Democrats & Liberals Archives

You Bug The Hell Out Of Me

Forget everything you know about Sonya Sotamayor. Forget her stellar academic credentials, her uphill battles in life to get to where she is today, and her long and distinguished tenure on the bench. Because nothing she has done in her life will have been as difficult as remaining quiet and motionless as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina spoke over the last three days.

"Your speeches bug the hell out of me," declared Graham today in exasperation after Sotomayor continued to deal with the confirmation hearings with dignity and respect.

His outburst sums up the way the Republicans have approached this process. They were snookered the instant Obama announced his nominee; they could hardly oppose her, for fear of losing their dwindling Latino vote, and they couldn't place her as a liberal nominee because - in the words of Graham himself - "To be honest with you, your record as a judge has not been radical by any means. You have, as a judge, been generally in the mainstream."

The barely-suppressed anger was there for all to see. Graham was virtually speaking through gritted teeth. He was seething.

Why? For the Republican Party, Sotomayor should have been the perfect bipartisan candidate - someone they could get behind without fear of being accused of pandering to the left.

Number one - they couldn't deny her confirmation, so backing it would have made them look cooperative and given them some points with the Democrats.

Number two - imagine how much worse it could have been for them! Obama would have managed to drive through almost any candidate to the right of Stalin. Instead he picked a candidate that both parties could, and should, have got behind. Now he's the one who looks statesmanlike, and it's the Republicans who look spiteful and divisive.

Graham has a history of being a rather nasty little man, but the smart play for the Republicans here would have been to question delicately, to listen to the answers, and to move on to a bipartisan confirmation.

Instead - as has been the case so often in recent times - they have taken an adversarial position for the sake of it, and when they have to spit out words of praise ("You have, as a judge, been generally in the mainstream" is as close to praise as they come) then they could at least try and do so without making clear their contempt and disgust for the candidate.

I wonder if Lindsey Graham would show this lack of respect to the Judge if he was standing in front of her in her courtroom instead of his Senate.

Another lost opportunity for the Republicans.

Posted by Jon Rice at July 16, 2009 12:06 PM
Comments
Comment #284591

Well, he said her speeches bugged the hell out of her, not that she did, or more importantly some of the things that she said in those speeches…

I don’t mean to be an accuracy nazi or anything but… let’s look at the actual quotes in full context!

“You’ve said some things that have bugged the hell out of me,” said South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham.

“Your speeches are disturbing, particularly to conservatives. … Those speeches to me suggested
gender and racial affiliations in a way that a lot of us wonder, will you take that line of thinking to the Supreme Court in these cases of first precedent.”

But, Graham also said, “to be honest with you, your record as a judge has not been radical by any means. … You have, I think, consistently, as an advocate, took a point of view that was left of center. You have, as a judge, been generally in the mainstream.”

It sounds to me like they were concerned about some of the things she said in the past but have acknowledged that her record doesn’t display that getting into her decisions on the court (much).

I know, that paints a different picture than you did in characterizing republicans as mean nasty snarling bad guys… but I just wanted to throw that out there for general consumption and let others see what they want I guess.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 16, 2009 3:55 PM
Comment #284592

BTW, ‘lack of respect’? WTF?

It’s a lack of respect to probe and prod a potential lifetime justice to ensure that they are acceptable?

Does anyone remember hearings of the past? How Democrats treated other candidates? And now they want to cry foul on this pablum?

Please, I WANT them to be suspicious, probing and taking the kid gloves off. Moreso than they are now. Just keep it on topic this time.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 16, 2009 3:59 PM
Comment #284593

If Graham would have said something like, “In Judge Sotamayor’s America abortions would be performed while you wait at Wal Mart” then you might have somthing to complain about.

Still, any Republican who goes down the Democrat’s path and votes against her on ideological grounds loses my respect.

Posted by: George at July 16, 2009 4:27 PM
Comment #284596

I agree with rhinehold. Even Durbin in his opening speech about Sotamayor said that the shoe is now on the other foot you will be grilled by the other side just like we did when we were the minority. Democrats did it to Roberts and Alito, now it’s the Republicans turn.

Posted by: KAP at July 16, 2009 5:16 PM
Comment #284597

Rhinehold / KAP:

Why is it that whenever we - meaning Democrats - criticize the Republicans, their automatic response is not to say “Yes, you’re quite right - this kind of disrespect has no place in civilized politics” but to bleat “But the Democrats did it! The Democrats did it! No fair! I call keepseys!”

Intelligent questioning - hard questioning - is not disrespectful, and I never said it was. For the most part (and not exclusively, but for the most part) that’s what Roberts got as a center-right judge. Alito, as a more radical candidate, got a rougher ride. Sotomayor is a centrist candidate, by the estimation of no less an authority than Lindsey “Showboat” Graham, and yet the Republicans have persisted in showing her a lack of respect with comments like “(Your comments) have bugged the hell out of me”.

Sorry guys, but why not tackle the issue in these comments, rather than simply rehash that tired old “life’s not fair to the Republicans” 78-RPM record.

Posted by: Jon Rice at July 16, 2009 5:26 PM
Comment #284598

Jon,

Neither KAP or I are republicans. I thought I made it perfectly clear, this type of questioning is what we WANT are representatives to ask of and treat the nominees, not kiss their butts. They are up for a lifetime appointment, I think they can stand a little bit.

But you have YET to provide anything that is anything near a ‘lack of respect’. Saying that some of the things that her speeches contain bugs someone is NOT disrespectful, unless you think not fawning over someone who President Obama nominates is disrespectful. If that is the case, you need to be looking inwards, not out.

Sorry guys, but why not tackle the issue in these comments

I did. Reread my comment. There is NOTHING in what he said (contrary to what you SAID he said) that is disrespectful *AND* it is just the type of questioning and prodding that I want our respresentatives to give.

And yes, even when the Democrats are doing the grilling. If you want to search through the last 5 years of comments I have on here and find where I am not consistent with this, please do so.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 16, 2009 5:44 PM
Comment #284599

And again Jon I agree with rinehold.

Posted by: KAP at July 16, 2009 6:22 PM
Comment #284600

Graham and Sessions both said after the questioning that they would vote to confirm Sotamayor. Democrats disrespect Republicans almost on a daily basis and vice versa on this blog. SO WHATS THE BEEF???

Posted by: KAP at July 16, 2009 6:27 PM
Comment #284601

Rhinehold / KAP:

First off, thanks for your comments and let me apologize for implying that you were Republicans. I inferred it from your comments, lazily and incorrectly. I’ll try and be more careful with my labels in future.

Secondly, I should have given you further examples of what I consider discourtesy. For one, I would think that ‘asked and answered’ would be the Law & Order response to the Republicans re-opening their questioning of her oft-misquoted ‘wise Latina’ remark. She answered patiently and at length yesterday, explaining that she chose her words poorly and going into detail about what she actually meant. Why start the grilling again? If your boss asked you if you had completed and project, you explained the timeline and it was accepted - and then he did the same thing the next day - then you would think he was being disrespectful.

Also, no matter how the ‘bug the hell out of me’ comment is taken, and in whatever context, speaking to a woman of Sotomayor’s stature in that manner is just plain damned rude.

And the truth is, I DO expect better, both from Them and from Us. The politics of confrontation make me shake my head in disgust. If only we could find more to cooperate on. I guess I just get the feeling that Obama shares that sentiment and truly wants to bring the country together, as much as is possible - and that by nominating a genuine centrist instead of a liberal, he’s doing that. But it still doesn’t prevent the discourtesy.

I am glad to see that Sessions and Graham have at least concurred that she’s worth confirming… that gives me some hope.

Posted by: Jon Rice at July 16, 2009 6:45 PM
Comment #284602

Can anyone yet name 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are not FOR-SALE, incompetent, irresponsible, and/or corrupt?

Is there really any difference, aside from the two main party’s equally destructive extremes?

At any rate, Sonya Sotomayor’s comment …

  • Sonya Sotomayor said: “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 …”
… is difficult to understand.

What if someone said?

  • “I would hope that a wise Latina white woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white hispanic male who hasn’t lived that life …”

Or?

  • “I would hope that a wise Latina white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white hispanic woman who hasn’t lived that life …”

Or?

  • “I would hope that a wise Latina black man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white hispanic woman who hasn’t lived that life …”

That all sound exactly what they are:

  • sexist

  • and racist

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 16, 2009 7:15 PM
Comment #284607

jon

i watched a fair amount of the questioning by republicans during the hearing. i saw no disrespect. what i saw was questions that republicans wanted answered regarding abortion, the second amendment, and so on. she was asked numerous times if she felt individuals had a constitutional right to self defense, and never a straight answer. personally i think lindsay graham is a spinless wuss, but hey thats my opinion. i thought sessions did a much better job.

“imagine how much worse it could have been for them! Obama would have managed to drive through almost any candidate to the right of Stalin.”

america is not as far left as obama and the liberal dems think. he will be lucky to get this one through. i think it will depend on the blue dogs, and how much flak they get from thier constituants. this IMO will also have a direct effect on how many reps vote against her. to say her nomination is a gift is nonsense. if you think he can ram through anything he wants because of the numbers you will be a sadly disappointed, remember these folks want be re elected.

Posted by: dbs at July 16, 2009 8:47 PM
Comment #284614

I think everyone should go back and read the ENTIRE speech containing the “latina woman” remark and then you can see what she meant and how it was taken out of context.

This is what politicans do. Instead of doing serious questioning about someone’s record they latch onto one statement and beat it til its dead to score political points.

There was no serious discussion during the “Q and A”. There never is and never will be. The politicans in our country both democrat and republican are incapable of doing their jobs.

At this point in time, I am tired of all of them old white men. I think it is time that women be given the opportunity to see if we can do things better. We certainly couldn’t do any worse.

Al Franken came the closest to asking some serious questions eventhough supposedly the white house asked democrats to go easy on her and not ask questions about certain topics-as reported by the msm (of course its difficult to believe anything they say)-now if you believed in your candidate why would you do that-POLITICS.

I am a life long democrat who is now on the verge of going independent or green. I am so tired of the crap in Washington. Let’s don’t pretend that our democratic politicans have the corner on doing what’s best for the american people, or that somehow what we do is better than what the republicans do. I happen to believe in the democratic platform and could never go along with the republican platform but its a game to all those white men(yes I know there are SOME women but not enough to really make a difference or to prove what we could do given half a chance).

Even if Sotomayor had meant the statement as everyone is now claiming-I don’t understand the big deal. White men have been saying and acting like being a white male somehow made you stronger, better, more objective, and so on for how many hundreds and thousands of years. In my book she probably would make better decisions than the white men that have sat on the supreme court. The same court that gave George Bush the election and look where that got us.

