's recent history: a brief, unsigned opinion in the difficult race case now before the Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor punted when Ricci came before her, to such a degree that she raised more questions than she answered.

PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
SINGLE PAGEYahoo! Buzz FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSERicci is a hard case with bad facts—a case that could do serious damage to Title VII, one of Congress' landmark civil rights laws. In 2003, the city of New Haven, Conn., decided to base future promotions in its firefighting force—there were seven for captain and eight for lieutenant—primarily on a written test. The city paid an outside consultant to design the test so that it would be job-related. Firefighters studied for months. Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. None of the African-American candidates scored high enough to be promoted. For both positions, only two of 29 Hispanics qualified for promotion.

In other situations like this, minority candidates have successfully sued based on the long-recognized legal theory that a test that has a disparate impact—it affects one racial group more than others—must truly be job-related in order to be legal. You can see why New Haven's black firefighters might have done just that. Why promote firefighters based on a written test rather than their performance in the field? Why favor multiple-choice questions over evaluations of leadership and execution? It's like granting a driver's license based solely on the written test, only with much higher stakes.


Faced with these complaints, which translated into both political and potential legal fallout in a city that is nearly 60 percent African-American, New Haven withdrew its test. But that fueled an intense and also understandable frustration on the part of the white firefighters who'd spent time and money on test-prep materials. They'd succeeded by scoring high, only to be told that now their investment counted for nothing. Frank Ricci is a 34-year-old "truckie"—he throws ladders, breaks windows, and cuts holes for New Haven's Truck 4. His uncle and both his brothers are firefighters. He studied fire science at college. He has dozens of videos about firefighting tagged on a Web site he set up to recruit for the department. He is also dyslexic, which means that his high score on the promotion test was especially hard-won. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law. They said that New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the test.

The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed. The court heard argument in Ricci in April. New Haven didn't fare well.

The high court's decision in the case will come in June, before Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. The problem for her will not be why she sided with New Haven over Frank Ricci. The four liberal-moderate justices currently on the court are likely to agree with her, in the name of preserving Title VII as a tool for fair hiring. There's even an outside chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy will follow along. The problem for Sotomayor, instead, is why she didn't grapple with the difficult constitutional issues, the ones Cabranes pointed to. Did she really have nothing to add to the district court opinion? In a case of this magnitude and intricacy, why would that be?


Beat me to it Garcia! great find!

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 10:31 AM
Ricci v. DeStefano. In this case she out right did the wrong thing and it was racist.

The Sotomayor Mystery
Why didn't she explain herself in this year's big race case?
By Emily Bazelon
Updated Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 10:46 AM ET

President Barack Obama and Judge Sonia SotomayorJudge Sonia Sotomayor is smart and sharp, and her formidable track record on the bench should put to rest any lingering doubts that she isn't. (Speaking of which: Why was the left, or at least the center, criticizing one of its own?) But there is a mystery in Sotomayor's recent history: a brief, unsigned opinion in the difficult race case now before the Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor punted when Ricci came before her, to such a degree that she raised more questions than she answered.

PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
SINGLE PAGEYahoo! Buzz FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSERicci is a hard case with bad facts—a case that could do serious damage to Title VII, one of Congress' landmark civil rights laws. In 2003, the city of New Haven, Conn., decided to base future promotions in its firefighting force—there were seven for captain and eight for lieutenant—primarily on a written test. The city paid an outside consultant to design the test so that it would be job-related. Firefighters studied for months. Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. None of the African-American candidates scored high enough to be promoted. For both positions, only two of 29 Hispanics qualified for promotion.

In other situations like this, minority candidates have successfully sued based on the long-recognized legal theory that a test that has a disparate impact—it affects one racial group more than others—must truly be job-related in order to be legal. You can see why New Haven's black firefighters might have done just that. Why promote firefighters based on a written test rather than their performance in the field? Why favor multiple-choice questions over evaluations of leadership and execution? It's like granting a driver's license based solely on the written test, only with much higher stakes.


Faced with these complaints, which translated into both political and potential legal fallout in a city that is nearly 60 percent African-American, New Haven withdrew its test. But that fueled an intense and also understandable frustration on the part of the white firefighters who'd spent time and money on test-prep materials. They'd succeeded by scoring high, only to be told that now their investment counted for nothing. Frank Ricci is a 34-year-old "truckie"—he throws ladders, breaks windows, and cuts holes for New Haven's Truck 4. His uncle and both his brothers are firefighters. He studied fire science at college. He has dozens of videos about firefighting tagged on a Web site he set up to recruit for the department. He is also dyslexic, which means that his high score on the promotion test was especially hard-won. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law. They said that New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the test.

The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed. The court heard argument in Ricci in April. New Haven didn't fare well.

The high court's decision in the case will come in June, before Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. The problem for her will not be why she sided with New Haven over Frank Ricci. The four liberal-moderate justices currently on the court are likely to agree with her, in the name of preserving Title VII as a tool for fair hiring. There's even an outside chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy will follow along. The problem for Sotomayor, instead, is why she didn't grapple with the difficult constitutional issues, the ones Cabranes pointed to. Did she really have nothing to add to the district court opinion? In a case of this magnitude and intricacy, why would that be?

Wow, major red flag. This Supreme Court Nominee punted on an important ruling and yet she wants to be on the Supreme Court?

I'm just not seeing where she is qualified to reside in the highest court in the land. She makes an "unwise" statement about her life experiences compared to a white male's life experiences (short sighted statement) and then she basically says "no comment" on civil rights issue.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 10:33 AM
http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=79888

an older thread dealing with the CT firefighters case

Spider
05-26-2009, 10:34 AM
Odd ............. Bipartisan pedigree
She was nominated a federal judge by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then elevated to the appeals court by a Democrat, Bill Clinton. Senate Republicans slow-walked her confirmation more than a decade ago, in part because she was viewed even then as a potential pick for the Supreme Court.

The White House announcement ceremony was a picture of diversity, the first black president, appointing the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, who is white.
Tell me it isnt political :rofl:.......you phony bastards

Spider
05-26-2009, 10:36 AM
Wait , I got it ..... when Pappy Bush supported she was no racist , it is only lately she became a racist .........

TailgateNut
05-26-2009, 10:37 AM
I am truly amazed at your level of tolerance for racism against white males.....


Hilarious!

Spider
05-26-2009, 10:37 AM
ohhhh racism , she is a racist ..... except when the Reps like her ...... you fools . here is an Idea. lets save racism for real racism cases ............

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 10:38 AM
Odd .............
Tell me it isnt political :rofl:.......you phony bastards

Go tend to your goats--this conversation is clearly beyond your understanding despite it's potential impact to the country that you and your children inherit

Spider
05-26-2009, 10:41 AM
Go tend to your goats--this conversation is clearly beyond your understanding despite it's potential impact to the country that you and your children inherit

The world my Children Inherit is pretty much ****ed as long as we got people like you around , But as I explain ot them , they have to be tolerant of people like you

Pony Boy
05-26-2009, 10:42 AM
Odd .............
Tell me it isnt political :rofl:.......you phony bastards

Your are right, it's all about the politics. You can bet your ass he checked to see if her taxes were paid.

