Personally, I’m torn: I want the GOP to alienate themselves even more forcefully from the fastest-growing demographic in America, thereby ensuring that they will have no meaningful voice in the future direction of this country for many decades to come—which, given how badly they’ve screwed the pooch during their time in charge, seems only fair.

But then, I also hate to think of Sotomayor being dragged through the mud courtesy of a knuckle-dragging cretin like Tancredo.

O - I know what you mean.  Hopefully Obama’s people will be able to keep things from getting too ugly.  I really don’t rely on the Repubs to restrain themselves once they get going.

I think Sotomayor can handle being dragged through the mud without getting so much as a droplet on herself.

On the other hand, I would like to see any of her critics last one day in the housing projects of the Bronx.

Allan, I think you just made the comment of the day!

I really, deeply despise the phrase “reverse racism”.  Not for racial reasons but because it’s so damned stupid.  Racism is racism - it’s not “reverse” because a white person is on the receiving end.

Fuck Limbaugh.

Of course, now that it’s coming out that Alito cited his family’s immigrant background in his confirmation hearing, the wingnuts will have an even harder time justifying this bullshit. Not that it ever stops them. “Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!”

Ripley, I couldn’t agree more.  “Reverse racism” makes about as much sense as reverse hatred would.  However, if a statement was made comparing the judgement ability of one race over another based on an individual’s life experience, then that statement is racist regardless of the race or ethnicity of the person making the statement.  Why would anyone “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life?”  Regardless of the context, “a wise Latina woman” would not necessarily “reach a better conclusion” than any other person of any other race or gender.  Elevating the judgement ability of one person over another based on that person’s race is racist.

“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman who hasn’t lived that life.”

Hate to admit it, but the republicans are right this time.

Just because it’s a diversity conference doesn’t make it okay to bash white people or any other race for that matter.  Some of the thinking here makes me ashamed of being a liberal.  You don’t have to tow the line all the time.  Being critical of your own party is healthy.  Remember when the democrats voted for the war in Iraq?

Before folks go trashing someone for one sentence cited by conservatives, don’t you think they should, um, go read the whole speech? 

If you do, you’ll find the amazingly surprising situation that the get an entirely different impression of what Sotomayer was saying.

On Wednesday, Gingrich tweeted: “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.’

Oo. Yeah. A white guy saying he’s better than a minority or a woman. Inconceivable!

“You don’t want to be perceived as a bully.”

Gracious no! I can’t imagine the Party of SHUT UP GOD HATES YOU DISGUSTING KW33R DARKY WOMAN CREATURES! being perceived as bullies. I feel faint.

Hate to admit it, but the republicans are right this time.

Um, no they aren’t. Not when you read the entire context, when you’re talking about the limits of impartiality and talking about personal experiences with respect to specific experiences.

And while there are exceptions, I would generally take someone with Sotomayer’s experience as a Latina ON LATINA matters over a white person.

Sue, I did, um, read the whole speech.  I simply disagree with the reasoning that led up to the statement in question.  I do not agree, for instance, that a judge must not necessarily seperate himself/herself from his/her respective racial or ethnic upbringing when deciding a case.

gwangung, Would a white matter be best resolved by a white person?

As a few have pointed out, if anyone looks at the actual text of her speech, heck even the next paragraph, it is obvious that that one sentence, which may seem offensive in itself, is grossly taken out of context and taken in whole and in context, it is not offensive.

This is just a stupid controversy by the GOP to try to rile up their base and score cheap political points with people who look for reasons to hate or fear or oppose.

The woman is obviously extremely qualified and it is pathetically sad that the GOP thinks they have anything to gain with such myopic and short-sighted baseless attacks.  In the long term, there is little doubt that she is going to be confirmed and the GOP has nothing to gain and lots to lose with such tone deaf vapidity.

As much as it is hard to be surprised anymore by the utter inanity that the GOP talking heads have become, it still is shocking for any rational person to see such detached-from-reality behavior and it is hard to fathom how they can possibly believe their self-destructiveness is in their best interests. 

It is beyond the point where I have sympathy for the future of the GOP at all…not only do they appear more and more likely to go the way of the Whigs, but I have to admit I actually welcome that outcome…because total irrelevancy is the only way to get people to stop listening to the vile crap they spew.

I actually sincerely believe that I would trust a wise Latina to make a careful and thoughtful decision about matters that impacted other peoples’ lives more than I would trust Roberts and Alito.  Women aren’t generally as sociopathic and emotionally retarded as men (jenniforhillary excluded, of course).

But of course, that’s not what Sotomayor said.

She said she “would like to think” that.  I know that among Rumproasters there’s an appreciation for language and grammar generally lacking in the blogosphere, and I don’t have to pontificate on the subjunctive mood to this audience. 

And she goes on to explain why it’s dangerous for a jurist to base his/her decisions on the things that s/he would like to be true based on the limits of persoanl experience, and must check his/her instincts against the hard reality of statute and precedent.

If you don’t get that, maybe you shouldn’t play here.  Sorry, Kevin, if that sounds like I’m showing anyone the door to your home.