And yes I am one angry white woman-who is tired of being pushed around by a bunch of white men.

I also found it interesting that a big deal was made about Barack wanting an empathic judge as if somehow that was bad. Then the “wronged” firefighers are called to testify. They are upset because Sotomayer followed the letter of the law as did three other judges and didn’t show any empathy for the firefighters who did past the test. What a crock of___!

Posted by: Carolina at July 17, 2009 8:37 AM
Comment #284616

Any time someone turns themself into a pretzel from the difficulty of trying to explain (i.e. obfuscate) what someone else said, they claim it was “taken out of context”.

Sonia Sotomayor’s said:

  • “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 …”

Even in full context, it still means the same thing. Sonia Sotomayor’s statement is:

  • not only racist

  • but sexist too.

Even if any individual’s life experiences are the issue, why bring race and gender into it?

Bottom line is that it is both racist and sexist, but it would be most entertaining to see some more pretzel imitations to try to spin it as not being both racist and sexist.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 17, 2009 9:02 AM
Comment #284617

And speaking of the Supreme Court …, the Supreme Court recently barely upheld the constitution (by one vote). It ignores numerous constitutional violations, and the federal government is still ignoring these 10 major abuses, which are hammering most Americans. But, what do Americans expect, when the majority of Americans continue to reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, irresponsible, and/or corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite dismal 9%-to-28% approval ratings for Congress? Perhaps enough voters will re-think their voting habits (as most unhappy voters did in year 1933 when the voters ousted 206 members of Congress), when enough of the voters are deep into debt, jobless, homeless, and hungry?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 17, 2009 9:13 AM
Comment #284619

d.a.n,
Every white man in the country would believe in the statement:
” a wise white man would more often reach a better conclusion than a latina woman”

whether they would admit it or not. So the outrage with what she said is completely fake.

Posted by: Schwamp at July 17, 2009 10:04 AM
Comment #284622
I think everyone should go back and read the ENTIRE speech containing the “latina woman” remark and then you can see what she meant and how it was taken out of context.

I have read it and it was not ‘taken out of context’. It is very clear what she meant. Unfortunately, many people agree with her.

At this point in time, I am tired of all of them old white men. I think it is time that women be given the opportunity to see if we can do things better. We certainly couldn’t do any worse.

And this is just as bad. And I’m sure you think it is a perfectly appropriate thing to say, but what you have stated here makes the inferrence that, by being a woman, you are somehow different than a man. Isn’t that what women have been fighting against for centuries?

People should be judged based on things that they have control over, not on their race or gender. By suggesting that ‘women’ can be a valid qualified group of people is the same mentality that we are trying to stop, not perpetuate.

Thanks for helping keep people ‘grouped’ and judged based upon that. Personally, I will take the higher road and judge people on things other than race or gender.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2009 10:49 AM
Comment #284623
Every white man in the country would believe in the statement:

Ah, more of the same. :/

‘every white man’

Keep up the good work, gender based politics is fun!

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2009 10:51 AM
Comment #284624
They are upset because Sotomayer followed the letter of the law as did three other judges and didn’t show any empathy for the firefighters who did past the test. What a crock of___!

Letter of what law exactly? Certainly not the Constitution…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2009 10:54 AM
Comment #284625

Rhinegold,
you are really laying it on thick. You win the politically correct award. Congratulations.

Posted by: Schwamp at July 17, 2009 11:15 AM
Comment #284626

No Schwamp, it is just how I view the world. And I *thought* it was how we wanted everyone to view the world too.

I appear to have been wrong.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2009 11:29 AM
Comment #284628

I think this applies IMHO for many White Men and many of the Minorities You’ve come a long ways baby, But race and bigotry is still a big open wound and cancer on society today and it’s very sad to see the huge gains we’ve made already lessened by many people we vote into office that take a oath to uphold against.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at July 17, 2009 12:23 PM
Comment #284632
And this is just as bad. And I’m sure you think it is a perfectly appropriate thing to say, but what you have stated here makes the inferrence that, by being a woman, you are somehow different than a man. Isn’t that what women have been fighting against for centuries?

Actually, no Rhinehold, it isn’t.

What people want is equality, and what she was addressing with the infamous quote is the fact of America’s long history of racism. It amazes me the old white guys that think that doesn’t matter anymore, and the only way to get past it is to become senile and pretend it never existed or doesn’t linger today. Sad.

Posted by: gergle at July 17, 2009 3:31 PM
Comment #284639
One should be concerned to somebody going to the Supreme Court of the United States that has had the majority of her cases heard by that court overturned as unconstitutional.

This statement is not factual, she has not had the majority of her cases overturned as unconstitutional.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 17, 2009 8:12 PM
Comment #284640

Sorry gergle, but it is. In fact, I find it worse because anyone who can recognize and identify racism or sexism, point it out as wrong (as it is) and then is willing to participate in that very act is lacking in conviction and principle, compared to the person who is just ignorant.

No one said ‘pretend it never existed’, that’s a ridiculous statement. However, continuing to participate in it is worse.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 17, 2009 8:24 PM
Comment #284645

Rhinehold,

“And I’m sure you think it is a perfectly appropriate thing to say, but what you have stated here makes the inferrence that, by being a woman, you are somehow different than a man. Isn’t that what women have been fighting against for centuries?”

But women are different than men, and the point wasn’t that women are identical to men.
The point was that if women are doing the same job as a man they should make the same pay, and that they shouldn’t be treated as chattels.

That’s what women have been fighting for.

Realistically, there are lines from this speech that are much more important, yet don’t carry the “controversial” tone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

“America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud.”

And,

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1

“Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

This woman is brilliant. She is aware of her bias and yet, every day works to overcome them.
What is racist about knowing where you came from and dealing with it on a daily basis?

I am a white male. I cannot begin to understand this woman’s life experiences, as I have’t lived her life, but I think I can appreciate them.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 17, 2009 9:44 PM
Comment #284647
But women are different than men, and the point wasn’t that women are identical to men. The point was that if women are doing the same job as a man they should make the same pay, and that they shouldn’t be treated as chattels.

That’s what women have been fighting for.

I’m sorry, I thought they have been fighting for being treated as an equal individual, their actions and judgements being taken as any other person and that their gender was irrelevant. I didn’t know it was as base as money.

So you are saying that they should be paid the same and resepected, but put above men based on their gender when it pleases them? That’s an interesting take on equality…

This woman is brilliant. She is aware of her bias and yet, every day works to overcome them.

Perhaps we should be holding people who don’t have these biases up for examples…

What is racist about knowing where you came from and dealing with it on a daily basis?

Because it is irrelevant… Race is non-existent. Those that want to live in the past (where I came from?) are living that lie. What does it matter to me what race my grandparents were, or what gender I am? Am I not still a human being with feelings and experiences that are wholly my own, not just because of my gender or race, but because of a million other things that make up me, most notably how I choose to react to everything the exist around me.

We are all different, individuals and should be judged and treated that way. I see this ‘group’ mentality all of the time and it is appauling. For example, watching reality shows where people have to vote someone else off, a lot of the time I see men trying to vote off who they think is weaker or a possible contender, while the women will vote off them in a show of ‘solidarity’. Sisterhood, whatever. It’s a crock.

What did someone do that was special in being born a specific gender? I don’t think they had much of anything do to with that. But each and every day, how they choose to react to situations around them, THAT is the telling part of a human. Of an individual.

Some women are good at some things, some women aren’t. You can’t make a blanket statement about women, or latinos, or any other ‘group’ that holds true against all of them other than that which groups them and THAT IS IT. Therefore, the entire notion of basing anything on that grouping is flawed to begin with.

She has biases because she chooses to keep them. What is brilliant about that?

In fact, we know from science that we all are descendant from the same woman millions of years ago. That the races we point to now are just regional anomolies that epigenomes change over time. It is only because we can move around faster than the epigenomes can change us do we see different ‘races’. They are that meaningless. And until we accept THAT and move forward, not stay in the past, will our children and their children be able to live that dream where race really has no meaning at all.

I am a white male. I cannot begin to understand this woman’s life experiences, as I have’t lived her life, but I think I can appreciate them.

Nor could you if you were a latino woman, because that is not what she is. She is not a ‘latino woman’, she is a unique human being, just like all of us, who has control over their own lives and views and can change them freely if they choose. We are not imprisoned into our bodies, the transcend them. She could wake up tomorrow as an asian man and she will still think and feel the same way as she does now. And if she doesn’t, if it changes her view, then her view was FLAWED to begin with. That is the question that we all must ask ourselves…

Treating anyone different becasue of their gender or race is wrong. No matter if it helps them or hurts them. Her decision on the fireman case was wrong and (thankfully) found unconstitutional. That she didn’t see it as unconstitutional is worrisome to me. Not because she made a mistake or thought she was following ‘precident’, but because it is such an obvious answer if she is looking at the case objectively as an individual human being. And if she isn’t doing that, do we want her as a judge, no matter how hard she says she works to ‘overcome her predjudices’?

We will never force people to change. We can only teach and put the information out there. We have to accept that some people are racist and some are sexist and do our best to point out when they are wrong and judge them on their views and actions, not give them ‘breaks’ because of them.

That you want to excuse the person who said that ‘we should give the women a chance to run the country instead of old white men’ tells me much. That you want to defend this judge because of her ‘heartwrenching battle against her own biases’ is also telling.

We need more people to say ‘judging ANYONE based on the color of their skin or their gender is WRONG and will not hold up in a court of law, of all places’. That she did not do that is troubling to me to say the least. I wonder if people really understand the meaning of the word irony, I saw a great picture the other day, much like those inspirational wall hangings called ‘Irony’. Above it was a picture of a group of black individuals holding up Proposition 8 signs…

That’s some thick irony there…

Posted by: rhinehold at July 17, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #284649

Rhinehold,

“She could wake up tomorrow as an asian man and she will still think and feel the same way as she does now. And if she doesn’t, if it changes her view, then her view was FLAWED to begin with.”

Can I assume that tomorrow, if you choose to, you could wake up as a New Guinea head hunter?

The concept is absurd on it’s face.

Recognizing who we are and where we came from isn’t living in the past. Each of our life experiences define who we are, and how we react to the world around us.
Personally, I am not an automaton. I understand that my life experiences colors my view of the world.
Frankly, I am sure you don’t care that I went from being a student in a private high school in the ’60s where there were 245 white boys, 5 blacks, and no Latinos, to a pubic school where I was the minority.
It was a rude awakening for me and the learning curve was quite steep.

I do agree with you that we all should treat each other as a part of the human race, but we cannot just delete others people’s life experiences and become part of one homogeneous collective.
We must recognize that some folks had it harder than we did, just as some folks may have had it easier, and that from their experiences they are who they are.

