Republicans will make race an issue in Sotomayor confirmation

Source: LA Times

GOP conservatives didn't hesitate to call the Latino Supreme Court nominee racist, but Republican senators were cautious. Now, the gloves are off.

Since the introduction last week of Sonia Sotomayor, Republican senators wary of attacking the first Latino Supreme Court nominee have criticized fellow conservatives who have branded her a "racist" and even predicted a smooth confirmation.

But several of those same GOP senators, now reluctant to criticize conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for their racially tinged critiques of Sotomayor, signaled today that they too are ready to make race a key focus of the nomination battle as they settle on a touchy question: Can a woman who says her views are shaped by her gender and ethnicity make fair decisions when it comes to white men?

"We need to know, for example, whether she's going to be a justice for all of us or just a justice for a few of us," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, speaking on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sotomayor-gop1-2009jun01,0,6441167.story

---

Political suicide.

?

the new WASP.

Their ignorant tactics will tick off women and minorities who will never vote GOP, the party of racists and sexists.

:rofl:

It's like the last election didn't teach them a thing.
:popcorn::popcorn:

and they should be warehoused in group homes in rural areas with no public transportation or internet.

It is a wasteful process, but it is not for us to judge.
:-)

all those recessive genes reinforcing each other....

The word(s) dumbass come to mind immediately, and as you so wisely pointed out, political suicide are two other words which come to mind. There are others, but I'm cooking dinner, so no time and we all realize it anyway.

Their emotional insecurity and years of fear and outrage over "the other" have trumped all sense of reason.

court. The republicans act like they are some kind of monsters. Clinton had trouble getting them on the appeals courts.

Her comment about a "wise Latina woman" with certain experiences, hopefully reaching a better decision than a white Male who hasn't had those experiences, bothers me.

I understand and "get" what she was saying. However, I think she could have somehow stated it differently.

If I went somewhere and said that as an African-American woman I could reach better decisions than a white Male, I'd be crucified. Likewise, as Sen. Lindsay Graham pointed out today, if he'd made similar comments, there's no way he could be nominated for the Supreme Court.

So again, I really do "get" what Judge Sotomayor was trying to say. I just think her word choice was not the best.

There's enough of us on the court.

Again, I do take issue with her choice of words, though. I don't ever think it's appropriate for someone to say they can make better decisions because of their race.

qualified to be on the court.

officially hispanics even if they have green eyes and blond hair are not classified as whites.

Would allow her to MORE OFTEN THAN NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is a very cagey way of tooting your own horn when absolutely necessary. More often than not, means she hopes that she would be some smidgeon better. HOPES! This is true grace, and decorum. And they will expound on THIS!

It is solid as a rock. And if she shows just a flash of anger, to their bullying, this is going to be a rout. And soundbites that will be used as the Republican's epitaph. The only reason they survived bullying Anita Hill is becasue she was ancillary to the candidate. When they go hammer and tong after this woman, she might just mop the floor with the first few, and the rest will just fold. What do you follow up with, to, are you a racist?

are replying said about the quote in question? Let's try this:

White people make better judicial decisons than people of color.

White people make better judicial decisions than people of color most of the time.


Quick, which of those two sentences is racist?


Answer: Both sentences are racist, and I would say equally so.


I don't know why DU'ers cannot admit that the sentence was poorly worded. That does not make Sotomayor a racist or say her speech was not a good one or disqualify her for the SCOTUS. To the contrary, if this is all the right can come up with for all her 55 years, Sotomayor just may be the best nominee ever. It just says that the one sentence could have been worded better. That is clearly a true statement, no matter what else people want to say, yet people are attacking the poster who said it. I find that bizarre.

that statement was specifically speaking to the issue of how people of color tend to have a better understanding of discrimination because of the real world experiences that we have had. A white man in America (especially one who has ascended to the position of judge or justice) can certainly understand discrimination based on race, but more likely than not, they have not experienced it in a way that has cemented the idea and impact of the practice in their psyche. They can understand technically what it is, but are more likely to overlook its true impact in society.

Also, the statement was part of an 8 page speech about how your background affects your world view and how you have to struggle everyday to make sure that your world view does not prejudice you in the performance of fair and equitable work. Too many people have focused on just that statement as a stand alone, which is exactly what the conservatives want us to do. That is the problem. Give me time and I can pull statements from Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches that can make him look like a racist and separatist. Every person has made statements that when taken out of context, can make them look bad. People need to look at what she has done in her body of work rather than focusing on one statement.

