Who is More Stupid? Women or Puerto Ricans? [VIDEO UPDATE]

Is anyone allowed in your view to be critical of this SCOTUS nominee based on the merits of her application, including prior judicial decisions and public statements? Is anyone allowed to legitimately ask whether she’s got the right stuff to be a Justice, just as every other nominee for the Court is vetted?

Or is anyone who attempts to vet her for the highest court in the land automatically either racist or sexist?

Yesterday someone pointed out in a comment that liberals accused Bush of making an “affirmative action appointment” for one of his nominees. Did you complain about that?

And who cares about Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck? They are media personalities who can be as offensive as their left-wing counterparts. They are not elected representatives. Fact is, GOP lawmakers would be remiss if they failed to fully vet this nominee because they fear being accused of racism or sexism. They would be playing into Obama’s hands, in the same way that he got the nomination and the presidency. He chilled criticism for fear of being labeled racist. Gotta hand it to him, it’s a strategy he’s mastered throughout life; he even admits this in one of his “memoirs.”

Well let’s face it. Being a Puerto Rican AND a woman makes her doubly stupid.

I shall watch the right’s hypocrasy with interest. They were all soooooo interested in us disinfranchised women when they needed our votes. And we were so smart too! Now, we are …….well……stupid again.

As for that gasbag tool Rush “Feminazi” Limbaugh..he’s the biggest ace the Democratic party has against Republicans ever recovering again.

Let’s deal with what she has written and let’s discuss her comments in context. What is being done so far by the rightwing are smear tactics reminiscent of McCarthy and the hunt for commies.

Let’s recall the Supreme Court once declared slaves to be legit property. Therefore a Supreme Court decision is not written by the finger of God and does not represent an inherent eternal truth.

You obviously don’t check in here very often AND you obviously believe that the best defense is a good offense, so you attack. Good job, Rush, or is it Sean, or maybe Billyboy O’Really.

Ok correct me if I am wrong.
What I heard in that video was Glen asking questions about rumors that he had heard. The person he questioned seemed to confirm the rumors and that they came from Lefties not Righties.
I dont think that I heard any name calling in the video.

Do you think this country will ever get past the name calling and stupidity?

American Indian in the way of progress and must be moved out of the way. Not of our religious beliefs heathens

Help wanted no Irish need apply Shanty Irish dirty
Lace Curtain Irish they just hide the dirt behind the curtain.

Italian crooks all belong to the mafia

Blacks do have the same brain functions as white people lazy welfare queens

Hispanic won’t even speak english , no ambition only good for low paid labor

This country was founded as a haven for all and should learn from each other as all have something to contribute to the betterment of this country.
During times of crisis we have proven that we can come together and work together, why not all the time?

WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM , COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

I don’t think that she is intellectual lightweight. Neither do I think that her nomination should be rushed through because her intellect is so astounding that her selection is obvious.
It is the job of the Senate to thoroughly examine the merits of a nomination to the Supreme Court based on the history and character of the nominee. I will be very glad when a serious deliberative process starts. If, indeed, it ever does start. So far, it looks like there is a lightweight political competition between those who believe that Sotomayor should be chosen because of her race and sex and those who believe that she should be denied because of her racism and sexism. For the most part, I have yet to see Sotomayor proponents substantively praise her legal and judicial performance. I have also not seen her opponents substantively explain why her legal and judicial performance is not up to par.
Let’s cut the bullshit on both sides and get on with it!

Backtrack’s pick does have me worried due to her judgment on the fireman question.
I do want her questioned just as any other nominee.
It would be something new if congress actually did their job and vetted her.
After that if she is qualified and passed there should be no more questions about race or gender.

WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

PUMAS,BUBBAS EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

Yep, brother. Let’s look at what she has written and said. Twisting statements out of context (which many are doing) is intellectually dishonest.

Who is more stupid? Women or Puerto Ricans?
This is a no brainer. Gotta be women. Last year they had the unprecedented opportunity to elect a highly accomplished, highly competent, highly experienced person to the office of POTUS, a person who just happened to be a woman. And what did women do? They worked very hard to elect a man of dubious background, qualifications and experience. A man who had people chanting “Yes we can!” (the rest of it was “…elect the first black man as POTUS, regardless of his qualifications”). For this and other lost opportunities, for allowing themselves to be held captive by the Democratic Party for decades (ironically on “women’s issues”), and for following the lead of men in fanning the flames of identity politics (let’s forget Sotomayor and remember, for a nanosecond, Sarah Palin), the honor of being more stupid belongs, once again, to women.

ummmm…I dont like her.

So far you are the only one saying these things, Larry. I don’t know what hot button has been hit, but excuse me? Please.

THANK YOU! Larry is name calling and deciding what words Glenn Beck REALLY meant to say.

It would be interesting to hear what her take on the firemen issue, why is it that they were denied their positions after doing well on their test?

Did everyone else study just as hard as these gentlemen? If not then why is it that they should suffer because a few minorities did not do well?

This is what I want to hear Sotomayor explain before she gets any dam position.

However, Beck’s comments disparaging her education by mentioning them in a derisive tone were not cool. He mentioned where she went to school but did not mention the Summa Cum Laude part — and that is a lie by omission. It is almost as if he was intimating that she did not get in on scholarly merit.

She was also never asking anyone to cry for her hardscrabble background. And for him to say ‘oh boo hoo’ about that was also idiotic and mean spirited; likewise it has nothing to do with her qualifications one way or the other. These two were talking rumors and innuendo and had nothing definitive in their discussion to point to. Rabble rousing of the worst order.

Let’s wait and see at the hearings, shall we? And see how well Judge Sotomayor acquits herself.

Good point, and Puerto Ricans voted for Hillary.

Well, since you’re a girl, get ready to be called a RACIST!

Funny. I have members of my family who were born in Guatemala so no one better try that label with me!

And I’ve heard from your co-workers that you are a friggin moron. I’m just reporting what I’ve heard. I’m not calling names.

Understand?

Ever since yesterday I am scared to ask a question for fear that what I ask will be turned around and construed as a comment…

Um, excuse me? It’s not clear which part of my comment you’re addressing with such a generic non-sensical attack. Anyway, yes I am a regular reader here but only recently started commenting. Is there some other qualification I’m unaware of for participating in the discussion at NQ? For the record, I was a Hillary supporter, then a McCain voter. Used to be a Democrat. Now I’m an Indie.

You need to really get a grip. Seriously.

I am wondering whether we’d be having this discussion if HE was overturned more than 60% of the time? Bad opinions? Bad law?

You need to take your blood pressure medicine. And the next time you use the word “moron” you better have someone (thing) better than the bought and paid for “Media Matters.” They only matter to themselves!

Mandelay… Sad but true!

would you rather he picked the big mouthed a$$ kissing janet napolitano?

Couldn’t agree more!

That is so achingly true, Mandelay. I can only shake my head in disbelief and disgust in the machinations of the last election.

Women truly were their worst enemy in that case.

I was ready to commit assault on the next woman I heard whine that Hillary didn’t leave Bill, therefore she wasn’t presidential material. How insipid!

I think most of us just want to see that she deserves the job because of her merits, and education…..Not because she happens to be an Hispanic woman.
I also think that everyone should be alowed to QUESTION what has and is being said about her, along with questioning her rulings, education, paid/unpaid taxes and the list probably goes on.

Yes–this outcome will be interesting. I am not so happy about having any justice who thinks empathy can bee a tool in deciding cases. Justice is supposed to be blind and fair, not empathetic.

Or the sign my grandfather saw on Herbert Hoover’s Palo Alto residence in the 1930′s that said No Whites needed to apply for work.

The stupidity knows no bounds or eras.

I wouldn’t use Media Matters to make my point about anything. Talk about having an biased agenda! I left that sight months and months ago when I figured out the only media bias they care about is the right-wing bias against Democrats – not the other way around! Check it out sometime – it’s hilarious.

Or that moron Geithner? Just to keep it even, I won’t throw Gibbs, Summers or Rahm in.

I love it when they send me emails and I can tell them to pound salt! It remains a chuckle.

Funny but I don’t recall seeing one word about MoDo “borrowing” the words of others … you?

Guess you could add left winger Jonathan Turley to that list because he’s said some things about Sotomayor that question her abilities.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/05/27/liberal-jonathan-turley-sotomayor-lacks-intellectual-depth

I agree on Media Matters, but the truth is, they said these things. I had the misfortune of hearing that blowass Rush and as for “I’m 99% chick! I blubber a lot!” Beck, I remember all too well what he did to Hillary. He can pretend all he wants now, but I know his agenda and I know he’s nothing but a dry drunk uber nosey right wing nutcase who couldn’t care less about “regular” people. But hey all that dripping with sincerity routine gets ratings. He and Rush are afraid their dicks will fall off if the wrong gender or ethnicity gets some power and doesn’t have to cowtow to them. Which would be good since they both deserve to have their genes removed from the pool.

DId anyone notice that what most of the rumors Glen was asking about seemed to have come from the left not the right. Did anyone notice that according to the tape these were rumors that were reported prior to her nomination–I think I heard the date May 4. Supposively the information was from Democrats…
So why if Glen question is from what Democrats are saying is it wrong for Glen to ask. From what is being said its the Democrats who are saying she is a bully and etc.
Last I heard Democrats were considered left wingers not right wingers.