Sottomayor celebrates her heritage. Apparently you do not.

As a judge she hasn’t let her biases color her decisions, and she has said as much.

After reading her speech I don’t share your cynicism.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 17, 2009 11:24 PM
Comment #284650
Recognizing who we are and where we came from isn’t living in the past.

It having any meaning on who you are as a person is. There is a difference in knowing the history of the world and thinking that somehow the decisions of those in your direct bloodline bears any influencing on your and your own decision making simply by who nationality they were.

If you can’t see the difference between those then I would suggest some reflection on your part.

Each of our life experiences define who we are, and how we react to the world around us.

Define? NO. How we choose to REACT to those life experiences defines who we are. That is the only thing we have control over.

If you CHOOSE to let it define you, then that is your decision that you have made. And that speaks volumes to your character.

Personally, I am not an automaton. I understand that my life experiences colors my view of the world.

If you choose to allow it to, yes it does! I would rather people rise above those things, expect that from others. But maybe my goals are too lofty in a culture that celebrates the irrelevant and inconsequential and demeans those who choose to walk a higher path.

but we cannot just delete others people’s life experiences and become part of one homogeneous collective.

Wow, you really don’t understand what I am talking about, do you? It is not being ‘homogeneous’, but being diverse down to the person, not the group. Recognizing that we are ALL INDIVIDUALS, not part of a group where we can be judged based on things that others may think or do, not us individually.

We must recognize that some folks had it harder than we did, just as some folks may have had it easier, and that from their experiences they are who they are.

Harder? Easier? Those are very ‘subjective’ terms. I recognize that we all have uniquely different experiences, individually unique. Not grouply unique. Two individual latino women will have different experiences and will react to those different experiences completely differently. There is no way to ensure that either one will bear any resemblence to the other, and we shouldn’t try.

Sottomayor celebrates her heritage. Apparently you do not.

Of course I do not. It is meaningless on who I am, what I think and how I react to experiences in my life. I would wish that freedom on everyone.

As a judge she hasn’t let her biases color her decisions, and she has said as much.

And accepting that she is already admitting bias, I don’t understand why you think we should accept that statement from her as fact.

The fact that she did unfairly AND unconstitutionally rule against the firemen who looked to her court for impartiality and fairness speaks more to the notion that she did let it affect her, contrary to her suggestions.

After reading her speech I don’t share your cynicism.

No, because you share the view that your race and gender make up what kind of person you are and our society should make ‘allowances’ based on those factors. I refuse that thought process because it is inhuman and unconsionable. It certainly doesn’t speak to fairness or equality.

I say, join with me and call for the removal of ethnic or gender questions on any governmental forms, especially the census. Maybe then we will get laws based on whether they are good or not, not whether they affect a ‘voting block’ or not, because the very notion that people think that there is a ‘voting block’ makes me ill.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2009 11:58 PM
Comment #284651

That is another thing that bothers me, why do people put an emphasis on learning their own heritage and saying that it is more important to them then learning everyone else’s heritage? Shouldn’t we want to know the history of everyone, especially those who might have different experiences than we do rather than just learning deeper about our own? What benefit does that give us? It just makes absolutely no sense to me…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2009 12:00 AM
Comment #284652

Rhinehold,

“There is a difference in knowing the history of the world and thinking that somehow the decisions of those in your direct bloodline bears any influencing on your and your own decision making simply by who nationality they were.”

Personally my bloodline is English, and we don’t celebrate our heritage much, but I wouldn’t deny anyone the right to celebrate their own heritage.

“I would rather people rise above those things, expect that from others. But maybe my goals are too lofty in a culture that celebrates the irrelevant and inconsequential and demeans those who choose to walk a higher path.”

Boy, there’s no ego in that statement.
There is a line from the Bill Murry version of the movie “The Razors Edge”;
“It’s very easy to be a holy man on a mountaintop”.

The relevance and consequence of people’s lives and how they choose to live them is entirely relative, and it seems to me that you’re the one doing the demeaning here.

“Two individual Latino women will have different experiences and will react to those different experiences completely differently. There is no way to ensure that either one will bear any resemblance to the other, and we shouldn’t’t try.”

But their experiences aren’t mutually exclusive either, and their reactions to a given circumstance are probably closer to each other than they would be to those of a WASP from Laguna, or a Polish woman from Chicago.

“No, because you share the view that your race and gender make up what kind of person you are and our society should make ‘allowances’ based on those factors. I refuse that thought process because it is inhuman and unconsionable.”

I believe that race and gender help to make up the life experiences one might have, but it is by no means all of what we are as humans.
That said, a black male from South Central Los Angeles, or a Latina woman from Brooklyn are going to have to work just a bit harder to get ahead than a white girl from Brentwood.
I am truly sorry if this might upset your sensibilities, but this is a fact.

Look, we had this discussion before the election. You and I see Obama as a man, not a black man, just a man, and as sad as we may find it, how you and I see him isn’t the majority view.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 18, 2009 1:13 AM
Comment #284653
Schwamp wrote: d.a.n, Every white man in the country would believe in the statement: ” a wise white man would more often reach a better conclusion than a latina woman”

Every white man” ?

That comment is equally as racist and sexist as Sonia Sotomayor’s comment. Perhaps worse, since Sotomayor did not say the word Every” as you did.
So Schwamp, you’ve simply demonstrated what you think of “Every white man”.

Schwamp wrote: … whether they would admit it or not. So the outrage with what she said is completely fake.
False.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, which is essentially also part of your flawed logic above.

Sonia Sotomayor’s comments are racist and sexist:

  • Sonia Sotomayor said: “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 …”
If the issue is her life experiences, there is no need to bring gender and race into it.

Also, gender and race is not the problem.
A person does not have to be a “while male” to be racist and sexist.
And Sotomayor’s racist and sexist remarks prove it.
That is the sole reason for many peoples’ disdain for her comments (many people of different races and gender), and those trying to defend it are going to find it very difficult and frustrating while trying to explain away, twist, obfuscate, and somehow defend the indefensible. The “taken out of context” excuse is especially ridiculous, since the comment completely within context is still equally racist and sexist, and therefore, offensive. Especially offensive for someone that will be sitting on the Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation.

Not “Every” one (regardless of race or gender) is a racist or sexist, regardless of their race or gender, so Schwamp’s comment above is not only completely false and inaccurate, but it is also racist and sexist too. But please continue to entertain us with more pretzel imitations, and diggin’ that hole deeper and deeper, while trying to obfuscate and defend the indefensible, and explain how Sotomayor’s and your comments are somehow not racist and sexist.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 18, 2009 9:46 AM
Comment #284657

Dan,

First of all is seems that you don’t have a clue about context.

The much abused quote came from a lecture that Sottomayor gave at UC Berkley. The lecture was titled;
“Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”

Here is the entire paragraph that contained the quote;

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

I would ask you if I were racist and sexist if I make the statement;
“I would hope that a white woman from Charlotte, North Carolina would be wiser about NASCAR than a black man from Bedford-Stuyvesant?”

There is no pretzel logic here.

Was Sottomayor unwise to make the statement?
Perhaps.
Was the statement she made untrue in the context of the lecture she was giving?
Absolutely not.

Since when has the truth become racist or sexist?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 18, 2009 12:24 PM
Comment #284659

I admittedly did not watch all, or even a large part, of the Sotomayer hearings but I didn’t see a lot of what I would call disrespect during what I did see or hear.

What might be mistaken for disrespect was, to me, nothing more than the manifestation of the seething, fuming, fulminating anger of the party of “NO” at their current powerless position in the legislative and executive branches.

They would have loved to have “Borked” (or at least “Thomased”) Obama’s first major judicial appointment.

But thanks to their mindless and immature rubber-stamping of every idiotic decision made by Bush/Cheney for 8 years, they are completely powerless to do anything of the sort.

I just hope they will learn their lesson about placing party allegiance ahead of their nation so the next time the Reps are in control, they will exercise their duty to rein in all the boneheaded executive actions of the president based on what’s good for the country instead of what’s good fort heir party.

I won’t be holding my breath though.

Posted by: Greg House at July 18, 2009 12:53 PM
Comment #284661
Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, First of all is seems that you don’t have a clue about context.
Funny how some people attack the messenger when their own argument is a dismal, twisted, obfuscated, circular failure, eh?
Rocky Marks wrote: The much abused quote came from a lecture that Sottomayor gave at UC Berkley. The lecture was titled; “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”
That still does not justify Sonia Sotomayor’s racist and sexist remark:
  • Sonia Sotomayor said: “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 …”
Rocky Marks quoted: Here is the entire paragraph that contained the quote; “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
That still does not justify Sonia Sotomayor’s racist and sexist remark:
  • Sonia Sotomayor said: “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 …”
Rocky Marks quoted: I would ask you if I were racist and sexist if I make the statement; “I would hope that a white woman from Charlotte, North Carolina would be wiser about NASCAR than a black man from Bedford-Stuyvesant?”
Yes. That would be racist and sexist too.
Rocky Marks quoted: There is no pretzel logic here.
Sure it is, because it still does not justify Sonia Sotomayor’s racist and sexist remark:
  • Sonia Sotomayor said: “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 …”

But please continue. Let’s see how deeper that hole goes tryin’ to defend the indefensible.

Rocky Marks quoted: Was Sottomayor unwise to make the statement? Perhaps.
OHHHhhhh … so it was only an unwise statement, eh?

There’s no perhaps about it.
It is never wise to make racist and sexist remarks.
But it is even worse to harbor the sentiments that fuel such racist and sexist remarks.
If life experiences was the issue, why bring race and gender into the discussion … unless the person is a racist and a sexist.
Is it not logical to assume that people who make racist and sexist remarks are indeed sexist and racist to an unacceptable degree?
Many (not necessarily all) people may have some racist and sexist beliefs, but we should expect more from people sitting on the highest court of the land.
And Sonia Sotomayor should denounce her statements and admit that were not only unwise, but racist and sexist, and apologize for it.

Any way, we are fortunate that Sonia Sotomayor was so honest to let it slip out and to reveal to the whole nation what she really believes. Many blind partisan loyalists will try to excuse it and use all sorts of twisted, circular, obfuscations to justfify it, but they will only frustrate themselves in trying to defend the indefensible. Sonia Sotomayor will most likely be confirmed, but the natioin won’t forget her words, and they will be watching to see if she abuses her power to further her racist and sexist beliefs (beliefs clearly indicated by her very own words; not words taken out of context; not a mere misinterpretation).

Rocky Marks quoted: Was the statement she made untrue in the context of the lecture she was giving? Absolutely not.
False.

It was clearly not only racist, but it was sexist too, and the context you provide above does not change the meaning one bit. There is no misinterpretation.