You need to read the last part of my respose. The sentence was not poortly written or spoken, it was taken out of context. Anyone's words can be taken out of context and made to appear to say something other than their original intent. The poster is choosing to take the sentence as a stand alone phrase, hence her discomfort.

says I understand what she was saying, but that one sentence could have been worded better, the poster is, by definition, taking the sentence out of context. Duh. She knows that. I know that.

BUT, the poster did not take the sentence out of context without first knowing and understanding the context. And, fully understanding the context, she is still of the opinion that the sentence could have been worded better. Everyone here ignored what the poster said and condescendingly explained the context--to a poster who had specified that she was herself a woman of color.

The fact that there is a context to a sentence does not automatically mean that the writer worded the sentence in the best way.

The RNC/Corp. Media's hatchet job on this quote.

The sentence that you speak of was linked to discrimination cases....not just in general.

Let's make sure that we are more educated than the opposition, shall we?



Wash. Post, WSJ omit context of Sotomayor remarks, despite reporting WH "out of context" statement
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905280007


Have Sotomayor's critics actually read her Berkeley speech?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905290049


Sonia Sotomayor: Providing some (gasp!) context!
http://www.stinque.com/2009/05/29/8900/


What Sotomayor ACTUALLY Said, And Why No Apology Is Necessary
http://openleft.com/diary/13559/what-sotomayor-actually-said-and-why-no-apology-is-necessary


POLITIFACT
Sotomayor's comment about Latina women versus white men
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/27/judicial-confirmation-network/Sotomayor-comment-Latina-women-versus-white-men/


Racism vs. Reality: Sotomayor in Context
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/27/736031/-Racism-vs.-Reality:-Sotomayor-in-Context


Judge Sotomayor in Full Context. Correct and Wise. Alito Said Same Thing
http://boards.history.com/topic/Current-Events/Judge-Sotomayor-In/520052389


Sotomayor’s ‘Controversial’ Comments Backed Up By Academic Research
http://washingtonindependent.com/44428/sotomayors-controversial-2002-comment-is-supported-by-recent-academic-studies


BHO: Critics Distort Sotomayor’s Words
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-critics-citing-sotomayors-words

having that opinion about that sentence does not mean the poster is less educated or less informed.

being quoted highlighted, and you can see how it is being used out of context.

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.

When discussing the statement, in the paragraph just before the infamous quote,
she's mentioning inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and
national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
She is mentioning how other judge colleagues also feel compared to her feelings.
She also mentions that there is no universal definition of wise.

But what really gets to me is that the MSM almost always leave off the "who hasn't
lived that life" portion of the statement.
Basically, she feels that a latina woman with her experiences, would reach better
conclusion than a white male without her experiences.
The word "Experiences" I believe she is referring to her hardships and prejudices.
While she could probably use anything other then "while male" the supreme court
currently has 7 of 9 white males, and I'm assuming that the majority of
Federal Judges are white males, although I don't have those statistics.

she could have chosen better wording for that one sentence. Your reply seeks to explain to the poster what she already said she understood and ignores the part about the possiblity of having chosen better words for that one sentence.

white male has lived the life of a wise female Latina? Besides, white males have been in minority groups as well. The signs "No Italians need apply" and "no dogs or Irish allowed" come to mind. Those tend to be older folks, but, like Alito, you've heard your parents and grandparents talk about it and, if you have a heart, you wept for what they had to go through, maybe even more than they wept.

one fully understands it was taken out of context and also fully understands that the speech, as a whole, was not racist. I find it both sad and funny that some people are so partisan that they cannot concede poor wording on one sentence.

If people want to say that the Republicans (and their assistants in the media) are ridiculous to make this big a deal over it, I can agree with that. If people want to say that Sotomayor must be the best nominee for the SCOTUS ever if one less than ideally worded sentence in 55 years is all the hatchet folk can come up with, I may be able to agree with that, too (though I'd have to give it some more thought).

But, refusing to say that this one sentence could have been worded better is ludicrous in my opinion.

Does anyone here think Chief Justice Roberts has anything in mind except furthering the cause of successful upper class men? He can't help himself - that is all he knows. He doesn't have empathy for the poor or for minorities or women because he has had no experience in that world and doesn't want to gain any experience in that world. He is comfortable where he is and where he believes successful, hard working people will naturally end up. He is another person who started life on 3rd base or just shy of home plate and thinks he got there on his own.