That’s the trouble with these two useless parties. Hijacked by wingnuts.

Funny though that you will blame Republicans for this when the Obama Democrats did it to Hillary Clinton to discredit her in the Primaries… Just sayin!

Ok we’ll find a nice Alito clone for you. Mmmmmmkay?

Thats just it the rumors that Glen was asking about supposively came from the Democrats.
Like I asked above, Arent the Democrats the left…

So, if I say I think Larry Johnson is an idiot for his last 2 post titles,does that mean I hate men and I hate white people? I mean, what kind of a person uses spic and banana sucker even in a snarky way, especially when no right winger has said anything close to that.

I’m not particularly for or against Sotomayor per se, but it is amazing that the same “you must be a racist if you don’t praise/accept…” that Obama and the media insinuated is now being played for Sotomayor.

Well if Glenn said so it must be so.

Turley found out the dangers of speaking one’s mind…. hmmmmmmm

Seems to be a problem with Judge Sotomayor’s nomination overall, doesn’t it?

Funny but I don’t recall seeing one word about MoDo “borrowing” the words of others

That must have been one of her better columns.

Amen to that. Democrat=nut; Republican=nut, ergo Democrat=Republican.

What I find funny about this discussion is that the author is trying to paint Republicans as evil for attacking this Justice pick… However, Obama’s Democrats did the same thing to Hillary Clinton in the Primaries to discredit her… The whole political climate is just sickening…so I think if we’re going to talk about sad political practices it should be a joint party effort!

My concern with her is the fact that she may rear some activist agenda once on the high court. I don’t buy all that stuff about her past rulings because like politicians, judges are always looking to move up the ladder too… I’ve seen her in several interviews and some of the things she says seem a little disturbing and that stuff is always filed in the “back of the cabinet” for future use!

Also, I’m more curious to see if she paid all her taxes LOL Obama has a really good record going of picking tax dodgers.

Glen didnt say it he asked about it. He asked what Roger Pilon if what he knew about what he had heard.

There seems to be a problem lately on here in distinguishing between a comment and a question. Glen asked a question, he did not make a comment.

There also seems to be a problem in distinguishing which party has the label of left and right.
According to Pilon it was the Democrats who said these things about Judge Sotomayor. From my understanding, Democrats have usually been called the left..

Unlike the MSM?

Beck is someone who half the time makes me want to hurl. But. You are free to strip away his highly articulated opinions and at least you will hear about things going on in this country that the “feedle dee dees” never even address.

This was a snarky read. LOL Then I read it’s Rush’s comments….what crap they spew.

NO…anyone but her.

I think Josh Marshall thought so when he originally wrote it …..

Again, here is even more harsh criticism of Sotomayor coming from the left, in which her temperament is questioned:

The New Republic

More Sotomayor
by Jeffrey Rosen
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6168aeb7-9869-43eb-b401-2204a0d84478

Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. “She is a terror on the bench.” “She is very outspoken.” “She can be difficult.” “She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry.” “She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament.” “She abuses lawyers.” “She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts.” “She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn’t understand their role in the system–as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like.”

What I find funny about this article is that Glen was asking about comments made about Judge Sotomayor and it looks like those comments orginated from the Left (Democrats) not the Right(Republicans).

Notice the term asking…..Asking or inquiring about something is a bit different than making a statement.

As one commenter said above, Puerto Ricans were smart enough to vote for Hillary.

It’s also true many women and women’s rights groups remained silent while her own Party savaged her.

However, I don’t think either being female or Puerto Rican qualifies or disqualifies Judge Sotomayor.

I’m willing to wait for the hearings because I know very little about her.

Here is an article by a conservative which is pro-Sotomayor:

Scenes From Judge Sotomayor’s Courtroom
By GERARD N. MAGLIOCCA

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/opinion/27magliocca.html?_r=1

I am a conservative, and I did not vote for President Obama. It is perfectly understandable for conservatives to say that they will not vote for anyone the president picks, but at that point the debate, if you can call it that, is over. For those of us who think that intellectual rigor and fairness are the crucial factors, no matter which party the president hails from, there is no question that Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed.

I am speechless at the last comment–I hear you are a friggin moron but I am not calling names” Really? Where is the outrage about the closing of Republican donating car dealerships, leaving the dealerships owned by BET Robert Johnson and his partners INTACT and eliminating the competition? I had great respect once for this blog but the level of immaturity and hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Wow, I didn’t know Jonathan Turley hates latinos…

He was critical on Obama for FISA too right? Probably because Turley hates blacks…

/snark

This is the statement that Glen was talking about and asking about. But I guess since he brought it up its now his opionion.
Heaven forbid if one dares to ask a question.

Actually, she based her opinion on fed. law quotas of Civil Rights law….so basically, she sided with the city of New Haven, who threw out the legitimate tests and test results because they feared being sued by the minority firefighters.

It is an understandable position from ALL parties: the white firefighters, the city of New Haven, Sotomayor and other 2(?) judges.

Concerning is that in life/death situations, firefighters, cops, doctors, pilots, etc., the citizenry would want the best qualified to get the position….. There must be a way to meet quotas (which I think is legitimate) and get the best qualified.

In some ways this is what’s so fucked up about affirmative action.

1) It was supposed to help the entire minority community but all it has done is create a thin layer of privledged minorities with little benefits to their communities as a whole.

2) It pits working people against working people.

3) And as you point out, it means that always the best won’t be in life or death situations. Essentially the city thought it was better to potentially risk the lives of it’s citizens to avoid being sued by affirmative action minorities.

Good question, easy answer. Just look at women’s position in any country, in any ethnicity, in any race…their own worst enemy, the lackeys, the drones doing the job of the patriarch mentality. Speaking in generic terms of course…

According to Lula/Chavez open mike conversation of a couple of days ago, Brazil might have a woman president, Dilma Rousseff…Lula can’t run a third term, besides, he wants/will be pres. of Petrobras….we all know, the fixes are in before the elections, nominations, etc….

Some don`t want to ask questions. It is far to easy to say..hey, I`ll vote for the black guy, or Latina and a women…gee that`s for me.

No wonder we are in trouble. Can anyone take the time to honestly look into these peoples backgrounds in an honest way ?

Therefore a Supreme Court decision is not written by the finger of God.

LJ, I thought the finger of god was the one he bestowed upon Hillary during the Primaries.
—
This is another an episode in the political version of “Lord of the Flies”. I only wish Piggy could run faster.

And guess what? The odds are we will see this repeated 2 or 3 more times!

This is the first I had heard this. And I am stunned. Do you have a link?

And how do you know the rumors are coming from the left? Not from the article by Rosen they keep referencing, because all the rumors there are from ‘anonymous sources’.
They never mention the author has already backpedalled from his gossipy little hit piece, saying the righties are ‘misreading’ his article:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/26/the-sotomayor-nomination.aspx

This is from the article you sited Zoom. Looks like he likes the judge but hopes that Obama did look into what he reported. Knowing Obama I seriously doubt it. So looks like the person who wrote your article seems to think that the questions Glen is asking should be asked, especially by the Obama team.

“Of course, Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. She obviously wasn’t my first choice, for reasons I reported three weeks ago, having mostly to do with concerns about her temperament reported to me by former clerks and New York prosecutors. But I hope and assume the White House wrestled seriously with those questions of temperament and weighed them against Sotomayor’s other obvious strengths.”

Above is from http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/26/the-sotomayor-nomination.aspx

I was listening to talk radio yesterday, different channels to get a feel about what they’re saying. Democrats don’t like her anymore than Republicans. They say she pro-life and pro-religion.

They’re saying just as many nasty things about her as the right. The only ones that seem to be coming to her defense are the gay community, she’s also a very strong supporter of their rights.

Seems to me what neither side likes is that she isn’t a far right radical, nor is she a far left radical… I read several times yesterday that she is a centrist in her judgements. They say she’s very hard on criminals. Soft and shows a lot of empathy for private matters. Which is why both President Clinton and Bush liked her and had no problems from either side with her nomination.

Thank you Larry. I think a lot of your readers have trouble understanding sarcasm. Coming from a background of dry wit, I have had the same reactions.

My favorite in attacks are the “Some say” as in “Some say you are an alien from Mars. How do you respond to that?”
I would love someone to turn this around and say “Oh really?” WHO exactly says this? and keep pressing the inquirer on who made the original comment the inquirer claims they heard.

Is she really pro life???

The Freepers have been running stories on it.

I will reserve judgement on if I like this pick or not. I do not like some of her decisions. I do not want her pushed through just because she is a woman and latino. That is as wrong as Obama wrong is. We have to stop this crap an go with the qualified person of any gender, race, ethnicity. I’m tired of the American wrongness going on in the PC world!

Any particular reason?

Spot on. I am reading some of her decisions and will make up my mind later. The gasbags who play at journalism on tee-vee won’t influence me.

Wiki has an interesting take on her position. Check it out.

Larry, would you please post links as to who was calling her a Spic, Broad. Also to whomever it was calling the gentleman a Nappy haired “N”. I won’t spell out the word. I’ve never allowed that word to be used in my home. I have a grandchild that is mixed race. It has really angered and bothered me since yesterday. I don’t want to hear it coming from any race. I’d like to give them a piece of my mind, but I don’t see any links to these articles or videos. Now today I see more name calling…

There is a word I would like to see banned. What purpose does that serve? Can you educate me? Unifying? 0bama? Seriously?