Rocky Marks quoted: Since when has the truth become racist or sexist?
Who ever said it was?

Is that the best you can do?
Please continue. The pretzel imitations are most entertaining.
Trying to explain what Sonia Sotomay meant by … :

  • Sonia Sotomayor said: “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 …”
… will be most interesting.
Let the twisted, circular obfuscations begin!

Perhaps after that, we can discuss John Edwards integrity again, eh?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 18, 2009 2:00 PM
Comment #284664

Dan,

Is Sottomayor’s statement true or false?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 18, 2009 3:04 PM
Comment #284665

“A simple yes or no will suffice.”

Sorry that was supposed to be a simple true or false.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 18, 2009 3:08 PM
Comment #284666

What Sotomayor is saying with her much drubbed comment, is that she would hope that the experiences of being different would allow the wise latina woman the ability to make better decisions than a wise old white man who has no such gut understanding of those events.

I know some who consider themselves originalists, strict constructionists, and non-judicial activists would like to believe that she simply saying you can go hogwild imposing your beliefs, but that’s not at all what she suggests. She suggests in other parts of the speech that this is precisely what you can’t do. You owe it to the citizens to strive for objectivity, the ability to see more than just the side of the story most relevant to your experience. You owe it to them to apply the law fairly and consistently, she says.

But what she also says, according to the other parts of the speech, is what should be regarded as an axiom. However much we strive to be objective, we’re not, and the beginning of our understanding of anything lies in our own experiences and points of view. Objectivity is something we reach for, not something we can grasp.

Too many folks on the Right have decided that their views represent something objectively right, that there’s no need to make an effort to reach for a different point of view, a different experience of the world. After all, a Judge isn’t simply a mediator between laws that have conflicting meanings and intentions behind them. A Judge is a mediator between two or more different disputants, whether they be a defendant and the government putting them on trial, or a plaintiff and a defendent in a civil case.

The point of having empathy is to think through things from another person’s perspective and understanding. What a person thinks and intends can be important in some legal matters. At the very least, it can lead a judge to notice and consider facts that might not have come forward in the mind.

Yet even as Sotomayor talks about empathy, she has a clear record of being able to render judgments against those she has sympathy with.

This is the irony of the constant references to the Ricci case.

First, Ricci himself sued for discrimination in order to get his job. So his case is not a clear cut matter of a self-made person getting what he wants without advantages lent to him by the government.

Second, Ricci’s case was decided on the then current law. If Sotomayor had done as Republicans asked, it would have been judicial activism, rather than a reading of the current law.

Third, the Supreme Court changed the law, more or less. They invalidated part of the former standard. It could be said, therefore, that it was the Supremes who committed acts of judicial activism. Ironically, it’s often those who identify themselves as strict constructionists and originalists, who have the longest record of overturning laws and court decisions.

I think it’s fair to say that rather than being an means of expressing a principle held by those in politics that they actually hew to, the words “judicial activism” among the other buzzwords, represent tactical rhetorical weapons, words meant to paint ugly pictures through ugly claims, rather than arguments made consistently with principle. You don’t see Republicans calling something judicial activism because the person involved in the decision actually misapplied the law in the search for a desired outcome, you see them calling things judicial activism because it sounds bad, and conversely bestows respectability (without solid argumentative grounds) to the conservative jurisprudence.

I think Americans deserve better than that. This is adolescent clicquishness, rather than a consistent philosophy about the law.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2009 3:38 PM
Comment #284669
Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, Is Sottomayor’s statement true or false? A simple true or false will suffice.
That question was already clearly answered above in comment # 284661 (www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/006625.html#284661) in which you already asked:
Rocky Marks asked: Was the statement she made untrue in the context of the lecture she was giving? Absolutely not?
And my answere that immediately followed was:
d.a.n replied: False.
But here it is again. The answer again is: FALSE.

What part of that do you not understand?

It’s false, because race and gender does not matter. Especially today in the United States, where all races and genders participate in government, the Congress, the White House, state and local governments, etc., etc., etc. Of course, that doesn’t mean some people don’t still try to constantly play the race card. A person’s own life experiences and accomplishments are what matter, regardless of race or gender, and that is why bringing in the issue of race and gender is unnecessary, and simply fuels more racism and sexism. Especially when some people will go to almost any length to justify it (often due to blind partisan loyalties). If the issue is life experiences, why bring race and gender into it at all? Lots of people of all races and gender have had tough, character building experiences, including “white males”, and latinos, and blacks, and asians, etc., etc., etc.

And the fact that one of Sonia Sotomayor’s previous judgement in the New Havne case was overturned by the Supreme Court is not a good sign either. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has rejected the decision by Sonia Sotomayor and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that the city of New Haven’s promotion policy for firefighters, did amount to discrimination against whites. The city had tossed out a promotions test on which black firefighters performed poorly, prompting a number of white firefighters to sue. Believe it or not, any one can be discriminated against, including “white males”.

And Sonia Sotomayor has now had a 7 of 8 decisions go before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has agreed with her reasoning only once.

But, there’s little doubt that some people will find an argument to explain that away too.
And there’s little doubt that much of the pretzel imitations are fueled by blind partisan loyalties.
Any twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook will work, eh?
Let the twisted, circular obfuscations flourish!

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 18, 2009 4:31 PM
Comment #284678
What Sotomayor is saying with her much drubbed comment, is that she would hope that the experiences of being different would allow the wise latina woman the ability to make better decisions than a wise old white man who has no such gut understanding of those events.

yes, Stephen, we know what she is saying. It is getting a little old being told that we ‘taking her out of context’ even though I’ve read the entire speech several times and have had it requoted at me several times, it is still not only a racist statement but a racist sentiment as well.

And defending it shows that racism isn’t the problem, the outcome is and whatever means necessary to achieve that outcome is all that matters.

She says that Justice O’Conner was wrong. Bull. She is the one who is wrong and the fact that she ruled against the white firemen in an obvious violation of their civil rights is an example of that.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 18, 2009 11:16 PM
Comment #284682

rhinehold, The quote is not racist nor sexist, for her quote doesn’t care what nouns you put in her sentence. The important part is that a wise something that lived with experiences should make better conclusions then something that didn’t live those experiences and isn’t wise. That statement is true on any kind of level individual, group, people, nations, animals…

I’m really getting frustrated at news agencies and congress for not saying the full quote. It really changes what it means and the importance of what the sentence is saying when you take out words.

“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.”

There is no different then I saying, “I would hope a white man that went to college would more often reach a better conclusion then a Chinese women who did not go to college.”

Posted by: kodossupreme at July 19, 2009 12:37 AM
Comment #284683

kodossupreme,

You get frustrated because you don’t want it to be racist, but it is.

If you change who was saying it (say david duke) and put him in front of a white pride convention and put those words in his mouth, only switching the race, you would be all over him as being a racist.

But, because she says it to a group of Latino women, it’s ok?

And no, it is not saying the same thing, it is saying that a latino woman, simply by being latino, would be wiser than a white man who hadn’t, by being white, lived that same life.

There experienes would be different, but that does NOT mean that their wisdom would be better or worse simply because of that fact. Race is irrelevant, pretending it isn’t doesn’t make that go away.

Posted by: rhinehold at July 19, 2009 1:16 AM
Comment #284692

S.D.
If she was a Republican nominee instead of Democrat making that statement you Democrats would be all over her like ugly on an ape but because she was a Democratic nominee all this other BS comes out of you guys and gals.

Posted by: KAP at July 19, 2009 9:10 AM
Comment #284697

Dan,

“And Sonia Sotomayor has now had a 7 of 8 decisions go before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has agreed with her reasoning only once.

But, there’s little doubt that some people will find an argument to explain that away too.
And there’s little doubt that much of the pretzel imitations are fueled by blind partisan loyalties.
Any twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook will work, eh?
Let the twisted, circular obfuscations flourish!”

So let’s do the math.
Sotomayor has written 380 opinions, and had 7 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court with 6 reversed.

So what percent of her total opinions have been reversed?
It is my understanding that as a percentage her reviews and reversals are about average.

Frankly I don’t care if she gets confirmed or not, so there goes your blind partisanship idea.

My only concern here is the “racist and sexist” baloney.
In my opinion the comment is neither, but of course, that’s just my opinion.

My only questions now are just who is the partisan here, and just is who is attacking whom?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 19, 2009 10:45 AM
Comment #284700
kudossupreme wrote: rhinehold, The quote is not racist nor sexist, for her quote doesn’t care what nouns you put in her sentence.
Nonsense.

The words “latina woman” and “while male”, instead of simply a [person] “with the richness of her [their] experiences” is most certainly racist and sexist, even in full context.

If life experiences were the issue, then there is no need to bring up race or gender.
If Sonia Sotomayor had instead stated:

  • “I would hope that a wise Latina woman [person] with the richness of her [their] experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male [person] who hasn’t lived that life.”
… then it would not be racist or sexist. But she did, and that means it most certainly is not only racist, but sexist too.

But people are entitled to their opinion, if they don’t mind getting too frustrated with the pretzel logic required to twist, obfuscate, and re-interpret her words into something completely different. What’s funny is that had this judge been a Republican or nominated by a Republican, many of the partisan loyalists would on both sides would simply trade places.
Blind partisan loyalties are too often at the root of such obvious and blatant hypocrisy.

kudossupreme wrote: The important part is that a wise something that lived with experiences should make better conclusions then something that didn’t live those experiences and isn’t wise.
False.

Sonia Sotomayor did not use the words “wise something” or “wise person”.

She explicitly used “wise Latina woman” and “while male”, instead of “person” or “something”.
It’s pretty damn silly to try to obfuscate and twist it into something else.
That is most likely the obvious source of your frustration.

What’s also funny is that for someone who fancies themself as a “wise Latina woman”, there’s nothing wise in their own racist and sexist statement:

  • “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.”

Also, Sonia Sotomayor has said that very same thing in at least seven separate speeches.

kudossupreme wrote: That statement is true on any kind of level individual, group, people, nations, animals…
False. People are entitled to their own opinion, but it doesn’t change the facts.

Words have meaning, and trying to somehow twist, obfuscate, ignore, or justify others’ racist and sexist remarks is not only foolish, but fuels more racism and sexism.
Also, to claim her statement is true is nonsense, since there’s no way to predict who (regardless of race and gender) will make wiser decisions.
The use of “latina woman” and “white male” in her statement is one of the most obvious examples of racism and sexism.

