 Yes! Tell them to STFU!! |
White House to Sonia Sotomayor critics: Be ‘careful’ – Alexander Burns and Josh Gerstein – POLITICO.com — FYI. The thought police are wanting you to shut up, or else.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a pointed warning to opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, urging critics to measure their words carefully during a politically charged confirmation debate.
“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” Gibbs said.
He was replying to a question from CBS’s Chip Reid about a blog post by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accusing Sotomayor of imposing identity politics on the bench and declaring: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
La Raza — the RACE — seems similar to the White Power folks. Apparently that does not concern anyone.
How about some context? From
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270005
From Sotomayor’s speech, delivered at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in 2001:
In our private conversations, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
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 [Sandra Day] 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
#33:
Look, man, reading the whole speech, the context is very effing clear:
IN THAT PARAGRAPH she is talking about DECIDING CASES. That’s the context! And she say, regarding deciding cases, that she think she’ll “more often than not” reach a better conclusion than a white male”!
You can’t explain this shit away, sorry. She was very clearly talking about “deciding cases.”
Yeah, *maybe* you could argue that she’s talking about judging cases of discrimination, but do we really believe that white men will never be able to judge these cases correctly?
Doesn’t the string of judgments made by white men that: gave blacks the vote, enacted women’s suffrage, and decided Roe v. Wade pretty much blow away this conclusion?
If she can’t take the critics, maybe she should not be confirmed.
You don’t lower standards for women/minority candidates, you keep the standards the same.
18- I think Gibbs is telling Newt, Rush et. al. that they risk alienating a lot of people by using inflammatory language, i.e. it was advice concerning the future of the R. party, not a threat. And as I said, pretty good advice, considering the current direction of the party.
If you want to insert the words you want to hear into any speech you don’t like- well, have at it.
#34, brm,
How are your grades? They can’t be very good, your critical thinking is crap.
Compare her speech with Alito’s (post #26) testimony before the Senate. Did you notice the similarity? No?
Here is some more from Alito’s Senate Confirmation apprearance
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/27/sotomayor/index.html
RE #38,
DAMN !!! I forgot about removing the “www” from the link. Sorry.
EDITOR, if you could be so kind to fix the cite and remove the “www” I would greatly appreciate it.
#37, Alphie,
I hope opponents will use this opportunity to highlight the reasons OBAMA chose this gal…so the public realizes how radical he is…what a mistake they made electing him…
First, she is not a “gal”. She is an honorable woman. She has led an honorable life and deserves respect for that reason.
Second, the opponents decided long before Justice Souter even decided to retire they would oppose any confirmation. It wouldn’t matter who was nominated, the right wing nuts would be heralding some character flaw as making her unworthy.
Third, Obama is not a radical. Well at least to well over 300,000,000 Americans. I suppose there are a few, like yourself, that consider him radical but then your kind also wishes for the return of George W. Bush and the rapture.
Fourth, I take it you didn’t vote for him. I can also see you are anti American. You don’t believe in our concept of democracy and freedom. Why don’t you go back to that tin pot dictatorship you came from or were you born on that circus you worked at.
brm — Don’t pretend you’ve read the speech.
Look at the two paragraphs. She quite clearly is talking about the subject of understanding race and gender in America, not “deciding cases” in general.
She did not suddenly lurch into non sequitur, as you and conservatives would have us believe, and suddenly abandon the subject she was talking about.
I like how she holds the view that the Bill of Rights only applies to D.C. and not the States. A dangerous fruitcake.
SS has a wealth of opinions ans speeches she will present to the senate. Years worth. To cherry-pick one paragraph from so long ago doesn’t even begin yo describe the breadth of any person, it’s simple political maneuvering.
Yes, she said it, and there are current justices who have said the same thing. BFD. All objective accounts are that her positions are centrist. The wingnuts are wrong, standing in a puddle of wrong, which is getting deeper and deeper.
When you get another republican president, you can litmus the crap out of him and appoint whomever you wish. In the meantime, the people we elected to the senate will make the right choice.