I agree completely that this woman should not be dishonored because she is a woman and Hispanic. But she deserves tough questions in her confirmation hearing. And if she refuses to provide substantive responses she should not be confirmed. Regardless of the fact that she is a woman and Hispanic.

I do agree with those that argue against the Oh Man’s personal qualifications for her choice. A SCOTUS should be an impartial clarifier of the law, not someone that believes their personal experience as a woman and Hispanic somehow provides unique qualifications for the responsibility.

I think the Conservative nutcases should shut the fuck up. Surely they know that the only people allowed to display and encourage blatant misogyny are the Democrats. Get with the program guys.

she has ruled against those opposing the global gag order that claimed it violated their right to free speech, due process & equal protection and in favor of anti-abortion protesters who were removed for illegally occupying a clinic who claimed that too much force was used to remove them.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/05/when-sotomayor-ruled-in-favor.html
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=563&issue_id=42005

That’s a good question:
Who IS more stupid?

Watch when it gets close to an election…you’ll see Rush sabotaging whoever it is running. I often wonder if Rush is really even a Republican.

He went off on McCain over and over, many of the so called Republican reporters/commentators/whatever you want to call them did. It’s like they wanted him to loose so they’d have something to keep them going for the next 4 years. Gotta earn those paychecks, get those new contracts. Even if it means sabotaging your own party.

How many Republicans even bothered to vote thanks to Rush, Malkin, and several others. They knew full well the consequences of their actions. How many ads did we see from the Republican party? He sabotaged Hillary, knowing full well no matter how much of a radical Republican he is, Hillary was better than the alternative…I have no use for Rush.

jeebus, so sensitive! the Free Republic website.
and spare me the knee jerk bot accusations, it’s getting as old as cries of racism. I voted Clinton and McKinney.
You don’t have to be a bot to think the Freepers are pretty nutty.

Time to get off this subject. Am I suggesting that who is the next SC Justice not important, no not exactly, but face it she unless some grotesque secret comes out she is going to get the position and history, if we have a future history, will tell whether she becomes a independent thinker or just another BO-machine puppet. This is becoming as I suspect Mr. Axelrod expected it to be, just another diversion as the gay marriage issue to get minds off the fact that things as we know it are crumbling and when the whole structure falls apart whether you have some fancy title as being officially married or not won’t mater for bupkus. In truth I don’t think that he (Mr. Ax.) is getting the response he has expected i.e. the Repub’s are waking up and will legitimately question her judicial interpretations and leave it at that, any more is a no win position. As far as Glenn Beck, not someone a year ago I would dream I would respect, I would cut him some slack. Know anyone else on major TV who is jumping on Acorn, constantly exposing the GE BO connect, and continually exposing the bankrupting of the US. As someone one at this site posted a few days ago “he had better watch his back”. I have for a while suspected that he has someone following this blog during the day looking for stories. By the way I have now watched him for 40 mins. on day two of the nomination and I have heard nothing more then a few second mention about the nomination, he’s back to the economy.

My only problem with her right now (before the hearings and the “truth” be told) is that that ‘bros before hos’ candidate picked her, that usurper of power, the one that stole the election from a woman. Anything he touches turns to shit…..OK, that was my gut reaction….only.

Daily News has a nice personal story on her.

Calling someone a Nappy Haired “N” is dry wit? Putting words in someone’s mouth as to what you ASSume they are saying is dry wit? Is that what is happening here?!?

That’s disgusting!!! After all the crap we dealt with from people putting crap in our mouths for questioning Obama. All the times we were called racist along with other choice words!! They misogynist attacks!! I see no DRY WIT in that crap! Now I’m angry. I think you’re wrong I couldn’t see Larry doing something like that.

I don’t see what was so bad about that clip. Yea Glen made a few comments he being appointed because she is a women and Hispanic but if you think that the Axelrod did not take that into consideration then you must be very naive. The rest of the clip they were discussing on her ruling in a case where she clearly ruled the wrong way and which decision was later overturned.

I think trying to make the republicans out to be big bad wolfs (not that wolfs are bad) is just not working.

You have got that right! Wingnuts on both sides.

And that’s just it – to support her nomination SIMPLY because of her gender and ethnicity is EXACTLY what we have decried with most Obama supporters. We wanted someone with EXPERIENCE, intelligence, the ability to create sound policy, etc., etc. But too many others simply wanted us to have our first biracial president regardless of he his lack of qualifications or experience.

For me, the jury is out (!) until I hear what her experience is, how she comes to her judicial decisions, and if she puts the law before her personal biases. Because here’s the thing – despite the fact that most of our Supreme Court justices are opposed to abortion, it is STILL legal in this country because of the LAW. That’s the kind of SCOTUS candidate I want – one who follows the law and bases their judicial decisions on THAT.

Is that too much to ask?

That is the, not they. And on second thought you have my empathy if growing up in your family meant that dry wit was calling people names like Spic, and “N”. If it was dry wit to call a woman a broad or beaner. I never realized that racism, being a racist was dry wit. Shame on me. I saw no humor in that at all. I also don’t think if someone were to call her a beaner or spic to her face that she’d think they were bring humorous in their criticism of her.

That’s being humorous.

Her decision in the Ricci vs DeStefano case bothers me. She helped to validate reverse discrimination against qualified firefighters.

Mandalay, Hillary won the majority of women voters in the primaries. Does it hurt that so many prominent women in the media and government didn’t have her back? You bet! The nasty attacks were expected from the right, but the real pain came from the Democratic Party and their implied consent of the sexist attacks in the media and Obama supporters.

Don’t blame women for the loss of the general election. Republicans refused to support their own candidate and stayed home in droves. The abject failure of the Bush administration led to a nationwide rejection of the Republican government and they didn’t just lose the presidential election. The Dems increased their majorities in congress.

The attacks on Palin were unfair and unforgivable, but the nexus of sexism was the Republican attacks on Hillary for more than fifteen years. Republican family members (and I have many in the South) have disparaged Hillary for years, but when the attacks on Sarah Palin began, they saw the unfairness and still haven’t connected them to the way they have treated Hillary.

I’m an Independent woman now, but I have no more tolerance for misogyny and I don’t care where it originates or whether or not I agree with the politician/judge. Do I feel the pain of the White Men who are insulted by Sotomajor’s comments? Sorry, but NO. The first job I applied for after graduation from college was given to a white man by a committee of five white men who ignored the fact I graduated second in my class with a GPA of 3.9 and was more qualified for the job. I was told by one of the two who voted for me, the man had a family to support and I didn’t. That was more than thirty years ago, but clearly things haven’t changed very much.

My only concern with Sotomajor is her record of decisions and if she will protect my rights and the rights of my daughter and granddaughter. I don’t like her decision on the Mexico ruling and I don’t completely trust some of her other decisions, but I will wait until I hear her testimony before making up my mind. The idea someone who graduated Phi Beta Cappa and Summa Cum Laude not being intelligent is completely asinine.

… not a bot, not interested in lingo of whatever the current ilk or type. Don’t like name calling, don’t approve of finger pointing. Call me old, call me “quaint.” But. Can we move away from labels?

Neither can hold a candle to you sweetness! Bless your heart ….

Or he could be deflecting “blame” for bringing something up.

He’d LOVE to talk about it, but he’s gonna shift the responsibility for someone talking about it to someone else.

Asking about something when you know what the answer is going to be is just about the same as bringing it up yourself.

I don’t recall the GOP’s playing the race card over the Dem’s balking at Estrada’s nomination. Just my opinion … I could be wrong.

I did not say you were a bot, I said your suggestion that I was a BHO supporter because I called the FR a term you don’t like, was offensive.
oh yeah, Your welcome.

Great post Larry! It really sickens me the way these right wing people are going after her in this way especially considering her credentials. 2nd in her class at Yale! More experience than any SC nominee in the last 100 years! Not to mention the fact that she is considered a MODERATE by any reasonable people who look at her record.

And that brings me to another point. Why is it that when a Democratic President makes a SC nomination the test is “is she conservative enough?” Shouldn’t the test be “is she liberal enough?” This doesn’t make any sense to me. We let Bush get in Alito and Roberts for God’s sake. Ugh.

The SC is clearly far to the right of the American people. It’s time to start moving it left.

Media Matters is the biggist bunch of lying BS.

Session has already said that the republicans are going to roll over and play dead, she`s confirmed. Get your facts straight. I`m starting to think you are looking for a fight. There`s nothing going on here.

Oh God! Please look into your facts before you spread this kind of nonsense. The fact is that car dealerships are overwhelmingly owned by Republicans so of course their closing will disproportionally effect Republicans. Stop looking for conspiracy theories where there aren’t any.

According to this research car dealership owners donate 88% to Republicans and 12% to Democrats: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html

Best comment of the thread.

There appears to be a correlation between dealerships that are shut down & people who donated to Obama’s enemies versus dealerships that are protected & people who donated to Obama, although all the evidence has not been collected. It would be nice if he MSM actually researched this to confirm or deny this rumor.