Spider
05-26-2009, 10:44 AM
Your are right, it's all about the politics. You can bet your ass he checked to see if her taxes were paid.

;D I would laugh my ass off she didnt .. that would be perfect

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 10:48 AM
LOL special interest groups are all over Obama saying you should appoint a woman, someone Latino. Obama proudly states I will not let demographics influence my choice. Then he picks a female Latino!!!!!!!

Whatever though she is pretty moderate, not ideolically a controversial pick.

Is she Catholic?

watermock
05-26-2009, 11:09 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kJJA1vvMc4I&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kJJA1vvMc4I&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

watermock
05-26-2009, 11:15 AM
The White House announcement ceremony was a picture of diversity, the first black president, appointing the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, who is white.




Isn't he kinda like, yellow?

We better get a Chinaman on there too, since they own 3 trillion of worthless bonds.

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:19 AM
Isn't he kinda like, yellow?

We better get a Chinaman on there too, since they own 3 trillion of worthless bonds.

got the perfect one ......... http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Funny/William_Hung_Follow.jpg

HILife
05-26-2009, 11:25 AM
Why is her outlook on issues to be framed by the parameters of 'being latino'? That IS RACIST. And not only that, but she claims that her outlook will be BETTER than a white males BECAUSE of it. Go stay in step with the rest of the monkeys ........

So the truth comes out. Your claims to whatever point you trying to make means nothing now. Looks like we found our true racist.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 11:34 AM
LOL Garcia posting the Daily KOS ........Garcia agreeing with Daily KOS ....... what a hippie

LOL. I am a neo-hippie.

HILife
05-26-2009, 11:36 AM
Self driven I will agree with , but if she had just said a woman then it would have been sexist , and I would be mocking Broncofan7 with feminism remarks ..
I guess there is no way for her to win ......

Actually, why is this whole thing about race? Last I check she said latin WOMAN. Yet, everything is about race and nothing about gender. Sounds like broncoSomethingSomething just sees and hears what he wants to.

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:37 AM
LOL. I am a neo-hippie.

Been 20 minutes and no pizza yet ............... ;D

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 11:39 AM
Been 20 minutes and no pizza yet ............... ;D

You drive your truck too fast.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 11:41 AM
ohhhh racism , she is a racist ..... except when the Reps like her ...... you fools . here is an Idea. lets save racism for real racism cases ............

I could care less if she feels that because she is a woman and a Latino she may know some things a white man doesn't. That isn't racist.

Her screwing up the firefighter case is bad. I mean that was blatantly wrong what happened to those white firefighters trying to get a job.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 11:41 AM
So the truth comes out. Your claims to whatever point you trying to make means nothing now. Looks like we found our true racist.

that has already been addressed in a previous post-('like shooting fish in a barrel')-you are about 3 -4 pages behind--but the effect was the same then that it is now--your hypocrisy is chokingly awful.

A WHITE person makes a statement that can be construed as racist--and in YOUR back-assward world, everything he writes thereafter has no merit to it. Yet a Latina can make a racist statement and her sentiments can be expressed in the form of LAW! You are joker of the highest order and you need to turn in your 'white' card........lol;)

HILife
05-26-2009, 11:44 AM
Got some serious cherry picking going on here. I'd like to see the rest of the paragraph (at least, if not the whole speech) before drawing conclusions from one or two sentences picked out of context.

"Judas went out and hanged himself."
"Jesus said, 'Go thou and do likewise."

Lotsa luck with that.

Well, if he said it, it must be true. I'll see yall on the flip side. Now where is my rope at?

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 11:44 AM
Actually, why is this whole thing about race? Last I check she said latin WOMAN. Yet, everything is about race and nothing about gender. Sounds like broncoSomethingSomething just sees and hears what he wants to.

You finally make a legitimate point--that her remarks were not only racist, but sexist too. Thanks. :welcome:

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:49 AM
shhhhhhhhhhhh keep it down I am working on my tan here

Requiem
05-26-2009, 11:51 AM
34 years old and about as bright as a crayon box. Great work, (racist)BroncoFan7.

Atlas
05-26-2009, 12:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

MLK is turning is his grave--what ever happened to judging people on the content of their character rather than by the color of one's skin? Why does this nominee think that a wise LATINA lady would make BETTER decisions than a wise WHITE male? Are white people incapable of living 'RICH' lives?She is differentiating people based upon skin color and race--are there not white males who have grown up in similar impoverished circumstances? This ON THE RECORD RACIST/RACIALIST statement alone should disqualify her from serving on the highest court in the land. Racism is apparently a ONE way street in our current political climate........flame away you libs and apologists.........

You must be a republican. There is nothing wrong with that statement. Being a black or hispanic woman will definetly give you a very different perspective than being a white male.

Atlas
05-26-2009, 12:04 PM
LOL special interest groups are all over Obama saying you should appoint a woman, someone Latino. Obama proudly states I will not let demographics influence my choice. Then he picks a female Latino!!!!!!!

Whatever though she is pretty moderate, not ideolically a controversial pick.

Is she Catholic?

Maybe but she was at the top of everyone's list. She is qualified and she will give the court a little more flair.... I mean you can't get any more boring that Thomas or Roberts.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:04 PM
34 years old and about as bright as a crayon box. Great work, (racist)BroncoFan7.

I love it! The racial apologists are out in force! I make comments in jest (march in lock step like monkeys to garner a response) and the overzealous liberal yapping apologists jump to the rescue! Instead of recognizing the racist comments of our Supreme Court nominee which was the focus of the article, your conscious is so over whelmed by the term 'monkey' which unto itself makes NO REFERENCE TO ONE's Race, where as the SC nominee associates being Latina with an innate ability to make 'better' decisions, yet you perceive my comments as being more insulting. Amazingly sad but expected ---gutless apologists like you will never recognize racism as an objective term applicable to ALL races

Atlas
05-26-2009, 12:05 PM
When Ginsburgh retires I hope Obama appoints a black female for her spot. We need some diversity and color in the Supreme court.

Requiem
05-26-2009, 12:06 PM
I love it! The racial apologists are out in force! I make comments in jest (march in lock step like monkeys to garner a response) and the overzealous liberal yapping apologists jump to the rescue! Instead of recognizing the racist comments of our Supreme Court nominee which was the focus of the article, your conscious is so over whelmed by the term 'monkey' which unto itself makes NO REFERENCE TO ONE's Race, where as the SC nominee associates being Latina with an innate ability to make 'better' decisions, yet you perceive my comments as being more insulting. Amazingly sad but expected ---gutless apologists like you will never recognize racism as an objective term applicable to ALL races

Your sarcasm detector must be a little off today. I was kidding, tool.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:07 PM
You must be a republican. There is nothing wrong with that statement. Being a black or hispanic woman will definetly give you a very different perspective than being a white male.