Had Sonia Sotomayor written instead:

  • “I would hope that a wise Latina woman [white male] with the richness of her [his] experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male [latina woman] who hasn’t lived that life.”
… a lot of people here now trying to somehow explain away Sonia Sotomayor’s comment would now most likely be screaming about such racist and sexist remarks. Especially if the nominee was NOT-DEMOCRAT or nominated by a NON-DEMOCRAT.

kudossupreme wrote: I’m really getting frustrated at news agencies and congress for not saying the full quote.
Frustration is usually the result of pretzel logic that tries in vain to twist, obfuscate, and create new interpretations of the ridiculous things some people say. Especially when it is primarily rooted in blind partisan loyalties.
kudossupreme wrote: It really changes what it means and the importance of what the sentence is saying when you take out words.
False.

Why bring gender and race into it, if life experiences is really the issue?
Sometimes people say things they don’t even realize are revealing their own racist and sexist beliefs.
Even within context, the meaning is the same, and it becomes very obvious when the words are switched around as follows:

  • “I would hope that a wise Latina woman [white male] with the richness of her [his] experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male [latina woman] who hasn’t lived that life.”

Rhinehold wrote: You [kudossupreme] get frustrated because you don’t want it to be racist, but it is.
Exactly.

People will turn themselves into a pretzel everytime they try to defend the indefensible with twisted, circular, hypocritical, obfuscations and re-interpretations.

Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n,
  • d.a.n wrote: “And Sonia Sotomayor has now had a 7 of 8 decisions go before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has agreed with her reasoning only once.
So let’s do the math. Sotomayor has written 380 opinions, and had 7 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court with 6 reversed. False.

(1) First of all, the Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in seven times. On seven instances, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review an opinion which Sonia Sotomayor authored. In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation. In one case, the Supreme Court vacated a judgment Judge Sotomayor made and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit in which the Second Circuit issued a reversal on its original ruling.

Here are those seven cases:

  • Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2008)

  • Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007)

  • Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001)

  • Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.)

  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006)

  • New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001)

  • The European Community vs. RJR Nabisco (Case remanded back to the Second Circuit, then reversed)(125 S.Ct. 1968, 2005) (424 F.3d 175, 2005)

(2) Second, the LexisNexis database lists a total of 232 cases judged by Sonia Sotomayor (not 380).

Anyway, many (probably most) judges have never had a single one of their rulings overturned by the Supreme Court.
So, 7 of Sotomayor’s cases overturned by the Supreme Court is not a good sign.
It’s certainly nothin’ to brag about.
Especially when the New Haven court case dealt with racial discrimination, and was overturned by the Supreme Court, not to mention her racist and sexist remark which she has repeated at least 7 separate speeches.

Rocky Marks wrote: So what percent of her total opinions have been reversed? It is my understanding that as a percentage her reviews and reversals are about average.
I never stated a percentage. But 7/232 = 3.01724%

Still, many (if not most) judges have never had any of their decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.
Yet, Sonia Sotomayor has had 7 decisions overturned by the Supreme Court, and one case dealt with racial discrimination.

Rocky Marks wrote: Frankly I don’t care if she gets confirmed or not, so there goes your blind partisanship idea.
Who said you were blindly partisan?

Some people are, and some aren’t.
If the shoe fits?

Rocky Marks wrote: My only concern here is the “racist and sexist” baloney.
The only baloney is trying to twist, obfuscate, and re-interpret remarks into some new meaning.

Some remarks are often ambiguous, and the intent of racism or sexism is unclear.
Not so with Sonia Sotomayor’s remark. Especially since she has used those exact words in at least seven separate speeches.
Her remarks were both racist and sexist.

But please feel free to entertain us some more by continuing to dig that hole deeper.

Rocky Marks wrote: In my opinion the comment is neither, but of course, that’s just my opinion.
People are entitled to their opinion, for whatever it’s worth.

But people should not then try to blame others for their frustration from turning into a pretzel trying to twist, obfuscate, dismiss, and re-interpret things while trying to defend the indefensible.

Rocky Marks wrote: My only questions now are just who is the partisan here, and just is who is attacking whom?
Yes. Who?

It’s a high probability that people who engage in preztel imitations to somehow twist, obfuscate, dismiss, and re-interpret things to defend the indefensible, are often motivated by blind partisan loyalties, or plain stubborness in refusing to admit an error.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 19, 2009 12:07 PM
Comment #284702

Dan,

“It’s a high probability that people who engage in preztel imitations to somehow twist, obfuscate, dismiss, and re-interpret things to defend the indefensible, are often motivated by blind partisan loyalties, or plain stubborness in refusing to admit an error.”

That I am defending the indefensible, and re-interpreting, and being stubborn is merely your opinion, and you’re entitled to it.

“The only baloney is trying to twist, obfuscate, and re-interpret remarks into some new meaning.”

So you’re entitled to interpret it your way, and of course that is the only interpretation?

“Second, the Lexis Nexis database lists a total of 232 cases judged by Sonia Sotomayor (not 380).”

I didn’t check “Lexis Nexis” but every article I have read quoted the “380” figure.

Look I am not trying to “twist”, “obfuscate”, exhibit “blind partisanship”, or otherwise assume the shape of a “pretzel”.
I have merely stated my opinion and you have seen fit to criticize me for it, just as you have criticized anyone that had the temerity to disagree with you on any subject.

I suppose I should be used to it by now.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 19, 2009 12:36 PM
Comment #284712
Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, … I have merely stated my opinion and you have seen fit to criticize me for it, just as you have criticized anyone that had the temerity to disagree with you on any subject. I suppose I should be used to it by now.
Previously, above, you first addressed me as follows …
Rocky Marks wrote (comment # 284657): d.a.n, First of all is seems that you don’t have a clue about context.
Nothin’ ill-mannered about that, eh?

Funny how some hypocrites accuse others of the very thing they do themselves, isn’t it?

I am rarely critical of other people’s comments who show some manners, even if I disagree with their opinion; only those that don’t appear to have sufficient manners and appear to be quite good at dishing it out personal attacks, but not too good at handling them when directed at them. You addressed me rudely first in this thread as show above in comment # 284657, but will you admit that your statement was critiquing the messenger, instead of the message. The first dead give-away, is usually the word “you”.

Rocky Marks wrote: I suppose I should be used to it by now.
Funny how some people can dish it out, but can’t take it, eh?

If one can’t take the heat, perhaps they should stay out of the kitchen?

As for Sonia Sotomayor’s comments, yes it is my opinion that her comments are not only racist, but sexist too.
Why blame others for the obvious frustration from trying to defend her racist and sexist comments?:

  • Sonia Sotomayor said: “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 …”
Right. There’s absolutely nothing sexist or racist about that?

If it’s neither racist or sexist, then why claim it was possibly an unwise thing for her to say?

Rocky Marks quoted: Was Sottomayor unwise to make the statement? Perhaps.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 19, 2009 4:38 PM
Comment #284716

Dan,

Boy, you sure told me.

So let’s go back to the comment that you took umbrage with.

From comment #284657

I said, “First of all is seems that you don’t have a clue about context.”

In the same comment I said, “I would ask you if I were racist and sexist if I make the statement;
“I would hope that a white woman from Charlotte, North Carolina would be wiser about NASCAR than a black man from Bedford-Stuyvesant?”.

Your response was in comment #284661 was, “Yes. That would be racist and sexist too.”

What exactly make this sexist, that I identified a white woman and a black man?
Is it racist because I identified a white woman and a black man?
If the answer to either question is yes that’s just an absurd concept.

So shall we talk about context?
Oh, and I will just leave it in the realm of the above scenario.
Is it not true that a white woman that lives in Charlotte, North Carolina, a city that has one of the most popular NASCAR races on the planet, would know more about NASCAR, than a black man that lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant, a portion of the Borough of Brooklyn, an area that is hundreds of miles from the nearest track that holds a race affiliated with NASCAR?

And if the above is true, then as I asked you in comment #284657, “Since when has the truth become racist or sexist?”
Your response in comment #284661 was “Who ever said it was?”

So….
My interpretation of what Sotomayor’s comment implied was “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion about a minority than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” (my words in bold)

If the NASCAR statement is true so is my interpretation of Sotomayor’s comment, and if both are true (and we have already agreed that the truth is neither racist or sexist) then neither comment is racist, or sexist.

Regardless of you may think, minorities in this country still have to work harder than whites to get ahead.
Minorities still aren’t “equal” in the eyes of all.
You may find this shocking, but it is a fact. People of color (and that doesn’t include Asians) are still seeking a place in America that isn’t second class.

Now, I fully expect to be berated for my “pretzel logic required to twist, obfuscate, and re-interpret her words into something completely different”, but I said before, you’re entitled to your interpretation, I am entitled to mine.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 19, 2009 6:18 PM
Comment #284719

Dan,

Oh, and BTW, only Sotomayor knows which of our interpretations (opinions) is correct.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 19, 2009 7:16 PM
Comment #284728
Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, Boy, you sure told me.
Not true.

Your own remarks and twisted, circular obfuscations are most likely the true source of your frustration.
Only a fool can make a fool of one’s self.
And trying to defend the indefensible, and some how justify racism and sexism, with prolific, twisted, circular obfuscation can be very frustrating, as that hole only gets deeper and deeper.


Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n,
Oh, and BTW, only Sotomayor knows which of our interpretations (opinions) is correct.

Of course she does, because she used those exact same racist and sexist remarks in at least 7 other separate speeches. Thus, it’s not a mere poor choice of words.

The attempt to justify racist and sexist remarks with examples about NASCAR are only diggin’ that hole deeper and deeper, and still do not justify Sonia Sotomayor’s racist and sexist remarks.

The attempt to also trivialize the Supreme Court’s reversing Judge Sotomayor in seven times is a bit desparate too. On seven instances, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review an opinion which Sonia Sotomayor authored. In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation. In one case, the Supreme Court vacated a judgment Judge Sotomayor made and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit in which the Second Circuit issued a reversal on its original ruling.

Rocky Marks wrote: Now, I fully expect to be berated for my “pretzel logic required to twist, obfuscate, and re-interpret her words into something completely different”, …
That’s good.

One should recognize that twisted, obfuscated pretzel-logic should be berated, eh?

Rocky Marks wrote: … but I said before, you’re entitled to your interpretation, I am entitled to mine.
That’s good too. Who ever said otherwise anyone wasn’t entitled to their interpretation.

But if you come here for debate, you should expect the logic of your comments to be subjected to criticism.
If having your comments being characterized as twisted, circular obfuscations is disturbing, perhaps it is because the truth hurts?

Rocky Marks wrote: Regardless of you may think, minorities in this country still have to work harder than whites to get ahead. Minorities still aren’t “equal” in the eyes of all. You may find this shocking, but it is a fact. People of color (and that doesn’t include Asians) are still seeking a place in America that isn’t second class.
Who ever said otherwise?