I wholeheartedly agree with Tn Indie’s very first comment on this thread. Of course this nominee deserves a proper vetting, like any other. Her gender, ethnicity and hardscrapple upbringing shouldn’t render her exempt from scrutiny and criticism.

After listening to the Glen Beck video (my first time hearing him), I’m trying to figure out what he said that was such a smear. I expected something awful, given the lead.

Note to Larry: Darling, when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

The fact is that many of us on the left (like myself) are somewhat disappointed with this choice but only because she’s not liberal enough for our tastes. I want a full on liberal. I want the liberal answer to Alito. I don’t see why SC nominees are supposed to undergo this question of “are they conservative enough?” – Obama is supposed to be a liberal – why doesn’t he choose a truly liberal SC nominee? Shouldn’t the question be “is she liberal enough?”

But … that’s really another issue. The idea that Sotomayor is not intelligent or that her pick represents “affirmative action” is disgusting. She’s clearly qualified.

Nicely said Patience.
You see I listened to the video twice and kept tying to figure out what the Heck Glen said.
It was almost like yesterday when someone asked if Obama choose this woman because she was the most qualified or because she was a hispanic woman to get Hispanics and woman on his side. That person also got jumped all over for asking a question.
what is ….And I keep asking what is so wrong with asking a question.

Ditto – very good comments elise.

lol, I guess that answers who is stupider of women or Puerto Ricans: Freepers.

Regarding the firefighters case, Ricci v. DeStefano, it is an interesting read. Judge Sotomayor did not write an opinion that has been noted yet; beyond a single paragraph, which I haven’t found yet. Rather seems her opinion is interpreted by another appellate Judge Jose Cabranes (Pres. Clinton appointee,(in dissent)-still sifting through what I can find.. the case is 1800 pages, I’m only reviewing the holding from the appellate end. The questions she will be asked about this case not doubt will evolve around, equal protection, strict scrutiny, the supremacy clause and interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The appeals court panel concluded that city officials acted within the law when they threw out the test results. They were simply trying to fulfill their obligations under anti-discrimination laws when confronted with test results that produced a disproportionate racial impact, the panel said.

The appeals court decision sparked an unusual level of rancor among the 13 judges of the Second Circuit. Six judges voted to re-hear the New Haven firefighters’ case. Seven voted to deny a rehearing.

In a 12-page dissent from that denial, Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes said the three-judge panel should have issued a full opinion examining the case. Failing that, the entire Second Circuit should have taken up the case, he said.

“This court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal,” Judge Cabranes said. “If the Ricci plaintiffs are to obtain such an opinion from a reviewing court, they must now look to the Supreme Court,” he said. “Their claims are worthy of that review.”

http://legalgeekery.com/2009/03/26/psus-appellate-clinic-files-sc-amicus-brief-in-ricci-v-destefano/#ixzz0GkhO2LUR&A

Discussion

Ricci v. DeStefano illustrates the difficulty that employers can face in trying to achieve a diversified workforce while refraining from discrimination against traditionally advantaged groups. See Daniel Schwartz, U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Consider New Haven Firefighters Case (“New Haven Firefighters”), The Connecticut Employment Blog (Jan. 9, 2009). In deciding not to certify the Fire Department’s exam results, where the pass rate for black candidates was only half the rate for white candidates, New Haven arguably was trying to avoid Title VII liability from African-Americans who may have alleged that they had been denied promotions based on a test that had disparate impact. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 554 F.Supp. 2d 142, 162 (D.Conn. 2006). Yet New Haven seems to have ended up in a no-win situation-while its decision not to certify a list of eligible candidates allowed it to avoid a potential lawsuit with blacks, the same decision opened it up to a lawsuit from the white candidates who, but for New Haven’s decision, could have been promoted.

Here are the names and source from Cornell:http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-1428 Ricci v. DeStefano (07-1428);
Ricci v. DeStefano (08-328)

Oral argument: Apr. 22, 2009

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 13, 2008)

See Ricci v. DeStefano, 554 F.Supp. 2d 142, 142 (D.Conn. 2006). In a 7-6 decision, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings and denied a re-hearing. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 530 F.3d 88, 88 (2d Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the consolidated cases on January 9, 2009. See Docs. 07-1428 and 08-328.

And while you’re there, check the date of the last ‘update’. Busy busy busy, everybody is soooooooo busy!

And funny how they supported Obama and even put him on Ms Magazine, but now they are so worried about Roe v. Wade. These idiots deserve to worry. They elected a pig in a poke.

Ever been to one of thier back door links on a search and seen the crap they wrote about Hillary?

Oh, for god’s sake, confused american! I have no patience for whatever game you’re playing.

Do you have something to say or not; do you have a question or not? Because you keep criticizing the comments section for victimizing you for this question you’ve not even asked.

You keep playing the VICTIM card, hinting that you want to say something but you’re too afraid someone will misconstrue it, they might be mean to you, wahh, wahh, wahh.

JUST SAY IT. Just ask it.

There’s not one damn thing wrong with asking a question. But have the freakin’ balls to ask it, ALREADY, wouldya?

It’s not the fucking question that bothers me, it’s all the game playing that precedes it.

“That person got jumped all over for asking a question.”

Maybe it’s because it was a comment framed as a question, and any moron can see that for what it is.

Awesome, elise.

Curious … No one’s screaming “Catholic!” With Sotomayor as the nominee, what’s the likelihood of a similar cartoon? After all, this will make six Catholic Justices.

So third person info. Cool.

You know you’re right. I hate Media Matters. They are the flip side of neocons. In fact, they learned from them.

So, I guess that because it came from them, that wasn’t really beck on that video at all. And that audio I heard of tthat gasbag Rush was a fraud. Thanks for clearing that up.

ugh!! yes, that’s why I hate em: I’m first and foremost a feminist.

Well at least she didn’t yell HEY THERE’S A PUBIC HAIR IN MY COKE!. That would have ended her nomination. Oh no…..wait….

I disagree. I think it is important to have people of all different backgrounds on the Supreme Court. Why should the Highest Court be made up of only old white men? It’s silly to pretend like our lives don’t influence our thinking. I think it’s completely reasonable to consider her background in selecting her. Now obviously I wouldn’t feel that way if she were not qualified – but she is obviously very qualified. In fact she has more experience than any nominee in the last 100 years!

Hmmm… I’m sure that’s just a coincidence but I certainly don’t like it. What’s the overall percentage of Catholics in the US?

How about an athiest or an agnostic Supreme Court justice? We (I’m agnostic) make up 15% of the US… shouldn’t we have representation?

Well, I read through all the comments and finally got to the end of this page, when Lo and Behold! I found this empty box with the prompt “Your Comment.” And so, okay, here it is:

I think the headlines “Who Is More Stupid, Women or Puerto Ricans?” and “Down With Sotomayer, Most Evil Spic Ever” were designed to be extreme and sardonic, and to get folks going at each other’s throats, and as such, they succeeded quite well.

BUT–I have just recently gotten to the point of being able to talk to Republicans without feelings of pure hatred. I will NEVER like Rush, Beck, Cheney, or W. But I have found some common ground with Republicans–mainly centering on the idea of “country first.” For the first time ever in a long political life, I voted for Republicans–McCain/Palin. I want this common ground to increase in scope until maybe a “Centrist Party,” or at least an overriding centrist ideology, becomes a factor on the battle lines. This “Spic” discussion seems to be counterproductive to this end.

Thank you mountainaires for asking for clarification of what I was trying to get across in such a nice polite manner.

If you have been reading the forum since this subject first came out yesterday, you would see that this is not the first time someone was jumped all over.

Yesterday it was one of the forum readers and today it was Glen Beck who asked a question and was then accused of making a statement versus just asking a question. ” Is she the best pick or is this just about diversity and feeling owed something? Just wondering.”
I think you can listen to the video and see that Glen was asking a question.

Again thank you for being so polite in your response to me.

oowawa – I think the Obama admin. is centrist! That’s the whole problem. The Democratic party is controlled by the corporations almost to the same extent that the Republicans are. I’d like a real liberal party.

Recently, I went back over some articles written by women at Salon and Newsweek during the primary and the comments. I don’t know how it is possible, but time has increased the pain and outrage. Thank you all for your kind words.

Liberal Jonathan Turley: Sotomayor Lacks Intellectual Depth

Turley: Soto Bad SCOTUS Pick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnkRhNyaENs

IT’S NOT JUST THE RIGHT WHISPERING.

I have watched Turley’s comments and would be more inclined to trust what he has to say over anything Obama or Sotomayor says.

Chris Matthews choked on his surprise at Turley’s assessment. If the facts continue to bear out Turley’s reservations of Sotomayor will America be grownup enough to move on to the next candidate?

That’s going to be fascinating to watch.

-The first job I applied for after graduation from college was given to a white man by a committee of five white men -

are you holding every white men of today responsible for what happened to you 30 years ago, in the workforce….

Elise, you are, as always, a joy to read. I would add to your first paragraph also the women in women’s/feminist organizations who didn’t have Hillary’s back and allowed the sexism and misogyny to go unchecked.
BTW I really do miss Paula Revere’s comments.

rw, unfortunately I find myself agreeing with you. I don’t trust the man. Whatever choice he makes is, in my opinion, suspect. The end truly justiies the means for Barry and his Bots. And like Elise, when I look back the pain and anger just keeps getting worse. We could have had Hillary…

Could it be that Sotomayor is not as much to the Left as Turley would like her to be?