Okay John, she officially a nut job:
The franchise for felons,
Sotomayor would let prisoners vote
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/the-franchise-for-felons/
You know the funny part is that, outside issues of race, she’s actually pretty centrist. Maybe even (as most Puerto Ricans are – although I can only speak of Island-born Puerto Ricans and not first genners) right-of-center.
Of course, that’s not stopping the Repubs from screaming their lungs out.
Just seems kinda funny to me.
Bush inserted two Christian Taliban into the Supreme Court. I’m unhappy that Chelsea Clinton was not chosen.
“I’m unhappy that Chelsea Clinton was not chosen.”
Fuck Chelsea, man. I wanted Bubba himself.
#44, Cow-Patty,
Scraping the barrel again. The Washington Times Editorial as a reference source. Ya, right.
To the point though, why not allow prisoner’s the right to vote? Many countries already do and I’m happy to say none of them have disappeared into a fiery pit. Then again, most of those countries provide far more support and help to those incarcerated than does the US and respectfully have much lower rates of recidivism.
People need to watch what they say.
#49, Lyin’ Mike
Good point. Which is how you ended up with that moniker.
This quote from an item on the subject in Huffpo says it all:
#51 Sounds like what White liberals did with Clarence Thomas & Alberto Gonzales…
# 47 Alex said,”I wanted Bubba himself.”
Sheesh! He couldn’t keep the girl’s blue dress clean. What would he do with black robes?
When Bush nominated, Dems went on the attack. Now O’Bama nominates, the Reps get set for battle. You know what that’s called?
Business as usual.
#31 – touche’
#38 Fusion:
The difference is that Alito didn’t say “better” when comparing his judgment to that of someone of a different race and gender.
That’s the BIG difference.
#41 Wretched Gnu:
I did read the speech. I know that the subject of the talk wasn’t deciding cases. But she was talking about deciding cases when she spat out this line.
Did you read it? Did you notice that she talks about O’Connor’s assertion that:
“a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in DECIDING CASES”
and then in the same breath says that she believes she’ll more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white man?
She is CLEARLY talking about DECIDING CASES.
Are you defenders stupid or are you forgetting she is a current member of a racist organization that espouses taking over the SW U.S. by force.
La Raza, look it up Fusion………
Jeez, idiots.
Just another Obama dis”appointment”.
#56 Thomas:
It’s not racist because only whites can be racist. Duh.
I’d like to see how long a white group called “The Race” would last.
#58, I think it is called the KKK. You know the group that boasts a prominent Dem Senator as a supporter.
Re: Clarence Thomas…
Have we forgotten that at the time he was nominated the man was *being sued for Sexual Harrassment*? Or rather, as a result of his nomination he was sued for (big pockets/an attempt to ruin his reputation.) This was not facts made up by the Democrats, there were *recordings* of him on the *phone*, Bill O’Reilly style.
Not saying one way or the other but… man. I think that’s a little more serious than a Latina woman thinking she’s the wisest woman on Earth. (Being the son of one, let me tell you, not exactly an oddity.)
#61 Alex:
“there were *recordings* of him on the *phone*”
Really? I thought everyone *wished* there were recordings.
“I think that’s a little more serious than a Latina woman thinking she’s the wisest woman on Earth.”
That’s not what she said. She said she more often than not judge more correctly than a white man. Very different.
Either way, a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice, shouldn’t subscribe to this judicial philosophy.
If she were just a normal person on the street like all of us, it wouldn’t be a big deal.
@fusion
I love Obama and think this Supreme Court pick is grotesque.
If part of the argument is that she got high grades in college or won a spelling bee, then that’s sad because the Supreme Court is about people with a deep understanding of case law.
Countless people had high grades in college or won a spelling bee.
My gut feeling is that this lady’s opinions, based on past statements she has made, would be more based on feeling than law.
I don’t like that one bit and it scares me. Justice and law aren’t about feelings.