But that still does not justify more racist and sexist remarks.
Hence, your logic is still flawed, and no amount of twisted, circular, obfuscations will change it.
But feel free to entertain us by digging that hole deeper and deeper.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 20, 2009 8:46 AM
Comment #284729
Who ever said otherwise?

I do, because it’s a general statement that cannot be absolute. Some minorities have it harder than some white people, but not all. Some minorities have it better than some white people, depending upon their parent’s station, etc. A black man who is the son of a millionaire is definately going to have a better time of it than the white son of a homeless man, don’t you think?

Stereotypes are a sad thing…

Posted by: rhinehold at July 20, 2009 9:05 AM
Comment #284730

Dan,

“Only a fool can make a fool of one’s self.”

Ain’t that the truth.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 20, 2009 10:09 AM
Comment #284732

Rhinehold,

I have traveled all over this country, and it is not a melting pot.
What I have seen is small enclaves of this race or that race. I truly haven’t seen any real melding of cultures into anything resembling an “American” culture, or even a “human” race.
Having all of us individuals gather together as a human race is a lovely concept, and it is a concept that perhaps should have already happened, however changing some people’s perceptions of the world is like pushing against the Himalayas.

Racial stereotypes exist, and I doubt that you or I will see this change much in our lifetimes. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t continue to try to make change, it just means we shouldn’t be disappointed if the change doesn’t happen over night.

Western Civilization has been millennia in the making, but….

I am not surprised to see Mexican, or Puerto Rican flags, or African dress, here in America any more than I am surprised to see the “stars and bars” of the Confederacy still flying.

I happen to agree with most of what Sotomayor has said in her speeches. Minorities in this country have been slow to come to the table, whether it be because of prejudice (either way), or otherwise.
That you and disagree with what has been said isn’t wrong.

It is too easy to label anything that is said as racist or sexist. What is hard is to look beyond the words to understand the meaning of what has been said.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 20, 2009 11:19 AM
Comment #284733

Sorry

“It is too easy to label anything that is said as racist or sexist.”

That should be;

It is too easy to label anything said that we disagree with as racist or sexist.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 20, 2009 11:51 AM
Comment #284741

Dan-

It’s false, because race and gender does not matter.

If you are born into certain groups nowadays, you are more likely to be poor, more likely to end up in prison, more likely to see a job go to another person. It’s better than it was, but the social and economic legacies of discrimination are not gone, and cannot legitimately be considered not to matter. If you were a member of a minority, it would matter to you, wouldn’t it?

It would matter if somebody considers it legitimate police practice to stop you because you’re black and you’re driving a nice car, as if that coincidence is unlikely. It matters if economic setbacks imposed on you at birth make it more difficult to move up in the world. It matters if you have to deal with all the previous consequences of discrimination that kept most minorities poor and cut off from the greater community of our society.

Some folks act as if all this anger and calls for help are just free floating hostility, laziness, and greed. They’re wrong. We changed the laws, changed the basis for the relationship, but there are wounds that have to heal, separations that need to close, and generations that knew the wilderness and pain of Jim Crow from both sides which must fade away.

The Ricci decision, which you reference, was made based on the law at the time. You impute racism or bias to it. But that’s not what was there. The city, in fact, was trying to avoid being sued over what seemed to be the disparate results the test offered up. Nobody got promoted.

The basis of the claim of discrimination is that the City threw out the tests because they didn’t pass enough minorities. This is not an unimportant issue, given that blacks and hispanics together are majorities in the population, but not among the Firefighters. The firefighters were all white, in fact, before civil rights laws were passed.

The courts did not overturn the statute in question, but narrowed its intepretation, and set new precedent in the process, precedent that Sotomayor has acknowledged now holds. Precedent before this decision, though, ran with Sotomayor.

Let me let you in on something here: did you know that Ricci got his job through a discrimination lawsuit? Now, I don’t begrudge him that, or his hard work. As I’ve said to you before, I have a disability myself. I have taken advantage of resources available to folks like myself. If a person can do a job, they should have an equal shot at it.

Did you know that Minorities perform just about as well on performance tests as Whites do? there is legitimate concern about the fairness of such tests. The new decision changes nothing about the requirements of fairness.

The central principle of the SC decision, in this case, is that to throw out the test results, the city has to demonstrate that there’s something substantially wrong with the test that would bias it. They can’t merely look at the test results disparate impact. It’s a tougher standard, to be sure.

But they did not buy the stronger argument of active discrimination. They found for the Plantiff, but they did not agree fully with him.

Sotomayor stuck with the precedent she had at the time, instead of going out there and making new law by following the path you would ask of her. It’s interesting that so many folks who talk about orignalism and strict constructionism, are quick to ask for complete reinterpretations and even gutting of laws.

Also interesting is that Sotomayor has had hundreds of cases go before her, but some take the handful of cases that went to the Supreme Court to be representative of her entire record. Step back a second. She made hundreds of decisions, of which only a handful get reversed by the supreme court, and a rather conservative one at that. And somehow she’s a bad jurist? No, it doesn’t work that way. It’s sort of like calling a house run down because the handle on the faucet around the side’s broken.

Most cases don’t get heard by the supreme court. It’s essentially a court of appeals of last resort, and cases only get sent up if there’s a significant controversy in the matter that the court thinks it can speak to. Otherwise, Circuit courts like Sotomayors are usually the last stop.

Being overturned three percent of the time or so is not bad for a jurist. To take a few cases out of so many and say, “That’s Sotomayor” ignores the large number of cases not overturned. I mean, if every case proceeded to the supreme court level, having sixty percent of the cases that you argued overturned would be bad. But most aren’t. Additionally, in many of the cases you cited, you had a 5-4 majority, meaning that the court typically split along ideological lines.

Appeals themselves are relatively rare, in comparison to first time trials. Part of what people don’t understand is that typically, people aren’t deciding facts anymore above that level, they’re trying to establish in the appeal whether those who decided the case decided it according to the law. But as anybody with half a brain could tell, not everybody has the same judicial philosophy. So, you’ll have one side overturning the other side’s stuff more on ideological grounds than anything else. It’s the supreme court, so it’s law, and must be observed, but still, it’s important to point out that Sotomayor’s a relatively liberal judge sending cases up to a quite strongly conservative court, so there are going to be disagreements about these things.

Judges get overturned all the time. One judge, Judge Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit, has been overturned over fifty times during the course of his career. Sotomayor? A handful of times. A few flawed or overturned cases do no make somebody a poor jurist. It’s a pretzel twisting of the concept of the Supreme Court appeal as it should be properly understood, which is as a high level appeals court.

Let me now address something else. It’s easy enough to argue that her Wise Latina remark reflects a bias towards wise Latinas. But what is the balance of her statements in that speech? This is the trick of interpreting her statements. Those looking to paint her as a racist and sexist of course jump on the comment. But it’s important to understand the message before you critique it, and the rest of her message isn’t calling for some new “wise latina” sort of judicial activism. It’s not calling on people to start making decisions solely on cultural grounds.

What it actually saysis that while it’s good and desireable to seek objectivity, to decide things based on law and precedent, rather than inject your personal feelings everywhere, It’s impossible to completely take the judge out of the judgment. Their experiences and background help shape who they are as judges and how they decide cases, even as they strive for objectivity and impartiality.

The Wise Latina comment essentially puts forward the sentiment that as members of the minority, they can help that objectivity and impartiality by being able to see things naturally from a perspective that jurists who are white and male might not so easily empathize with. Is it wrong to say that? Is it wrong for her to say that having minority judges helps redress this imbalance of experience? Because that’s exactly what she says.

It’s too bad she didn’t use more politically correct terms. As she admits, the wording was poor. But was the idea wrong or racist? No. Not if you follow her whole argument, without looking for a reason to look at it as such. Funny how those who ask for Sotomayor to be impartial and objective are so quick to declare her guilty. But then again, she’s committed the awful crime of being Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, and for that, she would find herself the target of the Republican’s current belligerent, party-line partisan warfare.

Interesting how it gets a pass from some when the target is a liberal.

Frustration is usually the result of pretzel logic that tries in vain to twist, obfuscate, and create new interpretations of the ridiculous things some people say. Especially when it is primarily rooted in blind partisan loyalties.

You’re telling Kudossupreme what he thinks, what motivates him. Funny how you seem to think you understand that better than the people actually telling you what they think. What do you think, you’re the only person being honest about their thoughts, beliefs, and feelings?

Would it kill you to take our comments at face value, to stop imagining all this dishonesty? Demonstrate the twist in logic, for crying out loud. You already spend thirty pages sometimes on these comments of yours. You already quote others extensively.

If you wanted to employ calm logic instead of snide dismissal, it wouldn’t take that much strain on your faculties to pull it off.

I am rarely critical of other people’s comments who show some manners…

You essentially call people dishonest, allege that their arguments are attempts to deceive and mislead, and then you’re worried about their manners? If your tendency was not to escalate these little flame wars, that would be one thing. But you have a tendency to respond in ways that certainly don’t lower tensions. If you can’t keep your temper in an exchange with people, you should not marvel at their inability to remain calm with you.

If it’s neither racist or sexist, then why claim it was possibly an unwise thing for her to say?

Your argument essentially says that the whole class of unwise words is identical to the class of offensive words. That’s not true. There are things that are unwise to say because they can be misinterpreted.

Unfortunately, in this climate of partisan warfare, some have a tendency to critique others arguments purely with ideological, tactical considerations in mind. They are not trying to set consistent standards, they are trying to selectively disadvantage some kinds of candidate.

While there is virtue in trying to keep people honest, the arguments in this case aren’t altogether honest. Not much use, then to preventing the abuse of power. If believed, they fuel the other side’s unaccountable agenda, if not, they become evidence of the undependablility of the other side’s account, lowering their credibility beyond, and sometimes even within their supporter’s ranks.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2009 2:09 PM
Comment #284744

Stephen,

Well said.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 20, 2009 3:03 PM
Comment #284748

Dan,

“But if you come here for debate, you should expect the logic of your comments to be subjected to criticism.”

I expect my logic to be criticized with facts not opinion.

Perhaps I am wrong but a debate is like a sales pitch where we each use facts in an attempt to change the others position.

“If having your comments being characterized as twisted, circular obfuscations is disturbing, perhaps it is because the truth hurts?

What’s truly disturbing is that I haven’t seen any “truth”, and since it was brought up, this discussion (because it could hardly be called a debate), is exactly like the discussion about John Edwards. In both of these discussions I have been bludgeoned with page after page of opinion, and opinion isn’t the truth unless there are actual facts to back it up.
Like that discussion we could agree on one fact only.
With Edwards we agreed that he was a personal injury lawyer (I believe the term you used was “scumbag”, which by the way, I took offence at), in this case we agreed that Lexis-Nexis is a reputable source.