She sounds more like a slightly to the left Centrist to me.

If her critics wish to challenge her on her views or judicial decisions that’s one thing but to even suggest that she’s an intellectual light weight is completely baseless. Not even Affirmative Action can bestow Summa cum laude on Princeton and Yale graduates.

Well, A-Nony-Mouse, your comment made me think. If “Centrist” means feeling good about bailing out the banks, then perhaps the O admin is “Centrist.” I hope that we can find a common middle ground that focuses on the needs of the average citizen. I know that lots of Republicans are aghast at the bank and AIG bailouts. I think there’s common ground there somewhere, and I hope we can find it. I have a good interpretation of the much-demonized word “liberal” also. But I’m old, and remember what it used to mean. I now like “centrist,” because it hasn’t been demonized yet.

Good post. I think that people should approach voting, or confirmation hearings, like a good handicapper does a horse race. You look at the past performances, what the horse has accomplished in its career. You don’t worry about what color the horse is, or if it’s a filly or a colt, you just look at the past performance. If its up to, or better than, the rest of the racers, you bet on it. If not, you don’t. Simple. If people took this approach to candidates and nominees, campaigns would cost less and we would get better public servants. Unfortunately, picking candidates and nominees has come down to who can get the best PR. And PR is something you buy, not something you earn.

Get past the college laurels. Turley is speaking about Sotomayor’s performance on the bench.

A good starting point would be Jonathan Turley’s assessment. He goes beyond the hype to her actual performance. His take is that she’s not all that stellar as a legal intellect.

Ouch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnkRhNyaENs

Thanks to Nancy who listed the video below.

LOL!!!

One can only hope all pubic hairs are accounted for and in their proper place this time around.

Absolutely not,rw, but after the 2008 election, I have little sympathy for the one segment of our society which has controlled our system and excluded others for over two hundred years when their only complaint is a comment from another segment of the population who is all too familiar with insults. Understand this; My grandmother couldn’t vote for the first half of her life. Her mother lived in a time when the law gave men authority over women, including physical punishment. Some woman or women ancestors in my family history in American were probably not allowed to buy property. My grandfathers could vote and own property all the way back to the American Revolution. They were NEVER denied their rights. I’m sorry if Sotomayor’s comment hurt the feelings of some men, but after 2008 it’s impossible to believe anything has changed in the years since my graduation.

What is being done so far by the rightwing are smear tactics reminiscent of McCarthy and the hunt for commies.

Larry, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I have been listening to talk radio, etc., and I have not heard any smear tactics reminiscent of McCarthy et al. I have heard honest questions being asked about her and her background as a judiciary.

I BELIEVE IN THIS PRESIDENT. IF HE WANTS THIS JUDGE TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT THEN I WANT HER TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT.LITTLE BY LITTLE HE IS SILENCING HIS CRITICS. HE IS SHOWING POISE AND PERSERVERANCE AND COMMITTMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT MADE THIS COUNTRY THE STRONGEST AND SAFEST OF THE SUPERPOWERS.HE IS REACHING OUT. OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE THE SAME BUT THEY SEEM TO BE ALOT LESS DISTRUSTFULL OF PRESIDENT OBAMA THEN THE OTHERS.HE DOESENT SEEM TO BE A MAN THAT WOULD TAKE GETTING DOUBLECROSSED LIGHTLY.I THINK ADVERSARYS KNOW THAT. THE CONSERVATIVES ARE IN A FRENZY OVER HIS APPROACH BUT HE WOULDENT HAVE TO DO WHAT HE IS DOING NOW IF BOTH DEM AND REPS AND THERE COMMITTIES DID WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE.HIS FAVORABILITY RATINGS TRANSEND HIS CRITICS. ONE LAST WORD FOR THE DISTINQUISHED JUDGE.JUDGE YOU GREW UP IN THE STS. DIDENT YOU LEARN WHEN TO TALK AND NOT TALK.GOOD LUCK, IM SURE YOU WILL BE AS DISTINGUISHED A JUDGE AS ALL OTHERS BEFORE YOU. JOE CAPRIO/CITYLIFEPRODUCTIONS

one who follows the law and bases their judicial decisions on THAT.

I totally agree with you. That is what a judge is suppose to do and to uphold the Constitution.

Now that is funny!

I agree, Mandelay. I actually had a very good woman friend tell me voting for bho who I still call the fraud would be good because now no one can say we didn’t give AA’s a chance and they would have no more excuses for not being “allowed to succeed.”

I said how about voting for a COMPETENT/EXPERIENCED/INTELLIGENT AMERICAN PATRIOTIC WOMAN who is the most qualified candidate this time instead of using our elections, our WH, our country as a people pleasing chance for a lying, cheating, stealing NON African American who’s playing the race card. bho the fraud is a frontman for the robber barons in banking, business, politics and media. The millions of women who played white guilt or female misogyny to curry favor with misogynist males better evolve, and soon.

I don’t know what happened to Paula and my opinion of her comments doesn’t really matter, Senneth. I do know you enjoyed conversations with her so I’m sorry she is gone. She was quite aggressive in response to most of my comments, but that is something we’ve all faced from time to time.

BTW, I agree with you about the organizations which betrayed all of us with their feeble response (in some cases, no response at all)to the attacks on Hillary and Gov Palin.

All day long even the pundits from the right were saying what a great political move Obama made with this choice for the SC. Now doesn’t that opinion by itself convey a sense that she wasn’t the best choice for the job, just the best choice to give the media more fodder for their description of Republicans as “the party of no”? I hope she gets intense scrutiny from the Senate, they have a duty to “advise and consent”, and I will hold personal opinion until I see what happens in those hearings. But I remember the Thomas, Alito, and Roberts hearings, and the Democrats have no high ground here on which to comment on the questioning of the Republicans if it is fair and targeted on determining how she would rule from the bench.

And don’t forget access to higher education: many public universities did not admit women into all departments until the 1970s, and many private ones did not admit women into all departments until the 1980s.
For example, when BHO went to Columbia University in 1981, it still did not admit women into its mathematical and science departments.
My mother paid state taxes all her working career that supported these public universities that would not admit her to curricula other than nursing and education.

I think she is this person now: Betsy Buzz Ross Latte

Wrong.

In some ways this is what’s so fucked up about affirmative action. 1., 2., 3.

yes, exactly. This is why I no longer favor it. I want a freaking Constitutional amendment that guarantees wage parity for all comparable work done by those of comparable experience.

I’ve heard people saying these are sexist accusations. I can see where they might be coming from, in the sense that what is called “assertive” in a man is often called something like “strident” in a woman.

But reading the criticisms just above, I’m starting to wonder if it’s a class difference. Of course, as so many things are, it’s a generalization, but often people from middle and upper class upbringings are socialized to maintain a certain “composed” and “controlled” demeanor, while people raised in lower class environments are often more demonstrative.

She went to Ivy League schools, but most of her classmates would have been raised in middle or upper class environments. I did read something where she said she felt different or out of place at school. Maybe it’s due to having been raised to express herself differently than her classmates, and maybe that’s related to these criticisms listed above….?

I must recommend that you take the caps lock off, it’s very difficult to read.

Well perhaps this is becoming a debate of semantics.

But in my opinion a big part of the problem is the Democrats are not liberal enough – that they are too “centrist” (and by that I mean too similar to the Republicans on too many issues.) They are more concerned with bank bailouts than on things like capping the interest credit card companies can get away with.

There’s a huge problem in this country – the super rich are basically sucking the blood (money) out of the middle class. And the Democrats are not doing much to stop them. They’re supposed to be the ones on our side.

I think I’d like to see a definition of “centrist”. I guess I’m not sure exactly what it would look like. IMO, though, it doesn’t mean someone who has some extreme left wing and some extreme right wing beliefs (as I feel Obama has).

I used to be a dem and now I’m an independent (due to seeing the institutionalized cheating that dems did last year). I used to think I was a liberal, and now I think I’m a centrist (perhaps due in part to getting older – excuse me- more mature!).

But I seem to have a better idea of what “independent” means than what “centrist” means (at least, to others). I’m thinking it means “not extreme” – not just an “average” of some far left and some far right views. I’d be interested in hearing what others feel “centrist” means.

My mistake, sorry.

That’s probably the real final glass ceiling. It’s hard to imagine an agnostic or atheist being elected president, and almost as hard to imagine one being appointed to the Supreme Court.

You could have a really virtuous candidate with strong moral beliefs, but if they don’t have a religion (institutionalized approval) on their sleeve, they won’t get far. Yet look at all the “religious” politicians we’ve had who have a lot of ethical and moral skeletons. Sometimes I think a lot of voters are really superficial in their thinking.

Totally familiar with history of disparity of rights…but, men, white men, have been victims of the system themselves. Not every white male in history has been “privileged”, many white men have died for the rights of men, children AND women. I do not partake that patriarchy has been a cake for ALL men and that there have not been women throughout history that have benefited, encouraged and live a privileged lives with rights denied lower class men, etc.

