Sotomayor's Berkeley speech.

  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    May 31, 2009 3:06 PM GMT
    So alot has been going on in the media the last week or so with imbeciles like Hannity and Beck trying to paint Obama's Supreme Court pick a racist. Now I have to admit that I don't like to apply terms like "racist" to anyone - not even Trent Lott.

    But I got into a debate last night with two of my brother's conservative friends over the issue of Sotomayor's Berkeley speech. I didn't think the comment was racist from the beginning, but when you actually read the paragraphs before and after, it is evidently clear that Sotomayor is not discussing the superiority of her race's intellect or real-world experience. Instead, she is talking about how collective thinking is so easy when there is no diversity of opinion.

    Later on in the speech, she makes an interesting criticism of our country as a whole - how we describe ourselves as a melting pot, a blending of many different cultures and points of view. And yet, initially, at every opportunity, our country rejects those who have an opinion outside the status quo.



    http://mediamatters.org/research/200905290049

    "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

    However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

    [...]

    I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    May 31, 2009 4:15 PM GMT
    thatsracist.gif
    /obligatory
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 31, 2009 4:20 PM GMT
    Isn't it funny that she's not called an "activist judge" either? The far right is trying to define her before she even gets asked questions by the Senate for confirmation. When Republicans have nothing to attack on the policy side of things, they attack the person's character.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2009 4:22 PM GMT
    People of different backgrounds and experiences can bring up questions that others dont even know exist.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    May 31, 2009 4:43 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidIsn't it funny that she's not called an "activist judge" either? The far right is trying to define her before she even gets asked questions by the Senate for confirmation. When Republicans have nothing to attack on the policy side of things, they attack the person's character.


    But the Republicans could be spending all this time raising actual controversial questions on her judicial philosophy and some of her prior casework. Her ruling in the now controversial New Haven case - while correct in my view - could be easily undermined by her lack of an explanation. A decision like that does not sit well with middle American whites.

    It just seems like such a waste of time, and hurtful to the right's credibility when they try to put forward this nonsense of her being equivalent to the leader of the KKK.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2009 4:52 PM GMT
    well to be fair, it was Limbaugh, that paragon of intellectual vigor and conservative moral rectitude (who never passed even a single course in college and has been divorced 3 times), who made the KKK comparison. Poor bunny never had any credibility to start with and is just trying to bolster his ratings.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    May 31, 2009 5:06 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidwell to be fair, it was Limbaugh, that paragon of intellectual vigor and conservative moral rectitude (who never passed even a single course in college and has been divorced 3 times), who made the KKK comparison. Poor bunny never had any credibility to start with and is just trying to bolster his ratings.


    It wasn't just Limbaugh though. I saw Tancredo, who is a well-respected conservative, go along with it on Hardball the other day...

    You know, a few weeks ago, I thought the Republicans might have been prepped for a rebound. But, now... clearly I was mistaken.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 31, 2009 5:08 PM GMT
    The truth of the matter is that she's not as liberal as they'd like her to be in order for the "activist judge" label to stick. They know that, so they attack her character, just like Obama's character was attacked just because his middle name is Hussein.

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 31, 2009 5:12 PM GMT
    Concerning Tancredo, who I thought was the absolute worst candidate running for President last year, was hung up on one of the Presidential debates he was invited to because it was primarily being broadcast in Spanish for a Latino audience. He didn't attend because it was broadcast primarily in Spanish! No wonder he's up in arms over Sotomayor!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2009 5:30 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidConcerning Tancredo, who I thought was the absolute worst candidate running for President last year, was hung up on one of the Presidential debates he was invited to because it was primarily being broadcast in Spanish for a Latino audience. He didn't attend because it was broadcast primarily in Spanish! No wonder he's up in arms over Sotomayor!


    Bueno, esos hijos de puta merecen perder toda su influencia. Debo decir que me da lástima, porque la derecha en EEUU está hecho pedazos, lo que podría significar que Obama no tiene tantos críticos reales en el ámbito político.

    Translating that from "illegal alien": it´s a pity that the right has disintegrated, because it could mean that Obama doesn´t have so many real critics in the political sphere.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2009 6:39 PM GMT
    That comment about La Raza being like the KKK (on the video) was just stupid along with other accusations. When the right wing talking heads start spinning and spitting pea soup, you know the devil is on the run icon_rolleyes.gif

    http://www.nclr.org/section/we_can_stop_the_nonsense/
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 31, 2009 6:58 PM GMT
    icon_idea.gif I went to La Raza's website and signed a call to action asking Republican Congressional leadership to condemn the racist comments from their party de facto leadership.

    http://capwiz.com/stopthehate/issues/alert/?alertid=13443366&type=CU


    We can make a difference. We can stop the hate. This doesn't just affects Latinos; this effects us all.

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 31, 2009 7:09 PM GMT
    Judge Sotomayor's comments were not racist but were about identifying ethnocentric viewpoints that can either be an added value or a liability in making legal decisions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2009 7:19 PM GMT
    Here's my 2 cents on activist judges:

    Every SCOTUS judge is activist, to an extent. Even Scalia and his conservative colleagues are activist judges. They have fought to maintain the (white male and, in some cases, heterosexual) status quo with respect to abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action, etc., rendering decisions based on their political ideologies--which, in my opinion, are discriminatory and unfair--and not much else. Of course, they purport to rely on Constitutional doctrine when crafting their opionions; however, interpreting the Constitution is a subjective matter.

    The Constitution isn't perfect. Society isn't perfect. Certain things still need fixing. Which means that we need justices who are willing to go against the status quo if necessary. If this is judicial activism, then I'm all for it.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 31, 2009 7:31 PM GMT
    I agree about judges being activists on either side. My point is that conservatives pretend that the term only applies to liberal judges, and like aurevori mentions, they use it in a deragatory way.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 31, 2009 7:32 PM GMT
    Once again the rightwing is trying to paint someone with a broadbrush without any debate on her judicial record

    Soundbite politicking