She stated BETTER not just different--that is the issue.

HILife
05-26-2009, 12:07 PM
that has already been addressed in a previous post-('like shooting fish in a barrel')-you are about 3 -4 pages behind--but the effect was the same then that it is now--your hypocrisy is chokingly awful.

A WHITE person makes a statement that can be construed as racist--and in YOUR back-assward world, everything he writes thereafter has no merit to it. Yet a Latina can make a racist statement and her sentiments can be expressed in the form of LAW! You are joker of the highest order and you need to turn in your 'white' card........lol;)

1. Sorry, I don't feel like reading that far back. Hence, your still a racist.

2. Yes, if you make a racist comment, everything you say afterwards means nothing.

3. I've already said what she said didn't struck me as racist.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 12:08 PM
When Ginsburgh retire I hope Obama appoints a black female for her spot. We need some diversty and color in the Supreme court.

How about Oprah, he owes her!!!!!!!!

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:09 PM
Your sarcasm detector must be a little off today. I was kidding, tool.

My sarcasm detector is fine--what you wrote versus what your intentions are were apparently a bit skewed

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 12:09 PM
1. Sorry, I don't feel like reading that far back. Hence, your still a racist.

2. Yes, if you make a racist comment, everything you say afterwards means nothing.

3. I've already said what she said didn't struck me as racist.

Translation: who cares?

Atlas
05-26-2009, 12:10 PM
How about Oprah, he owes her!!!!!!!!

Oprah would probably be a great justice. You don't have to have a law degree to be one. I'd back Oprah for the Supreme Court. I doubt she would take a $1 billion pay cut though.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:11 PM
1. Sorry, I don't feel like reading that far back. Hence, your still a racist.

2. Yes, if you make a racist comment, everything you say afterwards means nothing.

3. I've already said what she said didn't struck me as racist.

And myself and others have attempted to point out the error in your interpretation--you can lead a thirsty dog to water, but apparently you cannot make him drink..........

HILife
05-26-2009, 12:11 PM
I love it! The racial apologists are out in force! I make comments in jest (march in lock step like monkeys to garner a response) and the overzealous liberal yapping apologists jump to the rescue! Instead of recognizing the racist comments of our Supreme Court nominee which was the focus of the article, your conscious is so over whelmed by the term 'monkey' which unto itself makes NO REFERENCE TO ONE's Race, where as the SC nominee associates being Latina with an innate ability to make 'better' decisions, yet you perceive my comments as being more insulting. Amazingly sad but expected ---gutless apologists like you will never recognize racism as an objective term applicable to ALL races

Go google black people and monkey, let me know what you find. Even if you didn't mean it in that way, not to smart to bring up monkey in a discussion about racism.

Requiem
05-26-2009, 12:12 PM
My sarcasm detector is fine--what you wrote versus what your intentions are were apparently a bit skewed

My statement was in jest. I wasn't even aware you made a "monkey" comment. Couldn't care less if you are a racist or not. Good for you. When is your next NKA meeting?

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 12:14 PM
Go google black people and monkey, let me know what you find. Even if you didn't mean it in that way, not to smart to bring up monkey in a discussion about racism.

It does illiustrate a point though. I mean when you see a black person do you think they look like or resemble a monkey is any way, shape, or form?

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 12:14 PM
Oprah would probably be a great justice. You don't have to have a law degree to be one. I'd back Oprah for the Supreme Court. I doubt she would take a $1 billion pay cut though.

Naw she's not near smart enough about the law to do it. I know though you don't have to be an atty, but as country grew and legal issues got so complex it has been all atty.

I agree though someone really smart without a law degree, but who maybe was a scholar etc, constitutional expert etc.

I was just joking about Oprah though, cmon Oprah?

HILife
05-26-2009, 12:15 PM
Translation: who cares?

To each his own

Spider
05-26-2009, 12:15 PM
Go google black people and monkey, let me know what you find. Even if you didn't mean it in that way, not to smart to bring up monkey in a discussion about racism.

LOL busting someone for using a word , that is ragging on someone else for the same thing ........

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:18 PM
Go google black people and monkey, let me know what you find. Even if you didn't mean it in that way, not to smart to bring up monkey in a discussion about racism.

You REALLY are a slow..... That is one of the points in this discussion--that our society has come to the point where comments like 'monkey', when stated by a white person, can be interpreted as racist, yet when a minority makes an OVERTLY racist statement such as our SC nominee has made, it is brushed aside and even agreed upon! You really need to re-examine some of your beliefs but it sounds as if you have been brainwashed like some others on this board who 1) think that these comments were anything but racist and 2) think that this has anything to do with her being a Democratic appointee.

Requiem
05-26-2009, 12:19 PM
W.o.p.

HILife
05-26-2009, 12:19 PM
It does illiustrate a point though. I mean when you see a black person do you think they look like or resemble a monkey is any way, shape, or form?

Of course not, but it has on many occations been used in a negitive manner.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:21 PM
My statement was in jest. I wasn't even aware you made a "monkey" comment. Couldn't care less if you are a racist or not. Good for you. When is your next NKA meeting?

what is NKA? I stopped karate at age 13.....

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:23 PM
W.o.p.

now that sir--IS overt racism--

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 12:23 PM
Of course not, but it has on many occations been used in a negitive manner.

Agreed, but it no longer really holds that context. I mean science has contended we are all descended from Apes. Doesn't that make everyone a kind of Monkey?

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 12:24 PM
To each his own

I find it perplexing that minorities can play the race card ad nausium but when the circumstances are turned, nobody seems to care. I find it perplexing that women can play the sexual discrimination card all they want, but when the circumstances are turned, nobody seems to care.

This Supreme Court Nominee has managed to do both with one statement, yet she gets a free pass because well, she's not a white male.

You can't have it both ways. You can't play the racisim card and then be exempt from the same scrutiny, especially when sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land.

Requiem
05-26-2009, 12:25 PM
now that sir--IS overt racism--

Aw, no Woppy Woo.

Spider
05-26-2009, 12:28 PM
I find it perplexing that minorities can play the race card ad nausium but when the circumstances are turned, nobody seems to care. I find it perplexing that women can play the sexual discrimination card all they want, but when the circumstances are turned, nobody seems to care.

This Supreme Court Nominee has managed to do both with one statement, yet she gets a free pass because well, she's not a white male.

You can't have it both ways. You can't play the racisim card and then be exempt from the same scrutiny, especially when sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land.

Show me some racism will care ........... what this woman did wasnt racist ......Sexist sure ......

Requiem
05-26-2009, 12:29 PM
Spider, how was the 100th birthday bro?