Patriarchy isn’t about gender, it’s a mindset and many, too many, women have held and still hold it…and that includes liberal women who are too quick to degrade another woman who does not hold their beliefs. Women have been and are users of misogyny, they exchange misogyny (use it toward other women – Hillary, Palin in 2008) in exchange for privilege. women have not been innocent victims, they have been participants in their gender’s oppression and in the oppression of the underclass.

Obama is supposed to be a liberal – why doesn’t he choose a truly liberal SC nominee?
Because Obama is not a liberal.
On newsradio this afternoon I heard a report that the WH spokesman (Gibbs?) warned against demeaning questions and challenges re:Sotomayor. It sounded rather threatening (like “you’d better not…”)
wish I had been listening more closely. But It did sound like the early “threats” Barry made when someone did/said something he didn’t like.

And yes, those scurrilous comments about her intelligence and references to “affirmative action” are absolutely disgusting.

If you substitute the word “he” for “she” you might think the comments were about Scalia.

Frankly, I am really sick to death of racial politics.

Burris–don’t say anything about him because he is the only black member of the senate. He even looked like a lying sleaze bucket at his hearings.

Sotomayer–don’t say anything about her because she is the first Latina appointed to Supreme Court. She may be qualified, but the underlying theme with her is screw whitey she can make a better judge than a white man any day.

Bambi–don’t say anything about him because he is–well you know the story. After all, at the end of the day, Hillary was just a white woman. How can she possibly know what it is like being oppressed in this nation. She ain’t never been called a ——. Rev. Wright said it best but even his direct quote offends me.

I see what is going on. Dissent is bullied via the race card. It takes the wind out of anyone’s sails. Once race is brought into it, the disscussion is over. Kinda makes you hate the good ole boys of days gone by because they laid the ground work for all the backlash we are seeing now. And don’t think that it is going away. Bambi is out to right the wrongs and he makes no bones about it. People who played no part in the racial history of this nation will pay the price for those old codgers. Obama and his “new good old boys” have the right by the balls and they are turning it hard left. We are simply trading in one form of racisim for quite another. Change my ass. Nothing has changed.

I can’t get over how angry this blog alone is over her nomination. Usually, we agree more than this. And Larry, I am more than dissappointed in you and your shock value headlines. I have heard nobody who opposes her give her ethnic makeup or gender origin or even who she sleeps with as a reason for opposing her. I think your headlines are part of your own issues.

This blog has been a source of solace for me since I have been alienated from my democrat roots in the past year. After the past couple of days, I really am feeling homeless because I believe I have no where to turn. I am not on board with the GOP, I definitely am at odds with the Dem party. I will probably continue to lurk here out of habit, but as for a sense of belonging, that is over.

I believe this country is going down and when they write the history of what happened to America, Barack Obama will be the title of the book. What follows is still in the making. Most definitely, it will be a nightmare.

I’m afraid I don’t know much about Scalia, so I don’t know if you meant to substitute “he” for “she” in the criticisms, or in my comment – or maybe both…?

Does the class difference hypothesis extend to Scalia’s background? (I don’t know, myself)

Thank-you for your insight into the current trend of women using misogyny against other women. It is too common.

I had a woman boss who wanted to fire me once because I chose to work late instead of attending her birthday party the office was holding – under duress I might add. She was one of those that had risen to a management position because of needing to fill an affirmative action quota. No one, men and women alike, in the office liked her Leona Helmsley attitude. We all transfered or quit as quickly as we could. When HR finally woke up the damage had been done.

I had another woman boss that would corner other women in the bathrooms and rip them a new one. We gave a no confidence vote as a staff to remove her.

Read some history of women and their shenanigans and you soon realize that women have not been always the victim. I’m reading A Season of Splendor by Greg King about Mrs. Astor and Mrs. Vanderbilt. Certainly they and a few of their contemporaries were far from victims.

My mother who won a full ride scholarship in the 1930′s to college did so on her own writing and editorial merit. Even though it was very novel in her time, she never saw herself a victim of anyone or anything. She had the wisdom to realize you are held to your own choices in life.

I am sorry but this entire attack on the right wing “attack” is RIDICULOUS. I dont remember all the lefties screaming when the intellects of Alito and Thomas were attacked. I dont recall all the lefties screaming when people attacked the picks of Alito and Roberts because they were white male picks. I watched the Rachael Marrow piece and nothing they said was out of line. The talk of a nominees intellect is fare game, always has been in the past. Hell, Bambi called into question the intellect of a sitting Justice (Thomas) dont remember hearing lefties scream about that.

Anyone who thinks that the 4 most qualified people in the country just happen to be women and this wasn’t a political calculation, “chosen because she’s a woman” pick is fooling themselves and trying to fool others. And my gosh, honestly the statement that her being a latino makes here more qualified then a white man IS RACIST. If John Roberts had said my being a white male makes me better qualified to sit on the supreme court then a black man lefties would be calling that racist.

Stop the hyperventalating. this is all about scoring political points and it just continues the phony political game in Washington that is SOLELY about power grabs.

The people at the Confluence are dems (although I think they are Clinton dems…?), and they don’t seem too happy about this pick.
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/this-is-more-like-the-kind-of-analysis-we-need/#comments

What are people’s memories of past Supreme Court nominations? Is it usually pretty black and white, one side happy and one side unhappy? How often is it this messy, with loud pro and con voices on both sides of the aisle?

How do you think Obama figures into all that?

What were the final stats for percentages of women voting for Hillary vs BO, and McCain vs BO?

“what did women do? They worked very hard to elect a man of dubious background, qualifications and experience.

“the honor of being more stupid belongs, once again, to women.”

Well, I think you’re taking a sarcastic comment seriously. We could look at who voted more for Bush, which would be men, so then we could say men are more stupid. Generalizing as you have discounts all the women who didn’t vote for BO, and ignores all the men who did. There are many reasons why voting for BO was against the self-interests of men, depending on their views on such things as corporatism, size of government, health care, etc. Same as for women. But it’s women who are stupid, and all of them at that…. hmmmm….

Your mother was indeed fortunate, Betsy. The nineteenth amendment, passed in 1919 did little more than allow women to vote and in the 1930′s most major universities still denied admittance to them no matter what their academic record.

In the 1940s, Princeton refused to offer a job to Emmy Noether, recognized by mathematicians around the world as the most important woman in the history of math and despite a recommendation from Albert Einstein. She was hired by Bryn Mawr College for women and Einstein allowed her to lecture in his classes.

I’m not sure what ” shenanigans ” you are referring to and I also wonder if the behavior of your bosses would have been acceptable if they had been male. You say we all make choices we have to live with, but what happens when those choices are limited by reason of gender?

You and rw are absolutely right about women being their own worst enemies at times. When the ERA was defeated in the 1970s, women had to share the blame since not all supported the equal rights efforts. But there is the history of women being blamed for being victims of rape and spousal abuse. Money is power and with a few exceptions, it is in the hands of the white male population whether is is great wealth or the monthly paycheck and how it will be spent.

The idea of the poor white men being victims of discrimination is laughable. Not all white men are equal in terms of income or education, but it isn’t due to bias against their gender or race. Yes, rw, millions of white men have died in wars started by other white men. Millions of innocent women have died as collateral damage in those wars. They have also been abused and raped as spoils of war.

I don’t know if Sotomajor is a good choice for the Supreme Court, but I do know bringing up her gender and race is bigotry. If you don’t agree with her rulings (and there are some I have serious doubts about)make your decision based on reason without bringing up the “poor, pitiful” White Man argument.

I am excited about Sotomayor’s nomination. Her life story is one that appeals to many of us. The fact that she is a woman and a minority does make her nomination even more compelling. And I do confess I was overwhelmed with emotion when I listened to her talk after President Obama introduced her. However, today after the “dust has settled” I realize she does need to be properly vetted.

I was a Hillary Clinton supporter during the democratic primaries. I did not understand and still do not understand why the Obama supporters followed him with such “religious fervor”. I know I was accused of being a racist by both family members and total strangers because I had reservations about Obama’s experience and judgment. Anyway I think we all need to be careful not to stereotype or categorize other people because they don’t agree with our opinions. I’m not defending Beck, or Limbaugh or any other news entertainers. But I think it serves no useful purpose to resort to personal attacks on them even if they have been guilty of the same behavior. It’s a no-win situation and in the meantime our attention is diverted away from – in this case – the vetting process of the possible next Supreme Court Justice.

Or people who make decisions based on labels!

Actually, after struggling through the first sentence, I was grateful for the excuse not to read the rest of his “argument.”

“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.”

She made a broad sweeping statement that white males are inherently inferior in their ability to uphold the constitution because of the color of their skin and gender.

Will she be protecting the Constitution as an American first and foremost? Her comments raise questions about her ability to rise above her personal experiences and protect all citizens equally under the law.

A racist is a racist is a racist, whether you are white, black, brown whatever there is no justification for singling out one group over another.

Bringing up Sotomayor’s ethnicity and gender as it relates to her own statements of discrimination is totally fair game.

Obama is the best thing Republicans have going for him.

It will be Obama being tarred with a faltering economy and two disasterous wars. It won’t be them.

Mark my words. All else being equal, I’m suspecting GOP *pickups* in 2010.

I’m looking forward to it Patrick.

Haven’t you heard? Double standards in our society.

How do you think Obama figures into all that?

He’s part of the problem and not the solution.