.......afraid of being "painted" extremist. The "race thing" for them will not only go nowhere, but IMO will do them far more damage than good.

This line of attack boggles the mind.

:popcorn: I'm ready for the show.



:rofl:

Very nice.

are going to be justices for all of us or just a justice for a few of us. Oh, wait, we know that already--Republican justices can be as partisan as they want and are never called on it. They let their partisanship inform wholly their judgment, but anyone who lets their race, gender or anything else about their background inform their judgment is somehow suspect.

Hate judicial activism? Impeach the sitting justices responsible for Bush v. Gore, a bit of judicial activism so outrageous even the SCOTUS declared its reasoning "limited to the present circumstances."

:popcorn:

Bring your brooms, 'cause we're gonna sweep 'em.

By their own record, no, they can't for the most part.

This thing with Rush Limbaugh's comments, and company will come back to bite the Republicans very hard on the rear end. They seem to be on a mission to implode the Republican party. When your in party with so much venom, it only looks bad for everyone involved. The last election was a prime example of how all those, who were in the shadows with their extreme opinions, have come bursting forth. They have already set their own ship on fire, before its left the harbor. Maybe when they sink, they will take Fox News with them.

Demographics will take care of that. The average age of the FOX News viewer is over 70 and that average gets older year-by-year.

FOX News' strength in cable news is partially-explained by that its core demographic is the least likely to be involved in new media types.

Can white men ever be expected to make the fairest decisions when dealing with issues addressing women, and especially minority women?

quite frankly, i think not.

however, the only viable option is to have a court that is capable of understanding and addressing the diversity of issues that come before it.

i haven't done the numbers, but i believe a fairly accurate breakdown would be:

5 women, 4 men

2 non catholic protestants
1 catholic
1 jew
1 muslim
1 native american
1 wiccan/pagan
1 agnostic
1 atheist

AT LEAST ONE MUST BE HOMOSEXUAL.

i think that would be a start.

i'm sure more savvy du'ers will correct the allotments, and flame my ass. but i have put on my asbestos jockstrap (rainbow colored).


edit for grammar

I said something similar (5 women) and got barbecued weeks ago.

Sotomayor sounds like a law geek. Does she have any life outside the judiciary? Her public speaking is dull, dull, and boring. She may be a workmanlike justice, but never what one would call a leader. No charisma. No flash. No significant rulings, aside from baseball strike...

Let's hope she loosens up a bit on the Supreme Court, sees the opportunity to right some serious wrongs and takes it.

What the fuck does her life outside the judiciary have to do with anything? Do you want to see her break dancing on Oprah? Showing some skin in a Victoria Secret spread? Her speaking is dull? Did you graduate summa cum laude from an Ivy league school?

You really have some issues Dear.

If you lead from the bench, you're an asshole like Antonin Scalia. We already have three of him up there and we don't need any more.

If you are a woman, minority or another group they dislike, they say pull your bootstraps up, work hard and then you can have the American dream. But when an individual does do all of these things the Repugs become hateful and resentful because that individual actually succeeded.

I hope they continue the Race baiting because it will ensure their defeat for generations to come.

Just as we worked hard to get Obama voted in we need to work hard in next years elections to get more Dems nominated.

We whit guys haven't done all the good of a job in recent years

"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 hope so too.

Edited to add: I've got no rhythm either!

That's the message.

election, lets see you dwindle even further away.

They must have a political death wish.

and Latino men should be their gardeners. For those that see the white race as superior, it is disturbing when inferior races perform as well or better than whites.

It was not accident that the Nazis murdered the mentally impaired first, because they couldn't claim that the Aryan race is the master race while having mental hospitals full of Aryans with serious disabilities.

people of color all along?

God, the hypocrisy of these people. You'd think their heads would spin around.

They have been the Kings of Discrimination for decades now. Who can forget the Willy Horton ads, the immigrant bashing, the "voting security" efforts. What a load of crap.

:shrug: (rhetorical question)

for at least a generation if they persist with this shit. That is, IF they still exist as a viable political party 10-25 years from now.

:evilfrown:

that this will change many Republican votes, if any. All they have really done is say that she needs to explain that sentence. It is not as though Republicans are saying a person descended from one of the many groups that speaks Spanish is not fit to sit on the Court. And, there was Estrada.