HILife
05-26-2009, 12:29 PM
LOL busting someone for using a word , that is ragging on someone else for the same thing ........

LOL, I know. Pot meet Kettle. The thing is I didn't say anything racist about what she said. I do find something strangly wrong with monkey. it's on the level as the N word.

Popps
05-26-2009, 12:29 PM
She hates white people ............. White males , we elect her to the SCOTUS , and she will take away our guns , force us into white labor camps , and give all the minorities the best parking spots ...........

:rofl:

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 12:31 PM
W.o.p.now that sir--IS overt racism--

Not really ... between the Civil War and WWI, a majority of Italian immigrants became notorious at Ellis Island and other portals for being WithOut Papers.

watermock
05-26-2009, 12:33 PM
It does illiustrate a point though. I mean when you see a black person do you think they look like or resemble a monkey is any way, shape, or form?

Ask Howard (RIP), altho he hated he Broncos..

Howard: "look at that Donkey run!"

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:33 PM
LOL, I know. Pot meet Kettle. The thing is I didn't say anything racist about what she said. I do find something strangly wrong with monkey. it's on the level as the N word.

and that right there shows why the intellectual gulf between you and even a person of average intelligence will never be overcome........

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:35 PM
Not really ... between the Civil War and WWI, a majority of Italian immigrants became notorious at Ellis Island and other portals for being WithOut Papers.

which in turn was used as a racial epithet against Italian americans by people of other ethnic backgrounds.

Requiem
05-26-2009, 12:36 PM
Not really ... between the Civil War and WWI, a majority of Italian immigrants became notorious at Ellis Island and other portals for being WithOut Papers.

I thought it meant With Out Penis?

I mean, for BF7 anyways.

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 12:36 PM
Guys ... if it was that bad, she would NOT have been nominated. Obama is probably hyper-sensitive about his first appointment. Besides, the GOP talking heads have been all over the news channels today, and this has not been mentioned once.

I sure hope Diane Wood is his next appointee. Wood is well known in the legal appellate community as being very business smart. Liberal, but business smart. She'd be great.

Requiem
05-26-2009, 12:38 PM
Yeah, I thought Wood would have been considered as well. Maybe when Stevens or Ginsburg go bye-bye.

HILife
05-26-2009, 12:38 PM
You REALLY are a slow..... That is one of the points in this discussion--that our society has come to the point where comments like 'monkey', when stated by a white person, can be interpreted as racist, yet when a minority makes an OVERTLY racist statement such as our SC nominee has made, it is brushed aside and even agreed upon! You really need to re-examine some of your beliefs but it sounds as if you have been brainwashed like some others on this board who 1) think that these comments were anything but racist and 2) think that this has anything to do with her being a Democratic appointee.

Monkey said by anyone with a negitive intent, is racist. Also, because I can't see you I don't know if your white, black, latino, ect. So don't start playing the victim. Regardless of who you are, it's bad.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:40 PM
I thought it meant With Out Penis?

I mean, for BF7 anyways.

Ha! then how did I father you? and by the way--I am taking away your internet priveleges when I get home from work........

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 12:40 PM
Guys ... if it was that bad, she would NOT have been nominated. Obama is probably hyper-sensitive about his first appointment. Besides, the GOP talking heads have been all over the news channels today, and this has not been mentioned once.

I sure hope Diane Wood is his next appointee. Wood is well known in the legal appellate community as being very business smart. Liberal, but business smart. She'd be great.

Did she pay her taxes? It's a ligit question...

Requiem
05-26-2009, 12:41 PM
Ha! then how did I father you? and by the way--I am taking away your internet priveleges when I get home from work........

Privileges.

HILife
05-26-2009, 12:42 PM
Agreed, but it no longer really holds that context. I mean science has contended we are all descended from Apes. Doesn't that make everyone a kind of Monkey?

It's not so much the word, but the hurtful intent it's meant to cause. What exactly does the N word mean? I guess ignorant, but whatever it means it's meant to insult.

watermock
05-26-2009, 12:45 PM
Agreed, but it no longer really holds that context. I mean science has contended we are all descended from Apes. Doesn't that make everyone a kind of Monkey?

Umm....no.

The laws of evoluion become blurred in humans, along wih some other species which seem to have "spontaneously" evolved.

Yes, I do suggest genetic tinkering. It's pretty obvious actually.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:48 PM
Privileges.

They will be taken away as well.

HILife
05-26-2009, 12:49 PM
and that right there shows why the intellectual gulf between you and even a person of average intelligence will never be overcome........

So, let me get this straight. Your calling me a genius? THANKS!

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:50 PM
Not really ... between the Civil War and WWI, a majority of Italian immigrants became notorious at Ellis Island and other portals for being WithOut Papers.

And a 'cracker' was simply a term that reffered to the slave master who 'cracked the whip' on slaves

A 'honky' is simply a reference to the higher pitched voices of caucasians that africans noticed......

WOP is a racist term...... end of story

watermock
05-26-2009, 12:51 PM
LOL, I know. Pot meet Kettle. The thing is I didn't say anything racist about what she said. I do find something strangly wrong with monkey. it's on the level as the N word.

No. It's not even close.

Using the N word is caste. Using the M word means sub-human.

Try using the M word sometime....

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 12:53 PM
So, let me get this straight. Your calling me a genius? THANKS!

again-your ability to rationalize and interpret is severely lacking.......you get a captial 'E' for effort though......the 'HI(gh)-life' is indeed fitting

broncocalijohn
05-26-2009, 12:54 PM
She hates white people ............. White males , we elect her to the SCOTUS , and she will take away our guns , force us into white labor camps , and give all the minorities the best parking spots ...........

welcome back! I think they can find more fault in her than this statement. If she thinks policy is made in courts then she is friends with the 9th circuit out here in California and should no way be on the bench. I dont want to lose any parking spaces to pregnant women or dwarfs. Add the description of handicapped by placing Chiefs or Raider fan on that list will irk me. Nothing like ruining my day of lined up lower cars with "Raider Nation" emblems on the back window taking up those premium handicap parking spots.

watermock
05-26-2009, 12:55 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6DBuk91phkI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6DBuk91phkI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 01:01 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6DBuk91phkI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6DBuk91phkI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

you oughta see what 'HIlife' can do with his anus and ear lobe!

HILife
05-26-2009, 01:03 PM
again-your ability to rationalize and interpret is severely lacking.......you get a captial 'E' for effort though......the 'HI(gh)-life' is indeed fitting

yea, yea, yea, I get it, you have to have the last word. Well, last word be thou.

Spider
05-26-2009, 01:06 PM
welcome back! I think they can find more fault in her than this statement. If she thinks policy is made in courts then she is friends with the 9th circuit out here in California and should no way be on the bench. I dont want to lose any parking spaces to pregnant women or dwarfs. Add the description of handicapped by placing Chiefs or Raider fan on that list will irk me. Nothing like ruining my day of lined up lower cars with "Raider Nation" emblems on the back window taking up those premium handicap parking spots.