Sotomayor has been labeled a sexist, and a racist, because she used the words “white male, and “Latina woman” in a sentence, and she had the tenacity to repeat it several times.

Was this hate speech?
Was there malice intended?

I think not.

The word “mankind” has been used since the beginning of time to describe the human race.
Is this now to be considered a “sexist” remark?
Shall we strike the words “man” and “woman” from the Lexicon?
Or just “white man”, and “Latina woman”?
Or is it only “sexist” and “racist” if those words are used together?
Am I a sexist because I think the debate over “person-hole covers” is just silly?

Personally I think the world needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and re-examine it’s priorities.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 20, 2009 8:03 PM
Comment #284752

More twisted, circular gobbledygook.

Please continue to dig that hole deeper and deeper with more twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook, by trying to defend racist and sexist remarks. After all, that’s exactly what it amounts to by trying to defend …

  • Sonia Sotomayor said: “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 …”

The problem is, none of you have any credible argument to justify such racist and sexist remarks. The existence of racism and sexism is not a defense.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 20, 2009 8:51 PM
Comment #284755

Dan,

“The problem is, none of you have any credible argument to justify such racist and sexist remarks. The existence of racism and sexism is not a defense.”

There is no need to justify her remarks to you as you haven’t come up with a credible reason (other than your opinion) that her remarks actually should be considered racist and sexist.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 20, 2009 9:01 PM
Comment #284765

Dan,

If you want to debate you need to do better than “because I said so”.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 20, 2009 10:35 PM
Comment #284771
Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, … There is no need to justify her remarks to you as you haven’t come up with a credible reason (other than your opinion) that her remarks actually should be considered racist and sexist.
More nonsense.

Here are the reasons again, since you still seem to not understand why they are racist and sexist, and why defending them is equally sexist and racists:

  • Sonia Sotomayor said: “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 …”
Right. There’s absolutely nothing sexist or racist about that?

  • (1) First of all, race or gender is no guarantee of better decision making.
  • (2) If life experiences is the issue, why bring race and gender into the discussion at all?
  • (3) If “latina woman” and “white male” are interchanged, it makes the racism and sexism quite obvious.
  • (4) If a “latina woman” can make better decisions than a “white male”, then it apparently isn’t working for Sonia Sotomayor who has had seven of her rulings reversed by the Supreme Court:
    • Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2008)
    • Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007)
    • Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001)
    • Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.)
    • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006)
    • New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001)
    • The European Community vs. RJR Nabisco (Case remanded back to the Second Circuit, then reversed)(125 S.Ct. 1968, 2005) (424 F.3d 175, 2005)
  • (5) In addition, one of those cases that was reversed by the Supreme Court is not a good sign either, since in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has rejected the decision by Sonia Sotomayor, finding that the city of New Haven’s promotion policy for firefighters, did amount to discrimination against whites. The city had tossed out a promotions test on which black firefighters performed poorly, prompting a number of white firefighters to sue.
  • (6)Rocky Marks wrote:
    • Rocky Marks wrote: Was Sottomayor unwise to make the statement? Perhaps.
    • Rocky Marks wrote: Was the statement she made untrue in the context of the lecture she was giving? Absolutely not.
    So, if it’s true, and neither racist or sexist, then why claim it was possibly an unwise thing for her to say?
  • (7) Sonia Sotomayor has used those same exact words in at least 7 separate speeches, so it’s not a mere choice of bad words.
So, once again, your comment about having no reasons is not very credible.
Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, If you want to debate you need to do better than “because I said so”.
I just did above with six-to-seven solid reasons.

What part of that do you not understand?

Rocky Marks wrote (comment # 284657): d.a.n, First of all is seems that you don’t have a clue about context.
Nothin’ ill-mannered about that, eh?

Funny how some people can start things, dish it out, but then can’t take it, eh?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You essentially call people dishonest, allege that their arguments are attempts to deceive and mislead, and then you’re worried about their manners?
False.

And bad manners is simply makin’ a fool of one’s self.
If people appear to be dishonest, it is only because their own comments appear to be dishonest or hypocritical.
That’s what irks some people so much.
There’s no need to resort to name calling.
People’s own comments are often what dooms their own arguments, and is the primary source of their own frustrations.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If your tendency was not to escalate these little flame wars, that would be one thing.
Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they do themselves, eh?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But you have a tendency to respond in ways that certainly don’t lower tensions.
Is that critiquing the messege?

Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they do themselves, eh?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you can’t keep your temper in an exchange with people, you should not marvel at their inability to remain calm with you.
Is that critiquing the messege?

What gave you the impression that I’m upset or losing my temper?
Simply because soneone recognizes twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook doesn’t not equate to being upset or losing their temper.
The fact is, what frustrates most people is the dismal failure of their own arguments, and they then feel like they must find someone else to blame for their own lame logic and makin’ a fool of themself.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your argument essentially says that the whole class of unwise words is identical to the class of offensive words. That’s not true. There are things that are unwise to say because they can be misinterpreted.
OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh … right, the following is ONLY a misinterpretation, taken out of context, a bad-choice-of-words, etc., etc., etc.:
  • Sonia Sotomayor said: “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 …”
Right. There’s absolutely nothing sexist or racist about that?

It’s only a mere misinterpretation, despite Sonia Sotomayor using those same exact words in at least 7 separate speeches, eh?

But please feel free to dig that hole deeper with more twisted, circular obfuscations, re-interpretations, and nonsensical excuses about being taken context, or merely being a bad choice-of-words.

See those 7 reasons above. Feel free to address those 7 reasons, instead of resorting to more personal attacks.
Not that personal attacks bother me one bit though, since that sort of thing is simply diggin’ that hole deeper and deeper.

Feel free to dig that hole deeper. Those seven reasons above will still be there.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 21, 2009 9:11 AM
Comment #284779

Dan,

So what you’re saying is that you have no interest at all in an actual debate.

My comment that you find so insulting;

“First of all is seems (“to give the impression of being” Merriam-Webster) that you don’t have a clue about context.”

is fairly ambiguous, yet you found it so patently offensive that you found the need to repeat it again and again, and questioned my manners again and again as well.

The terms “racism” and “sexism” are entirely subjective.
At best Sotomayor’s comments showed a lack of respect. Calling her words racist and sexist is entirely over the top, and demeans actual acts of racism and sexism.
But you don’t want to hear that because of your parochial and dogmatic approach to any debate.

I have always been open to having my opinion changed when convinced that my opinion is incorrect, and I am willing to admit when I am wrong.
You have made no attempt to convince me, and as I said “because I said so”, is not a convincing argument.

It seems all you are interested in is belittling other people for daring to question the inherent wisdom of your opinions, because, of course, your opinion is always right, and always the final word.

God bless you Dan, you are nothing if not consistent.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 21, 2009 10:38 AM
Comment #284801
Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, So what you’re saying is that you have no interest at all in an actual debate.
Nonsense.

Where did anyone say that?
If anyone is not truly interested in real debate, it’s those that resort to twisted, circular, obfuscations, re-interpretations, and a myriad of other excuses, while conveniently ignoring these 7 reasons they claimed were never provided:

  • (1) First of all, race or gender is no guarantee of better decision making.

  • (2) If life experiences is the issue, why bring race and gender into the discussion at all?

  • (3) If “latina woman” and “white male” are interchanged, it makes the racism and sexism quite obvious.

  • (4) If a “latina woman” can make better decisions than a “white male”, then it apparently isn’t working for Sonia Sotomayor who has had seven of her rulings reversed by the Supreme Court:
    • Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2008)

    • Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007)

    • Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001)

    • Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.)

    • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006)

    • New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001)

    • The European Community vs. RJR Nabisco (Case remanded back to the Second Circuit, then reversed)(125 S.Ct. 1968, 2005) (424 F.3d 175, 2005)

  • (5) In addition, one of those cases that was reversed by the Supreme Court is not a good sign either, since in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has rejected the decision by Sonia Sotomayor, finding that the city of New Haven’s promotion policy for firefighters, did amount to discrimination against whites. The city had tossed out a promotions test on which black firefighters performed poorly, prompting a number of white firefighters to sue.

  • (6)Rocky Marks wrote:
    • Was Sottomayor unwise to make the statement? Perhaps.

    • Was the statement she made untrue in the context of the lecture she was giving? Absolutely not.
    Right. “White males” always make worse decisions, eh? So, if it’s true, and neither racist or sexist, then why claim it was possibly an unwise thing for her to say?

  • (7) Sonia Sotomayor has used those same exact words in at least 7 separate speeches, so it’s not a mere choice of bad words.

So, once again, your comments about having no reasons is not very credible, eh?

Rocky Marks wrote: My comment that you find so insulting; “First of all is seems (“to give the impression of being” Merriam-Webster) that you don’t have a clue about context.”
I’m not insulted.

I first have to have some degree of respect for those being critical before their criticism has any effect.
But what is obvious is that when some peoples’ argument are failing dismally, the resort to attacking the messenger instead.
In the process, they’re only diggin’ their own hole deeper and deeper.

Rocky Marks wrote: … is fairly ambiguous, yet you found it so patently offensive that you found the need to repeat it again and again, and questioned my manners again and again as well.
If the shoe fits.
Rocky Marks wrote: The terms “racism” and “sexism” are entirely subjective.
Nonsense. More twisted, circular, obfuscations, lame excuses, and convenient re-interpretations.
Rocky Marks wrote: At best Sotomayor’s comments showed a lack of respect.
Nonsense.

See 7 reasons above why they are both racist and sexist.

Rocky Marks wrote: Calling her words racist and sexist is entirely over the top, and demeans actual acts of racism and sexism.
More nonsense, since you still ignore the 7 reasons provided (which you claim don’t exist).

Also, Sonia Sotomayor used those same exact words in at least 7 other speeches; hence, not a mere poor choice of words.
Are you going to somehow conveniently gloss over that too?

Rocky Marks wrote: But you don’t want to hear that because of your parochial and dogmatic approach to any debate.
OOHHHhhh … Right. Attack the messenger instead, eh?

That’s merely more twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook which is most revealing. Please continue. It’s most entertaining.

Simply address the 7 reasons listed above, which you claimed did not exist.
But then, that would make too much sense, eh?

Rocky Marks wrote: I have always been open to having my opinion changed when convinced that my opinion is incorrect, and I am willing to admit when I am wrong. You have made no attempt to convince me, and as I said “because I said so”, is not a convincing argument.
That’s your choice.

Like Forrest Gump’s mother said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.
Please feel free to dig that hole deeper and deeper.

Rocky Marks wrote: It seems all you are interested in is belittling other people for daring to question the inherent wisdom of your opinions, because, of course, your opinion is always right, and always the final word.
Nonsense.

