 |
You’ve read about Sonia Sotomayor’s rulings and about her, what do you think? Is she Supreme Court material? Is she a racist as Rush and Newt tell you? If she’s qualified, should she be confirmed or opposed because of how you think she might vote on specific issues? Should she be opposed just because Obama nominated her? Should she be confirmed just because she is female, Hispanic and was nominated by the President?
Have at it!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4599 access attempts in the last 7 days.
She is a MEMBER of “La Raza”! DO YOU GET IT? That translates to “THE RACE”!!! An IDIOT can see she is a “RACIST”! Reverse the roles with a man and see if it isn’t true. This woman is BAD NEWS!
But since she IS a “woman” then I suppose that her supporters (like Obama) believe she is somehow immune to racism. Right?
ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID OR JUST SO BLINDED BY YOUR VIEWS THAT YOU DON’T SEE EVIL WHEN IT’S LOOKING RIGHT AT YOU!? THAT WOMAN WILL SCREW AMERICA IF GIVEN THE CHANCE!!! AND HERE IT IS ON AN OBAMA ENDORSED SILVER PLATTER NO LESS!
#69 Alfred1,
Better to have Sotomayor than Harriet Myers.
#69
I would hope that a Alfred1 with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a non-ditto head who hasn’t lived that life, therefore Alfred1 thoughts must not rejected.
See how stupid that kind of copy edit past sounds. Of course I think I reach better conclusions than you. Your every post confirms this. Just as you think because of what you have learned from your life you would reach better conclusions than I would.
Jesus could not get the Rush/Newt blessing with this kind of analysis.
#5 for the win
For years, conservatives have been telling us that racism doesn’t exist. And that it doesn’t matter. And it has no power.
Now, they’re really, really concerned about racism!
Never mind that the country-club cabal of white male bankers still run the country. If a minority gets nominated, it’s armageddon.
The louder they shout “racist” because the nominee happens to be proud of her background — just as Alito and Scalia and all the other said they were —
the clearer their own racism appears.
Question to conservatives who are so, so *sincere* in their hatred of racism:
When study after study came out in the last 2 decades showing that minorities get turned down for loans much more frequently than whites with the same financial standing — You were equally up in arms about that, weren’t you?
When study after study demonstrated that women doing the same work make less money than men — You were indignant, weren’t you, and you voiced your outrage all over the internet.
Of course you were. Yes, yes. Conservatives have *always* fought and fought against racism at every turn.
I mean, how hypocritical would it be if the only time a conservative ever got upset about racism is when a black man becomes president or a latino gets nominated to the court?
Perish the thought!
Sotomayor comes to the court with more bench experience than any current member of the court had done.
Racist? She ruled *against* race-discrimination plaintiffs 80% of the time.
Case, obviously, closed.
@Wretched GNU
“in the last 2 decades showing that minorities get turned down for loans”
So do you mean this was happening 20 years ago? It certainly is at a minimum extremely rare today.
And …
Banks have no idea of someone’s race and today’s banks defer all decision making to the almighty credit score; credit applications and loans are decided by a computer about 95% of the time.
“women doing the same work”
re: equal pay
Like as in sales? Sales is based on commission. Sales makes the world go around, it is performance pay based.
And all the top jobs in the world are performance pay oriented and are subject to salary negotiations.
Not men’s fault.
Activists like to talk about equal pay, but what about asset distribution? 60% of wealth in the United States is controlled by women.
As a man, I demand equal wealth!
Calling this woman a racist is insane. Only an insecure white man would take offense to the jovial comments made by this woman.
By the way Dems will come to hate this woman she is far more conservative than people realize. It would be nice if people actually looked at her record.
#65, Clarence Thomas […] continues to make advances now to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
That’s just gross!
The simplest collective to join, the easiest one to identify with — particularly for people of limited intelligence — the least demanding form of “belonging” and of “togetherness” is: race.
Racism, 1963
Anybody who belongs to an organization based on race is a racist. It assumes that a person’s abilities, social status, and character come not from hard work or rational thought but from genetics.
She’s not a racist she is proud to be a Hispanic American Woman.
Why is she proud to be an “Hispanic American Woman?” Does she feel she is genetically superior and can do a better job because of that? Or that she is inferior and still managed to overcome her genetic limitations?
# 58 MikeN said, “She calls for a wise Latina woman, but wouldn’t such a person say ‘wise Latina?’”
For any who do not understand Mike’s comment, Latina is feminine (a male would be a Latino) thus Latina woman is redundant, at best.
Her command of Spanish is somewhat questioned. She reportedly claimed in a speech to Princeton that the Spanish language does not use adjectives!
Now I speak Spanish and I’d like to offer one adjective in response: loco (well, loca).
@Zeeboy
“Calling this woman a racist is insane. Only an insecure white man would take offense to the jovial comments made by this woman.”
Ah, I find all racist/sexist comments annoying even if it is in jest. It’s always bad taste and never appropriate for a joke.