Not to mention she might make white people run a quickie mart ;D

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 01:06 PM
yea, yea, yea, I get it, you have to have the last word. Well, last word be thou.

Go Broncos. :pimp:

HILife
05-26-2009, 01:14 PM
again-your ability to rationalize and interpret is severely lacking.......you get a captial 'E' for effort though......the 'HI(gh)-life' is indeed fitting

Also, thanks for picking up on the name. It implied many things. that was one of them. "Mile high life" was another. Oh, sorry I took the last word. Be thou again.

Mountain Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:15 PM
What she said wasn't good in our too politically correct world, but it wasn't racist either. Lets face it, white priveleged males don't have the same world view of those of color who face more challenges in life. She was simply being proud of her life and stating it has given her a different perspective which she feels alows her to make better decisions. Judges are constantly asked to make decisions, she feels her experiences allow her to do that than a priveleged white male. She is probably correct.

The bigger issue is her judicial activism. Making law is not what the judicial branch is intended to do. I am afraid she does not think this way. The CT fire fighters case regardless of which way you stand on that is wrong, not because of how it was decided, but that lack of a written decision. That shows she lacks respect for the parties involved and for the Supreme Court, which was the wrong thing to do seeing as how it got picked up for review.

She will get appointed though, there isn't much anyone can do, but I don't believe she is a good choice for anything other than political grandstanding for Obama.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:21 PM
What she said wasn't good in our too politically correct world, but it wasn't racist either. Lets face it, white priveleged males don't have the same world view of those of color who face more challenges in life.


Wait, are you telling me that every white person is privledged? Not only do poor white people exist, but they struggle just like any other group of poor people. Poor socio-economic positions are struggles. Even median socio-economic situations are people that struggle. Not only was her statement racist, sexist, and elitiest, but so is yours. Peoples world view, regardles of race, color, or gender, are different and we as a society can't even begin to quantify it. You are at anytime the sum of your experiences and regardless of all factors it is unique to you and you alone.

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 03:34 PM
Yeah, I thought Wood would have been considered as well. Maybe when Stevens or Ginsburg go bye-bye.
Yes. The lure of a first Latino was undeniably strong, even overpowering ... and Sotomayor is a strong candidate with plenty of the "life experience" Obama wanted. But next up I'm be hoping for Wood.

And yes, Stevens or Ginsberg will probably be next ... but why not get optimistic and hope its Scalia? He's almost 75 now. Problem is, Thomas, Roberts and Alito all have a good many years ahead of them. Roberts is just 54, and Thomas and Alito are both about 59 or 60. That's three rock-solid far right justices who are gonna be around awhile.





(Heh heh heh ... he said 'hoping for wood' ... heh heh heh)

Pony Boy
05-26-2009, 03:40 PM
We be "movin on up"
"Finally got a piece of the pie"

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 03:42 PM
Yes. The lure of a first Latino was undeniably strong, even overpowering ... and Sotomayor is a strong candidate with plenty of the "life experience" Obama wanted. But next up I'm be hoping for Wood.

And yes, Stevens or Ginsberg will probably be next ... but why not get optimistic and hope its Scalia? He's almost 75 now. Problem is, Thomas, Roberts and Alito all have a good many years ahead of them. Roberts is just 54, and Thomas and Alito are both about 59 or 60. That's three rock-solid far right justices who are gonna be around awhile.



(Heh heh heh ... he said 'hoping for wood' ... heh heh heh)

What the hell is this "real" Rohirrim crap you keep sending me? And $10 I didn't send? WTF? I sent $40 a couple of months ago. Look, I'm a Lefty, but I'm not a sheep. And I despise PC. I despise the PC of the Left as much as I despise the PC of the Right. What this woman said was a prejudiced statement. There's no way to read it differently. She stated that being a Latina gives her some inherent decision-making advantage over white males. You can put lipstick on a pig but your friends will make fun of you when you take it out to dinner. ;)

Spider
05-26-2009, 03:45 PM
What she said wasn't good in our too politically correct world, but it wasn't racist either. Lets face it, white priveleged males don't have the same world view of those of color who face more challenges in life. She was simply being proud of her life and stating it has given her a different perspective which she feels alows her to make better decisions. Judges are constantly asked to make decisions, she feels her experiences allow her to do that than a priveleged white male. She is probably correct.

The bigger issue is her judicial activism. Making law is not what the judicial branch is intended to do. I am afraid she does not think this way. The CT fire fighters case regardless of which way you stand on that is wrong, not because of how it was decided, but that lack of a written decision. That shows she lacks respect for the parties involved and for the Supreme Court, which was the wrong thing to do seeing as how it got picked up for review.

She will get appointed though, there isn't much anyone can do, but I don't believe she is a good choice for anything other than political grandstanding for Obama.

Well I hope she doesnt get appointed not because of this Racist crap , but one that sides with Unions too much isnt good either , you got to have that fine line between a Union and a company for the relationship to work for both .... too much Union = Bad for company , not enough union = bad for workers

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 04:01 PM
She obviously meant "in general," not every single time. Obviously."Obviously?" Just because you say so? There is nothing in her statement to support your conclusion that she differentiated between the general and the specific. That is your subjective interpretation.There is EVERYTHING in here statemnt to show it's not absolute...

READ IT AGAIN:
"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," said Judge Sotomayor.

See? It's called NOT ABSOLUTELY, just like I said. It's a three times qualified statement.

Compare her statement with this: "I would hope that a Denver Bronco fan would stick it out and support his team through tough times more often than not, and be a better fan that a young Patriots fan who hasn't seen a losing season in the last 10 years."

See? That is a very similar sentence ... and it's not saying Broncos fans are BETTER than Pats fans.

Besides, the PROOF that this is NOT racist is that I've yet to see even one talking head raise this topic ... and I've been watching Fox all day. The biggest criticism was from the college dropout Karl Rove, who questioned the intelligence of Sotomayor, a Yale Law Review Editor. :oyvey:

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 04:17 PM
Weird ... Shepard Smith on Fox just praised Sotomayor to the rafters. I thought I was watching MSNBC for a minute there. :~ohyah!:

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 04:18 PM
Yes, obviously. And not because "I say so," but because it's just simply not.

There is EVERYTHING in here statemnt to show it's not absolute...

READ IT AGAIN:


See? It's called NOT ABSOLUTELY, just like I said. It's a three times qualified statement.

Compare her statement with this: "I would hope that a Denver Bronco fan would stick it out and support his team through tough times more often than not, and be a better fan that a young Patriots fan who hasn't seen a losing season in the last 10 years."

See? That is a very similar sentence ... and it's not saying Broncos fans are BETTER than Pats fans.