Exactly, candymarl. Sotomayor deserves a hearing where she’ll be put through the drill. I don’t see any reason [except some huge revelation] that will keep her from the getting the seat. But both she and the public deserve her decisions and remarks explained and discussed.

But the “reporting” thus far is lame [as per normal]. She has a “great” story. Okay, okay, I got it. I’ve heard it a hundred times now. Problem is we’ve already had one of those “great” stories wind up in the WH. That hasn’t worked out so far.

Whether she’s a woman or Latina may make political sense, but it’s all about her qualities as a judge. I read one story over at CNN that Obama hopes she’ll be able to sway Kennedy, the Supremes’ swing vote. And then, I’ve heard all kinds of dreck: about her looks, her diabetes, her questionable temper and that she’s a racist.

Of course, the big problem for conservatives is that she’s considered a liberal. Hello? What did they expect Obama to suggest? Another Roberts or Alito? The Dems have the vote. It will take a major seismic event to keep her out.

Larry, would you please post links as to who was calling her a Spic,

I believe this is pure interpretation of what is THOUGHT was said, NOT what was actually was said. Of course if the GOP did the same thing as what was done here, all hell would break loose.

Double standards as usual

BTW…I’m NOT a Republican or a Democrat.

I’d be interested in hearing what others feel “centrist” means.

I think it starts with not being dogmatic and proceeds from there. The left and right ideologues eschew process-driven analysis of problems and, generally, resort to slogans as a means of justifying their positions. The “hope and change” hogwash sounds good but is bereft of any concrete meaning. The same can be said of the right-wing mantra of “_______ has kept us safe”.

Spelling, punctuation, and grammar are not your forte, are they Little Joe?

Wow, I don’t know you but when I first came here I thought you had a lot of common sense…Now you’re resorting to comments like this one. You are name calling in order to make your point. I realize it’s your site but I must admit I’m disappointed. I saw a lot of this type of stuff going on at D_ site which really turned me off. I liked your site because you seemed to have had a moderate-centrist point of view.

It is dishonest isn’t it.

We have to stop this crap an go with the qualified person of any gender, race, ethnicity.

Great comment. I feel the same way.

Funny. I have members of my family who were born in Guatemala so no one better try that label with me!

Ha Ha…You must be a self hater like me; my father is Peruvian.

I’d say the most stupid are those who persist in focusing on either gender or ethnicity at the expense of issues, case law, decisions, etc.

Whatever happened to:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” MLK

Obviously, as long as race and gender cards continue to be dealt, we’ve still a long way to go.

You know I have a feeling that the person writing this article likes the choice Obama made. Hey thats ok, but it looks like both sides (Democrats and Republicans)have a few negative things to say about this lady not just the Republicans.
Most of what is being brought up is questions of why her and if her does she have the right type of experience.

Many are looking at her just like we looked at Obama…Is it a political move due to race and/or gender or is the person truly qualified.
Hey we all know what the answer ended up being in regards to Obama and the presidency. Hopefully this is not the same with this nomination.

Most of us are wondering if this is just mored campaigning on the part of Obama to garner votes for 2012. Hey we all know that even though Obama is President he is still campaigning fro the next election.

Personally I dont really know that much about her. I just hope that she gets a good vetting like all the other Justices got so that we will know more about her.
I just hope that they dont rubber stamp her in like they have every other nomination that Obama has made, espeically if she is not really qualified.

Unlike what they did to Clarence Thomas…..

Doc I used that same quote in an earlier thread. Yes we seem to have a long way to go, for it seems that when everything is said and done many still feel the need to pull out the race and/or gender card.
Sorry as a 60s White Civil Rights worker I’m still reeling from what Obama made the 2008 election run into, and all the after effects that are still happening.
“What you dont like Obama’s policy, then I guess you’re a racist” How many people have heard this statement this year and how many times…For me its been way too many times.

Judicial activism should be disliked by all Americans, left or right. Pandering for votes by playing identity politics should also be disliked by Americans, left or right. So I am not surprised they arent thrilled over at The Confluence.

To imply (using phrases like “chiquita banana sucker”) that anyone who doesnt like Sotomayor doesnt like her because shes a latina is an Obama technique, its insulting, and its incorrect. Linking everyone else who doesnt want her on the bench to “Hannity and Beck and the right wing” is as well.

I dont care what compelling personal stories these appointees have, I dont care where they come from, and I dont care what they look like. I will judge them on their own statements and their own record.

I am sick to death of being called a sexist bigot just because I wont go along with the agenda this administration is trying to advance.

Could it be that Sotomayor is not as much to the Left as Turley would like her to be?

This is my suspicion as well. If she’s truly a centrist, it’ll be liberals not conservatives who’ll be most disappointed in the end. She’s replacing Souter, after all.

The hearings will be interesting.

You know I think Obama put race/racism back quite a few years.
Maybe Obama should reread or relisten to MLK’s Speech.

Sounds paranoid.

I think it starts with not being dogmatic and proceeds from there

I think that’s a good start, Ferd. Of course, the devil’s in the details. Lorac pretty much expresses the changes in my political position. I think that the economic situation is going to become so horrible, and both parties are going to be so obviously to blame, that circumstances are going to force a large part of the population into a “centrist” position, which at the very least will be “independent” of blindly following either party:

Party Unity My Ass!

A state of mind–not a political party . . .

So far I’ve heard no uproar from Republican lawmakers about this nominee. They don’t seem to be taking the bait as much as the POTUS wants them to. Some degree of grousing is to be expected from pundits — it’s their stock and trade.

If Sotomayor turns out to be a centrist as suspected, in the end the POTUS will suffer criticism from the left more than the right. He plays his supporters for suckers time and time again. Wily and ruthless politician that he is, he knows he can take their support for granted whatever he does. But by doing so he risks ultimately suffering the same fate as Bush, i.e demoralizing, dividing and damaging his party. Loyalty and partisanship has its limits.

Rassmussen:
87% Expect Sotomayor Will Be Confirmed, 45% Say She Should Be. (HT-Instapundit)

Yes, take her quickly and be gracious about it. Save the indignation for Kagan next time around. Kagan is an unproven entity as a courtroom judge. Imagine if somebody… probably it would be an intellectual… got into the court with the intention to be obstructionist? With the intent to cripple the court Cloward-Piven style with endless arguments to esoteric legal angles to every upcoming case. What if that could do to the supreme court, what ACORN did to voter registration offices? To overwhelm and effectively cripple them from normal and necessary tasks? Honestly, Sotomayer on TV… you can see a real person in there. I can sense a conscience in there. That is good enough for me. I fear the “by any means” obstructionist which is well out there.

Malcolm X and black power came along. (no snark, things changed after that)

Honestly, I still don’t get what part of community organizing… i.e. rubbing raw resentments etc. made people think he would unite anything or anybody, when his whole life has been about divisiveness and activism. He is so transparent, it is a wonder almost nobody can see it. Honestly, it has something to do with the odd speech cadence. It just peeves me to have to hear it… others are enamored by it. I remember seeing the NLP links. This is more subtle and covert I think than that. But very intentional, either by design or at least through learned behavior.

You would think people would have wised up by now and not fall for this bullshit. It is the same line they gave us with him. Anyone who questions him is RACIST! Nevermind what he says, his background, his record (what there was that is not locked away) or who is associates for his lifetime have been.
Dont worry what she says, the racist decisions she has made. The socialist comments she has made. That she is agains our 2nd ammendment rights. That she agrees with Obama on almost everything. Is a member of La Raza the hate monger group who wants to take back the southwest part of America.
WHO CARES WHAT SHE IS! SHE IS A FACIST JUST LIKE OBAMA AND SHE IS NOT FIT TO SIT ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND.

the hate monger group who wants to take back the southwest part of America.

Funny thing is after they took it, none of them would want to live there anymore. It would be on the wrong side of the fence.

Radio:
Limbaugh #1
Hannity #2
Beck #3
TV:
O’Rilley #1
Hannity #2
Beck #3

Somebody likes what they say. Just sayin……..

Joe — I agree with 2 things you said.

LITTLE BY LITTLE HE IS SILENCING HIS CRITICS.

HE DOESENT SEEM TO BE A MAN THAT WOULD TAKE GETTING DOUBLECROSSED LIGHTLY.

Anon — you speak for people here than you realize.
Thank you for your comments.

I agree. Sotomayor is a working judge and therefore has a real-world paper trail.

Beware the judicial nominee who exists in an academic bubble.

Ty Anon

Ouch. Not a lot of confidence in Sotomayor’s actual legal expertise there. Is America really saying they are unwilling participants of the ongoing onslaught of Obama’s agenda?

Interesting.

anon, i am more than a little disgusted. i am throwing the dogma, self righteousness, false accusations, hypocrisy up as i write. i am so fed up with it that i am prepared to never ever ever in my lifetime vote for another democrat especically after the bullxxxx masquerading as a presidential campaign by obama.

i am even more disgusted with the dimocrats because i did have higher expectations of them. i opposed from the beginning ever electing bush. i opposed the sad invasion of iraq. i hoped for a party concerned about the average american. what we got was a poorly done copy of the repubs. shame on the dimocrat leadership. a pox on both houses of congress!