Reverse racism is about as useful a concept as reverse sexism, for what that is worth. The issue is that peopleon the Right are trying to defend an interesting mix of racism and misogyny.

(failed previous word security for posting, love this one - “area57”.

gwangung, Would a white matter be best resolved by a white person?

I’d certainly trust a white ethnic’s perspective on a white ethnic matter more, in general, than, say, a random Asian person’s.

Why? Are you saying that a white person, in GENERAL, would be as knowledgeable about matters of discrimination concerning a particular ethnic group, not having lived that life? Because that’s what I’m getting from your statement.

Elevating the judgement ability of one person over another based on that person’s race is racist.

Except that’s NOT what she said.  She said the “wise Latina woman’s” life experiences would, of necessity be different from those of the white male who hasn’t lived that life.  She is speaking of context and experience.  She doesn’t say the white male is stupid or inferior.  She says he doesn’t have the reference that the Latina woman does.  Period.  That is not racist.  And I will not continue on to say what I think of your statement because I am not sexist.

I would like to hear an example of a “white matter.”

I would like to hear an example of a “white matter.”

Whether or not Creed should be apprehended and sent to The Hague for musical crimes against humanity.  Barry Manilow vs. Neil Diamond.  How much mayonnaise is too much mayonnaise.

Should wearing white before Memorial Day or after Labor Day be a crime?

Lawn jockeys—yes or no?

First Amendment issue—can yacht clubs ban membership to owners of vessels with risque names?

I would like to hear an example of a “white matter.”

Whether or not Creed should be apprehended and sent to The Hague for musical crimes against humanity.  Barry Manilow vs. Neil Diamond.  How much mayonnaise is too much mayonnaise.

Comment by OneMadClown on 05/28/09 at 07:46 AM

I almost hurt myself, laughing at that!

“Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.”

How terribly racist of her, to cite actual facts.

Read the whole thing before you pass judgement.

I would like to hear an example of a “white matter.”

...Barry Manilow vs. Neil Diamond.

Technically, that’s a Jewish matter.

But who’s counting?

I must say that I was surprised to see so much anger relating to my comments.  For the record, I sincerely hope that Ms. Sotomayor is confirmed.  I’m sure she is more than qualified.  I was simply pointing out that that one single comment that she made, even taken in the context of the entire speech, could easily be interpretted as racist.  Do I think she is a racist?  I have no idea.
And I know that it is nearly impossible to defend the white man’s perspective.  I cannot help that I was born white and male.  I work in a low paying job at a school for inner-city kids who have been kicked out of their regular, poorly run public schools.  95% of our students are African American or Puerto Rican.  I try, every day, to help these kids succeed at school and cope with the near hopelessness of their home life.  Am I a racist?  Am I a yacht owning elitist?  Should I not comment here, as Allen has suggested, because I have a different interpretation of Ms. Sotomayor’s words?

I was simply pointing out that that one single comment that she made, even taken in the context of the entire speech, could easily be interpretted as racist.

Yes, rickD, it could easily be interpreted as racist.  But not, however, in the context of the entire speech. 

To interpret it as racist you would have to starve it of context and subject it to stress positions and waterboard it until it confessed to racism.

Or you would have to be a white supremacist like Tom Tancredo or Newt Gingrich who either projects his own racism onto everyone else he sees, or else cynically makes the charge in some Orwellian perversion of the language while masturbating over his own cleverness, whichever is the more disgusting of those options.

I guess you can tell I don’t respond well to passive-aggressive (did I say she’s a racist? Why no, I’m simply pointing out that it could be said of her) self-righteous sanctimony.

Oh, and Bobby Jindal?

Really?

Should I not comment here, as Allen has suggested, because I have a different interpretation of Ms. Sotomayor’s words?

For the record, I don’t think you should not comment here. But I don’t see how you could read the entire speech and come away with the impression that Sotomayor truly believes old Latina wisdom trumps that of old white dudes ever time. The one sentence, maybe. The whole speech, no.

Well, one outcome of the media brouhaha will surely be that a senator will read that sentence of Sotomayor’s back to her during her confirmation hearings and give her a chance to clarify it. I feel confident she will provide an answer that will satisfy all but the willfully deaf, such as Limbaugh (grotesque double entendre not intended).

Allen,  The Bobby Jindal posts that you refer to from my blog were part of an assignment for a class I took last fall on media bias.  I was part of a group assigned to attempt to represent what a pro-Jindal media effort might look like.  Many of the posts on my blog will make little sense to anyone outside the audience they were intended for. 

My comment for this post was in response to the statement in question.  I said, “...then that statement is racist…”  I never once said that Ms. Sotomayor is a racist.  I read the entire speech.  I am well aware of the point she was trying to make and the context in which she was trying to make it. 
And I honestly don’t give a fuck how well you take passive-aggressive self-righteous sanctimony.  I doubt very much that you would be bold enough to mock me to my face were we ever to meet.  How’s that for passive-aggressive?

I look forward to it!

Then you don’t know me very well, yet, rickD.  Stick around and you’ll see.

I’m sure there is a tape out there where she calls Rush a Honkey