Call me a believer in the color blind society.
And I hate the use of the “N” word even by African Americans.
I haven’t noticed anyone condemning Scalia or Alito for being members of the Knights of Columbus. Yes, a group dedicated on spreading the Catholic Church onto everyone, making us all answer to the Pope.
I wonder why that is.
#78, Meyers,
60% of wealth in the United States is controlled by women.
Your link says nothing of the kind except in their headline. Even then it was a projection made in 2001 about an event happening in 2010.
On average, women are still paid much less then men. As of 2006, women still earned only 77% of what men earned.
(per US Census Bureau)
Because conservatives don’t read, they don’t know that the subject of Sotomayor’s speech was not “being a judge” in general — as Fox news falsely reports — it was about a judge’s ability *to adjudicate race-discrimination claims*.
Reality is a harsh mistress, wingnuts.
And because conservatives don’t read, they don’t know that Sotomayor rules *against* race-discrimination plaintiffs 80% of the time.
What a racist!
@Fusion
Your link just shows median annual earned income of men versus women. Means relatively little, those number could be skewed merely by the 1% of rich men running corporations.
Furthermore your link is to a site advocating “pay equity”. Kind of like reading about tobacco facts on a tobacco company web site or reading about meat on the PETA page.
Are women on welfare and government assistance subtracted from that survey?
What about stay at home moms? What about women that hang around rich men so they don’t need to work?
Some fields, like computer programming and engineering are incredibly high paying jobs dominated by men. Whose fault is that?
Men dominate in performance pay related jobs or highly competitive fields .. from sales to politics.
Women earn by far more college degrees than men. And certain industries like health care and law are becoming female dominated.
So are government jobs.
Maybe things are far more than equal and in fact well skewed in women’s favor.
Yet the myth persists.
In a Supreme Court decision handed down today, the conservatives held that it is fine for a Judge to rule on someone who contributes big bucks to their election campaign. Yup, that was Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. Your heros.
Fortunately, the other five said it was wrong and the Judge should recuse himself.
#88, Good. Perhaps there’s hope for SCOTUS yet.
#87, Meyers,
The numbers used were traced to the US Census reports. Deny them, twist them, impeach them, whatever. They are still better than some prediction made in 2001 about what might happen in 2010.
Those numbers are median numbers, that means that just as many people are above as below, which kind of detracts from your certain high paying jobs.
It is also a fairly well established fact that there is a “glass ceiling” which prohibits women from becoming top executives, let alone CEOs. That same glass ceiling stops minorities as well.
# 88 Mr. Fusion said, “Fortunately, the other five said it was wrong and the Judge should recuse himself.”
Sounds good. They also ruled that judges can’t touch the military policy of Don’t ask don’t tell, as the decision belongs to the congress. Way NOT to legislate from the bench.
#91, Cow-Patty,
They also ruled that judges can’t touch the military policy of Don’t ask don’t tell, as the decision belongs to the congress.
The problem is you get too much of your information from biased, unreliable sources. The Supreme Court did not rule the decision belongs in Congress. In fact, they didn’t even rule on it. Now go back and look up the case and gets the truth.
BTW, there is a case in the 9th Circuit that is still before the courts and the Circuit Court ordered be heard. The Air Force was ordered to demonstrate how homosexuality is damaging to moral.
RE #92
Darn it, I just hate it when I hit the wrong key.
At the very end of that post I meant to add the words “and discipline”.
Not that it matters. Because it destroys Cow-Patty’s argument he won’t bother looking it up anyway.
Some more from her ‘wise Latina’ speech. I think solid English should be a requirement for a judge, at least at this level.
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. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
“The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
“Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.”
“For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering?”
“I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation.”
“and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states . . .”
@ Fusion
“Those numbers are median numbers”
If they are true median numbers, and yes I certainly am knowledgeable about statistical measures, then that data is statistically meaningless.
(*) Because the median is affected by people with no income, far more likely to be women with children.
If they aren’t true median numbers, then the data they included/excluded becomes relevant.
Did they exclude people with $0 income? How are people in prison accounted for? Does income include child support payments which are made largely to women? Is welfare income counted? Is unemployment?
Obviously wealth is not included? Or is interest from investments counted?
Simple numbers are a good start, but not a good finish.
#95, Meyers,
Parse the numbers all you like. The numbers are for earned income.
From the sounds of it, your boss makes less than you and wears a bra.
The GOP collective reacted to Sotomayer exactly like bigots do.
And then they whine about “reverse racism” when minorities don’t vote for them!
>the conservatives held that it is fine for a Judge to rule on someone who contributes big bucks to their election campaign. Yup, that was
No they didn’t. Try reading the decision and understanding things.
Try calculating pay differences between men and women working the same jobs. Not secretary vs construction worker or things like that(and take a look at the on the job death risks for each). Then try accounting for women who leave the workplace to have kids.