Besides, the PROOF that this is NOT racist is that I've yet to see even one talking head raise this topic ... and I've been watching Fox all day. The biggest criticism was from the college dropout Karl Rove, who questioned the intelligence of Sotomayor, a Yale Law Review Editor. :oyvey:



*AS AN ASIDE* - No way you're the real Rohirrim, no f'ing way. You're his friend/bother/son/nephew, something. But this is a different person posting now, starting the past couple months. I said this jokingly before, but now I'm quite serious. Now I sent you a rep line challenging you to prove it's you, so rep me back with the answer to prove it. Otherwise, this is somebody else, and I'm gonna expose you.

Lately, I've been wondering about your sanity. I think the whole Shanahan/Josh/Cutler thing has sent you around the bend. I'm not politically doctrinaire. If that upsets you, so solly chollie.

Anyway, going back to her statement:
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," said Judge Sotomayor.

I would agree with your take if she had used a different adjective. Say, more broadly informed, or different. What she said is that the experiences of a Latina are inherently "better" than those of an equivalent white male (after all, the argument is based on an equivalency attributed to O'Connor that a "wise" woman and a "wise" man would come up with the same decision, an idea with which she disagrees). She clearly states, "...hasn't lived that life" implying that the life of the white male is somehow deficient. I assume she's referring to some assumed stereotypical life experience of some mythical "white male" as compared with the "rich experiences" of some assumed Latina, obviously some PC construct that was pumped into her brain during her SA studies at Princeton. The minute I read this statement I recognized the stench of university "group-think" indoctrination. ;D

garandman
05-26-2009, 04:18 PM
Ok, yeah it was racist IMO, but again the dems pretty much have carte blanche right now. The country is in sorry shape folks, still by far the best in the world and I am proud to say i was born and raised an American but it is scary to see where we are headed..

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 04:28 PM
Roh, she said "hope", which means not always. She "hopes" they would "more often than not." Which means NOT ALWAYS!

"More often than not" MEANS not always .... by freaking DEFINITION!


And saying those that "haven't had that life" is not implying any "deficiency," please. Just because you haven't had the same experiences as another person doesn't mean you're better or worse, she didn't say that. What she implied was - there are life experiences that some people don't have, and not having them means they understand mid-lower socioeconomic classes less than those who have had those experiences.

Great examples I mentioned about myself: I didn't know what Section 8 Housing was, what Food Stamps really were, or that 99 Cents Only store literally meant "99 Cents Only" ... until I was 34 years old.

I simply didn't have the life experience of that stuff (and lots of other stuff, those are just examples), so I would expect that I would LESS understand the experiences of low-mid socio-economic classes. That doiesn't mean I'm deficient as a PERSON, just that I have less experience there.

Spider
05-26-2009, 04:30 PM
Ok, yeah it was racist IMO, but again the dems pretty much have carte blanche right now. The country is in sorry shape folks, still by far the best in the world and I am proud to say i was born and raised an American but it is scary to see where we are headed..

thanks for sharing

Inkana7
05-26-2009, 05:26 PM
These colors don't run.

footstepsfrom#27
05-26-2009, 07:11 PM
Rather than read through all the mind numbing drivel you pablum suckers spewed on this thread I decided after a few pages to do something more legitimate, so I actually read her entire speech so I'd get the real story within it's context before commenting. If there were any way of proving it...I'd lay $1000 that nobody else on this thread did so.

Her points:

1) Life experiences infuence how we see things
2) We can and should aspire to overcome that
3) Many/most people do not take the trouble
4) Sometimes that can be a strength not a weakness
5) Reality dictates we should aknowledge that

Simple. True. Insightful.

That is all.

listopencil
05-26-2009, 07:13 PM
Meh. She's right. Also- a wise white male with Sotomayor's experiences would, more often than not, make better decisions than a latina without them.

Hogan11
05-26-2009, 07:53 PM
I love it, lot's of frothing over this one...grab the popcorn, this is gonna be fun

Xenos
05-26-2009, 07:57 PM
I was hoping Obama would nominate her. Pretty left wing, good replacement. Of course the GOP will go nuts over this, but they would have gone nuts over anyone since they've just become the party of dissent.

And that comment wasn't racist
Correct. It was racist and sexist. :P.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the woman part of her comment. As a guy, I'm frankly offended.

UberBroncoMan
05-26-2009, 08:03 PM
I think it's stupid to call someone "latina" to begin with.

**** skin color/ethnicity and people who use it to define others.

You're either a human or you're something else.

Bronx33
05-26-2009, 08:08 PM
Mr chu want's us all to paint are f***** roofs!

http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090526/sc_afp/climatewarmingusbritainchu.html

LONDON(AFP) (AFP) - US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London.

Rohirrim
05-27-2009, 05:58 AM
Rather than read through all the mind numbing drivel you pablum suckers spewed on this thread I decided after a few pages to do something more legitimate, so I actually read her entire speech so I'd get the real story within it's context before commenting. If there were any way of proving it...I'd lay $1000 that nobody else on this thread did so.

Her points:

1) Life experiences infuence how we see things
2) We can and should aspire to overcome that
3) Many/most people do not take the trouble
4) Sometimes that can be a strength not a weakness
5) Reality dictates we should aknowledge that

Simple. True. Insightful.

That is all.

Your arrogance is showing. ;D Try post #36. (Give me my $1000 bucks)

Anyway, BB, she said "better." No way around that. I have experiences as well. I remember taking a "Great Modern Literature" course at CU. Every book on the reading list was chosen for gender or race. Not a single, white male was included. None of the books were what I would call "great" based simply on writing skill, depth, or strength of story. Didn't matter. In that environment (CU English department) all of these books were inherently "better" than anything any white male could come up with. Our feminist professor took great pains to point out why; The richness inherent in the minority experience lives and breathes human "truth." Living under the oppression of the ruling class makes it so. The white male literature reflects the viewpoint and experience of the ruling class and can never offer the "truth" of human experience. The richness of the minority experience is always "better." Geez, didn't you learn anything in college? ;D

BTW, I think she'll make a great judge on the SCOTUS. Hopefully, she can take on Scalia and show him up for the bloated fool he is. I'm sure she just let slip with a little feminist/la raza indoctrination in this speech. I'm sure she'll be fine. You just can't take that pompous PC bs into the real world with you. It works fine in academia.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 06:09 AM
Isn't he kinda like, yellow?

We better get a Chinaman on there too, since they own 3 trillion of worthless bonds.

Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 06:10 AM
Your arrogance is showing. ;D Try post #36. (Give me my $1000 bucks)

Anyway, BB, she said "better." No way around that. I have experiences as well. I remember taking a "Great Modern Literature" course at CU. Every book on the reading list was chosen for gender or race. Not a single, white male was included. None of the books were what I would call "great" based simply on writing skill, depth, or strength of story. Didn't matter. In that environment (CU English department) all of these books were inherently "better" than anything any white male could come up with. Our feminist professor took great pains to point out why; The richness inherent in the minority experience lives and breathes human "truth." Living under the oppression of the ruling class makes it so. The white male literature reflects the viewpoint and experience of the ruling class and can never offer the "truth" of human experience. The richness of the minority experience is always "better." Geez, didn't you learn anything in college? ;D

BTW, I think she'll make a great judge on the SCOTUS. Hopefully, she can take on Scalia and show him up for the bloated fool he is. I'm sure she just let slip with a little feminist/la raza indoctrination in this speech. I'm sure she'll be fine. You just can't take that pompous PC bs into the real world with you. It works fine in academia.