Some people simply get upset when their twisted, circular, obfuscations are recognized for what they are.
As a result, some people feel the need to blame someone else (namely anyone who recognizes twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook when they see it).
As a result, some people then engage in the very behavior they accuse others of.
Some people can dish it out, but become the ultimate whiners when they can’t take what they dish out.

Rocky Marks wrote: God bless you Dan, you are nothing if not consistent.
Thanks!

However, it’s highly unlikely any “God bless” is genuine, and is more likely more hypocritical nonsense.

Any way, I’m not the real root of frustration for people who engage where their arguments are not very convincing (if not totally absurd).
The real root of some peoples’ frustration is the lameness of their own arguments.
And as a result, at a total loss to argue the facts and issues, they choose to engage in personal attacks instead … only managing to dig that hole deeper and deeper.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 21, 2009 7:28 PM
Comment #284804

Dan,

“(1) First of all, race or gender is no guarantee of better decision making.”

So what you’re saying is that it is possible that a Latina woman could actually be wiser than a white man.

“•(3) If “Latina woman” and “white male” are interchanged, it makes the racism and sexism quite obvious.
•(4) If a “latina woman” can make better decisions than a “white male”, then it apparently isn’t working for Sonia Sotomayor who has had seven of her rulings reversed by the Supreme Court:
◦Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2008)
◦Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007)
◦Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001)
Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.)
◦Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006)
◦New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001)
◦The European Community vs. RJR Nabisco (Case remanded back to the Second Circuit, then reversed)(125 S.Ct. 1968, 2005) (424 F.3d 175, 2005)”

We actually covered all of this bandwidths ago.

“Like Forrest Gump’s mother said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

So now I am stupid as well as foolish.

“However, it’s highly unlikely any “God bless” is genuine, and is more likely more hypocritical nonsense.”

And disingenuous, hypocritical as well as being guilty of twisted, circular, pretzel like, nonsensical obfuscation.
Oh, and I forgot lame. Cool

I think that the reason I’m not getting through is less that my position is untennable, and more that your position is impenetrable….

You know, screw it.

Dan, thanks, it’s been a lot of laughs.
I don’t think I have ever been involved in a more ridiculous, one sided conversation in all of the years I have been posting here at watchblog, and with some of the characters that have passed through here that really is saying something.

Years ago you suggested that I not bother to read your posts.
So I will finally take your advice.

Toodles, and thanks again for a lot of laughs.

No really, thanks.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 21, 2009 8:42 PM
Comment #284814
Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, So what you’re saying is that it is possible that a Latina woman could actually be wiser than a white man.
See, that’s what is meant by twisted, circular, obfuscated nonsense.

Who ever said it is either possible, or impossible?
Is that the best you can do?
Seems a bit desparate, eh?

The fact is, gender and race are no guarantee of making wiser decisions; a fact you choose to ignore.
Hence, Sonia Sotomayor’s comment is not only false, and not only racist, but sexist too.
You can believe otherwise if you please, but why blame others for the frustration is trying to support such an untenable and ridiculous position with more prolific, twisted, circular obfuscations, exucses, and convenient re-interpretations?

Rocky Marks wrote: We actually covered all of this bandwidths ago.
Which you also conveniently choose to ignore.
Rocky Marks wrote: So now I am stupid as well as foolish.
No one said you were either. But, if the shoe fits?
Rocky Marks wrote: And disingenuous, hypocritical as well as being guilty of twisted, circular, pretzel like, nonsensical obfuscation. Oh, and I forgot lame. Cool
If the shoe fits?
Rocky Marks wrote: I think that the reason I’m not getting through is less that my position is untennable, and more that your position is impenetrable….
You know, screw it. Some people simply get upset when their twisted, circular, obfuscations are recognized for what they are.

As a result, some people feel the need to blame someone else (namely anyone who recognizes twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook when they see it), and then engage in the very behavior they accuse others of.

Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, thanks, it’s been a lot of laughs.
Yes, it’s has been. It’s always interestting watching the pretzel imitations as some people dig themselves into an ever deeper hole with ever more prolific, twisted, circular gobbledygook.
Rocky Marks wrote: I don’t think I have ever been involved in a more ridiculous, one sided conversation in all of the years I have been posting here at watchblog, and with some of the characters that have passed through here that really is saying something.
Some people simply aren’t used to having their twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook recognized for what it is, and then feel compelled to engage in the very behavior they accuse others of.
Rocky Marks wrote: Years ago you suggested that I not bother to read your posts. So I will finally take your advice.
Darn.

But, it’s quite understandable.
However, I was hoping to be entertained with some more circular obfuscations.

Rocky Marks wrote: No really, thanks. Toodles, and thanks again for a lot of laughs.
Darn!

No more entertaining pretzel imitations?
However, it’s quite understandable.
It’s not easy trying to perpetuate so much prolific, twisted, circular, obfuscated nonsense, convenient re-interpretations, and lame excuses, while simultaneously ignoring 7 glaring reasons one claims don’t exist, is it? Often, the frustration is not with those that disagree, but with the utter, dismal failure of one’s own weak (if not totally absurd) arguments.

Any way, feel free any time to continue to dig that hole deeper.
Don’t dare address these 7 reasons that you claimed do not exist, and/or are irrelevant:

  • (1) Race or gender is no guarantee of better decision making.

  • (2) If life experiences is the issue, why bring race and gender into the discussion at all?

  • (3) If “latina woman” and “white male” are interchanged, it makes the racism and sexism quite obvious.

  • (4) If a “latina woman” can make better decisions than a “white male”, then it apparently isn’t working for Sonia Sotomayor who has had seven of her rulings reversed by the Supreme Court:
    • Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2008)

    • Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007)

    • Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001)

    • Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.)

    • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006)

    • New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001)

    • The European Community vs. RJR Nabisco (Case remanded back to the Second Circuit, then reversed)(125 S.Ct. 1968, 2005) (424 F.3d 175, 2005)
  • (5) In addition, one of those cases that was reversed by the Supreme Court is not a good sign either, since in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has rejected the decision by Sonia Sotomayor, finding that the city of New Haven’s promotion policy for firefighters, did amount to discrimination against whites. The city had tossed out a promotions test on which black firefighters performed poorly, prompting a number of white firefighters to sue.

  • (6)
    Rocky Marks wrote:
    • Was Sottomayor unwise to make the statement? Perhaps.

    • Was the statement she made untrue in the context of the lecture she was giving? Absolutely not.
    Right. “White males” always make worse decisions, eh? So, if it’s true, and neither racist or sexist, then why claim it was possibly an unwise thing for her to say?

  • (7) Sonia Sotomayor has used those same exact words in at least 7 separate speeches, so it’s not a mere choice of bad words.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 21, 2009 11:20 PM
Comment #284815

Dan,

Since you seem incapable of grace even when I resign it would appear that I made the correct decision to ignore your posts from here on out.

Have a life.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 21, 2009 11:33 PM
Comment #284816
Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, Since you seem incapable of grace even when I resign it would appear that I made the correct decision to ignore your posts from here on out.
“you seem incapable of grace” ?

More resorting to personal attacks is merely a sure sign of a weak (if not totally) abusrd and failing argument.

Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, I made the correct decision to ignore your posts from here on out.
Rocky Marks wrote: Years ago you suggested that I not bother to read your posts. So I will finally take your advice.
Rocky Marks wrote: No really, thanks. Toodles, and thanks again for a lot of laughs.
So, you’re back already to dig that hole deeper, eh?

Funny how some people fail to do the very thing they accuse others of not doing, eh?

Rocky Marks wrote (comment # 284657): d.a.n,
First of all is seems that you don’t have a clue about context.
Perhaps some people should try to practice what they preach, eh?

Rocky Marks wrote: Have a life.
Rocky Marks wrote: God bless you Dan, you are nothing if not consistent.
Gee thanks. That’s so, so sincere.

And then some people wonder why their comments are characterized as being hypocritical, eh?

Do go away mad.
And remember, other people are not the real root of frustration for people who engage in unsustainable and unconvincing (if not totally absurd) arguments.
And as a result, at a total loss to argue the facts and issues, they choose to engage in personal attacks instead … only managing to dig that hole deeper and deeper.

Rocky Marks wrote: d.a.n, … There is no need to justify her remarks to you as you haven’t come up with a credible reason (other than your opinion) that her remarks actually should be considered racist and sexist.
Any way, feel free anytime to debate these seven reasons you claimed don’t exist and/or are irrelevant, instead of making more personal attacks and hypocritical comments (e.g. “god bless you”, “have a life”, etc.):
  • (1) Race or gender is no guarantee of better decision making.
  • (2) If life experiences is the issue, why bring race and gender into the discussion at all?
  • (3) If “latina woman” and “white male” are interchanged, it makes the racism and sexism quite obvious.
  • (4) If a “latina woman” can make better decisions than a “white male”, then it apparently isn’t working for Sonia Sotomayor who has had seven of her rulings reversed by the Supreme Court:
    • Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2008)
    • Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007)
    • Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001)
    • Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.)
    • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006)
    • New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001)
    • The European Community vs. RJR Nabisco (Case remanded back to the Second Circuit, then reversed)(125 S.Ct. 1968, 2005) (424 F.3d 175, 2005)
  • (5) In addition, one of those cases that was reversed by the Supreme Court is not a good sign either, since in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has rejected the decision by Sonia Sotomayor, finding that the city of New Haven’s promotion policy for firefighters, did amount to discrimination against whites. The city had tossed out a promotions test on which black firefighters performed poorly, prompting a number of white firefighters to sue.
  • (6)
    Rocky Marks wrote:
    • Was Sottomayor unwise to make the statement? Perhaps.
    • Was the statement she made untrue in the context of the lecture she was giving? Absolutely not.
    Right. “White males” always make worse decisions, eh? So, if it’s true, and neither racist or sexist, then why claim it was possibly an unwise thing for her to say?
  • (7) Sonia Sotomayor has used those same exact words in at least 7 separate speeches, so it’s not a mere choice of bad words.
Rocky Marks wrote: Years ago you suggested that I not bother to read your posts. So I will finally take your advice.
Then why are you back already?

But yes, people who are so disturbed when other people readily recognize their weak, twisted, circular obfuscations for what they really are, should perhaps consider refraining from such weak, twisted, circular pretzel logic. The best way to avoid such inevitable frustration is simply not try to champion twisted, circular obfuscated arguments, eh?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 22, 2009 8:14 AM
Comment #284827

d.a.n and Rocky, you have both crossed the limits of WatchBlog’s rules for civil debate. You are both banned from commenting in this column pending email responses.

Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at July 22, 2009 5:24 PM
Comment #285474

Seemed civil enough.

Perhaps a partisan bias is the real problem? NOTE: That’s a question.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: banned at August 1, 2009 6:06 PM
Post a comment