Chrysler’s ‘hit list’ targets GOP donors
Dealers who give to Republicans much more likely to be shuttered

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99325

lorac, many people come from poor backgrounds. frankly none of us care. what concerns us is the fact that she makes a BIG DEAL out of it and hints at the possibility of making decisions based on that rather than the law in my view. that worries me!

centerground, frankly as a woman who worked my way up in the business world i don’t consider this woman being dishonored. in fact i am worried about her not honoring all americans in an equal manner in her decisions. that isn’t based on race, it is based on some of her past comments and decisions. how dare you demand repubs shut up! they have a right to question in a VERY THOROUGH MANNER. if you have a problem with that, i have to wonder. of course she should be treated with respect and that is a two way street.

bravo berfle! good comment!

Tn,

I agree with your statement. The elected representatives just want to make sure that she is qualified. I saw nothing wrong with the their questioning. Rush is a different story, so is Rachel Maddow, she also is a little over the top.

docelder, you are the master of the “dry” remark. i smile often when i read them.

The craziest comment from a right-wing group I have heard yet is Tony Perkins’ e-mail saying: Don’t let Obama appoint justices who will vote their own personal beliefs! I guess he didn’t want to GWB to appoint justices who would vote their personal beliefs against abortion and would vote for anything to promote and favor fundamentalist Christianity! What a turdball.

Larry described her to a TEE, don’t you think? Who made it possible for that banana sucker to get to where she is today? Right-on, A bunch of white men who can’t make good determinations when it comes to minorities and/or women. If not for those old white male dinosaurs she would still be sucking those bananas.

While not a disqualification, membership on the National Council of La Raza is problematic.

It’s the same bunch of loons listening and watching to all of those shows. Also you have to add in liberals like me who like to watch/listen to these shows out of morbid curiosity.

Yes… There are about 5 million Americans that think Rush Limbaugh is really brilliant. Unfortunately for the GOP there’s about 120 million voters

Problematic for who?

Thanks, Stodgie.

“Activist Judges” are who ended segregation. I am VERY pro “activist judge” when they are protecting and expanding upon our civil liberties and civil rights. Very. Very. Very! I LOVE “activist judges.” I’m afraid she’s not one though. That’s my problem with her!

But, we have three distinct branches for good reason. People a lot smarter than us came up with it a long time ago. I agree, Sotomayor is not an activist I don’t think either. I also think, he nominated her with the firefighter case out there and with the videos thinking the right would throw such a fit, he would have her step down. Then Latinos could be mad at republicans, Obama could say, I tried and he could then nominate Kagan, whose way would be paved by Sotomayor. Kagan is the activist I believe, but not to expand civil liberties, but to expand executive power.

It is not just conservatives who are questioning her qualifications, Jonathan Turley who is a very liberal law professor said on Chris Matthews:

TURLEY: I’ve read roughly about 30 of these opinions. She has a much larger library of opinions. But they are notable in one thing and that it’s a lack of depth. There’s nothing particularly profound in her past decisions. She’s been a judge a long time. That’s opposed to people like Judge Wood on the 7th Circuit and she was viewed as a real intellectual powerhouse. You really can’t read the opinions of this nominee and say, “Oh yeah, this person is a natural choice for the Supreme Court.”

While she is a very intelligent woman, I have a problem with some of her extreme views she has stated in the past.

I am sure she will get confirmed but not before her bad statements are repeated over and over and over again.

I am watching the GOP ill with MAD WE LOST DISEASE
on a rampage against a valid and prepared SCOTUS appointment. Yes, I know, Bork, Estrada, etc. But this is now. Suicide Mission GOP in progress is not pretty, and Rush calling her a hack and a racist along with Tancredo ranting “she’s a racist” is political stupidity at it’s worst.

Her decisions and bio on the facts can be found on SCOTUSblog.com but listening to the GOP noise machine’s talking points on Sotomayor are shameful.

There is a difference regarding respectful questioning of her decisions on the facts, or distorting her record to create political talking points and slurs.

It is not just the GOP who are questioning her qualifications, Jonathan Turley who is a very liberal law professor said on Chris Matthews:

TURLEY: I’ve read roughly about 30 of these opinions. She has a much larger library of opinions. But they are notable in one thing and that it’s a lack of depth. There’s nothing particularly profound in her past decisions. She’s been a judge a long time. That’s opposed to people like Judge Wood on the 7th Circuit and she was viewed as a real intellectual powerhouse. You really can’t read the opinions of this nominee and say, “Oh yeah, this person is a natural choice for the Supreme Court.”

And she is a racist. If a white man said that at the end of the day I believe a white man will make a better decision than any latino woman he would be on banned from the planet. Also that quote of hers was in her prepared text. That is the way she feels and she made decisions based on that.

She will get confirmed but she will be effectively exposed before the vote. There were far more qualified women who Obama could have selected. He did this to secure his latino vote (and for Dem running in NYS in ’10). He also knew the the GOP would not heavily challenge it.

Not in the least. I am speaking of my nieces. Sorry to hear that you are conflicted.

Check out what G. Gordon Liddy said about her: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/

Now… that’s definitely sexist.

I guess, since you asked, I would say Women in general.

Obviously you don’t know the history of La Raza.,

ahh, so scrutiny and criticism of Sotomayor’s record, rulings and public statements are now “racist” and “misogynistic” simply because she happens to be a Hispanic female?

great!

i guess treating minorities and women as babies who must be shielded from the same type of scrutiny that white males are subject to on a daily basis is the answer to all the racial inequality of this country’s 233 year history.

in other words, racial inequality in the form of white male privelege should be combated with more racial inequality in the form of white male paternalism towards women and minorities?

how you, Larry Johnson [the lesser Larry Johnson, i might add, as you are no Grandmama!] fail to realize that your racial paternalism in the form of treating minorities and women as if they are fragile and intellectually incapable of enduring the same criticism as white men in the public sphere is belittling, demeaning, and racist to the extent that it furthers racial double standards is beyond me.

besides which, if anyone believes Sotomayor is “stupid” because she’s a woman or a Puerto Rican, then they are merely judging her on her OWN racialist judicial perspectives.

attacking Sotomayor as less-qualified because of her gender or race is EXACTLY what Sotomayor did back in 20001 when she claimed that Latinas would make “better decisions” from the bench than white males…

where is your outrage, Larry?

your pink, bleeding-heart, bended knee, guilty, self-hating white liberal mangina is showing… might wanna tuck that in, Frances.

and might i also add that as a Latino– and therefore a “minority”– myself, i’m getting pretty sick and tired of constantly seeing WHITE MEN hooting and hollering and gleefully seizing upon any opportunity to play the race card.

hey WHITE MAN: we as Latinos, “minorities,” have reached the point that we can defend ourselves.

we don’t need you to constantly jump in on our “behalf” crying “racism!” at every turn, which is RACIST in and of itself because it presumes that we are intellectually incapable of defending ourselves and still need WHITE MEN like you to “come to our rescue.”

21st Century white man’s burden.

thanks for playing, Larry!

Referring to Elise’s comment. You are definitely on target. Look at the hateful and asinine comments made by the right wing t.v./radio hosts. These comments have been made forever about woman’s capability and strength, and courage they have throughout history. I don’t know what men are afraid of – a strong, independent woman who can handle matters with care and intelligence. I don’t know – but I campaigned for Hillary Clinton, voted for McCain, and the media never looked into Obama’s education, academia history as the “right wing” have again. It is just mean and ugly. And the DNC, Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, and the likes of Nancy Mussolini, and Harry Reid all threw Hillary Clinton under the bus and ran over her dozens of times. Obama was the “chosen one” all right.

Hope not too late to respond:

“The idea of the poor white men being victims of discrimination is laughable.”
Not all white men are equal in terms of income or education, but it isn’t due to bias against their gender or race.:

Discrimination of any type is not a laughing matter,and that includes ETHNIC and sexual orientation discrimination, not just gender and race.

“Yes, rw, millions of white men have died in wars started by other white men. Millions of innocent women have died as collateral damage in those wars. They have also been abused and raped as spoils of war”

As if none white men have never started a war in which millions have died, in which women have been kidnapped, raped and part of the spoils. World history is replete with examples. Or how about war engagements by women leaders….

But war aside, there have been many social struggles throughout history carried out by white men or in which white men participated that have advanced the status of all. History is replete with these too.

If she could marry a woman and have her wife run out of the hearings crying like Mrs.Alito did, maybe it would help her chances….

Really, the GOP can pile on her all they want, Hispanics are the swing vote and the future’s majority, cry about her nationality in front of latin Americans. A bit more of it and not even the Catholic Church can shape their votes enough for it to matter.

The party of 21% just got smaller.

When you disrespect a people for centuries and then expect your posterity to be trusted and given the benefit of the doubt you must be stupid.

trust is fragile and your nearsighted ancestors f#@$@^ up. Take the pain now. Are minorities a bit hypersensitive? what do you expect. If anyone is to inherit the mistakes of your ancestors is you and not the minorities who have been wrong.

I know what you are thinking? Oh, but how much do they invent? They invent enough to live their life cycle. Have you ever observed an elephant stroll by. How much do elephants invent? They last 80 years on the earth unless some dummy interupts their lives.

If you want war be a brave and declare it bluntly in front of the world. You dont because you are afraid. Like I’ve said, take the pain and curse your nearsighted ancestors.