Couldn't possibly be that works written by white males have been a part of the curriculum for all of us growing up, could it? Couldn't possibly be a chance for you to expand your horizons could it?

Would hate for that to happen. Why read someone else's experiences when you can read about what you've already experienced. Talk about eye-opening!

/rolleyes

TailgateNut
05-27-2009, 06:17 AM
Meh. She's right. Also- a wise white male with Sotomayor's experiences would, more often than not, make better decisions than a latina without them.

Some people DO understand the underlying meaning of her statement. :thumbsup:

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 06:20 AM
Roh, she said "hope", which means not always. She "hopes" they would "more often than not." Which means NOT ALWAYS!

"More often than not" MEANS not always .... by freaking DEFINITION!


And saying those that "haven't had that life" is not implying any "deficiency," please. Just because you haven't had the same experiences as another person doesn't mean you're better or worse, she didn't say that. What she implied was - there are life experiences that some people don't have, and not having them means they understand mid-lower socioeconomic classes less than those who have had those experiences.

Great examples I mentioned about myself: I didn't know what Section 8 Housing was, what Food Stamps really were, or that 99 Cents Only store literally meant "99 Cents Only" ... until I was 34 years old.

I simply didn't have the life experience of that stuff (and lots of other stuff, those are just examples), so I would expect that I would LESS understand the experiences of low-mid socio-economic classes. That doiesn't mean I'm deficient as a PERSON, just that I have less experience there.


How does the fact that she stated 'hope' before making mention of her gender and race make her statement better? What, she can call on her 'inherent Female, Latina rationalizing super powers' only some of the time?

You still fail to address the fact that she equated being a female latina with 'hopefully' being able to make BETTER decisions than a WHITE MALE would. She didn't just say different--she stated BETTER after differentaiting herself from WHITE MALE JUSTICES by enlisting her GENDER AND RACE. Hence, that statement is RACIST.

Somehow, this inherent trait of being Latina and female gives her an advantage to render 'BETTER' decisions for the America people. That is inherently racist and as others have pointed out, sexist too. And your take on this issue should be pushed aside since you are the one who refuses to acknowledge WOP as an ethnic slur........but then again--coming from your white priviledged background, you probably don't understand much of anything that happens in the REAL WORLD.

alkemical
05-27-2009, 06:20 AM
thats an interesting point...

i grew up in Tampa and i was raised in housing projects throughtout the city...during that time i had it pretty rough along with my friends...there were little to zero white people to be found in the poorest sections of the city...

so yea for that reason i grew up thinking whites had it easy...i'm older now and realize that a blanket statement like that isn't a fair one...but it was hard for me to understand that growing up...

i will say this...after watching/reading what 3rd world countries go through, i'd say none of us know the meaning of truly having it rough or true poverty...

That's cuz they allz is in trailer parks...

Trust me man, i grew up poor and white - and am back to being poor and white due to the job sector and this econ.

I'm not going to deny some other bull**** that happens due to race - but it's way overblown in some ways.

But people need to feel better about themselves so it's some silly pedestal people create and stand on.

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 06:24 AM
Some people DO understand the underlying meaning of her statement. :thumbsup:

OH--so you are willing to read into/rationalize/deny the racist statements made by female minorities who happen to be democrats....I am shocked. :thumbs:

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 06:28 AM
Couldn't possibly be that works written by white males have been a part of the curriculum for all of us growing up, could it? Couldn't possibly be a chance for you to expand your horizons could it?

Would hate for that to happen. Why read someone else's experiences when you can read about what you've already experienced. Talk about eye-opening!

/rolleyes

IF the class was entitled "ethnic literature" and not described as being better as ROH mentioned in his post, I doubt anyone would take issue with it.
In other words, Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining..........Let people judge works based on their merit instead of telling people something is "BETTER" or 'more rich' because it happened to be composed by a female or minority.

Rohirrim
05-27-2009, 06:44 AM
Couldn't possibly be that works written by white males have been a part of the curriculum for all of us growing up, could it? Couldn't possibly be a chance for you to expand your horizons could it?

Would hate for that to happen. Why read someone else's experiences when you can read about what you've already experienced. Talk about eye-opening!

/rolleyes

Well, I got an A in the class, so I must have done something right. ;D

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, one of my favorite writers of all time is Gabriel Garcia Marquez. And that was true before ever I took this class. What I'm poking at is the sanctimony of groupism. I despise political groupism. I love to read about, see films of, and see the art from individuals of all places and experiences. I just can't stand it when somebody tries to pass off some kind of group-think. To me, the judge's comments smell of it.

Garcia Bronco
05-27-2009, 06:47 AM
"Hope" is another way of saying "I want"

TailgateNut
05-27-2009, 06:51 AM
OH--so you are willing to read into/rationalize/deny the racist statements made by female minorities who happen to be democrats....I am shocked. :thumbs:

No denying of any racist statement. I can also assume that you would find this statement as being of a racist nature: "An educated black man is more likely to excell in life compared to an uneducated white man".

Rohirrim
05-27-2009, 06:57 AM
The following is the text of the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, by appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor. It was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, a symposium issue entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," and it is reproduced here with permission from the journal.

I spent a year at Berkeley. Given the forum where the speech was given and the audience it was given to, I would expect her to throw them a little ideological red meat. No problem. I'm sure she'll make a fine judge. She's certainly smart enough. I do think the Left might be in for a little shock down the road. If we're talking sterotypes, well one of the stereotypes of the Latino/Latina population is that they tend to be socially conservative. Sottomayor has already professed to being a Catholic. Don't be too surprised if she is over on the Right on some social issues, like Roe v. Wade. ;)

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 07:06 AM
So it appears that BroncoFan7 is actually Tom Tancredo. Happy reading!

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/9572/stay-classy-tom-tancredo-i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i-edition

TailgateNut
05-27-2009, 07:19 AM
So it appears that BroncoFan7 is actually Tom Tancredo. Happy reading!

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/9572/stay-classy-tom-tancredo-i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i-edition

No, he's just upset that he doesn't get the respect the "Itallion Stallion" deserves.Hilarious!

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 07:26 AM
The following is the text of the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, by appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor. It was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, a symposium issue entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," and it is reproduced here with permission from the journal.

I spent a year at Berkeley. Given the forum where the speech was given and the audience it was given to, I would expect her to throw them a little ideological red meat. No problem. I'm sure she'll make a fine judge. She's certainly smart enough. I do think the Left might be in for a little shock down the road. If we're talking sterotypes, well one of the stereotypes of the Latino/Latina population is that they tend to be socially conservative. Sottomayor has already professed to being a Catholic. Don't be too surprised if she is over on the Right on some social issues, like Roe v. Wade. ;)

So it was a speech given about representation of Hispanic people in the judiciary? And somehow it's just considered racist?

As I figured, nothing to see here.

Roh: you're absolutely right. A little ideological red meat is to be expected in such a forum.

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 07:26 AM
No denying of any racist statement. I can also assume that you would find this statement as being of a racist nature: "An educated black man is more likely to excell in life compared to an uneducated white man".

Not clever and your comparison fails miserably. Here is HER statement again:


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," said Judge Sotomayor.

If you want to dig even further into the quote--it can be interpreted that she feels that WHITE MALES don't have to be 'wise' to be appointed as a judge--that is insulting as well. She differentiates these two objects being compared by what?
1) RACE
2) Gender

then states that she hopes that the LATINA WOMAN would make a better decision than the WHITE MALE.

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 07:30 AM
So it appears that BroncoFan7 is actually Tom Tancredo. Happy reading!

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/9572/stay-classy-tom-tancredo-i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i-edition

Tom Tancredo--he who wants to enforce our border policy-I agree with him 110% --you really are a POS MOOSE.

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 07:34 AM
So it appears that BroncoFan7 is actually Tom Tancredo. Happy reading!

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/9572/stay-classy-tom-tancredo-i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i-edition


You are such a disgusting racial apologist--bending over backwards for minorities as they belittle the 'priviledged class' whites. You are a disgrace.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 07:36 AM
Tom Tancredo--he who wants to enforce our border policy-I agree with him 110% --you really are a POS MOOSE.

Coming from you, that actually makes me feel really good. Thanks for the confidence booster, Tancredo!

Tom Tancredo, he who supports a litmus test for judges, and would only appoint them if they would overturn Roe V. Wade.

Tom Tancredo, he who does not support Stem Cell research, and finds it "morally reprehensible." Frankly, I find that stand to be morally repugnant and intellectually devoid. But what do I know? I'm a POS.

Keep digging. Why else do you loooooooooove Tancredo?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 07:38 AM
You are such a disgusting racial apologist--bending over backwards for minorities as they belittle the 'priviledged class' whites. You are a disgrace.

A disgrace to whom? "priviledged" class whites?

Don't you have a Klan rally to attend? ZIG HEIL! ZIG HEIL! Don't forget to shave your head before you go!

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 07:38 AM
So it appears that BroncoFan7 is actually Tom Tancredo. Happy reading!

http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/9572/stay-classy-tom-tancredo-i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i-edition

That link is nothing more than a liberal blog full of racial apologist ankle grabbers who make clear thinking, objective people sick to their stomachs.

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 07:40 AM
A disgrace to whom? "priviledged" class whites?

Don't you have a Klan rally to attend? ZIG HEIL! ZIG HEIL! Don't forget to shave your head before you go!

You are a disgrace to all objective observers of racism.....unable to apply the same standards to groups who are not 'privileged'.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 07:41 AM
That link is nothing more than a liberal blog full of racial apologist ankle grabbers who make clear thinking, objective people sick to their stomachs.

Having trouble putting all your anger into one post, BroncoFan7? "GRRR! I HATE GAY PEOPLE AND OTHER RACES! If you're white and disagree with my opinion, you're disgusting! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!"

Yeah, you really showed me. :welcome:

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 07:42 AM
Coming from you, that actually makes me feel really good. Thanks for the confidence booster, Tancredo!

Tom Tancredo, he who supports a litmus test for judges, and would only appoint them if they would overturn Roe V. Wade.

Tom Tancredo, he who does not support Stem Cell research, and finds it "morally reprehensible." Frankly, I find that stand to be morally repugnant and intellectually devoid. But what do I know? I'm a POS.

Keep digging. Why else do you loooooooooove Tancredo?

I am referring to his policy of border enforcement and his take on our SC nominee--and yes, you really are a POS.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 07:44 AM
I am referring to his policy of border enforcement and his take on our SC nominee--and yes, you really are a POS.

yet you write about him like you support all of his issues (the 110% part, regardless of how you framed your support of his immigration policy), and you write about him like he's a great American, and disagreeing with him is shameful, disgusting, etc.

Aren't you scheduled to bomb an abortion clinic today? Should I let you go?

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 07:44 AM
Having trouble putting all your anger into one post, BroncoFan7? "GRRR! I HATE GAY PEOPLE AND OTHER RACES! If you're white and disagree with my opinion, you're disgusting! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!"

Yeah, you really showed me. :welcome:

Gay people, huh? I hate racists--NOT other races...and I HATE racial apologists--and especially naive WHITE PEOPLE like you.

Rohirrim
05-27-2009, 07:44 AM
So it was a speech given about representation of Hispanic people in the judiciary? And somehow it's just considered racist?

As I figured, nothing to see here.

Roh: you're absolutely right. A little ideological red meat is to be expected in such a forum.

I haven't heard anybody call the entire speech racist. Have you? But this one sentence is going to be pulled out by the Right and they're going to use it to beat her over the head. IMO, it's a prejudiced statment. But the one they're really going to go ape**** over is the one where she made a reference to "making law" on the appeals court bench. While the Right loves to make law from the bench all the time (ie. Gore v. Florida), they go absolutely bonkers if anybody else even thinks about doing it.

Spider
05-27-2009, 07:45 AM
:rofl: Tom Tancredo

broncofan7
05-27-2009, 07:46 AM
yet you write about him like you support all of his issues (the 110% part, regardless of how you framed your support of his immigration policy), and you write about him like he's a great American, and disagreeing with him is shameful, disgusting, etc.

Aren't you scheduled to bomb an abortion clinic today? Should I let you go?

Funny, I am pro-choice and I can certainly think of one abortion that should have been performed......

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 07:47 AM
Gay people, huh? I hate racists--NOT other races...and I HATE racial apologists--and especially naive WHITE PEOPLE like you.

Huh. But you support Tancredo, who has made it clear numerous times that he dislikes gays and feels they are not worthy of the same rights as the rest of the world. Lemme guess: you're a single-issue hacktivist.

Just as I suspected.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
05-27-2009, 07:53 AM
Funny, I am pro-choice and I can certainly think of one abortion that should have been performed......

Funny, you're pro choice and yet you support Tancredo 110%.

Does that mean you support him on Civil Rights?
"We are just one kooky judge away from homosexual marriage." (Sep 2007)

Education?
"We don’t need the Department of Education." (Dec 2007)

Energy?
"Drill off the coasts of Florida and California." (Oct 2007)

We know you support his radical immigration stance. If you support him 110%, so what other parts of his radical agenda do you support?